1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
KOILAKUNTLA
Present:- Sri.K.Rakesh
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banaganapalle.
FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilakuntla.
Friday the 19th day of March, 2021.
C.C.No.1/2021
State: Represented by
The Sub-Inspector of Police Koilakuntla P.S...… Complainant. -Vs-
Allampuri Nagaraju @ Mangali Jambi Nagaraju @ Dubbodu @ M.Rajesh, age 40 years, s/o.late Subbarayudu, Native of Somayajulapalli Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District.
R/o.H.No.8-3-353, Yella Reddy guda, Ameerpeta, Hyderabad City.
.… Accused.
This case is coming on 5-3-2021 in the presence of Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri.C.Nagaseshu, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and after having stood over for consideration till today, this
Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koilakuntla P.S., filed charge sheet in
Crime No.207/2020 for the offences u/s.457, 380 IPC against the accused.
2. The brief facts of case are that: The defacto complainant-Mudimela
Srinivasa Reddy is the owner of Pavan Honda Showroom, Auto Nagar,
Koilakuntla Town. On the night of 17-10-2020 at 9-00 p.m. to 18-10-2020 at 9-00 a.m., in Pavan Honda Showroom, unknown offenders entered into the
Honda Showroom of the defacto complainant, by removing the iron sheet
roof, broken the POP of the Showroom and broken the lock of the office room door and committed theft of cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and CC camera box. The total property loss worth about Rs.2,05,000/- and went away with booty. On 18-10-2020 at 11-00 a.m., basing on the written report of defacto complainant, the case was registered as Crime No.207/2020 u/s.457,380 IPC and LW-9-S.I. of Police, Koilakuntla P.S., investigated the case.
3.During the course of investigation, on 18-10-2020, LW-9-S.I. examined the LWs-1 to 4-M.Srinivasa Reddy, M.Venkata Subba Reddy, G.Avinash Reddy,
M.Jangam Reddy and recorded their statements u/s.161(3) Cr.P.C. and on 19- 10-2020, LW-9 examined LW-5-B.Ravi Teja and recorded the 161 (3) Cr.P.C.
statement and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 9-11-2020 2 at 2-30 p.m., the Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the accused at Kasireddy
Nayana Asramam, Nandyal road, outskirts of Koilakuntla Town and seized cash of Rs.53,000/- and one Hard Disc from the possession of accused under cover of Confession, arrest and seizure Panchanama dt:9-11-2020 and the accused admitted the committing the offence in various police station limits i.e. Cr.No.130/2019 u/s.457, 380 IPC in Shankarpalli P.S., Cr.No.161/2019 u/s.379 IPC in Dhone Town P.S., Cr.No.223/2019 u/s.457,380 IPC in Panyam
P.S., Cr.No.207/2019 u/s.457, 380 IPC in Nellore 6th Town P.S., Cr.No.360/2019 and 362/2019 u/s.457, 380 IPC in Nandyal Taluka P.S., Cr.No.19/2020 u/s.457, 380 IPC in Nandyal I Town P.S., Cr.No.73/2020 u/s.420,408 IPC in Kurnool II
Town P.S., Cr.No.661/2020 u/s.457, 380 IPC in Gooty P.S., and all the stolen property, the accused used for his expenses and bad habits i.e. drinking alcohol, playing matka and gambling. The accused shown the hard disk which was thrown by him after committing the offence. LW-10-S.I. seized one hard disc at the scene of offence under cover of Panchanama dt:9-11- 2020. The cash of Rs.53,000/- and one Hard disc are the remaining stolen property in this case. The accused was produced before the Judicial
Magistrate of I Class, Koilakuntla, for remand. After completion of
investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused.
4. Considering the material on record, this Court took cognizance of offence u/s.457, 380 IPC against the accused.
5. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to accused as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C.
6. Accused was examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. Charges u/ss.457,380, 411 IPC have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu language for which he denied the same as pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and MOs-1 and 2.
8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused had been called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as contemplated u/s.313 Cr.P.C., for which the accused denied the same and reported no defense evidence.
9.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.
10. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the prosecution has made out the guilt against the accused for the offences u/s.457,380, 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
POINT:
3 [a] To establish its case, the Prosecution examined the De-facto complainant as PW-1 and PWs-2 to 6, Panch witnesses as PWs-7 and 8,
Investigating Officers as PW-9 and PW-10 and the Finger Print Expert as PW- 11 by allowing Crl.M.P.No.33/2021 dt:18-2-2021 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P8 and MOs-1 and 2.
[b] Heard both sides, perused the evidence of PWs-1 to 11, Exs.P1 to
P8 and MOs-1 and 2 and other material available on record.
