K. Rakesh

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, PUTTAPARTHY

Present: Sri K. Rakesh ,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy

Thursday, the 24 th day of April, 2025.

CALENDER CASE No.191/2022.

Between:-

Sub-Inspector of Police, Puttaparthy Rural PS., …Complainant.

And

Bheemineni Amarnath Naidu, aged 36 Years, S/o. Sreeramulu, R/o. Uppunesinapalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal.

…Accused

This case coming on 21.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri B. Anil Kumar, Legal Aid for Accused, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of police, Puttaparthy Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against Accused in Cr.No.56/2021 for the offences

U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code of Puttaparthy Rural Police

Station.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that Lw1 – C. Venkata

Narasamma is native of Pedaballi village of Puttaparthy Mandal and eking by doing cloths washing. On 19.04.2021 at about 7.00 AM., she went to beside of Chitravathi River for washing the clothes. After completion of her clothes washin, she came to her house and found that some unknown offenders by opening the doors with key. Which was 2 kept at window and entered into the house and opened iron alamarah and committed theft of 45 Grams of Gold ornaments i.e., 1. Sada Gold

Chain, weighing about 15 Grams, 2). Two gold rings, weighing about 8

Grams, 3). 5 Children Gold Rings, weighing about 6 Grams, 4). Two pairs of ear studs, weighing about 5 Grams, 5). Sada Necklace Weighing about 11 Grams and all worth about Rs.1,80,000/- and fled away with booty.

Basing on the complaint of Lw1 – C. Venkata Narasamma, Lw10 - – ASI-2089 registered a case in Cr.No.56/2021 of Puttaparthy for the offences U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal code. On 24.04.2021 at 5.00 PM., submitted the First Information Report copies to all the officers concerned and resumed investigation accordingly.

During the course of investigation, Lw10 – ASI-2089 examined

Lw1 – c. Venkata Narasamma, Lw2 – C. Akkamma, Lw3 – A. Ramana

Reddy, Lw4 – G. Venkatesh and Lw5 – S. Suresh and recorded their statements in detailed case Part-11 and visited the scene of offence and drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence. While the investigation is in progress on 15.10.2021, Lw9 - Sub-Inspector of police,

Kothachruvu P.S., received reliable information of the said marginal noted accused and rushed to infront of Gantlamaremma Temple,

Dharmavaram to Gorantla Road, Puttaparthy Mandal and apprehended the said marginally noted accused in the presence of mediators and seized the stolen property which was stolen in different places from his possession of accused under cover of mahazarnama in the presence of

Lw5 – B. Naresh and Lw6 – T.Sai Prasad.

To that effect, Lw9 - Sub-Inspector of police arrested the marginally noted accused in Cr.No.70/2021 for the offences U/Sec.454 3 and 380 of Indian Penal Code of Kothacheruvu PS., and seized the properties concerned in said case on par with other properties and sent for remand and passed on information about the arrest of accused and seized of properties to all officers concerned for further action. Basing on that information, Lw11 – Sub-Inspector of police produced the marginally noted accused through PT warrant in Cr.No.56/2021 for the offence U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code of Puttaparthy Rural

Police Station and got remanded on 22.10.2021. Further Lw8 – VRO produced the marginally noted accused through PT warrant in

Cr.No.56/2021 for the offences U/Sec.454, 380 of Indian Penal Code of

Puttaparthy Rural PS., and got remanded on 22.10.2021. Further, Lw8 conducted the identification mahazarnama in the presence of Lw1 and obtained the signature on the mahazarnama and seized property was forwarded to this court through Form-60. Hence, Lw11 – Sub-Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence

U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offences U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code against Accused.

4. On appearance of the Accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The charges were framed and examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and substance of charge for the offence U/Sec.454 and 380 or 411 of

Indian Penal Code were read over and explained to the Accused in

Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to Pw8 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P6 and Mo.1 to Mo.4. The learned

Additional Public Prosecutor given-up the evidence of Lw5 and Lw7.

4

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, this court examined Accused U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, and explained the incriminating evidence to the Accused, which he denied the same and on examination they stated that he have no evidence on his side. Accordingly, the defense side evidence was closed.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides and perusing the written arguments of learned defence counsel.

9.Now, the point arose for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Accused for the

offences U/Sec.454 and 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code

beyond all reasonable doubt in Cr.No.56/2021 of Puttaparthy

Urban P.S.,? ”

10.Chief examination of Pw1 states in his chief examination that at about one year back at one day at morning hours locked her house and went to Dhobi work and later she returned to her house at about 12.00 noon and found that her house doors were broken and also found that her Beeruva was opened and on searching by her, she found that 1). One plain gold chain 2). Two gold rings, 3). Small children five gold rings, 4). Two pairs of gold ear studs and 5). Plain gold nickles where thefted by unknown offenders. Hence, she lodge the report Ex.P1 to the Puttaparthuy Rural P.S., and after some days, police recovered some portion of theft property from her house and she received them i.e., two gold rings, one plain nickles and plain gold chain. Mo.1 is the gold ring. Mo.2 is the another gold ring. Mo.3 is the gold plain nickles.

Mo.4 is the gold plain chain. Cross examination of Pw1 by the learned defense counsel Sri. B.Anil Kumar (Legal Aid) reported nil.

11.Chief examination of Pw2 states in his chief that on 19.04.2021 her mother Pw1 telephoned her and informed her that the 5 theft was occurred in her mother’s house at Pedaballi and unknown offenders thefted the gold ornaments from the Beeruva by breaking the doors of her house and opened the beeruva. Then, herself and Pw1 went to the police station and lodged the report. Cross examination of

Pw1 by the learned defense counsel Sri. B.Anil Kumar (Legal Aid) reported nil.

12.Chief examination of Pw2 states in his chief that two years ago at one day at about 12.00 to 1.00 Noon hours, he reached his house from the agricultural fields. His house was situated near to the house of

Pw1 and when he reached his house, he heard the cries of Pw2 –

Venkata Narasamma, himself Lw3 – A.Ramana Reddy and Lw5 –

S.Suresh went to the house of Pw1 and found that the house doors and almara doors of Pw1 were broken. Then, Pw1 informed them that necklace, rings and other gold ornaments with a wait of 45 Grams were stolen from the alamara of Pw1 from the house of Pw1. Cross examination of Pw3 by the learned defense counsel he denied that his evidence with the instigation of police.

13.Chief examination of Pw4 states in his chief that on 15.10.2021 at about morning hours, he received a phone call from one constable and informed him about the accused person in theft cases.

Then, himself and Lw.7 - VRO went to Kothacheruvu Police station.

Later, the Police served the summons to him to act as mediator. Then, they went the Gantla Maremma Temple on the Police vehicle and when they reached the scene of offence, accused was present there and on seeing them, he tried to skulk away from that place, then the Police caught-hold him. Later, in his presence and in the presence of Lw.7 – (VRO) Talari Sai Prasad, the police enquired the accused. On that 6 enquiry, the accused reveals his identity and confessed that he committed thefts in the limits of Kothacheruvu, Puttaparthy, Gorantla,

C.K.Palli Police stations and Bathalapalli Police stations and also accused confessed in their presence, when and where he committed the thefts and that was drafted as Confession and Arrest Mahazarnama,

dated 15.10.2021 at 7:00 A.M., Ex.P2.Later, as per the confession of

accused, they went to the Kesava Naidu Banana Garden at

Rachavaripalli Village. Then on enquiry by the Police, the accused shown the place where he hide the gold ornaments near the Gutta (Hill).

Then, the Police recovered the gold ornaments involved in the various crimes in their presence and seizure mahazarnama, dated 15.10.2021 at 10.00 AM., Ex.P3. Later, accused hide the ornaments in the covers himself and Lw.7 – (VRO) Talari Sai Prasad signed in the Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3 after knowing the contents in them. After reading the contents in the Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, himself and Lw.7 signed in the mahazarnamas.

14.Cross examination of Pw4 by the learned defense counsel is that at about 6.00 AM., to 6.30 AM., he wake-up and participated in the natural activities. After taking the coffee and Tiffin at about 9.30 AM., to 9.40 AM., he went to his duties at Pothulakunta Grama Sachivalayam to discharge his VRO duties. At about 1.30 PM., he had completed his lunch by 1.30 PM., and later he completed his duty by 5.00 PM., After some days he had his lunch at his office and at some days, he come to his house to had his dinner. By 5.30 PM., he reached his house after his work. Later, he have no other work. Grade-V Panchayat Secretary

Reddamma, Engineering Assistant Madhusudhan, Village Surveyor

Vinod Kumar, Mahila Police Saraswathi Welfare and Educational

Assistant were present. On DDO is the Head to all of them. He do not 7 secure any proceedings from their Tahasildar to act as mediator in this case. He was a responsible employee. As a responsible employee, he was not supposed to act as mediator on the request of police without the permission of Tahasildar. He do no remember the name of the police constable, who called him on phone at morning hours. As per their revenue records, Pothulakunta, Marakuntapalli, Virupapuram are come under their VRO Circle. Sub-Inspector of police and other constables were present at the time of arresting the accused and his confession and seizure of properties. Police do not secure the others public persons to act as mediators. It takes one and half hour to two hours they went to the Rachuvaripalli Village along with the police on a jeep. He do not know the distance between the Rachuvaripalli and the Gantla Maremma

Temple. On that Rachuvaripalli also police do not try to secure the other public as mediators, The Rachuvaripalli is the busiest locality. At

Rachuvaripalli Ex.P3 seizure mahazarnama was prepared in the laptop and it takes two hours. He do not know whether laptop battery works for two hours only. From their Rachuvaripalli after that the seizure mahazarnama, they proceed to police station and reached the station by 12.00 Noon. He denied that he was stock witness to the police and he act as mediators in around 18 cases. The Second seizurenama place at

Rachuvaripalli where situated at outskirts of the Rachuvaripalli Village.

In general no one hide the gold ornaments in a dust and mud place. He denied that the second panchanama place the Rachuvaripalli is busiest locality. At that time of at Rachuvaripalli Seizure mahazarnama Sub-

Inspector themselves and other constables were present, but he do not remember how many constables were present. Then, after reaching the police station, he went to his duties after taking lunch. Re-examination 8 of Pw4 by the Assistant Public Prosecutor is that prior to attending has mediator in this case, he informed the same to his higher authorities through the phone. Cross examination of Pw4 by the defense counsel

for the accused he denied that since all the cell phones were switched-

off at the time of raids, hence he do not intimate the incident to his higher authorities and got the permission.

15.Chief examination of Pw5 states in his chief that on 15.10.2021 at about 6.00 AM., he received credible information about the movements of in Cr.No.70/2021 of Kothacheruvu P.S., Then, he secured the mediators Lw6 – B.Naresh and Lw7 – P.Sai Prasad and proceeded to the Gantlamaremma Temple along with the weighing machine and the staff reached the scene of offence at Gantlamaremma

Temple by 7.00 AM., and found that accused was present there and on seeing them, accused tried to skulk away from that place. Then, they caught-hold and enquired the accused by him, the accused revealed his identity as his name B.Amarnath Naidu and on enquiry, accused further confessed that he committed the house breaking offences and went to the jail and after his released him himself engaged in work at one

Kesava Naidu of Rachuvaripalli Village and again committed the theft.

Further, accused confessed his guilt in Cr.No.70/2021 of Kothacheruvu

PS., and also confessed his involvement in this Cr.No.56/2021 of

Puttaparthy Rural PS., and also confessed his involvement in other crimes which was registered in the other police stations. Then, he arrested the accused under confession and arrest mahazarnama, dt.15.10.2021 at 7.00 AM., to 9.30 AM., Based ont eh confession of the accused, they proceeded to the Kesava Naidu fields at Rachuvaripalli by 10.00 AM., and as per the confession of the accused, he recovered the 9 gold ornaments Mo.1 to Mo.4 and also other ornaments in the other crimes from the plastic covers which was buried by the accused under a bush tree in the presence of mediators. Then, he informed the arrest of accused the SHO, Puttaparthy Rural PS., and also handed-over the

Mo.1 to Mo.4to him and sent the accused for remand.

16.Cross examination of Pw5 by the learned defense counsel is that he denied Lw6 and Lw7 are the stock witnesses of the police. He do not the details as how much weight can be weight can be weighted of their weighing machine. The weighing machine was a batary based machine and it work at for one day. He know the procedure hos to weight the gold. Firstly, we said the weighing machine in zero mode, then to placed the ornaments for weighing. He denied that gold ornaments shall only they weighing in a Accontaining gold shop. He know that by way of anticle balance at gold shop, they have to weight the gold. He further denied that if the gold was weighted in the open place there shall be huge difference in the reading of the weight. He denied that they do not recovered the crime property from the digging of the land. He deneid that he never went to the place were the crime property was recovered as deposed by him. He denied that without caught holding the real accused in this crime, but they foisted a false case against the accused.

17. Chief examination of Pw6 states in his chief that at the request of the Sub-Inspector of police, he conducted the test identification parade of the crime articles in Cr.No.56/2021 on 30.10.2021 at 10.00 AM., at the Tahasildar Office, Puttaparthy. Before conducting the period, he secured the similar ornaments of the crime property and mixed with the crime properties i.e., MO.1 to Mo.4 and 10 conducted the test identification parade through the Lw1 – Chakali

Venkata Narasamma. In that test identification, Lw1 identified her property I., Mo.1 to Mo.4 i.e., One Gold chain, twl gold rings, plain gold necklace. Accordingly, he prepared the test identification mahazarnama

Ex.P4 by obtaining the signatures of Lw1

18.Cross examination of Pw6 by the learned defense counsel is that at the request of police, he conducted the test identification of the property, but police not served any summons on him. As per oral request only he conducted the test identification parade. On 30.10.2021 he was on duty, he do not know the week of the day. His post was a responsible one and he intimated the information to MRO through the phone. He asked the half day permission from the MRO to conduct the test identification parade. Their MRO office was busiest locality. He conducted the identification of property at VRO Room on a table. He denied that he was a stock witness to the police. He further denied that he was regularly at any as witness in the Dharmavaram and Penukonda courts. He do know who is the Lw1 – Chakali Venkata Narasamma. He further denied that he never conducted the test identification period in this case. He denied that he never conducted the test identification in the test identification mahazarnama which was prepared by the police.