11.The evidence of PW-1 is that on 17-10-2020 at about 9-00 p.m., himself, other workers shutdown the Honda Showroom, locked it and went away to houses. On 18-10-2020 at about 9-00 a.m., himself, LW-3-Avinash
Reddy, LW-4-Jangam Reddy opened the Honda Showroom and found that showroom office cabin was brokened and damaged and also found that the ceiling POP in showroom hall was broken and also that the iron sheets which were on the top of Showroom were broken and removed. At the time of closing of shop on 17-10-2020, they kept Rs.2,00,000/- in cash box of cabin of Showroom. They also found that the cash box was broken and
Rs.2,00,000/- was stolen and the hard disk used for the C.C. cameras was also taken away by some one. Immediately he lodged report to Koilakuntla
P.S. Ex.P1 is report given by him.
12. During cross examination, PW-1 admitted that he mentioned in his report that Rs.2 Lakhs was stolen, but he do not mention its denomination in his report. He do not furnish to the Police any transaction details of money i.e. selling of Vehicles on 17-10-2020, as they do not asked the said details from him and apart from the Honda showroom they have Pavan Television agency. PW-1 admitted that the price of hard disk was Rs.5,000/-, but he do not furnished the purchasing details of the Hard disk to the police. LWs-2 to 4 are his relatives.
13. The evidence of PW-2 is that on 18-10-2020, he received call from
PW1 about the theft occurred in Honda show room around 10-30 to 11-00.
Immediately he went to Showroom, witnessed that the ceiling and the iron sheets of the showroom were broken and also cash box was broken and hard disk of the CC cameras was also committed theft by unknown persons. He know the information from PW-1 that Rs.2.00.000/- was stolen from the Cash box. Himself and PW1 went to Police station and lodged the report. He scribed the report Ex.P1 as per the dictation of PW-1.
14. During cross examination, PW-2 admitted that he scribed the report
Ex.P1 as per the instructions of brother-PW-1.
4
15. The evidence of PW-3 is that on 17-10-2020 at about 2-30 p.m., while himself and LW4 were present in showroom, the accused came to show room and asked him and LW4 about the price of the motor cycle of HONDA
SHINE. Himself and LW-4 talked with accused and informed the price details of the bike. The accused told that he will come on next day to purchase the vehicle and went away. On 17-10-2020, they shut down the Honda show room at about 9-00 p.m. On the next day morning, himself and PW1 came to
Show room, opened the show room at about 9-00 a.m. and entered into showroom and witnessed that the POP ceiling and Iron sheets of showroom were broken and the cash box was broken and Rs.2,00,000/- cash which was placed in cash box was taken away by unknown persons. He witnessed that, the hard disk of CC Cameras were also taken away by the unknown person and the same was reported to the Police on the same day.
16. During cross examination, PW-3 admitted that he do not know the accused previously. He saw the accused in his show room on 17-10-2020 and denied that he know the details of accused. PW-3 adds that some conversation took place between himself and accused in the show room about the purchasing of the bike on that conversation accused states that to him as that his name is Mangali Rajesh and he deposed the same to the
Police at the time of examination.
17. The evidence of PW-4 is that on 17-10-2020 at about 2-30 p.m., the accused came to Show room and enquired with the show room workers about the rate of motor cycle price. The accused came to him to office cabin and asked about the one time settlement amount of bike. On that conversation he know the accused. After he informed the final rate of the bike to accused, he told that he will come next day to purchase the vehicle.
On 18-10-2020, when they opened the show room at about 9-30 a.m., he witnessed that the POP ceiling and the iron sheets of show room were broken and he noticed that the cash box was also broken and Rs.2,00,000/- in cash box were stolen away and Hard disk of CC Cameras was also taken away by unknown persons. PW-1 lodged a report to Koilakuntla P.S.
18.During cross examination, PW-4 states that he know the accused in the open Court. Because, there is conversation between himself and the accused about the fixation of bike price as the Accused asked for one time settlement, hence he remembered him. PW-4 adds that no one generally the buyers asked the details regarding the net cash or loan facilities, but not one time settlement as asked by accused. Hence because of that conversation, he know the Accused well. PW-4 denied that he saw the accused except today in the open Court not prior to it. PW-4 adds that he know accused on 17-10-2020 in their show room.
5
19. The evidence of PW-5 is that he saw the accused in his TVS showroom at Koilakuntla on 17-10-2020 at about 2-15 p.m. The accused came to TVS
Showroom and asked him about the Apache Bike price for purchase. He explained the cost of Apache Bike to accused. The accused asked him that he can purchase the bike by paying the net cash and asked for discount. He told him that he will certainly give discount on paying the net cash. The accused told him that he will come again to purchase the bike and went away from the showroom. The accused told him that his name as Rajesh and he is working at Allagadda.
20. During cross examination, PW-5 denied that he stated to police that he gave the bike to accused for Rs.1,27,000/- under discount. He is working as
Sales Executive in the TVS Showroom. He submitted to Police a xerox copy about the details of the buyers who visit to their showroom on 17-10-2020.
21. The evidence of PW-6 is that he remember one person came to their
Honda Showroom on 17-10-2020 by wearing a Cap and Lungi (Adda Pancha)
and enquired about the vehicles. As a Service Advisor, he interacted with him and suggested him to go to Owners of the Showroom i.e. PW-3 and PW-4 who are present in the Cash counter in Showroom, but he do not exactly state that the said person who met him at his Showroom and the accused who is present in open Court is one and the same as he met several persons on that day. On 18-10-2020 he know the crime through the Owners of
Showroom and went to the Showroom.
22. During cross examination, PW-6 states that he do not remember the person who came to showroom on 17-10-2020 and he do not confirmly states that the said person is the same accused person present in the open
Court. PW-6 denied that he do not remember the name of person who approached their showroom on 17-10-2020. PW-6 adds that the said person stated his name as Rajesh and he belongs to Allagadda.
23. The evidence of PW-7 is that she know LW-8 by name Bandela
Obulesu. She know him at the time of Panchanama on 9-11-2020. She know the accused, seen the accused at the time of conducting arrest- Confession-
Seizure Panchanama under Two Panchanamas. On 9-11-2020 at about 12- 30 p.m., Police approached and asked her to act as Panchayatdar. She accepted and went with them to Kasireddy Nayana Ashramam. She witnessed the seizure of Cash of Rs.53,000/- from the possession of accused by police at the time of seizure, herself and LW-8-Bandela Obulesu were present. In her presence and in presence of LW-8 the accused gave his confession statement. Then police arrested the accused. Herself and LW-8 6 signed on the first panchanama and also signed in the slip affixed to the seized cash. Ex.P2 is Panchanama dt:9-11-2020 at about 12-30 p.m. On confronting the cash of Rs.53,000/- to witness, the witness identifies the cash as it is the cash seized by the police from the possession of accused at the time of seizure panchanama and also witness recognized her signature in slip affixed which was attached to the cash bundle. She also participated in seizure panchanama at about 3-15 p.m., at Honda Showrooom, on the same day 9-11-2020. In her presence, Police recovered the Hard Disk from the
Water Tank of Honda Showroom building. The Police prepared Panchanama.
Herself signed in the 2nd Panchanama at about 3-30 p.m., at Honda
Showroom. Ex.P3 is second Panchanama. At the time of attestation in the 2nd panchanama, herself, LW-8, accused and the Police Officials were present.
24. During cross examination, PW-7 denied that she never went to
Kasireddy Nayana Ashram and to Honda Showroom and she never acted as
Panchayatdar and she do not know the accused who is present in the open
Court. PW-7 denied that she saw the accused today only in open Court and she do not saw him previously. PW-7 adds that she saw the accused and in her presence the accused stated that his name and different names at the time of Panchanamas.
25. The evidence of PW-8 is that he know PW-7. He know the accused. On 9-11-2020 with the request of Police, he went to Kasireddy Nayana Ashram at Nandyal Road and noticed that Police was conducting a checking regarding a theft crime. In his presence and PW-7, police recovered
Rs.53,000/- from the possession of accused and seized the same. On confronting the cash of Rs.53,000/-, the witness recognized as that it is the amount seized by police from the accused, in his presence. In his presence, the accused also confessed about the one hard disk regarding this crime.
Ex.P4 is his signature in Panchanama. Himself, PW-7, police along with the accused, went to Honda showroom at about 3-00 to 3-15 p.m., on the same day. At Showroom, in his presence and PW-7, the police recovered the one hard disk from the water tank of Honda Showroom. He also signed in the 2nd
Panchanama. Ex.P5 is the signature of PW-8 in the 2nd panchanama.
26. During cross examination, PW-8 states that he reached the Kasireddy
Nayana Ashramam with the request of Police constable and with him on a bike. He reached the Kasireddy Nayana Ashram at about 12-30 p.m. PW-8 adds that when they reached the Kasireddy Nayana Ashramam, already police officials and accused were present. PW-8 denied that he saw the accused only today in open Court and he do not saw the accused prevously.
PW-8 adds that he saw the accused at the time of Panchanama. He do not remember the exact denomination of seized Rs.53,000/- amount.
7
27. The evidence of PW-9 is that on 18-10-2020 at about 11-00 a.m., he received a report from PW-1 and registered the crime no.207/2020 u/s.457,380 IPC of Koilakuntla P.S. Ex.P6 is F.I.R. After receiving the report,
Ex.P1, he examined PW-1 and PW-2 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C.
statements on the same day. He reached the scene of offence along with
PW-1 and drafted the rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P7 is rough sketch. At the scene of offence, he examined the PW-3 and 4 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements. He sent the requisition to higher authorities for
Clues Team and on the same day, Clues Team visited the scene of offence and collected the chance prints from the scene of offence. On 19-10-2020 he visited the TVS Showroom there he examined PW-5 and recorded his 161
Cr.P.C. statement. He visited the Honda Showroom and recorded the 161
Cr.P.C.statement of PW-6. On 19-10-2020, he received Radio message from the Inspector of Police, Finger Print unit, Kurnool, vide Cno.103/ V/SOC/
FPU/KNL/2020 dt:19-10-2020. He handed over the case diary to LW-10 for further investigation.