19.Chief examination of Pw7 states in his chief that on 23.04.2021 while he was present in the police station at about 5.00 PN.,

Lw1 – C. Venkata Narasamma came to the police station and filed the written report to him. Basing on that report, he registered a case in

Cr.No.56/2021 for the offences U/Sec.454, 380 of IPC and sent the copy to the court and also examined the Lw1 to Lw5 and recorded their

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements. Later, he visited the scene of offence and 11 drew the rough sketch Ex.P6. Ex.P5 is the First Information Report.

Subsequently, he handed-over the investigation to their SI/Lw11 – K.

Babjan and he conducted the further investigation in this case.

20.Cross examination of Pw7 by the learned defense counsel

Legal Aid is that the column No.7 of First Information Report disclosed as unknown accused. Lw1 lodged the written complaint to him, but he do not know who drafted it. The column No.15 First Information Report was empty. He denied that he never mentioned the profession details of

Lw1 to Lw5 in the statements. The rough sketch do not contain the seal of SHO. He denied that he drafted the rough sketch at the police station without visiting the scene of offence. The rough sketch do not disclose the length and width of the road at the scene of offence. He further denied that he foisted a false case against the accused.

21.Chief examination of Pw8 states in his chief that in this case the crime was registered by Lw10 – U. Prasad and he arrested the accused and produced him before the court by way of P.T warrant. He received the crime property Mo.1 to Mo.4 I,e., one gold ring, another gold ring, gold plain necklace, one gold plain chain from the

Kothacheruvu police station belongs to this case and filed the Form-66 to the court and also conducted the test identification of crime property by the complainant through the VRO/Lw8 – A. Sreenivasulu. After verification of investigation lines, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Cross examination of Pw8 by the learned defense counsel is that the offence was occurred in a Covid period. The weight of the Mo.1 was measure by Kothacheruvu police. He denied that without measuring the crime property and without proper investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused and implicated him in this case. He 12 further denied that Lw7 – A.Sreenivasulu was the stock witness to their police department. Para No.3 of the charge sheet contained that unknown offenders committed the offence.

P O I N T :-

22.The case of the prosecution and the evidence of

Pw1/Lw1/Reportent is that, Pw1 is the resident of Pedaballi Village and living by doing the dhobi work. On 19.04.2021 Pw1 locked his house and went to the dhobi work. After the work, Pw1 returned to her house and found that her house doors were open. Then, Pw1 went to her house and found that her beeruva was opened and further she found that one plain gold chain, two gold rings, five small children gold rings, two pairs of gold ear studs and one plain gold necklace were thefted by unknown persons. Then, Pw1 lodged the report Ex.P1 to the

Pw7/Lw10. Then, Pw7 registered a case in Cr.No.56/2021 for the offences U/Sec.454, 380 of Indian Penal Code under the First

Information Report Ex.P5. Then, Pw7 examined the Lw1 to Lw5 and recorded their statements and also visited the scene of offence and drew the rough sketch Ex.P6. Further, investigation was conducted by the

Lw11/Pw8. The evidence of Pw1 was corroborated by the evidence of

Pw2 and Pw3 as they deposed that years back some unknown persons committed the theft of gold ornaments from the house of Pw1. Further,

Pw1 deposed that some portion of thefted property i.e., Mo.1 gold ring,

Mo.2 another gold ring, Mo.3 gold plain necklace and Mo.4 gold plain chain were recovered by the police and the same was received by her from the police. As per the evidence of Pw1 to Pw3 and Ex.P1 at this juncture, the theft of gold ornaments one plain gold chain, two gold rings, five small children gold rings, two pairs of gold ear studs and one 13 plain gold necklace was proved. But, the Pw1 to Pw3 do not know, who committed the theft in their house.

23.As per the evidence of Pw5/Lw9 – K.M.Linganna, on 15.10.2021, he received a credible information with regarding to the presence of accused in Cr.No.70/2021 of Kothacheruvu P.S., Then, he secured the mediators Pw4/Lw6 – B.Naresh and Lw7 – T. Sai Prasad were proceeded to the Gantlamaremma Temple by 7.00 AM., and they found that accused was present there and on seeing them, accused tried to skulk away, then they caught-hold him and on enquiry by Pw5, accused revealed his identity as B. Amarnath Naidu and confessed that he committed the house breaking offences and went to the jail. Further, accused confessed his involvement in Cr.No.70/2021 of Kothacheruvu

PS., and also confessed his involvement in this case i.e., Cr.No.56/2021.

Then, based on the confession of the accused, Pw5, mediators/Pw4,

Lw7 proceeded to the Kesavanaidu fields at Rachuvaripalli by 10.00

AM., and as per the confession of the accused, Pw5 recovered the some portion of gold ornaments in this case i.e., Mo.1 gold ring, Mo.2 another gold ring, Mo.3 gold plain necklace and Mo.4 gold plain chain in this case. Further, Pw5 also recovered other ornaments involved in the other crimes from the plastic covers, which was burried by the accused as per the confession of accused under the confession arrest mahazarnama Ex.P2 and seizure mahazarnamas Ex.P3. The evidence of Pw5 is supported by the evidence of mediator/Pw4/Lw6 – B. Naresh, as he deposed that himself and Lw7 along with the police went to the

Gantlamaremma Temple on 15.10.2021 at about morning hours. When they reached the Gantlamaremma Temple, accused was present there and on seeing them, accused tried to skulk away. Then, in his presence 14 police caught-hold the accused and on enquiry by the police, accused revealed his identity and confessed that he committed thefts in the

Kothacheruvu, Puttaparthy, Gorantala, C.K.Palli and Bathalapalli and as per his confession Ex.P2 confession arrest mahazarnama, dt.15.10.2021 at 7.00 AM., is prepared. Then, as per the confession of accused, himself, Lw7 and the police and the accused went to the Keshavanaidu

Banana Garden and in that garden, accused shown the gold ornaments, which were hided by him near the gutta. Then, police recovered the gold ornaments involved in the several crimes from the accused under seizure mahazarnama Ex.P3, dt.15.10.2021 at 10.00 AM., Further, Pw4 deposed that accused hide the ornaments in the covers and deposed that himself and the Lw7 signed in the mahazarnamas Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 after reading the contents in the mahazarnamas. Further, Pw4 clearly deposed that he know the contents in the mahazarnamas. In the cross examination of Pw4/mediator clearly denied the suggestions made by the learned defense counsel and clearly deposed that he was acted as mediator in this case at the seizure of the crime property by the police under the confession of accused at Rachuvaripalli. Further, Pw5 deposed that after seizing the Mo.1 to Mo.4 by him from the accused, he handed-over the Mo.1 to Mo.4 to the SHO of Puttaparthy Rural PS., i.e.,

Pw8/Lw11. As per the evidence of Pw8/Lw11/IO, he arrested the accused under P.T warrant and recovered the Mo.1 to Mo.4 from the

Kothacheruvu SHO, i.e., Pw5 and he also got conduct the test identification parade through the Lw8/Pw6 and after verification of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused. The evidence of the IO/Pw8 is corroborated the evidence of the

Pw6/Lw8/VRO, as he deposed that on 30.10.2021 at the request of the 15 police, he secured the similar ornaments of the crime property in this case and mixed-up with the Mo.1 gold ring, Mo.2 another gold ring,

Mo.3 gold plain necklace and Mo.4 gold plain chain and conducted the test identification of property through the complainant/Pw1/Lw1 – C.

Venkata Narasamma at Puttaparthy Tahasildar Office under the Ex.P4

Test identification mahazarnama and in that Test identification parade,

Pw1 correctly identified her gold ornaments Mo.1 to Mo.4. The mahazarnama Ex.P4 disclosed that Pw1 identified the Mo.1 gold ring,

Mo.2 another gold ring, Mo.3 gold plain necklace and Mo.4 gold plain chain and placed her thumb impression in the test identification proceedings.

24.On the other hand, as per the evidence of Pw1 and the evidence of Pw2 and Pw3 the commission of the theft at their house was proved, but at that juncture Pw1 to Pw3 do not know the details of the accused, who committed the theft. The involvement of accused

Amarnath Naidu came on light at the time of enquiry by Pw5 under the confession of the accused at the time of his arrest at Gantlamaremma

Temple. On 15.10.2021 at the time of the arrest by the Pw5, accused

Amarnath Naidu confessed that he committed the theft in this case i.e.,

Cr.No.56/2021 of Puttaparthy Rural P.S., in the presence of the mediators Pw4/Lw6 and Lw7. Basing on that confession, Pw5 recovered Mo.1 gold ring, Mo.2 another gold ring, Mo.3 gold plain necklace and Mo.4 gold plain chain in this crime and also other crime properties relating to the different crimes from the Kesavanaidu Banana

Garden at Rachuvaripalli Village on 15.10.2021 at 10.00 AM., under the mahazarnamas Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.

16

25.On perusing the evidence of Village Revenue

Officer/Pw6/Lw8 and the property identification mahazarnama Ex.P4, this court found that complainant/Pw1 recognized some portion of her ornaments i.e. Mo.1 gold ring, Mo.2 another gold ring, Mo.3 gold plain necklace and Mo.4 gold plain chain and put her thumb impression in the test identification proceedings Ex.P4. This evidence shows that Mo.1 gold ring, Mo.2 another gold ring, Mo.3 gold plain necklace and Mo.4 gold plain chain, which were recovered from the accused Amarnath

Naidu under the mahazarnamas Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 were the property of the complainant/Pw1, which was thefted from her house along with the other gold ornaments. It shows that the prosecution proved that the

Mo.1 gold ring, Mo.2 another gold ring, Mo.3 gold plain necklace and

Mo.4 gold plain chain, which were seized from the possession of the accused Amarnath Naidu was the thefted property in this Cr.No.56/2021 of Puttaparthy Rural PS.,

As per the illustration (a) of Sec.114 of Indian Evidence Act, the court may presume - “ that a man,who is in possession of stolen

goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the

goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his

possession”

26.As per the above illustration, if the possession of the stolen property was proved soon after the theft, the person who possessed that property is presumed as a thief or he received that property knowing it to be a stolen one.

27.As per the above discussion, prosecution proved that Mo.1 gold ring, Mo.2 another gold ring, Mo.3 gold plain necklace and Mo.4 gold plain chain were thefted articles from the house of Pw1 and 17 subsequently they are recovered from the accused Amarnath Naidu in the presence of mediators under his confession. Though, the confession made by the accused to the police is in-admissible in evidence, but discovery and recovery of articles by the police under the confession of the accused is admissible in evidence U/Sec.27 of the Indian Evidence

Act.

28.As per the above discussion, prosecution proved that Mo.1 gold ring, Mo.2 another gold ring, Mo.3 gold plain necklace and Mo.4 gold plain chain were recovered from the accused Amarnath Naidu on his confession under the mahazarnama Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 in the presence of independent mediators. Now the burden is on the accused to show how he got the Mo.1 to Mo.4. But, accused Amarnath Naidu do not show the account for the possession of Mo.1 to Mo.4 i.e., Mo.1 gold ring, Mo.2 another gold ring, Mo.3 gold plain necklace and Mo.4 gold plain chain with him. Further, the evidence of Pw5, Pw4/mediator coupled with the mahazarnamas Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, this court found that apart from the Mo.1 to Mo.4 police recovered other thefted ornaments involved in the other crimes from the accused Amarnath Naidu, but the accused failed to show the account of the possession of the crime property i.e., Mo.1 to Mo.4 in this case and other crime properties, which was recovered by the confession of the accused in the presence of independent mediators. Hence, this court conclude that the accused

Amarnath Naidu stolen the Mo.1 gold ring, Mo.2 another gold ring, Mo.3 gold plain necklace and Mo.4 gold plain chain by house breaking in the house of complainant/Pw1.

18

29.Hence, this court conclude that the prosecution proved the case against the accused Amarnath Naidu for the offences U/Sec.454, 380 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, since this court found the accused as guilty for the offences U/Sec.454, 380 of

Indian Penal Code, hence accused B.Amarnath Naidu was acquitted for the offence U/Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code.

30.In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence

U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C for the same. But, the accused is acquitted for the offence U/Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code. Mo.1 gold ring, Mo.2 another gold ring, Mo.3 gold plain necklace and Mo.4 gold plain chain, which were given to the Pw1/reportant for interim custody by the police stands good after appeal time is over.

Typed Dictation to the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-K. Rakesh

JUDL. MAG ISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

Puttaparthy

31.Heard the convicted Accused Amarnath Naidu on the quantum of sentence. On that hearing convicted stated that he was behind the bars since the date of his arrest and prays the court to show the lenient view on him.

(a). On considering the plea of the convicted and on considering the facts of the case and considering the remand period of convicted B.

Amarnath Naidu, this court take a lenient view on the quantum of sentence by ordering that the convicted is sentenced to suffer simple 19 imprisonment for a period of Three Years for the offence U/Sec.454 of

Indian Penal Code and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, convicted shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

(b).Further, the convicted is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three Years for the offence U/s.380 of

Indian Penal Code and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, convicted shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

32.Further, both the sentences for the offences U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code shall run concurrently at once and, the sentence for default of payment of fine shall in addition to the main sentence and the sentence in this Calendar Case shall run concurrently with the other sentences if any.

33.The period of detention already undergone by the convicted from 25.10.2021 to till tody (24.04.2025) inclusive both days are set off

U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Convicted is informed that he had right to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and conviction of this court before the

Hon’ble Sessions Court, Ananthapuramu within 30 days from today.