28. During cross examination, PW-9 admitted that they did not receive any documentary details regarding the pending crimes against the accused which was mentioned in the Seizure-cum-Confession Panchanama. Since he do not file the charge sheet to the Court, hence he do not know whether the finger prints report vide C.no.103/ V/SOC/ FPU/KNL/2020 dt:19-10-2020 along with charge sheet by his successor in the investigation.
29.The evidence of PW-10 is that she know the accused. She conducted further investigation in this case after PW-9. On 9-11-2020 at about 11-45 a.m., she received credible information about the presence of accused. She secured the presence of Panch witnesses-PW-7 and 8 through the Police
Constables. They proceeded to Kasireddy Nayana Ashramam which is situated at Koilakuntla-Nandyal road and on seeing them, the accused tried to skulk away. They sorrounded and detained him and enquired him in the presence of PW-7 and 8, on that enquiry, the accused states his name as
Allampuri Nagaraju @ Mangali Nagaraju @ Mangali Jambi Nagaraju @
Dubbodu @ M.Rajesh, aged 40 years, s/o.late Subbarayudu
R/o.Somayajulapalli Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District and stated that previously he lived in Yellareddy Guda at Hyderabad. On questioning the accused about trying to skulk away, the accused confessed that he committed theft in several places at Dhone, Panyam, Nellore,
Nandyal, Kurnool Town and further confessed that on 17-10-2020 at about 2-15 p.m., he visited the TVS Showroom at Koilakuntla, and known the details of Apache Bike price and states to Person in Showroom that he will 8 pay the entire price of bike in cash and give his details in tTVS Showroom.
The accused confessed that on the same day after the visit of TVS
Showroom, he reached the Honda Showroom at RTC Bus Stand in Koilakuntla and met the workers in the showroom and known the details of bikes and went away. On the same day mid-night the accused entered into the showroom by opening the iron sheets of the Honda Showroom and broken the POP and broken the cash box and took away Rs.2,00,000/- from cash box. The accused further confessed that before went away with
Rs.2,00,000/-, he took the hard disk in Showroom and drop the hard disk into the water tank of Honda Showroom. She asked about Rs.2,00,000/- cash, for that the accused answered her that he spent the said amount for bad vices and Rs.53,000/- was remained out of Rs.2,00,000/-. The accused shown
Rs.53,000/- from his pocket in the presence of PWs-7 and 8. The same was seized by her under confession-cum-Arrest-Seizure Panchanama in the presence of PWs-7 and 8. MO-1 is Rs.53,000/- of cash seized under first
Panmchanama dt:9-11-2020 at 12-30 p.m. After that on questioning the hard disk, the accused confessed that he will show the hard disk, where he dropped it. They proceeded to Honda Showroom along with Panchayatdars, accused and Police constables. When they reached the Honda Showroom, the accused shown the place where the hard disk was dropped. On his confession statement, she recovered the hard disk from the water tank of
Honda Showroom. MO-2 is hard disk and recovered the said hard disk under
cover of 2nd Panchanama in the presence of Panch witness-PWs-7 and 8 dt:9- 11-2020 at 3-15 p.m. They arrested the accused and sent to the judicial custody on 9-11-2020. She verified the investigation of her predecessor and found it is in correct lines. They received the Finger Prints report from the
Finger Print Unit, C.I.D., Kurnool, through Radio message. But she do not secure its original and filed along with charge sheet. She do not send the hard disk to the FSL. Without filing the finger print report, she filed charge sheet into Court.
30. During cross examination, PW-10 denied that she do not record the exact situation of Kasiredy Nayana Ashram. PW-10 adds that the said Kasi
Reddy Nayana Ashramamwas situated at Koilakuntla-Nandyal road. PW-10 admitted that Panchanama did not disclose the denomination of seized MO-1 -Cash Rs.53,000/-. They started the 1st Panchanama at 12-30 p.m. and completed it at 2-45 p.m and 2nd Panchamama at 3-15 p.m. and completed it at 4-00 p.m
31. The evidence of PW-11 is that he received phone call SHO of
Koilakuntla P.S. on 18-10-2020 requesting to visiting the scene of offence in concerned Cr.No.207/2020 for the offence u/s.457, 380 IPC. He visited the 9 scene of offence along with his team on 18-10-2020 at 1-00 p.m. He examined the scene of offence which was occurred at Pavan Honda
Showroom. For collection of chance prints at scene of offence, he examined the scene of offence, developed and collected four chance prints from the scene of offence and marked as “A, B, P1 & P2”. He reached his office at
Kurnool and at his office he examined the clarity of four chance prints and found that the chance prints ‘A, B’ are unfit for comparison because they are wanting in clear ridge characteristics for the purpose of establishing identity.
The remaining chance prints ‘P1 & P2’ have been compared with finger prints records data base of State Fingerprint Bureau CID, Mangalagiri, A.P., and found that the chance prints marked ‘P2’ has found identified with the left hand palm print portion on the fingerprint slip of Ex-convict in
Cr.No.160/2000 in C.C.No.1630/2000 for the offences u/s.380 IPC of Nandyal I
Town P.S. on the file of JMFC, Nandyal, by name Mangali Jambi Nagaraju @
Allampuri Nagaraju, S/o. Mangali Subbarayudu, R/o.Somayajulapalle Village,
Bandi Atmakur(M). The said accused was convicted by the Hon’ble JMFC,
Nandyal in the C.C. 1630/2000 for a period of Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 months. Accordingly, the above information regarding the examination of fingerprints was intimated to the SHO, Koilakuntla P.S. through the Radio
Message in C.No.103/V/SOC /FPU/KNL/2020, Dt:19-10-2020. He examined the finger prints and compared them with the finger prints records data base of
State Fingerprint Bureau, CID, Mangalagiri, A.P, through online by using
PAPILON-AFIS software. Their Bureau collect the fingerprints of previous convicted persons and their crime records and preserve the data.
Accordingly, he issued the Identification report to SHO, Koilakuntla on 20-10- 2020. Ex.P8 is Identification report.
32. During cross examination, PW-11 admitted that he do not secure the thumb impressions from the accused at scene of offence on 18.10.2020. He do not secure the thumb impressions from the hard disk. PW-11 adds that he do not examined the hard disk and secured the finger prints from the hard disk. PW-11 denied that the finger prints did not tallied with the left hand palm print portion of accused who is involved in C.C.1630/2000 on the file of
JMFC, Nandyal.
33. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of
PWs-1 to 6 coupled with the evidence of PWs-7 and 8-Panchayatdars, supported with the evidence of PWs-9 to 11-Investigating Officers and Finger
Print Expert, and Exhibits P1 to P8 and MOs-1 and 2, clearly established the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged against the accused and hence the accused is liable for conviction.
10
34. The Legal Aid Counsel for the accused argued that a false case is foisted against the accused for statistical purpose, that no certified copies of conviction Judgment of accused, are filed before this Court to prove that the accused also involved in other similar cases, that PW-11 did not secure the thumb impressions of accused and also at the scene of offence on 18-10- 2020, PW-11 did not secure the thumb impressions from the hard disk-MO2 and finger prints from the hard disk, that the finger prints of accused did not tallied with the left hand palm print portion of accused involved in
C.C.1630/2000 on the file of JMFC, Nandyal and that the Prosecution has failed to prove the offences alleged against the accused and prays for acquittal of accused.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:-
35. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.P1-report shows that he is the owner of the Pavan Honda Showroom of Koilakuntla and on 17-10-2020 at about 9-00 p.m., he shut down the Honda Showroom and locked it and the evidence of PW-1 coupled with PW-3 and PW-4 shows that on 18-10-2020 at about 9-00 a.m., they opened the Honda Showroom and found that the cabin was broken and further found that the POP ceiling and iron sheets are also broken. Further, PW-1 found that Rs.2,00,000/- cash which was placed by him in cash box of showroom cabin and also hard disk was taken away by some unknown persons. Immediately by knowing this, PW-1 lodged the report to
PW-9 and in turn PW-9 registered the crime and examined PWs-1 to 5. The said report was scribed by PW-2 who is brother of PW-1. This evidence of
PWs-1 to 4 and 6 shows that that the theft was occurred in between 9-00 p.m. on 17-10-2020 to 9-00 a.m. on 18-10-2020 and some unknown persons committed theft of Rs.2,00,000/- from the cash box which was kept in the cabin, by way of breaking the cabin doors. The said unknown persons entered into the Showroom cabin through the broke opening of iron sheets,
POP and stolen Rs.2,00,000/- which was kept in the cabin box. Further, after that he also took away the hard disc of the C.C. cameras. PW-1 admitted that he did not file any transaction details of selling of vehicles on 17-10-2020, which the question posed by the learned legal aid counsel for the accused, regarding to disprove that Rs.2,00,000/- cash not placed in showroom. To this regard, as the bike Showroom transactions are huge in nature, hence it is not required to the prosecution to produce the same and in general
Rs.2,00,000/- amount is capable of the Showroom owners to withhold the amount in their hands in their day to day business transactions. Hence, this
Court believe that PW-1 put Rs.2,00,000/- in the cash box of the cabin of
Showroom on 17-10-2020 and locked the showroom and said Rs.2,00,000/- cash was stolen by some unknown persons.
11
36. As already discussed supra, since the crime was occurred in between 17-10-2020 at 9-00 p.m. to 18-10-2020 at 9-00 a.m., at this juncture on perusing the Ex.P7-rough sketch, this Court found that the scene of offence is situated beside the main road in Koilakuntla Town and it is surrounded by different commercial buildings. If at all the offence is occurred in day light or at early morning on 18-10-2020 at 9-00 a.m., since the scene of offence is situated in a commercial and floating area of middle of the Town, the accused surely caught or directly evident by the nearest people of the scene of offence. it is improbable to the accused to commence the theft by way of broke opening the POP in between the early morning hours to 9-00 a.m.
Hence, this Court believe that the offence was occurred at night in between 17-10-2020 at 9-00 p.m. to before sun rise on 18-10-2020.