When asked with regard to his means in engaging the advocate during appeal, he answered affirmatively.The pere per

Sd/- K.Rakesh

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

Puttaparthy 20

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Pw.1C. Venkata Narasamma- Nil Pw.2C. Akkamma- Pw.3G. Venkatesh- Pw.4B. Naresh- Pw.5K.M.Linganna- Pw.6A. Sreenivasulu- Pw.7U. Prasad- Pw.8K. Babjan-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1Report.--NIL Ex.P2Confession and arrest Mahazarnama.-- Ex.P3Seizure Mahazarnama, dt.15.10.2021.-- Ex.P4Mahazarnama-- Ex.P5First Information Report.-- Ex.P6Rough Sketch--

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Mo.1Gold ring. Mo.2Gold Ring. Mo.3Gold Plain Necklace. Mo.4Gold Plain Chain

Sd/- K.Rakesh

J.F.C.M., Puttaparthy // True Copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttaparthy 21

CALENDER AND JUDGEMENT

CC.191/2022

District :: Sri Sathya Sai (Puttaparthy). Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy.

Commencement Close Apprehension Released on

Offence Report of of Sentence

of Accused bail Trial Trial Accused U/Sec. 454, 380Accusedundergone of IPC or19.04.2021Apprehended25.01.202102.02.202315.04.202524.04.2025 Sec.411on 25.10.2021to till today of IPC24.05.2025.

Judgment in C.C.No.191/2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy.

Complainant: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puttaparthy Rural P.S., Crime Nos: 56/2021.

Sl.No. Name of the Age Father's Name Calling Residence Mandal

Accused

1.Bheemineni36Sreeramulu-UppunesinapalliDharmavar AmarnathYearsam Naidu Offence:U/Sec.454, 380 of IPC or Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code of Puttaparthy Rural P.S., Finding: Guilty. Sentence: In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C for the same. But, the accused is acquitted for the offence U/Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code. Mo.1 gold ring, Mo.2 another gold ring, Mo.3 gold plain necklace and Mo.4 gold plain chain, which were given to the Pw1/reportant for interim custody by the police stands good after appeal time is over.

Heard the convicted Accused Amarnath Naidu on the quantum of sentence. On that hearing convicted stated that he was behind the bars since the date of his arrest and prays the court to show the lenient view on him.

22

On considering the plea of the convicted and on considering the facts of the case and considering the remand period of convicted B. Amarnath Naidu, this court take a lenient view on the quantum of sentence by ordering that the convicted is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three Years for the offence U/Sec.454 of Indian Penal Code and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, convicted shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

Further, the convicted is sentenced to suffersimple imprisonment for a period of Three Years for the offence U/s.380 of Indian Penal Code and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, convicted shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

Further, both the sentences for the offences U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code shall run concurrently at once and, the sentence for default of payment of fine shall in addition to the main sentence and the sentence in this Calendar Case shall run concurrently with the other sentences if any.

The period of detention already undergone by the convicted from 25.10.2021 to till tody (24.04.2025) inclusive both days are set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Convicted is informed that he had right to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and conviction of this court before the

Hon’ble Sessions Court, Ananthapuramu within 30 days from today.

When asked with regard to his means in engaging the advocate during appeal, he answered affirmatively.

Sd/-K. Rakesh

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST C LASS,

Puttaparthy.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl.District Judge, Ananthapuramu. Copy to the Jail Superintendent, Ananthapuramu.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, PUTTAPARTHY

Present: Sri K. Rakesh ,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy

Thursday, the 24 th day of April, 2025.

CALENDER CASE No.189/2022.

Between:-

Sub-Inspector of Police, Puttaparthy Rural PS., …Complainant.

And

Bheemineni Amarnath Naidu, aged 36 Years, S/o. Sreeramulu, R/o. Uppunesinapalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal.

…Accused

This case coming on 21.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri B. Anil Kumar, Legal Aid for Accused, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of police, Puttaparthy Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against Accused in Cr.No.124/2021 for the offences

U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code of Puttaparthy Rural Police

Station.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that Lw1 – Ediga Hari

Prasad is native of Puttaparthy Mandal and eking by private job in

Verification Department at Bangalore. Lw1 parents blessed three daughters and on son. Among them Lw1 is younger son. Lw1 sister are performed marriages. Due to lock-down period Lw1 came to his village.

2

One week later, Lw3 – went to Lw1 elder sister’s house, due to ill health.

On 16.07.2021 at about 9.00 AM., Lw1 – Ediga Hari Prasad and Lw2 –

Ediga Viswanath went to Pedaballi Bus-Stop to go to Madakasira. Then,

Lw1 came to his house at about 9.45 AM., and found that his house was open by broken the lock. Then, immediately Lw1 intimate the same to

Lw4 – M. Anil Kumar Reddy and Lw5 – G. Hidhayathulla. Then, they observed that some unknown offenders are gained entere into Lw1’s house by broken the lock and open the almara and committed theft of two gold ear studs weight about 2 thulas worth of Rs.60,000/- and they searched for the same, but in vain.

Basing on that complaint of Lw1, Lw10 registered a case in

Cr.No.124/2021 of Puttaparthy for the offences U/Sec.454 and 380 of

Indian Penal code. On 16.07.2021 at 6.00 P.M., submitted the First

Information Report copies to all the officers concerned and resumed investigation accordingly.

During the course of investigation, Lw10 – examined have examined and recorded Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of Lw1 – Ediga Hari

Prasad, Lw2 – Ediga Viswanath, Lw3 – Ediga Saraswathamma, Lw4 –

M. Anil Kumar Reddy and Lw5 – G. Hidhayathulla in detailed case Part-II and visited the scene of offence and drew the rough sketch of the scene of offence.

The investigation is in progress on 15.10.2021, the Lw9 – Sub-

Inspector of police, Kothacheruvu Police station received reliable information of the above marginal noted accused rushed to infront of

Gantlamaremma Temple, Dharmavaram to Gorantla Road, Puttaparthy

Mandal and apprehended the said marginally noted accused in the 3 presence of mediators and seized the stolen property, which was stolen in different places from his possession of accused under cover of mahazarnama in the presence of VRO/Lw6 – B. Naresh and VRO/Lw7 –

Talari Sai Prasad. To that effect, Lw9 – Sub-Inspector of police arrested the marginally noted accused in Cr.No.70/2021 for the offences

U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code of Kothacheruvu PS., and seized the properties concerned in said case on part with other properties and sent for remand and passed on information about arrest of accused and seizing of properties to all officers concerned for further action.

Basing on that information, Lw11 – Sub-Inspector of police produced the marginally noted, accused through P.T warrant in

Cr.No.124/2021 for the offences U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal

Code of Puttaparthy Rural Ps., and got remanded on 22.10.2021.

Further CEO/Lw8 – A. Sreenivasulu conducted the identification mahazarnama in the presence of Lw1 and observed the signature on the mahazarnama and seized property was forwarded to this court through

Form – 60. From the facts and evidence collected during the course of investigation, it is well established that the accused has committed an offences punishable U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. Hence,

Lw9 – Sub-Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offences U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code against Accused.

4. On appearance of the Accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

4

5. The charges were framed and examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and substance of charge for the offence U/Sec.454 and 380 or 411 of

Indian Penal Code were read over and explained to the Accused in

Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to Pw7 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P6 and Mo.1. The learned

Additional Public Prosecutor given-up the evidence of Lw3 to Lw5, Lw7.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, this court examined Accused U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, and explained the incriminating evidence to the Accused, which he denied the same and on examination they stated that he have no evidence on his side. Accordingly, the defense side evidence was closed.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides and perusing the written arguments of learned defence counsel.

9.Now, the point arose for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Accused for the

offences U/Sec.454 and 380 or Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code

beyond all reasonable doubt in Cr.No.124/2021 of Puttaparthy

Urban P.S.,? ”

10.Chief examination of Pw1 states in his chief that two years ago at one day at about 9.30 A.M., he locked the doors of his house.

Later, himself and his son went to the Pedapalli cross on a bike as he intend to go to Madakasira to meet his wife, as she was ill health. From the pedapalli, he went to Madkasira and his son Pw1/Lw1 – Ediga Hari

Prasad returned to their house. While, he was on the way to Madakasira in bus at about 10.00 A.M., he received a phone call from his son

Pw1/Lw1 and stated that theft was occurred in their house and two pairs of gold ear studs were thefted from their house.

5

11.Chief examination of Pw2 states in his chief that he is the resident of Marlapalli Village of Puttaparthy Mandal and working at

Private Job at Bangalore. Since his mother was suffering from ill health, then he came from Bangalore and himself and his mother sent his mother to Madakasira to go to her relatives house. Himself, and his father were present. On 16.7.2021, he dropped his father Pw1/Lw2 at

Pedaballi Bus stop to facilitate him to go to Madakasira to met his mother and he returned to his house and he found that his house doors were broken. Then, himself and his friends entered in to the house and found that their Beeruva was broken and they found that two pairs of

Gold ear rings were stolen by some unknown persons. Later, they searched for culprits, but there was no use. Then, he informed the incident to his father. After that, he lodged the report before the Police.

Ex.P1 is the report. After three months of the incident, Police informed that their gold ear rings were recovered by them. Accordingly, he also participated in the identification parade and he identified their property ear rings. Further, he received the two pairs of Ear rings for interim custody through the Court. Mo.1 is the two pairs of ear rings.

12.Chief examination of Pw3 states in his chief that on 15.10.2021 at about morning hours, he received a phone call from one constable and informed about the accused person in theft cases. Then.

himself and Lw7 – VRO went the Kothacheruvu Police station. Then, the

Police served the summons to him to act as mediator. Later, they went the Gantla Maremma temple on the Police vehicle and when they reached the scene of offence, accused was present there and on seeing then, the accused tried to skulk away from that place, then the police 6 caught hold and enquired the accused by Lw7 – Talari Sai Prasad. On that enquiry, accused reveals his identity and confessed that he was committed thefts in the limits of Kothacheruvu, Puttaparthy, Gorantla,

C.K.Palli Police stations and Bathalapalli Police stations and accused also confessed in their presence that when and where the accused committed the thefts and that was drafted as Confession and Arrest

Mahazarnama Ex.P2 dated 15.10.2021 at 7:00 A.M. 15.10.2021. Later, as per the confession of accused we went to the Kesava Naidu banana garden at Rachavaripalli Billage. Later on enquiry by the Police, accused shown the place where he hide the gold ornaments near the Gutta (Hill).

Then, the Police recovered the gold ornaments involved in the various crimes in their presence and seizure mahazarnama Ex.P3, dt.

15.10.2021. Accused hide the ornaments in the covers, himself and Lw7

Talari Sai Prasad signed in the Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and after knowing the contents in them. After reading the contents in the Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, himself and Lw.7 signed in the mahazarnamas.

13.Cross examination of Pw3 by the learned defence counsel is that at about 6.00 AM., to 6:30 A.M., he wake-up and participated in the natural activities like going to wash room and bathing and after taking the Coffee and Tiffin. Later, by 9:30 AM., to 9:40 AM,. he attend his duties at Pothulakunta Gramasachivalayam to discharge his V.R.O duties. After noon at about 1:30 P.M., he took his lunch and he completed his duty by 5:00 P.M. After Some days, he had his lunch at his office and at some days he come to his house to had my lunch. By 5:30 P.M I reached my house after my work. After that he have no other work. Grade-V Panchayath Secretary Reddamma, Engineering Assistant 7

Madhusudhan, Village Surveyor Vinod Kumar, Mahila Police Saraswathi,

Welfare and Educational Assistant were present. One D.D.O is the head to all of them. He do not secure any proceedings from their Tahasidar to act as mediator in this case. He was responsible employee andhe was not not . The responsible employee was not supposed to act as mediator on the request of Police, without the permission of Tahasildar. he remember the name of the Police constable, who called him on phone at morning hours. As per their Revenue record,s Pothulakunta,

Marakuntapalli, Virupapuram are come under their V.R.O circle. S.l and other constables were present at the time of arresting the accused and his confession and seizure of properties. Police do not secure the others public persons to act as mediators. It takes one and half hour to two hours to enquiry and to prepare the first mahazarnama Ex.P2. After two hours, they went to the Rachuvari palli village along with the Police on a jeep. He do not know the distance between the Rachuvaripalli and the

Gantla Maremma Temple. On that Rachuvaripalli Police also do not try to secure the other public as mediators. The Rachuvaripalli is the busiest locality. At Rachuvaripalli Ex.P3 seizure mahazarnama was prepared in the laptap and it takes two hours. He do not know whether laptap battery works for 2 hours only. From their Rachuvaripalli, after that the seizure mahazarnmama, they proceeded to Police station and reached the station by 12:00 Noon and later he acted as mediator and appeared

before the Court in 100 cases. Witness further states that this is the first

time he act as mediator. He denied that he was stock witness to the

Police and he act as mediators at around 18 cases. The second seizurenama place at Rachuvaripalli where situated at outskirts of the 8

Rachuvaripalli Village. In general no one hide the gold ornaments in a dust and mud place. He further denied that the second panchanama place the Rachuvaripalli is busiest locality. At that time of at

Rachuvaripalli seizure mahazarnama S.l, themselves and other constables were present, but he do not remember how many constables were present. Then after reaching the Police station he went to his duties after taking lunch. Re-examination of Pw3 by the Asst. Public

Prosecutor is that prior to he attend as mediator in this case and he informated the same to his higher authorities through the phone.