37.Further, the evidence of PW-9 is that after he visited the scene of offence on 19-10-2020, he informed the same to the Clues Team, after his intimation, PW-11 reached the scene of offence and collected the finger prints from the scene of offence and on the same day, 19-10-2020, PW-9 received the Radio message from the Inspector of Police, Finger Print unit,
Kurnool, vide Cno.103/V/SOC/ FPU/KNL/2020 dt:19-10-2020, the chance prints ‘P1 & P2’ have compared with finger prints records data base of State
Fingerprint Bureau CID, Mangalagiri, A.P., and found that the chance prints marked ‘P2’ has found identified with the left hand palm print portion on the fingerprint slip of Ex-convict by name Mangali Jambi Nagaraju @ Allampuri
Nagaraju, S/o. Mangali Subbarayudu, R/o. Somayajulapalle Village, Bandi
Atmakur(M), in Crime No.160/2000 in C.C.No.1630/2000 for the offence u/s.380 IPC of Nandyal I Town P.S. on the file of JMFC, Nandyal and sentenced for a period of 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment.
38. On allowing the Crl.M.P.No.33/2021 dt:18-2-2021, PW-11 who is
Expert of Finger Prints, evidence is adduced by the prosecution. The evidence of PW-11 is that he received phone call SHO of Koilakuntla P.S. on 18-10-2020 requesting to visiting the scene of offence in Cr.No.207/2020 for the offence u/s.457,380 IPC of Koilakuntla P.S. He visited the scene of offence along with Team on 18-10-2020 at 1-00 p.m., examined the scene of offence which was occurred at Pavan Honda Showroom. For collection of chance prints, he examined the scene of offence, developed and collected four chance prints, marked as “A, B, P1 & P2”. He reached the office at
Kurnool and examined the clarity of four chance prints and found that the chance prints ‘A, B’ are unfit for comparison because wanting in clear ridge characteristics for the purpose of establishing identity. The remaining chance prints ‘P1 & P2’ have been compared with finger prints records data base of
State Finger Print Bureau, CID, Mangalagiri, A.P., and found that the chance 12 prints marked ‘P2’ has found identified with left hand palm print portion on the finger print slip of Ex-convict by name Mangali Jambi Nagaraju @
Allampuri Nagaraju, s/o.Mangali Subbarayudu, R/o.Somayajulapalle Village,
Bandi Atmakur(M) in Cr.No.160/2000 for the offence u/s.380 IPC of Nandyal I
Town P.S. in C.C.No.1630/2000, on the file of JMFC, Nandyal.
39. At this juncture, the learned legal aid counsel for the accused contention is that PW-11 did not secure the thumb impressions from the accused. At this juncture, even though as per Ex.P8, the details of the accused who involved in Cr.No.160/2000 for the offence u/s.380 IPC of
Nandyal I Town P.S., was tallied by the Finger Print Expert, but except the evidence of PW-11 and his report-Ex.P8, no piece of certified copy of judgment in conviction of accused, furnished by the prosecution. Further, if at all the prosecution want to rely on the Finger Print Expert report, it is duty of PW-10-Investigating Officer, to secure the finger prints of accused either by him or through the Court and send the finger prints for comparison by PW-
11. But the Investigating Officer failed to secure the Finger prints of accused after his arrest. Even the accused is in prison from the date of his arrest to till today. It is a major failure of the prosecution with regarding to the utilizing the services of the State Finger Print Bureau, C.I.D., Mangalagiri, A.P., through PW-11. The reasons for non securing the finger prints of accused is known to PW-10 only. Hence, at this juncture, this Court did not incline to consider the evidence of PW-11.
40. However, if the chain of circumstantial evidence is established by the prosecution without the evidence of PW-11, it may useful to the prosecution.
In general circumstantial evidence plays crucial role in theft case.
41. As per the evidence of the PW-10-Investigating Officer, she recovered an amount of Rs.53,000/- (MO-1) from the accused which is the crime property remaining out of theft amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Honda
Showroom and also recovered the Hard Disc (MO-2) from the water tank of the Showroom under cover of Panchanama. The Panch witnesses–PW-7-
V.R.O. and PW-8-Panchayatdar recognized the accused in the open Court. In their evidence, categorically states that in their presence, the Police recovered and seized MO-1 at Kasireddy Nayana Ashramam and MO-2 at the
Honda Showroom. Hence, at this point recovery of MO-1 and MO-2 from the
accused is proved. Even though confession to the Police by the accused is not to be proved, but if the police recovered any crime property under such
Confession, that recovery may be proved. In this case, the police recovered the crime property MO-1 and MO-2 and the same is proved by PW-7, PW-8, who are the panch witness of the Two Seizure Panchanamas i.e. Ex.P2 and 13
P3. Since the recovery of crime property is proved by the prosecution.
Hence, as per Section 114 illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, if the person possess the property which is the subject matter of theft, the presumption is that he may be the thief or he received the goods knowing them to be stolen.
42.As per Ex.P1-report, Rs.2,00,000/- amount was stolen by unknown accused. In this case, MO-1- Rs.53,000/- of cash was seized by the police under Ex.P2-Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama and it is proved through the evidence of PW-7 and PW-8. Now the burden is upon the accused to prove that the Rs.53,000/- was not the crime property subject to theft. But the defense did not come forward to disprove this prosecution evidence by way of adducing the acceptable evidence that MO-1-Rs.53,000/- is belongs to accused, except denying the recovery of MO-1 in the examination under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the accused. Further, recovery of MO-1 and MO-2-Hard disc from the accused is relevant u/s.27 of
Indian Evidence Act and shows that accused acquainted with MO-2-hard disc.
43. The evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 are that they know the accused who is present in the open Court as that on 17-10-2020 when they are in the Honda
Showroom at about 2-30 p.m., the accused came to Showroom and enquired about the price details of the bike and after knowing the price of the bike, the accused went away by saying that he will come on next day to purchase the vehicle. Further, this Court observed in the evidence of PW-4 that the accused visited his cabin at the Showroom and enquired the bike price details as mentioned above. The evidence of PW-6, who is the Service
Advisor of the Showroom, did not recognize the accused. But his evidence is that one person with cap and wearing the lungi (addapancha) came to him on 17-10-2020 at Showroom and enquired the bike price for that he suggested him to approach the owner.
44. The evidence of PW-5, who is the worker of the T.V.S. Showroom is evident that on 17-10-2020 at 2-15 p.m., the accused approached him, enquired the price details of Apachi bike details and accused enquired about the one time net cash settlement for buying the bike and went away from the Showroom, that he will come again. Hence, the unshakable evidence of
PW-3 and PW-4 shows that the accused visited the scene of offence on 17-10-2020 after visiting the T.V.S. showroom.
45.As already discussed supra, the occurrence of the theft is proved under
Ex.P1 and the oral evidence of PWs-1 to 4 and the seizure and recovery of
MO-1- Rs.53,000/-, which is the portion of Rs.2,00,000/- and MO-2-Hard Disc 14 was proved. The evidence of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 evident that the accused visited the scene of offence i.e Honda Showroom and the other T.V.S.
Showroom on 17-10-2020. Further, as per the evidence of PW-4, accused visited him at cabin of the Showroom. Hence, the accused is acquainted with the cabin of the Showroom in which Rs.2,00,000/- cash was placed.
46.The conduct of the accused at T.V.S.showroom and the Honda
Showroom i.e. scene of offence which was evident by PW-4 and PW-5, as the accused inquired them about one time settlement and net cash payment and went away from the showrooms within a short time as the accused visited
T.V.S. showroom at around 2-15 p.m. and immediately visited the Honda
Showroom at around 2-30 p.m. on 17-10-2020, was also creates doubt on accused. In general if a person want to purchase a bike, he may enquired all the details of bike and ask the indent of bike, but not only the price. But here, accused asked the price of bike only and its one time settlement and net cash payment. This conduct of the accused is contrary to a conduct of common man, who really intend to purchase the bike. Further, there is no much days of gap in between the visiting the showroom by accused and the occurrence of the offence as on the same day in between 9-00 p.m. on 17- 10-2020 and before sunrise on 18-10-2020. Apart from the observation of this Court, as discussed above, the recovery–cum-seizure of MO-1 and MO-2, strengthen the circumstantial evidence of the prosecution case. Hence, this
Court believed that the accused in order to commit theft, firstly he visited
T.V.S. showroom and secondly, Honda showroom i.e. scene of offence, to know the probabilities of theft.
47. When this Court linked up the evidence of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 with the evidence of PW-7 and PW-8 and the recovery and seizure of MO-1 and
MO-2 under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3-recovery panchanamas, the chain of circumstantial evidence is linked up with each link as that the accused committed the theft of Rs.2,00,000/- cash at Honda Showroom in between 9- 00 p.m. on 17-10-2020 to before sunrise on 18-10-2020 by breaking the iron sheets and POP. Since the committing theft by accused is proved, hence, this
Court believe that to destroy the evidence, the accused thrown away the
MO-2-hard disc of the video footage into the water tank and the case of the prosecution is true.
48. In view of the evidence of PWs-1 to 6 corroborated with the evidence of PW-7 and 8, coupled with PW-9 to PW-11, supported by the documentary evidence under Exs.P1 to P8, the prosecution has established that the accused committed the offences u/s.457,380 IPC. Therefore, this Court is of 15 the opinion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence u/s.457,380 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.
49.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty for the offence u/s.457,380
IPC and is accordingly convicted u/s.248(2) Cr.P.C.
Partly prepared and partly dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 19 th day of March, 2021.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Banaganapalle. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class Koilakuntla.
50. Accused is produced through P.C.No.3371, 3521 of Koilakuntla P.S., from Sub-Jail Allagadda. The accused is appraised of the law under which he is convicted. The accused stated that he never committed any offence and therefore, prayed for taking lenient view in his case.