Cross examination of Pw3 by the defense counsel for accused he deneid that since all the cell phones were switched off at the time of raids, hence he do not intimate the incident to his higher authorities and got the permission

14.Chief examination of Pw4 states in his chief that on 15.10.2021 at about 6.00 A.M., he received a credible information about the movements in Cr.No.70/2021 of Kothacheuvu P.S., Later, he secured the mediators i.e., Lw6 - B.Naresh and Lw7 - P.Sai Prasad were proceeded to the Gantlamaremma Temple along with the weighing machine and the staff reached the scene of offence at Gantlamaremma temple by 7.00 A.M., and found that accused was present there and on seeing them, the accused tried to skulk away from that place, then they caught-hold and enquired the accused by him, the accused revealed his identity and confessed that he was committed the house breaking offences and went to the Jail and after his released he himself engaged in work at one Kesava Naidu of Rachuvaripalli Village and later, he committed the theft. Further, accused confessed his guilt in the 9

Cr.No.70/2021 of Kothacheruvu P.S and also confessed his involvement in this crime No.124/2021 of Puttaparthi Rural P.S and also confessed his involvement in other crimes, which was registered in the other police stations. Then, he arrest the accused under confession and arrest mahazarnama dt.15.10.2021 at 7.00 A.M., to 9.30 A.M., Based on the confession of the accused, they proceeded to the Kesava Naidu fields at

Rachuvaripalli by 10.00 A.M., and as per the confession of the accused, he recovered the gold ornaments i.e., two pairs of ear rings i.e., M.O.1 in this Cr.No.124/2021 and also other ornaments in the other crimes from the plastic covers which was burried by the accused under a bush tree in the presence of mediators. Later, he informed the arrest of accused the

SHO Puttaparthi Rural P.S and also hand over the Mo.1 two pairs of ear rings to him and send the accused for remand.

15.Cross examination of Pw4 by learned defence counsel he denied that Lw6 and the Lw7 are the stock witness of the police. He do not know the details as how much wight can be weighed their weighing machine. The weighing machine was a batary based machine and it work at for one day. He know the procedure how to weigh the gold.

Firstly, they said the weighing machine in zero mode then to placed the ornament for weighing. He denied that gold ornaments shall only they weighted in a AC containing gold shop. He know that by way of article balance at gold shop, they have to weight the gold. He further denied that if the gold was weighed in the open place there shall be huge difference in the reading of the weight. He denied that they do not recovered the crime property from the digging of the land. He denied that he never went to the place were the crime property was recovered as 10 deposed by him. He further denied that without caught holding the real accused in this crime, but they foisted this false case against the accused.

16.Chief examination of Pw5 states in his chief that at request of the Sub-Inspector of police, he conducted the test identification period of the crime articles in the Cr.No.124/2021 on 30.10.2021 at 10.00 A.M., at the Thasildar office Puttaparthi. Before conducting the period, he secured the similar ornaments of the crime property and mixed with the crime property Mo.1 and conducted the test identification period through the Pw2/Lw1 - Eediga Hari Prasad. In that test identification, Pw2/Lw1 correctly identified his property two pairs of gold ear rings i.e., Mo.1.

Accordingly, he prepared the test identification mahazarnama Ex.P4 by obtaining the signatures of Lw1.

17.Cross examination of Pw4 by learned defence counsel is that at the request of police, he conducted the test identification of the property but police not served any summons to him. As per oral request, only he conducted the test identification period. On 30.10.2021, he was on duty. But, he do not know the week of the day. His post was a responsible one. He intimated the information to his MRO through the phone and he asked the half day permission from the MRO to conduct the Test identification Parade. Their MRO office was a busiest locality.

He conducted the identification of property at VRO room on a table. He deneid that he was a stock witness to the police. He further denied that he was regularly attend as witness in the Dharmavaram, Penukonda courts. He do not know, who is the E.Hari Prasad/Pw2. He denied that he never conducted the test identification period in this case and he 11 signed in the test identification mahazarnama which was prepared by the police.

18.Chief examination of Pw6 states in his chief that on 16.07.2021 while he was present in the police station at about 6.00 Pm.,

Lw1 - Ediga Hari Prasad came to the police station and filed the written report to him. Basing on that report, he registered a case in

Cr.No.124/2021 for the offences U/Sec.454, 380 IPC and sent the copy to the court and also examined the reportent/Lw1 to Lw5 and recorded their U/s. Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statements and also he visited the scene of offence and drew the rough sketch Ex.P6. Ex.P5 is the First Information

Report. Subsequently, he handover the investigation to their Lw11 – K.

Babjan, Sub-Inspector of police. Later, Lw11 conducted the further investigation in this case.

19.Cross examination of Pw6 by the learned defence counsel

Legal Aid is that Lw1/Ediga Hari Prasad/Complainant himself scribed the report. He do not remember the week day of the date of offence. The

First Information Report do not contain the dispatch date or number to the court. He enquired and recorded the professions of Lw1 to Lw5 in their statements. The rough sketch Ex.P6 do not contain the seal of his cader under his sign. He denied that he never visited the scene of offence. He further denied that he do not mention the road at Pedaballi to Nidimamidi in the rough sketch as it is a thar road.

20.Chief examination of Pw7 states in his chief that in this case, the crime was registered by Lw10 - B. Vijayudu, he arrested the accused and produced him before the court by way of P.T warrant. Later, he received the crime property Mo.1 i.e., two pairs of gold ear rings from the 12

Kothacheruv police station belong to this case and filed the Form - 66 to the court and he also conduct the test identification of crime property by the complainant through the VRO/Lw8 – A.Sreenivasulu. After verification of investigation lines, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

21.Cross examination of Pw7 by learned defence counsel is that the date of offence was a covid period. He weight the crime property Mo.1 through their department weighing machine. The weight of the Mo.1 was measure by Kothacheruvu police. He denied that without measuring the crime property and without proper investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused and implicated him in this case.

P O I N T :-

22.The case of the prosecution and the evidence of Pw1/Lw2 and Pw2/Lw1/Reportent is that, Pw2 is the son of Pw1 and they are the residents of Marlapalli Village. On 16.07.2021 he dropped his father

Pw1 at Pedaballi Bus Stop to facilitate him to go to Madakasira to met his wife. Then, Pw2 return to his house at Marlapalli and found that their beeruva was broken and two pairs of gold ear rings were stolen by some unknown persons. Then, Pw1 lodged the report Ex.P1 to the Pw6/Lw10.

Then, Pw6 registered a case in Cr.No.124/2021 for the offences

U/Sec.454, 380 of Indian Penal Code under the First Information Report

Ex.P5. Then, Pw6 examined the Lw1 to Lw5 and recorded their Sec.161

Cr.P.C Statements and also visited the scene of offence and drew the rough sketch Ex.P6. Further, investigation was conducted by the

Lw11/Pw7. The evidence of Pw2 was corroborated by the evidence of

Pw1 as Pw1 deposed that two years back at one day his son Pw2 13 dropped him at Pedaballi and returned to their house, then while he was on the way to Madakasira, Pw2 called him through the phone and intimate the theft incident in my house. Further, the complainant/Pw2 deposed that after three months of the incident, police recovered the thefted ornaments i.e., Mo.1 two pairs of ear rings and he received the two pairs of ear rings from the court. Mo.1 is the two pairs of ear rings.

As per the evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 and Ex.P1 at this juncture, the theft of gold ornaments i.e., Two pairs of ear rings at the house of Pw1 and

Pw2 was proved. But, the Pw1 and Pw2 do not know, who committed the theft in their house.

23. As per the evidence of Pw4/Lw9 – K.M.Linganna, on 15.10.2021, he received a credible information with regarding to the presence of accused in Cr.No.70/2021 of Kothacheruvu P.S., Then, he secured the mediators Pw3/Lw6 – B.Naresh and Lw7 – T. Sai Prasad and were proceeded to the Gantlamaremma Temple by 7.00 AM., and they found that accused was present there and on seeing them, accused tried to skulk away, then they caught-hold him and on enquiry by Pw4, accused revealed his identity as B. Amarnath Naidu and confessed that he committed the house breaking offences and went to the jail. Further, accused confessed his involvement in Cr.No.70/2021 of Kothacheruvu

PS., and also confessed his involvement in this case i.e.,

Cr.No.124/2021. Then, based on the confession of the accused, Pw4, mediators/Pw3, Lw7 proceeded to the Kesavanaidu fields at

Rachuvaripalli by 10.00 AM., and as per the confession of the accused,

Pw4 recovered two pairs of gold ear rings. Further, Pw4 also recovered other ornaments involved in the other crimes from the plastic covers, 14 which was burried by the accused as per the confession of accused under the confession arrest mahazarnama Ex.P2 and seizure mahazarnamas Ex.P3. The evidence of Pw4 is supported by the evidence of mediator/Pw3/Lw6 – B. Naresh, as he deposed that himself and Lw7 along with the police went to the Gantlamaremma Temple on 15.10.2021 at about morning hours. When they reached the

Gantlamaremma Temple, accused was present there and on seeing them, accused tried to skulk away. Then, in his presence police caught- hold the accused and on enquiry by the police, accused revealed his identity and confessed that he committed thefts in the Kothacheruvu,

Puttaparthy, Gorantala, C.K.Palli and Bathalapalli and as per his confession Ex.P2 confession arrest mahazarnama, dt.15.10.2021 at 7.00 AM., is prepared. Then, as per the confession of accused, himself,

Lw7 and the police and the accused went to the Keshavanaidu Banana

Garden and in that garden, accused shown the gold ornaments, which were hided by him near the gutta. Then, police recovered the gold ornaments involved in the several crimes from the accused under seizure mahazarnama Ex.P3, dt.15.10.2021 at 10.00 AM., Further, Pw3 deposed that accused hide the ornaments in the covers and deposed that himself and the Lw7 signed in the mahazarnamas Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 after reading the contents in the mahazarnamas. Further, Pw3 clearly deposed that he know the contents in the mahazarnamas. In the cross examination of Pw3/mediator clearly denied the suggestions made by the learned defense counsel and clearly deposed that he was acted as mediator in this case at the seizure of the crime property by the police under the confession of accused at Rachuvaripalli. Further, Pw4 15 deposed that after seizing the Mo.1 i.e., two pairs of ear rings by him from the accused, he handed-over the same to the SHO of Puttaparthy

Rural PS., i.e., Pw7/Lw11. As per the evidence of Pw7/Lw11/IO, he arrested the accused under P.T warrant and recovered the Mo.1 i.e., two pairs of ear rings from the Kothacheruvu SHO, i.e., Pw6 and he also got conduct the test identification parade through the Lw8/Pw5 and after verification of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused. The evidence of the IO/Pw7 is corroborated by the evidence of the Pw5/Lw8/VRO, as he deposed that on 30.10.2021 at the request of the police, he secured the similar ornaments of the crime property in this case and mixed-up with the Mo.1 two pairs of gold ear rings and conducted the test identification of property through the complainant/Pw2/Lw1 – E. Hari Prasad at Puttaparthy Tahasildar Office under the Ex.P4 Test identification mahazarnama and in that Test identification parade, Pw2 correctly identified her gold ornaments i.e., two pairs of gold ear rings. The mahazarnama Ex.P4 disclosed that Pw2 identified the Mo.1 i.e., two pairs of gold ear rings and signed in the test identification proceedings. Further, Pw2 clearly deposed in his evidence as that he identified his two pairs of gold ear rings in the test identification of property.

24.On the other hand, as per the evidence of Pw1 and the evidence of Pw2 , the commission of the theft at their house was proved, but at that juncture Pw1 and Pw2 do not know the details of the accused, who committed the theft. The involvement of accused Amarnath Naidu came on light at the time of enquiry by Pw4 under the confession of the accused at the time of his arrest at Gantlamaremma Temple. On 16 15.10.2021 at the time of the arrest by the Pw4, accused Amarnath

Naidu confessed that he committed the theft in this case i.e.,

Cr.No.124/2021 of Puttaparthy Rural P.S., in the presence of the mediators Pw3/Lw6 and Lw7. Basing on that confession, Pw4 recovered Mo.1 i.e., two pairs of gold ear rings in this crime and also other crime properties relating to the different crimes from the

Kesavanaidu Banana Garden at Rachuvaripalli Village on 15.10.2021 at 10.00 AM., under the mahazarnamas Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.

25.On perusing the evidence of Village Revenue

Officer/Pw5/Lw8 and the reportent/Pw2 and the property identification mahazarnama Ex.P4, this court found that complainant/Pw2 recognized his ornaments in the test identification proceedings Ex.P4. This evidence shows that Mo.1 two pairs of gold ear rings, which were recovered from the accused Amarnath Naidu under the mahazarnamas

Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 were the property of the complainant/Pw2, which was thefted from his house along with the other gold ornaments. It shows that the prosecution proved that the Mo.1 two pairs of gold ear rings, which were seized from the possession of the accused Amarnath Naidu was the thefted property in this Cr.No.124/2021 of Puttaparthy Rural

PS.,

As per the illustration (a) of Sec.114 of Indian Evidence Act, the court may presume - “ that a man,who is in possession of stolen

goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the

goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his

possession” 17

26.As per the above illustration, if the possession of the stolen property was proved soon after the theft, the person who possessed that property is presumed as a thief or he received that property knowing it to be a stolen one.

27.As per the above discussion, prosecution proved that Mo.1 two pairs of gold ear rings were thefted articles from the house of Pw2 and subsequently they are recovered from the accused Amarnath Naidu in the presence of mediators under his confession. Though, the confession made by the accused to the police is in-admissible in evidence, but discovery and recovery of articles by the police under the confession of the accused is admissible in evidence U/Sec.27 of the

Indian Evidence Act.

28.As per the above discussion, prosecution proved that Mo.1 two pairs of gold ear rings were recovered from the accused Amarnath

Naidu on his confession under the mahazarnama Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 in the presence of independent mediators. Now the burden is on the accused to show how he got the Mo.1 two pairs of gold ear rings. But, accused Amarnath Naidu do not show the account for the possession of

Mo.1 two pairs of gold ear rings with him. Further, the evidence of Pw3,

Pw4/mediator coupled with the mahazarnamas Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, this court found that apart from the Mo.1 two pairs of gold ear rings police recovered other thefted ornaments involved in the other crimes from the accused Amarnath Naidu, but the accused failed to show the account of the possession of the crime property i.e., Mo.1 two pairs of gold ear rings in this case and other crime properties, which was recovered by the confession of the accused in the presence of independent mediators.

18

Hence, this court conclude that the accused Amarnath Naidu stolen the

Mo.1 two pairs of gold ear rings by house breaking in the house of complainant/Pw2.

29. Hence, this court conclude that the prosecution proved the case against the accused Amarnath Naidu for the offences U/Sec.454, 380 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, since this court found the accused as guilty for the offences U/Sec.454, 380 of

Indian Penal Code, hence accused B.Amarnath Naidu was acquitted for the offence U/Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code.