51. Looking to the age of accused and the nature of offence, this Court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, looking to the plea of the accused and nature of the offence involved in the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet by sentencing the accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for TWO YEARS and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for ONE MONTH for the offence punishable u/s.457 IPC and also to undergo Simple Imprisonment for TWO YEARS and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for ONE MONTH for the offence punishable u/s.380 IPC. (Total fine amount Rs.6,000/-). Both sentences of accused shall run concurrently. The default sentences of non-payment of fine i.e. Two Months in total, is in excess to the main sentences imposed. Further, on considering the loss occurred to PW-1’s showroom at the time of theft committed by accused, this Court ordered to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to PW-1 as compensation u/s.357 Cr.P.C., from the fine portion. The under trial detention of accused from 10-11-2020 to 19-3-2021 shall be set off from the substantive sentence of imprisonment u/s.428 Cr.P.C. MO-1-Rs.53,000/- cash given to PW-1 vide Crl.M.P. No.34/2021 dt:3-3-2021, is holds good after appeal time is over. MO-2-Hard disc is ordered to handover to PW-1, after appeal time is over. The accused is appraised of his right of appeal against the judgment of conviction and the accused stated that he is not having means to engage counsel before the appellate Court.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Banaganapalle. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class Koilakuntla.
16
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined
For prosecution: For Defence:
PW-1:M.Srinivasa Reddy Nil PW-2:M.Venkatasubba Reddy PW-3:G.Avinash Reddy PW-4: M.Jangam Reddy PW-5:B.Raviteja PW-6: P.Obulesu PW-7:D.Shafiya PW-8:B.Obulesu PW-9:P.Chandra Sekhar Reddy PW-10:S.Moulani PW-11:G.Anil Kumar Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: For Defence:
Ex.P1: Report of PW-1. Nil Ex.P2: Panchanama dt:9-11-2020 at 12-30 p.m. Ex.P3: Panchanama dt:9-11-2020 at 3-30 p.m. Ex.P4: Signature of PW-8 in Ex.P2 Ex.P5: Signature of PW-8 in Ex.P3 Ex.P6: F.I.R. Ex.P7: Rough sketch Ex.P8: Identification report dt:20-10-2020.
Material objects marked:
MO-1 - Rs.53,000/- cash MO-2 - Hard Disc.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Banaganapalle. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class Koilakuntla.
17
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOILAKUNTLA.
C.C.No.1/2021
1. Date of Offence: 17/18-10-2020
2. Date of Complaint or report: 18-10-2020
3. Date of remand of the accused : 10-11-2020
4. Date of release on bail : ----
5. Date of commencement of trial : 28-01-2021
6. Date of close of trial: 02-03-2021
7. Date of Sentence or Order : 19-03-2021
8. Explanation of delay if any : --
COMPLAINANT: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koilakuntla P.S. in Crime
No.207/2020.
Allampuri Nagaraju @ Mangali Jambi Nagaraju @ Dubbodu @
M.Rajesh, age 40 years, s/o.late Subbarayudu, Native of
AccusedSomayajulapalli Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool
District.
R/o.H.No.8-3-353, Yella Reddy guda, Ameerpeta, Hyderabad City. Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to Offence commit offence punishable with imprisonment, Theft in dwelling- house, etc.
Section of u/s.457,380 IPC law Finding of Accused is found guilty. Court 18
IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty for the offence u/s.457,380 IPC and is accordingly convicted u/s.248(2) Cr.P.C.
Accused is produced through P.C.No.3371, 3521 of Koilakuntla P.S., from Sub-Jail Allagadda. The accused is appraised of the law under which he is convicted. The accused stated that he never committed any offence and therefore, prayed for taking lenient view in his case.
Looking to the age of accused and the nature of offence, this
Court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act. However, looking to the plea of the accused and nature of the offence involved in the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet by sentencing the accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for TWO YEARS and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for Sentence / ONE MONTH for the offence punishable u/s.457 IPC and also to Order undergo Simple Imprisonment for TWO YEARS and to pay fine of
Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for ONE
MONTH for the offence punishable u/s.380 IPC. (Total fine amount
Rs.6,000/-). Both sentences of accused shall run concurrently. The default sentences of non-payment of fine i.e. Two Months in total, is in excess to the main sentences imposed. Further, on considering the loss occurred to PW-1’s showroom at the time of theft committed by accused, this Court ordered to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to PW-1 as compensation u/s.357 Cr.P.C., from the fine portion. The under trial detention of accused from 10-11- 2020 to 19-3-2021 shall be set off from the substantive sentence of imprisonment u/s.428 Cr.P.C. MO-1-Rs.53,000/- cash given to
PW-1 vide Crl.M.P. No.34/2021 dt:3-3-2021, is holds good after appeal time is over. MO-2-Hard disc is ordered to handover to PW- 1, after appeal time is over. The accused is appraised of his right of appeal against the judgment of conviction and the accused stated that he is not having means to engage counsel before the appellate Court.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Banaganapalle. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class Koilakuntla.
Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool, for information.