30.In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence

U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C for the same. But, the accused is acquitted for the offence U/Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code. Mo.1 two pairs of gold ear rings, which were given to the Pw2/reportant for interim custody by the police stands good after appeal time is over.

Typed Dictation to the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-K. Rakesh

JUDL. MAG ISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

Puttaparthy

31.Heard the convicted Accused Amarnath Naidu on the quantum of sentence. On that hearing convicted stated that he was behind the bars since the date of his arrest and prays the court to show the lenient view on him.

(a). On considering the plea of the convicted and on considering the facts of the case and considering the remand period of convicted B.

Amarnath Naidu, this court take a lenient view on the quantum of 19 sentence by ordering that the convicted is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three Years for the offence U/Sec.454 of

Indian Penal Code and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, convicted shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

(b).Further, the convicted is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three Years for the offence U/s.380 of

Indian Penal Code and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, convicted shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

32.Further, both the sentences for the offences U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code shall run concurrently at once and, the sentence for default of payment of fine shall in addition to the main sentence and the sentence in this Calendar Case shall run concurrently with the other sentences if any.

33.The period of detention already undergone by the convicted from 25.10.2021 to till tody (24.04.2025) inclusive both days are set off

U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Convicted is informed that he had right to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and conviction of this court before the

Hon’ble Sessions Court, Ananthapuramu within 30 days from today.

When asked with regard to his means in engaging the advocate during appeal, he answered affirmatively.The per

Sd/-

Sd/- K.Rakesh

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

Puttaparthy 20

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Pw.1E. Viswanath Nil Pw.2Ediga Hari Prasad Pw.3B. Naresh Pw.4K.M.Linganna Pw.5A. Sreenivasulu Pw.6B. Vijayudu Pw.7K. Babjan

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1Report.--NIL Ex.P2Confession and arrest Mahazarnama, -- dt.15.10.2021. Ex.P3Seizure Mahazarnama, dt.15.10.2021, at-- 10.00 AM., Ex.P4Mahazarnama-- Ex.P5First Information Report. Ex.P6Rough Sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Mo.1Two Pairs of gold ear rings.

Sd/- K.Rakesh

J.F.C.M., Puttaparthy //True Copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttaparthy 21

CALENDER AND JUDGEMENT

CC.189/2022

District :: Sri Sathya Sai (Puttaparthy). Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy.

Commencement Close Apprehension Released on

Offence Report of of Sentence

of Accused bail Trial Trial Accused U/Sec. 454, 380Accusedundergone and16.07.2021Apprehended25.01.202102.02.202315.04.202524.04.2025 Sec.411 ofon 25.10.2021to till today IPC24.05.2025.

Judgment in C.C.No.189/2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy.

Complainant: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puttaparthy Rural P.S., Crime Nos: 124/2021.

Sl.No. Name of the Age Father's Name Calling Residence Mandal

Accused Bheemineni36Sreeramulu-UppunesinapalliDharmavaram AmarnathYears Naidu Offence: U/Sec.454, 380 and Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code of Puttaparthy Rural P.S., Finding: Guilty. Sentence: In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C for the same. But, the accused is acquitted for the offence U/Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code. Mo.1 two pairs of gold ear rings, which were given to the Pw2/reportant for interim custody by the police stands good after appeal time is over.

Heard the convicted Accused Amarnath Naidu on the quantum of sentence. On that hearing convicted stated that he was behind the bars since the date of his arrest and prays the court to show the lenient view on him.

22

On considering the plea of the convicted and on considering the facts of the case and considering the remand period of convicted B. Amarnath Naidu, this court take a lenient view on the quantum of sentence by ordering that the convicted is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three Years for the offence U/Sec.454 of Indian Penal Code and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, convicted shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

Further, the convicted is sentenced to suffersimple imprisonment for a period of Three Years for the offence U/s.380 of Indian Penal Code and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, convicted shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

Further, both the sentences for the offences U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code shall run concurrently at once and, the sentence for default of payment of fine shall in addition to the main sentence and the sentence in this Calendar Case shall run concurrently with the other sentences if any.

The period of detention already undergone by the convicted from 25.10.2021 to till tody (24.04.2025) inclusive both days are set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Convicted is informed that he had right to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and conviction of this court before the

Hon’ble Sessions Court, Ananthapuramu within 30 days from today.

When asked with regard to his means in engaging the advocate during appeal, he answered affirmatively.

Sd/-K. Rakesh

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLAS S,

Puttaparthy.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl.District Judge, Ananthapuramu. Copy to the Jail Superintendent, Ananthapuramu.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, PUTTAPARTHY

Present: Sri K. Rakesh ,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy

Monday, the 21 st day of April, 2025.

CALENDER CASE No.86/2022.

Between:-

Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothacheruvu PS., …Complainant.

And

Bheemineni Amarnath Naidu, aged 37 Years, S/o. Sreeramulu, R/o. Uppunesinapalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal.

…Accused

This case coming on 15.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri B. Anil Kumar, Legal Aid for Accused, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of police, Kothacheruvu Police Station filed charge sheet against Accused in Cr.No.62/2021 for the offences

U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code of Kothacheruvu Police

Station.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that Lw1 - M.

Muthyalappa is resident of Vemuletipalli Village, Kothacheruvu Mandal and he is eking livelihood by doing cultivation and as shepherd. Two days ago prior to occurrence of offence, as Lw1 is need of money. Then, 2 he sold his herd of sheep to his villager Lw3 – Y.Sreenivasulu. Then,

Lw3 gave money to Lw1 – M. Muthyalappa for an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Later, Lw1 gave the money to his wife Lw2 –

Padmavathi, then she kept the amount in her Beeruva locker and locked it. Later, on 30.03.2021 at about 2.00 PM., Lw1 along with Lw2 locked their house and went to their garden and later they returned to their home on the same day at 6.00 PM., Later, on 31.03.2021 at 8.00 AM, as

Lw1 opened the Beeruva locker and found that the Gold ornaments i.e.

1) One Gold Plain Necklace weighed about 2 Thulas. 2) Three Tiny

Golden rings, 3) One Gold Ring and 4) One Pair Gold ear rings weighed about 10 grams, total 30 grams of Gold and and Cash of Rs.1,00,000/- were found missing. Total Gold worth Rs.1,00,000/-. Some Unknown offenders gained entered into house of Lw1 and opened the beeruva with the keys available there and committed theft of Gold and Cash of

Rs.1,00,000/-. The value of both Golden ornaments and cash is

Rs.2,00,000/-. There is an ample evidence to prove the guilt of the accused U/Sec.454, 380 IPC.

Basing on the complaint of Lw1 – M. Muthyalappa, Lw11 - Sub-

Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No. 62/2021 for the offences

U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code of Kothacheruvu P.S., and on 31.03.2021 at 6.00 P.M., and investigated Into. During the course of investigation, Lw11 examined Lw1 – M. Muthyalappa, Lw2 – M.

Padmavathi, Lw3 – Y. Sreenivasulu, Lw4 – Y. Venkatesulu and Lw5 –

M. Chandra Sekhar and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence and drafted the rough sketch.

3

During the course of investigation, Lw12 - Sub-Inspector of police took up investigation from Lw11 – Sub-Inspector of police verified the

CD file and found it on correct lines. While the investigation is in progress on 15.10.2021 and Lw12 – Sub-Inspector of police received reliable information of the said marginal noted accused and rushed in- front of Gantlamaremma Temple, Dharmavaram to Gorantla road.

Puttaparthy Mandal and apprehended the accused in the presence of mediators i.e. VRO/Lw6 – B. Naresh and Lw7 – Talari Sai Prasad and seized the stolen property which was stolen in different places from his possession of accused under cover of Confession, Arrest and Seizure

Mahazarnama. Later, Lw12 - Sub-Inspector of police arrested the accused in Cr. No: 70/2021 for the offences U/Sec. 454 and 380 of

Indian Penal Code of Kothacheruvu PS., and seized the properties concerned in the said case on par with other properties and sent the accused for remand and passed on information about arrest of accused and seizing of properties to all officers concerned for further action.

Later on 20.10.2021, Lw8 – N.Sai Sreenivas Gowd identified the stolen recovered property in the presence of Lw1 – M. Muthyalappa and prepared Identification Mahazarunama. Later, on 25.10.2021 Lw12 –

Sub-Inspector of police produced the accused through P.T. warrant.

Further, on 29.01.2022, Lw12 released the recovered property and hand over to Lw1 by following the instructions by this court Vide Dis No:- 38/2022, dt.28.01.2022 by preparing Release Mahazarunama in the presence of Lw9 – M. Lakshmi Narayana and Lw10 – M. Nagaraju.

Thus, the accused committed the offence by possessing theft properties 4 and he is liable for punishment U/Sec.454, 380 of Indian Penal Code,

Hence, Lw11 – Sub-Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offences U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code against Accused.

4. On appearance of the Accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The charges were framed and examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and substance of charge for the offence U/Sec.454, 380 and Sec.411 of

Indian Penal Code were read over and explained to the Accused in

Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to Pw7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and Mo.1 to Mo.3. The learned

Additional Public Prosecutor given-up the evidence of Lw3, Lw5, Lw7

and Lw9 and Lw10.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, this court examined Accused U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, and explained the incriminating evidence to the Accused, which he denied the same and on examination they stated that he have no evidence on his side. Accordingly, the defense side evidence was closed.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides and perusing the written arguments of learned defence counsel.

9.Now, the point arose for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Accused for the

offences U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code beyond all

reasonable doubt in Cr.No.62/2021 of Puttaparthy Urban

P.S.,? ” 5

10.Chief examination of Pw1 states in his chief examination that he sold away the goat and got the income of Rs.1,00,000/-. He placed Rs.1,00,000/- put in Alamarah in his house. Previous, he sold away the goat prior two to three days of the incident. On 30.03.2021 his wife went to grazing the goat and he went to the other house in their

Village at 10.00 am., later, he returned to his house by 2.00 pm., and he did not observe the almarah, but on the next day, he found that the almarah was looks like in a locked mode and later, he opened the almarah and found that the almara was already opened by way of unlocking and on observing the almarah and he found that

Rs.1,00,000/-, one necklace, two small finger rings and one big ring and one pair of ear studs were stolen by the unknown persons by way of opening the almara lock illegally. Immediately, he went to the police station and lodged the report Ex.P1 is the report. After the incident, police informed him that his gold was recovered. Then, he also identified the gold ornaments recovered in this crime at kothacheruvu Panchayat

Office. Mo.1 is the gold necklace, Mo.2 is the finger ring and Mo.3 is the small finger ring. Cross examination of Pw1 by the defense counsel is reported nil.

11.Chief examination of Pw2 states in his chief that on 15.10.2021 at about morning hours, he received a phone call from one constable and informed him that they got information about the accused person in theft cases. Then himself and Lw7 - VRO went to the

Kothacheruvu Police station. Later, in that Police station, Police served the summons to him to act as mediator. Then, they went the Gantla 6

Maremma temple on the Police vehicle and when they reached the scene of offence, accused was present there and on seeing them, accused tried to skulk away, then the police caught-hold the accused.

Then, in his presence of VRO/Lw7 - Talari Sai Prasad, Police enquired the accused. On that enquiry, the accused revealed his identity and confessed that he committed thefts in the limits of Kothacheruvu,

Puttaparthy, Gorantla, C.K.Palli Police Stations and Bathalapalli Police stations. Accused further confessed in their presence as, when and where he committed the thefts and that was drafted as Confession and

Arrest Mahazarnama, dt.15.10.2021 at 7:00 A.M., Ex.P2. Later, as per the confession of accused, they went to the Kesava Naidu Banana

Garden at Rachavaripalli Village. Then. on enquiry by the Police, the accused shown the place where he hide the gold ornaments near the

Gutta (Hill). Later, the Police recovered the gold ornaments which were involved in the various crimes in their presence and seizure mahazarnama, dt. 15.10.2021 at 10.00 AM., Ex.P3. Accused hide the ornaments in the covers, himself and VRO/Lw7 - Talari Sai Prasad signed in the Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 after knowing the contents in them. After reading the contents in the Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, himself and Lw7 signed in the mahazarnamas.

12.Cross examination of Pw2 by learned defence counsel states in his cross that at about 6 to 6:30 A.M., he wake-up and participated in the natural activities. Later, he took his breakfast by 9:30 to 9:40 and went to duty at Pothulakunta Gramasachivalayam to discharge his V.R.O duties and after-noon at about 1:30 P.M., he took 7 lunch and later he completed his duty by 5:00 P.M. Some days, he took his lunch at his office and at some days, he took his lunch at his home.

By 5:30 P.M., he reached his house after his work. After that he have no other work. Grade V panchayat Secretary Reddamma, Engineering

Assistant Madhusudhan, Village Surveyor Vinod Kumar, Mahila Police

Saraswathi, Welfare and Educational Assistant were present. One

D.D.O is the head to all of them. I do not secure any proceedings from our Tahasildar to act as mediator in this case. He is the responsible employee and he was not supposed to act as mediator on the request of

Police without the permission of Tahasildar. He do remember the name of the Police constable who called him on phone at morning hours. As per their revenue records, Pothulakunta, Marakuntapalli, Virupapuram are come under their V.R.O circle. Sub-Inspector police and other constables were present at the time of arresting the accused and his confession and seizure of properties. Police do not secure the others public persons to act as mediators. It takes one and half hour to two hours to enquiry and to prepare the first mahazarnama Ex.P2. After the two hours, they went to the Rachuvaripalli Village along with the Police in a jeep. He do not know the distance between the Rachuvaripalli and the Gantla Maremma Temple. On that Rachuvaripalli Police do not try to secure the other public as mediators. The Rachuvaripalli is the busiest locality. At Rachuvaripalli seizure mahazarnama Ex.P3 was prepared in the laptop and it takes two hours. He do not know whether laptop battery works for 2 hours only. From their Rachuvaripalli after that the seizure mahazarnmama, they proceed to Police station and reached the station 8 by 12:00 Noon. He denied that he acted as mediator and appeared

before the Court in 100 cases. He further states that this is the first time

to act as mediator. He denied that he was a stock witness to the Police and he act as mediators in around 18 cases. The second seizurenama place at Rachuvaripalli where situated at outskirts of the Rachuvaripalli

Village. In general no one hide the gold ornaments in a dust and mud place. He further denied that the second panchanama place the

Rachuvaripalli is busiest locality. At that time at Rachuvaripalli seizure mahazarnama Sub-Inspector, thenselves and other constables were present but, he do not remember how many constables were present and after reaching the Police station, he went to his duties after taking lunch.

13.Chief examination of Pw3 states in her chief that on 30.3.2021, himself and her husband Pw1 went the other houses in their

Village at about 10:00 A.M. and they returned by 2:00 P.M. On the next day, they found that some unknown persons opened the Beeruva with the key which they placed on the top of the Almarah and committed the theft of Rs. 1,00,000/- and one Gold necklace, three small rings, one big ring and one paid of ear rings and locked the almarah and placed the keys at the top of the almarah as looking like nothing was happened and went away. Then, her husband lodged the report to the Police. Cross examination of Pw3 by the learned defense counsel is that reported as nil.

14.Chief examination of Pw4 states in his chief that on 31.3.2021 theft was occurred at the house of Pw1/Lw1 - Muthyalappa 9 and the same was informed to him by the Lw1 and Lw1 lodged the report to the police. After some days. Lw1/Pw1 received the crime property for interim custody after recovery by the police. Cross examination of Pw4 by the learned defense counsel, he denied that he deposing false evidence with the suggestion of the police.

15.Chief examination of Pw5 states in his chief that on 20.10.2021 at the request of the SHO, Kothacheruvu, he conducted the test Identification of property through the Pw1/Lw1 - Muthyalappa at the

Kothacheruvu Panchayathi Office. Before conducting the Test

Identification Parade, he secured the similar properties of one necklace and one pair of ear studs i.e., the crime property and clubed with the similar ornaments. Later, he conducted the identification to the Pw1/Lw1 - Muthyalappa. In this identification parade, Lw1 correctly identified his property i.e., one gold necklace and one pair of ear rings. Then, he prepared the identification mahazarnama Ex.P4, which was signed by him and the Pw1/Lw1. Cross examination of Pw5 by Learned Legal Aid for defence is that he do not know the week day of 20.10.2021. Police requested him through the phone call to conduct the Test Identification

Parade. He conducted the Test Identification Parade and after receiving the permission from the Mandal Revenue Officer, he conducted the Test

Identification Parade in a room at Panchayathi Office at the sitting chair of secretary. He do not personally know the Pw1/Lw1 - Muthyalappa, but he know that he is the victim in this case. He denied that he face the service problems, if he act as mediator in this case without the prior 10 permission. He further deneid that he never conducted theTest

Identification Parade through the Pw1/Lw1.

16.Chief examination of Pw6 states in his chief that Lw11 -

T.Venakteswarulu registered a case in Cr.No.62/2021 for the offences

U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. He conducted the further investigation in this case. Later, on 15.10.2021, he arrested the accused at Gantlamaremma Temple in Cr.No.70/2021 and send the accused to the court for remand. As per the confession of the accused in

Cr.No.70/2021, he filed the P.T warrant before the court and arrested the accused in this case under the said PT warrant. Later, he recovered the crime property i.e., Mo.1 to Mo.3 in this crime from the accused and got it the crime property identified by the complainant in the presence of

Pw5/Lw8 - N.Sai Sreenivas Gowd and after verification of investigation lines. he filed charge against the accused. Cross examination of Pw6 by the learned defence counsel legal Aid he denied that the scene of offence, which they arrest the accused at the Gantlamaremma temple was within the jurisdiction of Puttaparthi Rural P.S. and he gave the intimation to the Puttaprthi Rural Police Station, at the time of arrest of accused. At the time of the arrest of accused, it was Covid period. The public movements were strictly prohibited at Covid period. He denied that he falsely implicated the accused in this case. He further denied that at the instigation of his high official, he implicated the accused in this case and in the other cases. He denied that the Mahazarnamas were prepared at police station. He further denied that he never recover the crime property in this case and in the other cases at the confession of 11 accused. He denied that he foisted the false case against the accused for statical purpose and he was deposing false evidence.

17.Chief examination of Pw7 states in his chief that on 31.3.2021, while he was present in the police station, Pw1/Lw1 -

M.Muthyalappa came to the police station and lodged the report to him.

Based on that report, he registered case in Cr.No.62/2021 for the offences U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. Ex.P5 is the First

Information Report. Later, he examined the Lw1 to Lw5 and recorded their Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statements and also he visited the scene of offence and drew the rough sketch Ex.P6. Cross examination of Pw7 by learned defence counsel by Legal Adi is that the offence was occurred in a Covid period. The Column No.7 is First Information Report disclosed as unknown offender. The column No.14 in the First Information Report do not containing the complainant signature. Complainant lodge the written report to him. There is different in writing between the facts of the complaint and the signature of the complaint. The rough sketch do not contained the 10 seal and he do not remember the nature of the road between Kodapaganipalli Village to Vemuletipalli. The houses situated near to the scene of offence do not have the door numbers and do not mentioned the details of the empty house owners names in the rough sketch. He denied that without examined the Lw1 to Lw5 properly and he drafted their statements at police station.

P O I N T :-

18.The case of the prosecution and the evidence of the complainant/Pw1/Lw1 and the Lw2/Pw3 is that they are the wife and 12 husband and they are the residents of Vemuletipalli Village and they are living by grazing goats. In the year 2021, Pw1 sold his goats and got the income of Rs.1,00,000/- and placed that Rs.1,00,000/- in their almara at their house. On 03.03.2021 Pw1 and Pw3 went away from their house and by 10.00 AM,. and return to their house by 2.00 PM., On the next day they found that some unknown persons opened the beruva with the key which was placed on the top of the almara and thefted the cash of Rs.1,00,000/-, one gold necklace, three small gold rings, one big gold ring and one pair of ear studs. Then, Pw1 lodged the report Ex.P1 to the Pw7/Lw11 – B.t.Venkateshwarlu. Then, Pw7 registered a case in

Cr.No.62/2021 for the offences U/Sec.454, 380 of Indian Penal Code under the First Information Report Ex.P5. Then, Pw7 examined the Lw1 to Lw5 and recorded their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements and also visited the scene of offence and drew the rough sketch Ex.P6. Further, investigation was conducted by the Pw6/IO/Lw12 – K.M.Linganna. The evidence of Pw1 was supported by the evidence of Pw3 as she deposed that on 03.03.2021 some unknown persons opened their beeruva with the key and thefted Rs.1,00,000/-, one gold necklace, three small rings and one gold big ring and one pair of ear rings from their house.

Further, the evidence of Pw1 and Pw3 is corroborated by the evidence of Pw4 as Pw4 deposed that some unknown persons committed the thefted at the house of Pw1. At this juncture, the theft of cash of

Rs.1,00,000/-, one gold necklace, three small rings and one gold big ring and one pair of ear rings from their house. But, as per the evidence of

Pw1, after some days of incident, police informed them that their gold 13 was recovered and further Pw1 deposed that he identified the gold ornaments in this crime i.e., Mo.1 gold necklace, Mo.2 is the Finger Ring and Mo.3 is the small finger ring at Kothacheruvu Panchayat Office. But, the Pw1 and Pw2 do not know, who committed the theft in their house.

19. As per the evidence of Pw7/IO/Lw11 – K.M.Linganna, on 15.10.2021, he received a credible information with regarding to the presence of accused in Cr.No.70/2021 of Kothacheruvu PS., Then, he secured the mediators Pw2/Lw6 – B.Naresh and Lw7 – T. Sai Prasad were proceeded to the Gantlamaremma Temple by 7.00 AM., and they found that accused was present there and on seeing them, accused tried to skulk away, then they caught-hold him and on enquiry by Pw7, accused revealed his identity as B. Amarnath Naidu and confessed that he committed the house breaking offences and went to the jail. Further, accused confessed his involvement in Cr.No.70/2021 of Kothacheruvu

PS., and also confessed that he committed the theft in this

Cr.No.62/2021 of Kothacheruvu PS., Then, based on the confession of the accused, Pw7/IO, mediators/Pw2, Lw7 proceeded to the

Kesavanaidu fields at Rachuvaripalli by 10.00 AM., and as per the confession of the accused, Pw7 recovered the gold ornaments in this case i.e., Mo.1 gold necklace, Mo.2 is the Finger Ring and Mo.3 is the small finger ring from their house in this case. Further, Pw7 also recovered other ornaments involved in the other crimes from the plastic covers, which was burried by the accused as per the confession of accused under the confession, arrest mahazarnama and seizure mahazarnamas Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. The evidence of IO/Pw7 is supported 14 by the evidence of mediator/Pw2/Lw6 – B. Naresh, as he deposed that himself and Lw7 along with the police went to the Gantlamaremma

Temple on 15.10.2021 at about morning hours. When they reached the

Gantlamaremma Temple, accused was present there and on seeing them, accused tried to skulk away. Then, in his presence police caught- hold the accused and on enquiry by the police, accused revealed his identity and confessed that he committed thefts in the Kothacheruvu,

Puttaparthy, Gorantala, C.K.Palli and Bathalapalli and as per his confession Ex.P2 confession arrest mahazarnama, dt.15.10.2021 at 7.00 AM., is prepared. Then, as per the confession of accused, himself,

Lw6 and the police and the accused went to the Keshavanaidu Banana

Garden and in that garden, accused shown the gold ornaments, which were hided by him near the gutta. Then, police recovered the gold ornaments involved in the several crimes from the accused under seizure mahazarnama Ex.P3, dt.15.10.2021 at 10.00 AM., Further, Pw2 deposed that accused hide the ornaments in the covers and deposed that himself and the Lw7 signed in the mahazarnamas Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 after reading the contents in the mahazarnamas. Further, Pw2 clearly deposed that he know the contents in the mahazarnamas. In the cross examination of Pw2/mediator clearly denied the suggestions made by the learned defense counsel and clearly deposed that he was acted as mediator in this case at the seizure of the crime property by the police under the confession of accused at Rachuvaripalli. After verification of investigation lines, Pw7/IO filed the charge sheet against the accused

B.Amarnath Naidu for the offences U/Sec.454, 380 of Indian Penal 15

Code. As per the evidence of the Pw5/Lw8 on 20.10.2021 at the request of the police of Kothacheruvu, he secured the similar ornaments of the crime property in this case and mixed-up with the Mo.1 gold necklace,

Mo.2 is the Finger Ring and Mo.3 is the small finger ring and conducted the test identification of property through the complainant/Pw1/Lw1 –

Muthyalappa at Kothacheruvu Panchyathi Office under the Ex.P4 Test identification mahazarnama and in that Test identification parade, Pw1 correctly identified his gold ornaments i.e., Mo.1 to Mo.3 and signed in the identification mahazarnama. The mahazarnama Ex.P4 disclosed that Pw1 identified Mo.1 to Mo.3 and signed in the test identification proceedings.

20.On the other hand, as per the evidence of Pw1 and the evidence of Pw3, the commission of the theft at their house was proved, but at that juncture Pw1 or Pw3 do not know the details of the accused, who committed the theft. The involvement of accused Amarnath Naidu came on light at the time of enquiry by Pw7 under the confession of the accused at the time of his arrest at Gantlamaremma Temple. On 15.10.2021 at the time of the arrest by the Pw6, accused Amarnath

Naidu confessed that he committed the theft in this crime i.e.,

Cr.No.70/2007 of Kothacheruvu P.S., in the presence of the mediators

Pw2/Lw6 and Lw7. Basing on that confession, Pw7 recovered some portion of crime property Mo.1 to Mo.3 i.e., One gold necklace, one finger ring and one small finger ring in this crime and also other crime properties relating to the different crimes from the Kesavanaidu Banana 16

Garden at Rachuvaripalli Village on 15.10.2021 at 10.00 AM., under the mahazarnamas Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.

21.On perusing the evidence of Village Revenue

Officer/Pw5/Lw8 and the property identification mahazarnama Ex.P4, this court found that complainant/Pw1 recognized his ornaments i.e.

One gold necklace, one finger ring and one small finger ring and signed in the test identification proceedings Ex.P4. This evidence shows that

Mo.1 to Mo.3 i.e., One gold necklace, one finger ring and one small finger ring, which were recovered from the accused Amarnath Naidu under the mahazarnamas Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 were the property of the complainant/Pw1, which was some of the portion thefted from his house along with the Rs.1,00,000/- and other ear ring and gold ear studs. It shows that the prosecution proved that the Mo.1 to Mo.3 i.e., One gold necklace, one finger ring and one small finger ring, which were seized from the possession of the accused Amarnath Naidu was the thefted property in this Cr.No.62/2021 of Kothacheruvu PS., which was occurred in the house of Pw1.

As per the illustration (a) of Sec.114 of Indian Evidence Act, the court may presume - “ that a man,who is in possession of stolen

goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the

goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his

possession” As per the above illustration, if the possession of the stolen property was proved soon after the theft, the person who possessed that property is presumed as a thief or he received that property knowing it to be a stolen one.

17

22.As per the above discussion, prosecution proved that Mo.1 to Mo.3 i.e., One gold necklace, one finger ring and one small finger ring are the thefted articles from the house of Pw1 and subsequently they are recovered from the accused Amarnath Naidu in the presence of mediators under his confession. Though, the confession made by the accused to the police is in-admissible in evidence, but discovery and recovery of articles by the police under the confession of the accused is admissible in evidence U/Sec.27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

23.As per the above discussion, prosecution proved that Mo.1 to Mo.3 i.e., One gold necklace, one finger ring and one small finger ring were recovered from the accused Amarnath Naidu on his confession under the mahazarnama Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Now the burden is on the accused to show how he got the Mo.1 to Mo.3. But, accused Amarnath

Naidu do not show the account for the possession of Mo.1 to Mo.3 i.e.,

One gold necklace, one finger ring and one small finger ring with him.

Further, the evidence of Pw7, Pw4/mediator coupled with the mahazarnamas Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, this court found that apart from the

Mo.1 to Mo.3 police recovered other thefted ornaments involved in the other crimes from the accused Amarnath Naidu, but the accused failed to show the account of the possession of the crime property i.e., Mo.1 to

Mo.3 in this case and other crime properties, which was recovered by the confession of the accused in the presence of independent mediators.

Hence, this court conclude that the accused Amarnath Naidu stolen the

Mo.1 to Mo.3 i.e., One gold necklace, one finger ring and one small finger ring by house breaking in the house of complainant/Pw1.

18

24. Hence, this court conclude that the prosecution proved the case against the accused Amarnath Naidu for the offences U/Sec.454, 380 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, since this court found the accused as guilty for the offences U/Sec.454, 380 of

Indian Penal Code, hence accused B.Amarnath Naidu was acquitted for the offence U/Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code.

25.In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence

U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C for the same. But, the accused is acquitted for the offence U/Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code. Mo.1 to Mo.3 i.e., One gold necklace, one gold finger ring and one gold small finger ring, which were given to the Pw1/reportant for interim custody by this court stands good after appeal time is over.

Typed Dictation to the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 21 st day of April,2025.

Sd/-K. Rakesh

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CL ASS,

Puttaparthy

26.Heard the convicted Accused Amarnath Naidu on the quantum of sentence. On that hearing convicted stated that he was behind the bars since the date of his arrest and prays the court to show the lenient view on him.

(a). On considering the plea of the convicted and on considering the facts of the case and considering the remand period of convicted

B. Amarnath Naidu, this court take a lenient view on the quantum of sentence by ordering that the convicted is sentenced to suffer simple 19 imprisonment for a period of Three Years for the offence U/Sec.454 of

Indian Penal Code and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, convicted shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

(b).Further, the convicted is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three Years for the offence U/s.380 of

Indian Penal Code and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, convicted shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

27.Further, both the sentences for the offences U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code shall run concurrently at once and, the sentence for default of payment of fine shall in addition to the main sentence and the sentence in this Calendar Case shall run concurrently with the other sentences if any.

28.The period of detention already undergone by the convicted from 25.10.2021 to till tody (21.04.2025) inclusive both days are set off

U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Convicted is informed that he had right to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and conviction of this court before the

Hon’ble Sessions Court, Ananthapuramu within 30 days from today.

When asked with regard to his means in engaging the advocate during appeal,he answered affirmatively.Sd/- Sd/-

Sd/- K. Rakesh

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

Puttaparthy 20

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Pw.1M. Muthyalappa Pw.2B. Naresh Pw.3M. Padmavathi Pw.4Y. Venkatesulu Pw.5N. Sai Sreenivas Gowd Pw.6K.M. Linganna Pw.7B.T.Venkateswarlu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1Report.--NIL Ex.P2Confession and arrest mahazarnama-- dt.15.10.2021 at 7.00 AM., Ex.P3Seizure mahazarnama dt.15.10.2021-- at 10.00 AM., Ex.P4Test Identification Mahazarnama.-- Ex.P5First Information Report.-- Ex.P6Rough Sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Mo.1Gold Necklace Mo.2Gold Finger Ring Mo.3Gold Small finger Ring

Sd/- K.Rakesh

J.F.C.M., Puttaparthy // True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttaparthy 21

CALENDER AND JUDGEMENT

CC.86/2022

District :: Sri Sathya Sai (Puttaparthy). Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy. Commencement Close Apprehension Released on

Offence Report of of Sentence

of Accused bail Trial Trial U/Sec.Accused 454, 380Accusedundergone of IPC or30.03.2021Apprehended25.01.2021 to01.12.202212.12.202421.04.2025 Sec.411on 25.10.2021till today of IPC21.04.2025. Judgment in C.C.No.86/2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy. Complainant: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothacheruvu P.S., Crime Nos: 62/2021.

Sl.No. Name of the Age Father's Name Calling Residence Mandal

Accused Bheemineni37Sreeramulu-UppunesinapalliDharmavar AmarnathYearsam Naidu Offence:U/Sec.454, 380 of IPC or Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code of Kothacheruvu P.S., Finding: Guilty. Sentence: In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence U/Sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is convicted

U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C for the same. But, the accused is acquitted for the offence U/Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code. Mo.1 to Mo.3 i.e., One gold necklace, one gold finger ring and one gold small finger ring, which were given to the Pw1/reportant for interim custody by this court stands good after appeal time is over.

Heard the convicted Accused Amarnath Naidu on the quantum of sentence. On that hearing convicted stated that he was behind the bars since the date of his arrest and prays the court to show the lenient view on him.

22

On considering the plea of the convicted and on considering the facts of the case and considering the remand period of convicted B. Amarnath

Naidu, this court take a lenient view on the quantum of sentence by ordering that the convicted is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of

Three Years for the offence U/Sec.454 of Indian Penal Code and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, convicted shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

Further, the convicted is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three Years for the offence U/s.380 of Indian Penal Code and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, convicted shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

Further, both the sentences for the offences U/Sec.454 and 380 of

Indian Penal Code shall run concurrently at once and, the sentence for default of payment of fine shall in addition to the main sentence and the sentence in this Calendar Case shall run concurrently with the other sentences if any.

The period of detention already undergone by the convicted from 25.10.2021 to till tody (21.04.2025) inclusive both days are set off U/Sec.428

Cr.P.C. Convicted is informed that he had right to prefer an appeal against the

Judgment and conviction of this court before the Hon’ble Sessions Court,

Ananthapuramu within 30 days from today. When asked with regard to his means in engaging the advocate during appeal, he answered affirmatively.

Sd/- K.Rakesh

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST C LASS,

Puttaparthy.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl.District Judge, Ananthapuramu. Copy to the Jail Superintendent, Ananthapuramu.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

KADIRI

Present: Sri K.Rakesh, Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Puttaparthy

FAC. Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadiri

Monday, this the 24 th day of February, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.651 of 2020

Between:

State represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Nallamada Police Station in Crime No.127 of 2020. … Complainant. AND

Vadithya Chandra Naik. Age 50 years, S/o Late V.Nane Naik, Neeralavanka thanda village, Nallamada Mandal.

… Accused.

This case was placed before me for final hearing on 17.02.2025 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri R.Dasaratha, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallamada Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.127of 2020 against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act and Section 13(B) of A.P. Prohibi- tion Act.

2. The brief facts of the charge sheet are that, on 26.07.2020 at 8.A.M., on credible information LW.4-C.Jagadesh Babu, Head Constable 2246, Nallamada

Police Station along with LW.1-B.Peddareddy, Police Constable 506, LW.2-

V.Sivasankar Reddy, Police Constable 2588 and LW.3-P.Ravi, Police Consta- ble 2888 conducted raid and arrested the accused at Neeralavankata Thanda village and seized 2 liters of I.D. arrack from his possession under cover of police proceedings and returned to the police station at 10.00 A.M., along with 2 the arrested accused and seized property, being the S.H.O of Nallamada Police

Station, LW.4-C.Jagadeesh Babu, Head Constable registered the above police proceedings same as a case in Crime No.127/2020 U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act of Nallamada Police Station on 26.07.2020 at 10.00 A.M., and submitted F.I.R copies to the all officers concerned and took up investigation and handed over the accused along with his investigation details to LW.5-

K.M.Linganna, Sub-Inspector of Police, O.D.Cheruvu police station, I/c

Nallamada Police Station for further action. Later LW.5-Sub-Inspector of Police had produced the accused before the A.J.F.C.M, Kadiri for judicial remand. Fur- ther LW.4-Head Constable had forwarded the seized sample of I.D arrack to the Government Chemical Examiner for Prohibition and Excise, Regional Pro- hibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor (A.P) for analysis and report along with letter of advice, on that the examiner concerned analyzed the same and opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injuri- ous to health and issued analysis report accordingly. Thus, the accused used to prepare the I.D arrack and selling the same confidentially, thereby committed the offence under A.P. Prohibition Act. Thus, the accused rendered liable to be punished U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(E) of A.P. Prohibition Act and Sec.13 (B) of A.P.Pro- hibition Act. Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence under Section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and Section 13(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as contemplated under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused.

4. The accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the offence. Charges are framed Under Section 7(A) r/w 8(E) of A.P.

Prohibition Act and Section 13(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

5. The prosecution in support of its case, has examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 and on behalf of accused, none were examined and no exhibits were marked.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined Under

Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material available in the evidence of witnesses adduced by prosecution, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments on both sides.

8. Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the prosecution has established the guilty of the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(E) of

A.P.Prohibition Act and Section 13(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9. POINT:-

P.W.1/V.Shiva Shankar, the then Constable, Nallamada Police Station deposed that on 26.7.2020 at about 7.00 a.m., while he was present in the police station on the instructions of C.I. of Police, Nallamada and deputed LW.4 to conduct raid at Neeralavanka Thanda village. On that, he along with LW.1,

LW.3, LW.4 and others went to the Neeralavanka Thanda village and reached about 7.30 a.m. There they found one male person in possession of black colour bag and on seeing them, he tried to skulk away, but they caught hold the said person. LW.4 interrogated the said person and he revealed his identity particulars and voluntarily confessed that he is preparing and selling of ID arrack in and around surrounding villages. On search they found 2 liters of ID arrack in black colour bag and found 18 liters of F.J. wash in the scene of offence

LW.4 drawn 180 ml of ID arrack from the contraband for chemical analysis and arrested the accused person and seized the remaining contraband and brought him to the police station. In the cross-examination P.W.1 stated that the 4 distance between the scene of offence and police station is about 11 K.Ms. The scene of offence is situated 01 K.M. away from the Neeralavanka Thanda. He did not know who is the owner of the scene of offence. They did not try to secure the local inhabitants and revenue officials to act as mediators.

10. P.W.2/C.Jagadeesh Babu, the then Head Constable, Nallamada Police

Station deposed that on 26.7.2020 while he was present in the police station at about 7.00 A.M., C.I. of Police received information about liquor. Basing on information he along with Sankar Babu, Pedda Reddy-LW.1, Sankar Reddy,

Ravikumar went to Neeralavanka Thanda by 8.00 a.m. There they found one male person in possession of one black plastic cover and on seeing them, he tried to skulk away. On suspicion they surrounded and caught hold him. On his enquiry, he revealed his name and particulars and he voluntarily confessed that he is preparing ID arrack at the outskirts of the village and selling the same to the public. He has verified the plastic cover and found one white plastic can containing two liters of I.D arrack. The accused has taken them to the place where he has prepared the I.D. arrack. There they found two pots with F.J. wash of 12 liters each, total 24 liters of F.J. wash. He has drawn samples of 180 ml from plastic can and drawn two 1 liter of F.J. wash as samples duly sealed and labeled. On his dictation, P.W.1/Siva Sankar Reddy, Constable has drafted the police proceedings/Ex.P.1. He has arrested the accused and seized the remaining contraband under the cover of Ex.P.1. He registered a case in

Cr.No.127/2020 U/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. P and Sec.13(b) of A.P.Excise Act

Ex.P.2 is the First information report. He has send the samples to the chemical examiner. He handed over the C.D file to LW.5 for further investigation. In the cross-examination P.W.2 stated that the distance between the police station and the scene of offence is about 15 K.Ms. It took one hour to arrive at the scene of offence. There would be around 300 houses located in that village. They cannot see the contents of the white can from out side. It took two hours to draft the Ex.P.1 and the pots were destroyed at the scene of offence.

5

11. P.W.3/K.M.Linganna, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, O.D.C and incharge Sub-Inspector of Police for Nallamada Police Station deposed in his chief examination that he received C.D file from P.W.2 for further investigation on 26.07.2020. P.W.2 informed him that accused was arrested. Then, he went to the Nallamada Police Station and verified the C.D file and forwarded the accused to the judicial custody. Later he handed over the C.D file to P.W.2 and further he handed over C.D file to LW.6 for further investigation and LW.6 filed charge sheet in this case.

12. P.W.4/A.Sharath Chandra, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallamada

Police Station deposed in his chief examination that on 10.09.;2020 he received

C.D file from P.W.2 for further investigation in this case. He received chemical analysis report/Ex.P.3. M.O. to M.O.3 are sample bottles. After completion of his investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

13. The case of the prosecution and the evidence of P.W.1/LW.2- Constable,

P.W.2/LW.4-Head Constable, P.W.3/LW.5-Sub-Inspector of Police and

P.W.4/LW.6-Sub-Inspector of Police is that on the instructions of C.I. of Police,

P.W.2 along with his staff went to Neralavanka thanda by 8.00 A.M., on 26.07.2020, there they found accused having possession of one black plastic cover and on seeing them, he tried to skulk away. On suspicion they surrounded and caught hold the accused. On enquiry by P.W.2, the accused revealed his name and other particulars and voluntarily confessed that he is preparing ID arrack at the outskirts of the village and selling the same to the public. P.W.2 verified the said plastic cover in possession of the accused and found one white plastic can containing two liters of ID arrack and accused has taken them to the place where he has prepared the ID arrack. There they found two pots with F.J wash of 12 liters each, total 24 liters of F.J wash. P.W.2 drawn samples duly sealed and labeled and on his dictation, P.W.1-constable has drafted the police proceedings/Ex.P.1. P.W.2 registered a case in

Cr.No.127/2020 for the offence Under Section 7(a) 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act 6 and Section 13(b) of A.P.Excise Act. Ex.P.2 is the First Information Report. He send the samples to the chemical examiner. P.W.2 handed over the C.D file to

P.W.3 for further investigation. P.W.3 verified the C.D file and forwarded the accused to the judicial custody. Later P.W.3 handed over the C.D file to P.W.2 and further he handed over the C.D file to P.W.4 for further investigation. P.W.4 received the C.D file from P.W.2 for further investigation and he received chemical analysis report/Ex.P.3. M.O.1 to M.O.3 are the sample bottled. After completion of his investigation, P.W.4 filed charge sheet against the accused.

14. On perusing the evidence of the prosecution all the witnesses are Police officials, who detected the crime and arrested the accused. On perusing the evidence of the prosecution, this Court found that the date of offence was the

Covid period. Further, the evidence disclosed that the time of the offence was at about 8.00 a.m., and at the time of seizing the contraband, P.W.3 does not secure the independent mediators. Generally, in the Covid period public movements were strictly prohibited, hence, the burden is heavy on the prosecution to prove that accused possessed the contraband. Even though, it was the Covid period, the Government Medical Servants and the Revenue

Servants were deployed to render their services. But, P.W.2 does not secure them as mediators to prove the seizure before this Court beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this Court not inclined to conclude that the prosecution proved the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. Accordingly, this Court found that the prosecution not able to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt against Accused for the offence Under

Section 7(A) r/w 8(E) of A.P.Prohibition Act and Sec.13(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

16. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(E) of A.P.Prohibition Act and Section 13(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act and he is accordingly, acquitted Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of 7

Accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C for a period of six months. M.O.1 to M.O.3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- K.Rakesh

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttaparthy.

FAC/Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution : For Defence :

P.W.1: V.Sivasankar Reddy, Police Constable-2588, - None - Nallamada P.S. P.W.2: C.Jagadeesh Babu, Head Constable-2246, Nallamada P.S. P.W.3: K.M.Linganna, Sub-Inspector of Police, O.D.Cheruvu P.S., I/c Nallamada P.S. P.W.4: A.Sharath Chandra, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallamada P.S.

Documents marked for Prosecution

Ex.P.1 26.07.2020Police proceedings.

Ex.P.2 26.07.2020First information report in Cr.No.127/2020 of Nallamada Town Police Station.

Ex.P.3 13.08.2020Chemical analysis report.

Documents marked for Defence

-NIL-

8

M.Os. MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.O.1 to M.O.3 : Sample bottles.

M.Os. MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

Id/- K.R.H

J.M.F.C/PTP.

FAC/A.J.M.F.C/KDR.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District:: ANANTHAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri

Date of

Date of Report of Apprehen- Released Commence- Close Sentence of Offence Complaint sion of Accused on bail ment of trial of trial order 26.07.2020 26.07.2020 26.07.2020 08.08.2020 12.06.2023 30.12.2024 24.02.2025

Judgment in C.C.No.651/2020 on the file of Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri.

Complainant :: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallamada Police Station.

Cr.No. and P.S. :: 127/2020 of Nallamada Police Station.

AgeReligionResidenceMandal Name of Father’s (or) the Husband’s Name Accused

Late V.Nane NaikHinduNallamada Vadithya 50 Neerlavanka Thanda village Chandra yrs Naik

Offence:- Under Section 7(A) r/w 8(E) of A.P. Prohibition Act and Section 13(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

Finding:- Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence:- In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 7(A) r/w 8(E) of A.P.Prohibition Act and Section 13(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act and he is accordingly, acquitted Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C for a period of six months. M.O.1 to M.O.3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Explanation This case was taken on file and copies of documents were furnished for delay & to the accused and he was examined Under section 239 of Cr.P.C Remarks, if and posted for trial. On12.06.2023 the trial of the case was any:- commenced and the prosecution evidence was closed on 30.12.2024 10 and posted for 313 Cr.P.C examination. On 16.01.2025 Accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and posted for arguments. On 17.02.2025 heard the arguments on both sides and posted for judgment. On 24.02.2025 judgment was delivered. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- K.Rakesh

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttaparthy.

FAC. Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, KADIRI

Present: Sri K.Rakesh,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy

FAC/Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri

Monday, the 10 th day of February, 2025

Calendar Case No.685/2020

Between:-

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallamada Police Station.

... Complainant.

And

Mude Ravi Naik, age 35 years, S/o Mude Tholche Naik, Allipur Thanda village, Kadiri Mandal.

... Accused.

This case is coming on 03.02.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri K.Ramesh Naidu and Sri K.Sreehari Naidu, Advocates for Accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallamada Police Station filed

Charge Sheet against the accused in Crime No.94/2020 of Nallamada

Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 188 IPC and

Section 51(B) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Sec.7(A) r/w 8(E) of

A.P. Prohibition Act.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the Charge-Sheet in brief is that on 24.05.2020 at 4.30 P.M., while LW.4-C.Jagadeesh Babu, Head

Constable was present in the police station being the S.H.O of Nallamada

P.S., he received credible information about the illegal possession and selling of I.D arrack, immediately he along with staff LW.1-B.Pedda Reddy, 2

LW.2-P.Ravi Kumar and LW.3-R.Ramanjineyulu, Police Constables and Head

Constable 177 left the police station in police jeep bearing No.AP9-P-3743 and reached at Muthyalamma temple, near Subbarayanapalli village,

Nallamada Mandal at 5.00 P.M., and arrested the accused/Mude Ravi Naik while he was carrying I.D arrack in his motor cycle bearing No.AP02-BB- 7650 by violating lock down orders duly promulgated by the Govt. of

Andhra Pradesh due to Covid-19 pandemic situation and seized 2 liters of

I.D arrack in a plastic can and motor cycle bearing No. AP02-BB-7650 from his possession under cover of police proceedings and concluded the same on 24.05.2020 at 6.00 P.M. Then LW.4-Head constable left the place along with the arrested accused and seized property and reached the police station and registered a case in Cr.No.94/2020 U/sec.188 IPC and

Sec.51(b) of Disaster Management Act,2005 and Sec.7(A) r/w 8(E) of

A.P.Prohibition Act of Nallamada P.S., on 24.05.2020 on the strength of police proceedings and submitted copies of F.I.Rs to all concerned officers and took up investigation. On 24.05.2020 LW.4-Head Constable had served notice to the accused U/s.41(A) Cr.P.C and forwarded the seized sample of

I.D arrack to the Govt. Chemical Examiner, for Prohibition and Excise

Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor, (A.P) for chemical analysis and report along with letter of advice, on that the examiner concerned analyzed the same and opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and issued analysis report accordingly. Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance is taken against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents furnished him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Thereafter the accused was examined under section 239 of

Cr.P.C. for which the accused denied the same. After hearing the both sides and on perusal of record, charge under Section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

3

Prohibition Act have been framed against accused. The same were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution in support of its case, has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1 and on behalf of accused, none were examined and no exhibits were marked.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

Under Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material available in the evidence of witnesses adduced by prosecution, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the prosecution has established the guilty of the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) r/w

8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt or

not?

10. POINT:-

P.W.1/R.Ramanjineyulu, the then Constable, Nallamada Police

Station deposed that on 24.05.2020 at about 4.00 p.m., while he was in police station, the C.I. of police got information about illicit arrack and informed the same to LW.4. Then he along with LW.1, 2 and 4 and other staff went to Subbrayanapalli village outskirts in a police jeep bearing

No.AP09 P 3743 and reached by 5.00 p.m. There they found a male person with a bike bearing No.AP02 BB 7650 by holding a white can and on seeing them, he tried to skulk away but they caught hold the accused. LW.4 enquired the accused. On enquiry, he revealed the identity particulars and

LW.4 verified the white plastic can which contains 2 liters of ID arrack and

LW.4 drawn 180 ml from the contraband for chemical analysis. LW.4 4 arrested the accused and seized the contraband under the police proceedings on dictation, one K.Manohar, Contable typed the proceedings and seized the vehicle. In the cross-examination P.W.1admitted that one

K.Manohar not signed in the police proceedings and also he is not cited as witness.Subbarayanapalli is adjacent to Muthyalacheruvu village.

Muthyalacheruvu village is a big village and it is a revenue village. He further admitted that they did not serve any notice to the revenue officials and local inhabitants in the said village. He was present at the time of drafting police proceedings and he know the contents. The source of the contraband is not mentioned in the police proceedings. They did not taken photographs of scene of offence and accused. The C.I. of police did not give any documentary order to conduct ride.

11. P.W.2/C.Jagadeesh Babu, the then Head Constable, Nallamada

Police Station deposed that on 24.05.2020 at about 5.00 p.m., on the instructions of C.I. of police he along with P.W.1, LW.1, 2 and other staff went to Muthyalamma Temple near Subbrayanapalli village in a police jeep bearing No.AP-9-P-3743 there they found one male person along with the bike by holding plastic can, on seeing them, he tried to skulk away but they caught hold the said person. He enquired the said person and eh voluntarily revealed his identity particulars and other details and confessed that the can contains ID arrack and revealed that he purchased ID arrack in Kadiri from unknown person and selling the same in the village. Then, he verified the said can and found 2 liters of ID arrack. He drawn 180 ml sample for chemical analysis and due to Covid-19 no one came forward to act as mediators. Then he prepared police proceedings at the scene of offence.

Ex.P.1 is the police proceedings. Basing on Ex.P.1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.94/2020 U/sec.188 of IPC and 51(b) of D.M.Act and Sec.7(a) r/w 8€ of A.P.P Act. Ex.P.2 is the first information report. In the cross-examination

P.W.2 stated that the temple was situated on the bank of Muthyalacheruvu.

Muthyalacheruvu comes under the Kadiri Rural Mandal. One has to cross the Muthyalacheruvu to reach the scene of offence. They did not taken 5 photographs of the scene of offence. Except himself no police staff signed in the Ex.P.1. They did not gave any intimation to the revenue officials in the village.

12. P.W.3/A.Sharath Chandra, the then Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nallamada Police Station deposed in his chief examination that on 10.09.2020 he received C.D file from P.W.2 for further investigation in this case. He received chemical analysis report. Ex.P.3 is the chemical analysis report. M.O.1 is the sample bottle. After completion of his investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

13. The case of the prosecution and the evidence of P.W.1/LW.3-

Constable, P.W.2/LW.4-Head Constable and P.W.3/LW.5-Sub-Inspector of

Police is that on the instructions of C.I. of Police on 24.5.2020 P.W.2 along with his staff went to Muthyalamma Temple near Subbrayanapalli village in a police jeep bearing No.AP-9-P-3743 there they found accused along with the bike by holding plastic can, on seeing them, he tried to skulk away but they caught hold the accused. P.W.2 enquired the accused and he voluntarily revealed his identity particulars and other details and confessed that the can contains ID arrack and revealed that he purchased ID arrack in Kadiri from unknown person and selling the same in the village. Then,

P.W.2 verified the said can and found 2 liters of ID arrack. P.W.2 drawn 180 ml sample for chemical analysis and due to Covid-19 no one came forward to act as mediators. Then P.W.2 prepared police proceedings at the scene of offence. Ex.P.1 is the police proceedings. Basing on Ex.P.1, P.W.2 registered a case in Cr.No.94/2020 U/sec.188 of IPC and 51(b) of D.M.Act and Sec.7(a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P Act. Ex.P.2 is the first information report.

P.W.3 received the C.D file from P.W.2 for further investigation and also received chemical analysis report. Ex.P.3 is the chemical analysis report.

M.O.1 is the sample bottle. After completion of his investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

14. On perusing the evidence of the prosecution all the witnesses are Police officials, who detected the crime and arrested the accused. On 6 perusing the evidence of the prosecution, this Court found that the date of offence was the Covid period. Further, the evidence disclosed that the time of the offence was at about 5.00 p.m., and at the time of seizing the contraband, P.W.2 does not secure the independent mediators. Generally, in the Covid period public movements were strictly prohibited, hence, the burden is heavy on the prosecution to prove that accused possessed the contraband. Even though, it was the Covid period, the Government Medical

Servants and the Revenue Servants were deployed to render their services.

But, P.W.2 does not secure them as mediators to prove the seizure before this Court beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this Court not inclined to conclude that the prosecution proved the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. Accordingly, this Court found that the prosecution not able to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt against Accused for the offence

Under Section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

16. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under

Section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act and he is accordingly, acquitted

Under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C for a period of six months.

M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- K.Rakesh

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttaparthy.

FAC/Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

7

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution : For Defence :

P.W.1: R.Ramanjineyulu, Police Constable-3625, - None - Nallamada P.S. P.W.2: C.Jagadeesh Babu, Head Constable-2246, Nallamada P.S. P.W.3: A.Sharath Chandra, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallamada P.S.

Documents marked for Prosecution

Ex.P.1 24.05.2020Police proceedings.

Ex.P.2 24.05.2020First information report in Cr.No.94/2020 of Nallamada Town Police Station.

Ex.P.3 01.07.2020Chemical analysis report.

Documents marked for Defence

-NIL-

M.Os. MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.O.1 : Sample bottle.

M.Os. MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

Id/- K.R.H.

J.M.F.C/PTP.

FAC/A.J.M.F.C/KDR.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District:: ANANTHAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri

Date of

Date of Report of Apprehen- Released Commence- Close Sentence of Offence Complaint sion of Accused on bail ment of trial of trial order 24.05.2020 24.05.2020 24.05.2020 41(A)Cr.P.C 14.02.2023 30.12.2024 10.02.2025 notice 24.05.2020

Judgment in C.C.No.685/2020 on the file of Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri.

Complainant :: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallamada Police Station.

Cr.No. and P.S. :: 94/2020 of Nallamada Police Station.

AgeReligionResidenceMandal Name of the Father’s (or) Accused Husband’s Name

HinduKadiri Mude Ravi 35 Mude Tholche Allipur Thanda village Naik yrs Naik

Offence:- U/Sec.7(a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

Finding:- Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence:- In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and he is accordingly, acquitted Under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C for a period of six months. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Explanation This case was taken on file and copies of documents were furnished to the for delay & accused and he was examined Under section 239 of Cr.P.C and posted for Remarks, if trial. On 14.02.2023 the trial of the case was commenced and the any:- prosecution evidence was closed on 30.12.2024 and posted for 313 Cr.P.C examination. On 16.01.2025 Accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and 9 posted for arguments. On 03.02.2025 heard the arguments on both sides and posted for judgment. On 10.02.2025 judgment was delivered. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- K.Rakesh

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttaparthy.

FAC. Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri.