Smt K Sailaja

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE,HYDERABAD.

Present : Smt. K Sailaja, II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated Thursday the 27th day of July, 2015.

C.C.No.866/2013

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police,

Sultanbazar Police Station, Hyderabad ... Complainant

And

A.Ramakrishna Reddy S/o.Mogili Reddy, aged 38 years, Occ::RTC Driver, R/o. H.No.90/8-2-199,Peddaamberpet,Hayathnagar,

Hyderabad. ......Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 23-07-2015 in the presence of learned APP for the state and of Sri. PS.Bhoopal Raj – Counsel

for the accused/ and having stood over the matter for consideration till this

day, this court has delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The above named accused person is prosecuted for the offence

U/s.304(A) IPC.

2The case of the prosecution is that, on 3.6.2013 at about 19.30 hours

PW.1 came to P.S and lodged a complaint stating that his brother

Manikumar aged 23 yrs cotract employee in GHMC went to his duty in the morning and he received a phone call from his nephew stating that his brother met with accident at Koti bus stop and he was shifted to Osmania

Genera l Hospital. Immediately, he rushed to the said Hospital and found his brother died. Later, he came to know that the driver of the RTC bus bearing number AP.10 Z 6563 which came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to his brother due to which his brother fell down on the road and the tyres of the bus ran over and he died. Therefore, he requested to take necessary action. On receiving the complaint, the S.I of police registered a

Page No. 2CC No.866 of 2013 case in Cr.No. 121/2013 U/S 304(A) IPC and took up the investigation.

During the coure of investigation, he examined the defacto complainant, visited the scene of offence and drafted observation panchanama at the scene of offence along with rough sketch and thereafter, he secured the presence of independent eye witnesses, conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased, the accused was surrendered before him and he admitted his guilt. After receiving the Post Mortem Examinaion report and Motor Vehicle

Inspector's report, he filed charge sheet for the offence Under Section 304(A) IPC.

3The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable Under Section 304(A) IPC against the accused . On appearance of the accused copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated Under Section 207 of Cr.PC.

4The accused was examined Under Section 251 of Cr.PC for the allegations levelled against them for the offences punishable Under Section 304(A) IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5 To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to PW6 and go marked EX.P.1 to P.6.

6On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined u/sec 313 Cr.PC and was put all the incriminating material evidence appearing against him. He pleaded not guilty and adduced no evidence.

7Heard the arguments from both sides.

Page No. 3CC No.866 of 2013 8Now the point for determination is :

1.“Whether the accused drove his RTC bus in a rash and negligent manner and thereby dashed the deceased which resulted in causing his death” 2.Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/S 304(A) IPC?” 9The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. Out of whom PW.1 is the defacto complainant, PW.2 and PW3 are the eye witnesses. PW.4 is the pnch witness for the scene of offence panchanama,

PW.5 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and PW6 is the Investigating Officer. During their examination

Ex.P1 to P6 were marked.

10 I would like to discuss the evidence adduced by the prosecution as follows:

11The defacto complainant who is the brother of the deceased has stated that on 3.6.2013 at bout 19.30 hours, PW.1 came to Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that his brother Manikumar aged 23 yrs contract employee in GHMC went to his duty in the morning and he received a phone call from his nephew stating that his brother met with accident at Koti bus stop and he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital.

Immediately, he rushed to the said Hospital and found his brother died.

Later, he came to know that the driver of the RTC bus bearing number

AP.10 Z 6563 which came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to his brother due to which his brother fell down on the road and the tyres of the bus ran over and he died.

Page No. 4CC No.866 of 2013

But this witness is not a direct witness to the occurrence and he has only gave the complaint to the police vide EX.P.1.

12PW2 Narsing Rao has stated that on 3.6.2013 in between 4.30 p.m to 5.30 p.m, he went to Koti bus stand to board a bus to Dilsukhnagar and at that time he saw the bus was coming and ran over a person who was standing in front of him and crushed his head and he died on the spot.

According to him, the police examined and recorded his statement. He further deposed that he cannot identify the RTC bus driver. But according to him, the bus belongs to Hayathnagar bus depot. During his cross examination by the defence counsel he has stated before the police that he has studied 10th class and he does not have acquaintance with the deceased.

He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the bus stand on that day at that time and he was deposing falsely at the instance of the police.

13PW3 is the relative of the deceased Mani Kumar and she stated that she has received phone call on 3.6.2013 that Manikumar has met with accident and thereafter she informed same to the brother of Manikumar and gave him the number from which she got the call. Thereafter she came to know that the deceased Manikumar was died on the spot.

14PW4 is the witness to the scene of offence panchanama which was marked as EX.P.2.

15PW5 is the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and he found 4 antimortem injuries and the death occurred

Page No. 5CC No.866 of 2013 due to head injury and the head injury was crush injury.

16PW6 is the S.I of police has deposed that on 3.6.2013 at about 7.30 pm he received Telugu written complaint from PW.1 and he registered it as a case in Cr.No.121/2013 U/S 304(A) IPC and issued FIR in EX.P.4. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of

Pws.1 to 3 and Lws.3 and 4, visited the scene of offence, conducted observation panchanama in the presence of PW.4 and one Mohd.Nabi, thereafter, he visited OGH as the deceased was shifted to OGH mortury and he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of

B.Saikumar and Yadagiri. Then he gave requisition to medical officer to conduct PME over the dead body of the deceased and MVI to inspect the crime vehicle. EX.p5 is the Inquest panchanama, EX.P.6 is the MVI Report.

Except giving formal suggestions to the I.O, the defence side did not elicit favourable information exhonirating to the accused.

17The admitted and un disputed facts are that the death of the deceased Manikumar has occurred on 3.6.2013 at Koti bus stand and he was hit by the RTC bus bearing number AP.10 Z 6563 and he fell down and

RTC bus tyres ran over the head of the deceased and thereafter, he died.

The medical evidence adduced by PW5 along with PME report EX.P.3 substantiate the nature of death of the deceased. As far as the evidence adduced by the prosecution is concerned, except PW2 no direct witness was examined by the prosecution, though one R.Balaji shown as eye witness to the occurrence. S.Narasing/ PW2 in his evidence has stated that o n 3.6.2013 while he was at Koti bus stand a person who was standing in front of him was run over by the bus and his head got crushed and he died on

Page No. 6CC No.866 of 2013 the spot. The said witness further denied that he was the relative of the deceased at the same time, he had admitted that the police examined him and recorded his statement. Neither the prosecution nor the defence side tried to elicit the correct information from PW.2. During his 161 Cr.P.C statement recorded by the police, the witness has stated that:

“ On 3.6.2013 he went to meet his friend at Dilsukhnagar and therefore, he came to Koti Bus stand at 4.00 p.m and after completion of work at Dilsukhnagar at about 4.30 p.m at 5.00 p.m he came to Koti Dilsukhnagar bus stop there he saw his distinctive relative Manikumar at that time, he also saw him. He was standing on the flat form adjacent to Nallapochamma Temple and Manikumar was proceeding towards him one RTC bus bearig no.AP.10 Z 6563 came behind and hit Manikumar who was climbing the plat form and also it ran over his head and the bus tyre ran over his head. Immediately, he scared loudly and also the persons in the bus shouted as a result of which the bus was stopped then he went and saw and found that Manikumar died on the spot as the bus ran over his head resulting serious injuries to his head”.

18No doubt, the 161 Cr.P.C statements of witnesses can not be used during the trial except for contradiction U/S 145 of Evidence Act. But i the instant case, both the prosecution as well as the defence have undermined the importance of the evidence of PW2 who was alone the direct witness to the occurrence. The version deposed by the PW2 in his examination during his evidence in chief is quite contrary to at he has statedbeforethepolice.Somehowthedefence counsel suggested him that he was related to the deceased Manikumar, but the witness in replied negative. Then the witness has not accepted that he was related to the deceased person. Further more, the rough sketch clearly shows that the accident took place near the bus stop platform.

According to the case of prosecution, the deceased was coming from

Nallapochamma Temple towards SBI ATM. Thus, there are contrary

Page No. 7CC No.866 of 2013 versions adduced by the witness PW.2 as well as the police because, the witness PW2 has simply stated that the deceased was standing infront of him and the bus hit him as a result of which, he fell down. Mere standing infront of him, implies that the deceased was on the plat form . If for a moment h is version is believed then we have to presumed that the bus climbed by the platform and hit the deceased. If his version before the police is taken for consideration, the witness was boarded the platform on seeing the deceased and at that time the accident took place. Therefore, when the bus comes to the platform and some one suddenly interrupts its way there would be a collusion. To prove it's case, the prosecution has to prove that the accused driver of the bus drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. But in the present case, it was not the evidence of PW2 that the bus came in great speed and hit the deceased. Except the evidence of PW2, there is no other direct evidence who can depose about the rash and negligent driving of the accused. As per the well settled principles of law, the prosecution has to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt and the death of the deceased and the rash and negligent driving of the accused should be a proximate causes resulting in death of the deceased

Manikumar. The prosecution could have clearly elicited the rash and negligent driving of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

19In the instant case, there are contradictory versions as to how the deceased had met with the accident. In such circumstances, I would like to give the benefit of doubt to the accused.

20In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/S 304(A) IPC and the accused is acquitted U/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds

Page No. 8CC No.866 of 2013 of accused shall be cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Grade-I Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of

July, 2015.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence No. of witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence

PW1 : M.Raghavendra, complainant,Nil. PW2 :S.Narsimha, eye witness. PW3 :Smt.A.Aruna,circumstantial witness. PW4 :P.Ashok,inquest panch witness. PW5 :Dr.Abhijeet Subedhar,Conducted autopsy of the deceased. PW6 :V.Eswara Rao, S.I and I.O.

No. Of documents marked for

Prosecution Defence Ex.P1 : Complaint given by PW1.Nil Ex.P2 : Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P3 : PME report. EX.P4 : FIR. EX.P5 : Inquest panchanama. EX.P6 : MVI Report.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Page No. 9CC No.866 of 2013

FORM NO.71 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO: 866/2013

DATE OF OFFENCE : 3-6-2013

DATE OF REPORT OF COMPLAINT :3-6-2013

DATE OF APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : 3-6-2013

DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL : 3-6-2013

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 27-12-2013

DATE OF CLOSE OF TRIAL : 10-06-2015

DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER : 27.07.2015

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS : -

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT; The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Sultanbazar, Hyderabad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED: A.Ramakrishna Reddy.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 304(A) IPC.

FINDING Accused is found not guilty for the offence u/sec.304(A) IPC and he is acquitted U/sec 255 (1) Cr.PC

SENTENCE : Acquitted. TO THE HON'BLE II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD

DIS NO /II ACMM/HYD DATED 27-07-2015

CALENDER CASE NO: 866/2013 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03-7-2015

DATE OF DESPATCH DATE OF RECEIPT

01. DATE OF FILING CHARGE SHEET : 31-08-2013

02. DATE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE : 18-9-2013 03 . DATE OF FURNISHING COPIES TO ACCUSED : 06-11-2013 04 . DATE OF RECORDING PLEA OF ACCUSED : 27-12-2013

05. DATE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313 Cr.P.C. : 12-6-2015

II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 

HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE,HYDERABAD.

Present : Smt. K Sailaja, II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated Thursday the 27th day of July, 2015.

C.C.No.866/2013

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police,

Sultanbazar Police Station, Hyderabad ... Complainant

And

A.Ramakrishna Reddy S/o.Mogili Reddy, aged 38 years, Occ::RTC Driver, R/o. H.No.90/8-2-199,Peddaamberpet,Hayathnagar,

Hyderabad. ......Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 23-07-2015 in the presence of learned APP for the state and of Sri. PS.Bhoopal Raj – Counsel

for the accused/ and having stood over the matter for consideration till this

day, this court has delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The above named accused person is prosecuted for the offence

U/s.304(A) IPC.

2The case of the prosecution is that, on 3.6.2013 at about 19.30 hours

PW.1 came to P.S and lodged a complaint stating that his brother

Manikumar aged 23 yrs cotract employee in GHMC went to his duty in the morning and he received a phone call from his nephew stating that his brother met with accident at Koti bus stop and he was shifted to Osmania

Genera l Hospital. Immediately, he rushed to the said Hospital and found his brother died. Later, he came to know that the driver of the RTC bus bearing number AP.10 Z 6563 which came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to his brother due to which his brother fell down on the road and the tyres of the bus ran over and he died. Therefore, he requested to take necessary action. On receiving the complaint, the S.I of police registered a

Page No. 2CC No.866 of 2013 case in Cr.No. 121/2013 U/S 304(A) IPC and took up the investigation.

During the coure of investigation, he examined the defacto complainant, visited the scene of offence and drafted observation panchanama at the scene of offence along with rough sketch and thereafter, he secured the presence of independent eye witnesses, conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased, the accused was surrendered before him and he admitted his guilt. After receiving the Post Mortem Examinaion report and Motor Vehicle

Inspector's report, he filed charge sheet for the offence Under Section 304(A) IPC.

3The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable Under Section 304(A) IPC against the accused . On appearance of the accused copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated Under Section 207 of Cr.PC.

4The accused was examined Under Section 251 of Cr.PC for the allegations levelled against them for the offences punishable Under Section 304(A) IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5 To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to PW6 and go marked EX.P.1 to P.6.

6On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined u/sec 313 Cr.PC and was put all the incriminating material evidence appearing against him. He pleaded not guilty and adduced no evidence.

7Heard the arguments from both sides.

Page No. 3CC No.866 of 2013 8Now the point for determination is :

1.“Whether the accused drove his RTC bus in a rash and negligent manner and thereby dashed the deceased which resulted in causing his death” 2.Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/S 304(A) IPC?” 9The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. Out of whom PW.1 is the defacto complainant, PW.2 and PW3 are the eye witnesses. PW.4 is the pnch witness for the scene of offence panchanama,

PW.5 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and PW6 is the Investigating Officer. During their examination

Ex.P1 to P6 were marked.

10 I would like to discuss the evidence adduced by the prosecution as follows:

11The defacto complainant who is the brother of the deceased has stated that on 3.6.2013 at bout 19.30 hours, PW.1 came to Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that his brother Manikumar aged 23 yrs contract employee in GHMC went to his duty in the morning and he received a phone call from his nephew stating that his brother met with accident at Koti bus stop and he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital.

Immediately, he rushed to the said Hospital and found his brother died.

Later, he came to know that the driver of the RTC bus bearing number

AP.10 Z 6563 which came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to his brother due to which his brother fell down on the road and the tyres of the bus ran over and he died.

Page No. 4CC No.866 of 2013

But this witness is not a direct witness to the occurrence and he has only gave the complaint to the police vide EX.P.1.

12PW2 Narsing Rao has stated that on 3.6.2013 in between 4.30 p.m to 5.30 p.m, he went to Koti bus stand to board a bus to Dilsukhnagar and at that time he saw the bus was coming and ran over a person who was standing in front of him and crushed his head and he died on the spot.

According to him, the police examined and recorded his statement. He further deposed that he cannot identify the RTC bus driver. But according to him, the bus belongs to Hayathnagar bus depot. During his cross examination by the defence counsel he has stated before the police that he has studied 10th class and he does not have acquaintance with the deceased.

He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the bus stand on that day at that time and he was deposing falsely at the instance of the police.

13PW3 is the relative of the deceased Mani Kumar and she stated that she has received phone call on 3.6.2013 that Manikumar has met with accident and thereafter she informed same to the brother of Manikumar and gave him the number from which she got the call. Thereafter she came to know that the deceased Manikumar was died on the spot.

14PW4 is the witness to the scene of offence panchanama which was marked as EX.P.2.

15PW5 is the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and he found 4 antimortem injuries and the death occurred

Page No. 5CC No.866 of 2013 due to head injury and the head injury was crush injury.

16PW6 is the S.I of police has deposed that on 3.6.2013 at about 7.30 pm he received Telugu written complaint from PW.1 and he registered it as a case in Cr.No.121/2013 U/S 304(A) IPC and issued FIR in EX.P.4. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of

Pws.1 to 3 and Lws.3 and 4, visited the scene of offence, conducted observation panchanama in the presence of PW.4 and one Mohd.Nabi, thereafter, he visited OGH as the deceased was shifted to OGH mortury and he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of

B.Saikumar and Yadagiri. Then he gave requisition to medical officer to conduct PME over the dead body of the deceased and MVI to inspect the crime vehicle. EX.p5 is the Inquest panchanama, EX.P.6 is the MVI Report.

Except giving formal suggestions to the I.O, the defence side did not elicit favourable information exhonirating to the accused.

17The admitted and un disputed facts are that the death of the deceased Manikumar has occurred on 3.6.2013 at Koti bus stand and he was hit by the RTC bus bearing number AP.10 Z 6563 and he fell down and

RTC bus tyres ran over the head of the deceased and thereafter, he died.

The medical evidence adduced by PW5 along with PME report EX.P.3 substantiate the nature of death of the deceased. As far as the evidence adduced by the prosecution is concerned, except PW2 no direct witness was examined by the prosecution, though one R.Balaji shown as eye witness to the occurrence. S.Narasing/ PW2 in his evidence has stated that o n 3.6.2013 while he was at Koti bus stand a person who was standing in front of him was run over by the bus and his head got crushed and he died on

Page No. 6CC No.866 of 2013 the spot. The said witness further denied that he was the relative of the deceased at the same time, he had admitted that the police examined him and recorded his statement. Neither the prosecution nor the defence side tried to elicit the correct information from PW.2. During his 161 Cr.P.C statement recorded by the police, the witness has stated that:

“ On 3.6.2013 he went to meet his friend at Dilsukhnagar and therefore, he came to Koti Bus stand at 4.00 p.m and after completion of work at Dilsukhnagar at about 4.30 p.m at 5.00 p.m he came to Koti Dilsukhnagar bus stop there he saw his distinctive relative Manikumar at that time, he also saw him. He was standing on the flat form adjacent to Nallapochamma Temple and Manikumar was proceeding towards him one RTC bus bearig no.AP.10 Z 6563 came behind and hit Manikumar who was climbing the plat form and also it ran over his head and the bus tyre ran over his head. Immediately, he scared loudly and also the persons in the bus shouted as a result of which the bus was stopped then he went and saw and found that Manikumar died on the spot as the bus ran over his head resulting serious injuries to his head”.

18No doubt, the 161 Cr.P.C statements of witnesses can not be used during the trial except for contradiction U/S 145 of Evidence Act. But i the instant case, both the prosecution as well as the defence have undermined the importance of the evidence of PW2 who was alone the direct witness to the occurrence. The version deposed by the PW2 in his examination during his evidence in chief is quite contrary to at he has statedbeforethepolice.Somehowthedefence counsel suggested him that he was related to the deceased Manikumar, but the witness in replied negative. Then the witness has not accepted that he was related to the deceased person. Further more, the rough sketch clearly shows that the accident took place near the bus stop platform.

According to the case of prosecution, the deceased was coming from

Nallapochamma Temple towards SBI ATM. Thus, there are contrary

Page No. 7CC No.866 of 2013 versions adduced by the witness PW.2 as well as the police because, the witness PW2 has simply stated that the deceased was standing infront of him and the bus hit him as a result of which, he fell down. Mere standing infront of him, implies that the deceased was on the plat form . If for a moment h is version is believed then we have to presumed that the bus climbed by the platform and hit the deceased. If his version before the police is taken for consideration, the witness was boarded the platform on seeing the deceased and at that time the accident took place. Therefore, when the bus comes to the platform and some one suddenly interrupts its way there would be a collusion. To prove it's case, the prosecution has to prove that the accused driver of the bus drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. But in the present case, it was not the evidence of PW2 that the bus came in great speed and hit the deceased. Except the evidence of PW2, there is no other direct evidence who can depose about the rash and negligent driving of the accused. As per the well settled principles of law, the prosecution has to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt and the death of the deceased and the rash and negligent driving of the accused should be a proximate causes resulting in death of the deceased

Manikumar. The prosecution could have clearly elicited the rash and negligent driving of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

19In the instant case, there are contradictory versions as to how the deceased had met with the accident. In such circumstances, I would like to give the benefit of doubt to the accused.

20In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/S 304(A) IPC and the accused is acquitted U/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds

Page No. 8CC No.866 of 2013 of accused shall be cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Grade-I Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of

July, 2015.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence No. of witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence

PW1 : M.Raghavendra, complainant,Nil. PW2 :S.Narsimha, eye witness. PW3 :Smt.A.Aruna,circumstantial witness. PW4 :P.Ashok,inquest panch witness. PW5 :Dr.Abhijeet Subedhar,Conducted autopsy of the deceased. PW6 :V.Eswara Rao, S.I and I.O.

No. Of documents marked for

Prosecution Defence Ex.P1 : Complaint given by PW1.Nil Ex.P2 : Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P3 : PME report. EX.P4 : FIR. EX.P5 : Inquest panchanama. EX.P6 : MVI Report.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Page No. 9CC No.866 of 2013

FORM NO.71 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO: 866/2013

DATE OF OFFENCE : 3-6-2013

DATE OF REPORT OF COMPLAINT :3-6-2013

DATE OF APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : 3-6-2013

DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL : 3-6-2013

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 27-12-2013

DATE OF CLOSE OF TRIAL : 10-06-2015

DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER : 27.07.2015

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS : -

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT; The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Sultanbazar, Hyderabad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED: A.Ramakrishna Reddy.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 304(A) IPC.

FINDING Accused is found not guilty for the offence u/sec.304(A) IPC and he is acquitted U/sec 255 (1) Cr.PC

SENTENCE : Acquitted. TO THE HON'BLE II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD

DIS NO /II ACMM/HYD DATED 27-07-2015

CALENDER CASE NO: 866/2013 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03-7-2015

DATE OF DESPATCH DATE OF RECEIPT

01. DATE OF FILING CHARGE SHEET : 31-08-2013

02. DATE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE : 18-9-2013 03 . DATE OF FURNISHING COPIES TO ACCUSED : 06-11-2013 04 . DATE OF RECORDING PLEA OF ACCUSED : 27-12-2013

05. DATE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313 Cr.P.C. : 12-6-2015

II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 

HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE,HYDERABAD.

Present : Smt. K Sailaja, II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated Tuesday the 14th day of July, 2015.

C.C.No.782/2006.

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police,

Abid Road Police Station, Hyderabad ... Complainant

And

A.1.Satteti Ashok S/o.M.Kumaraiah, aged 30 years, Occ:: Pvt, employee, R/o.14-8-223/4,Chudibazar, Hyderabad.

A.2.Madari Krishna S/o.S.Narsimha aged 33 yrs occu:Electrician r/o.Plot No.72 Karmanghat, RR Disrict.

A.3.Mohd.Samiullah Khan S/o.Mohd.Abdullah Khan aged 41 yrs occ:un-employee r/o.4-1-277 Troopbazar,

Hyderabad. ...... Accused.

(The case against A.2 is splitup and numbered as CC.No.913/13)

This case coming before me for final hearing on 07-07-2015 in the presence of learned APP for the state and of Sri. Muzafarullahkhan – Counsel for the accused Nos.1 and 3 and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court has made the following :

J U D G M E N T

The above named accused persons faced charges for the offences

U/s.420,468 and 471 of IPC.

2The present case in brief are that on 26.9.2002 at about 3.30 p.m a complaint was received from K.Laxmaiah, MRO, Nampally

Mandal,Hyderabad stating that on the same day at about 1.45 p.m one

Sangitha came to the office and requested for attestation of Nativity certificate,community certificate for which he asked her whether she has received earlier any certificates from his office for which she shown the

Page No. 2CC No.782 of 2006 certificates No.D/059/23001 dt.19.5.2001, (Caste Certificate) D/5087/2002 dt.13.9.2002( Income certificate). On perusal of the said documents, it was found that they did not issued by their office and the numbers mentioned in the above certificates are not tallied from their office records and his signature also forged on the above certificates. On questioning said

Sangeetha has stated that she has obtained the certificates from one

Krishna who happened to be the resident of Chudibazar. Therefore, he prayed the police to take necessary action against the accused. On receiving the complaint, the SHO registered a case in Cr.No.267/2002 U/S 420,468 and 471 IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined the complainant, K.Laxmaiah along with other witnesses namely, K.Sangeetha,M.A.Khadeer,Sk.Abed and his investigation reveals that LW.2 Sangeetha has obtained the caste certificates from one

Krishna. The original and fake caste certificates of LW.2 Sangitha were taken for the purpose of investigation and meanwhile, the accused No.1 was arrested on 17.9.2002 in this case and he was sent to judicial custody and on obtaining the P.T.Warrant, basing on the confession of A.1 A.2 and A.3 were arrested, the accused were produced in the Court and later, the

Investigating Officer obtained the police custody of A.1 who confessed the offence and on completion of investigation,the S.I of police filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences U/S 420,.468 and 471

IPC.

3Since A.2 remained absconding, the case against him was separated and numbered as C.C.No.913/2013 and the trial was proceeded against A.1 and A.3.

3The cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/s.420,468 and 471 IPC against the accused A.1 and A.3. On appearance of the

Page No. 3CC No.782 of 2006 accused ,A.1 and A.3 copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/sec 207 of Cr.PC.

4The accused A.2 and A.3 were examined u/sec 239 of Cr.PC for the allegations levelled against them for the offences punishable U/s.420,.468 and 471 IPC. A charge u/sec U/s.420.468 and 471 IPC, has been framed, read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5 To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses viz., K.Laxmaiah is examined as PW.1

Sangeetha as PW.2, M.A.Khadeer as PW.3,P.Srinivas as PW4, and

S.Gangadhar as PW5 and during their examination, EX.P.1 to P.6 were marked.

6On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, accused were examined u/sec 313 Cr.PC and was put all the incriminating material evidence appearing against him. They pleaded not guilty and adduced no evidence.

7Heard the arguments from both sides.

8Now the point for determination is :

“1.Whether the accused has committed the offence of cheating by preparing fake certificates and committed the offence of preparing the false documents of caste certificates and committed the forgery and used it as a genuine document? 2.Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences U/S 420,468 and 471 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”

Page No. 4CC No.782 of 2006 9Points 1 and 2:- The defacto complainant was examined as PW1 who narrated that on 16.9.2002 one Sangeetha came for attestation of her caste and residential certificates and on verification, he noticed that those certificates were not issued by his office and therefore, he gave complaint to the police and it was marked as EX.P.1. During his cross examination, he has admitted that said Sangeetha informed him that she obtained certificates from one Krishna who is resident of her locality and she further stated that he has not taken any written statement from said Sangeetha that she has given the said certificates.

10PW2 Sangeetha has stated that on 16.9.2002 one Krishna of her colony issued her the certificates assuring her that he would get certificates and he took Rs.200/- to get her income certificate and that she went to MRO office for attestation and PW.1 found it as a fake one and she stated that one Krishna of her colony has given the said certificate to her. The police arrested the said Krishna.

11PW3, M.A.Khadeer who is a panch witness did not support the verfion of prosecution with regard to confession and seizure. Except admitting his signature which was marked as EX.P.2. During his cross examination, he has denied the suggestion that the produced A.1 and he confessed about the commission of offence and that the contents of same is not explained to him.

12The Investigating Officer was examined as as PW.5. His evidence is that on receipt of complaint from PW1, he has registered a case in

Cr.No.267/2002 for the offences U/S 4230,468 and 471 IPC and issue FIR

Page No. 5CC No.782 of 2006 in EX.P.3. According to him he has recorded the statement of Pws.1 and 2 and effected arrest of A.1 and A.3 on 17.9.2002, when A.2 confessed and he secured the presence of PW.3 and one S.Alio and recorded the confession of

A.2 and prepared seizure report and seized MO.s.1 to 6. MO.1 is 5 fake identity cards, MO.2 are 5 fake salary certificates, MO.3 is one Camel company stamp pad, MO.4 is rubber stamp, MO.5 is another rubber stamp and MO.6 is montex green colour pen.

13PW4 is one P.Srinivas who conducted the investigation in this case.

He stated that he received the case file and found on correct lines and after completion of investigation,he filed charge sheet showing A.4 as absconding. In his cross examination, he has stated that he has not examined any witnesses in this case and he denied the suggestion that basing on the table investigation he filed the charge sheet for which he denied the same. There is no whisper or the role played by the A.1 and A.3 for the alleged offences, except the confession made by A.1.

14It is further observed that in the confession made by A1, the accused

No.s2 and 3 were arrested but their signatures were not sent to FSL to prove that they have prepared the fake documents. The prosecution failed to establish from the independent witnesses that the alleged confession made by A.2. At the same time, the said fake certificates were not sent to

FSL for comparison with the signatures of the accused,A.1 and A.3. Thus it appears that there is no incriminating material implicating the accused

A.1 and A.3 in the alleged offences. Above all it is found that the I.O was failed to seize the forged documents from the possession of A1 and A3. In the present case, the evidence on record goes to show that A.3 had

Page No. 6CC No.782 of 2006 committed forgery, I am of of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused,A.1 and A.3 beyond reasonable doubt.

15In the result, the accused A.1 and A.3 are found not guilty for the offences U/S 420,468 and 471 IPC and the accused are acquitted U/S 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A.1 and A.3 shall be in force for a period of 6 months.

Dictated to Grade­I Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected 

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14 th day of July, 2015. 

 II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 

 HYDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence No. of witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence

PW1 : K.Laxmaiah, complainant,Nil PW2 : Sangitha, witness. PW3 : M.A.Khadeer, panch witness. PW4 :S.Srinivas,S.I and issued FIR. PW5 : S.Gangadhar,S.I and I.O.

No. Of documents marked for

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1 : Report given by PW1.Nil Ex.P2 : Confessional panchanama. EX.P3 : FIR. EX.P4 :Confession-cum-seizure panchanama. EX.P5:Requisition. EX.P6:Letter of Advice.

No. of Material Objects marked: MO.1 is 5 fake identity cards Nil MO.2 are 5 fake salary certificates. MO.3 is one Camel company stamp pad. MO.4 is rubber stamp. MO.5 is another rubber stamp MO.6 is montex green colour pen.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Page No. 7CC No.782 of 2006

FORM NO.72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO: 782/2006

DATE OF OFFENCE : 16-9-2002

DATE OF REPORT OF COMPLAINT : 17-09-2002

DATE OF APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : 17-9-2002

DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL : 31-10-2002

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 10-09-2007

DATE OF CLOSE OF TRIAL : 16-10-2014

DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER : 14.07.2015

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS : -

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT; The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Abids Road, Hyderabad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED:

A.1.S.Ashok A.3.Mohd.Samiullah Khan.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 420,468 and 471 IPC.

FINDING A.2 and A.3 are found not guilty for the offences u/sec.420,468 and 471 IPC and they are acquitted U/sec 248 (1) Cr.PC

SENTENCE : TO THE HON'BLE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD

DIS NO /II ACMM/HYD DATED 24-07-2014

CALENDER CASE NO: 782/2006 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14-7-2015

DATE OF DESPATCH DATE OF RECEIPT

01. DATE OF FILING CHARGE SHEET : 25-03-2006

02. DATE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE : 23-10.2006 03 . DATE OF FURNISHING COPIES TO ACCUSED : 09-4-2007 04 . DATE OF RECORDING PLEA OF ACCUSED : 10-9-2007

05. DATE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313 Cr.P.C. : 07-7-2015

II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 

HYDERABAD

Page No. 8CC No.782 of 2006 Page No. 9CC No.782 of 2006

FORM NO.72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO: 603/2002

DATE OF OFFENCE : 27-7-2001

DATE OF REPORT OF COMPLAINT : 28-7-2001

DATE OF APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : 9-9-2001

DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL : 9-9-2001

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 21-05-2015

DATE OF CLOSE OF TRIAL : 6-7-2015

DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER : 28.07.2015

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS : -

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT; The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Abids Road, Hyderabad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED:

A.1.Abrahm Lincon and others.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 153 A,427,147 r/w 149 IPC r/w 21/76 of C.P.Act.

FINDING :Accused are found not guilty for the offences 153 A,427,147 r/w 149 IPC r/w 21/76 of C.P.Act and they are acquitted U/sec 248 (1) Cr.PC

SENTENCE : Acquittal TO THE HON'BLE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD

DIS NO /II ACMM/HYD DATED 4-08-2014

CALENDER CASE NO: 603/2002 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28-7-2015

DATE OF DESPATCH DATE OF RECEIPT

01. DATE OF FILING CHARGE SHEET : 16-5-2002

02. DATE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE : 10.3-2013 03 . DATE OF FURNISHING COPIES TO ACCUSED : 20-4-2015 04 . DATE OF RECORDING PLEA OF ACCUSED : 25-5-2015

05. DATE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313 Cr.P.C. :27-7-2015

II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 

HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE,HYDERABAD.

Present : Smt. K Sailaja, II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated Friday this the 24th day of July, 2015.

C.C.No.401/2015

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police,

AbidsPolice Station, Hyderabad ... Complainant

And

Mohd.Saleem @ Saleem S/o.Rasheed Miya, aged 29 yrs occu: Dosha Master r/o.3-6-541/3,Birjubabulal Bhavan

Street No.7,Himayathnagar,Hyderabad. ......Accused

This case is coming before me final hearing on 20.7.2015 in the presence of learned APP for the state and of Sri.G.Narayana – Counsel for the accused/appointed as legal aid and upon hearing them and upon perusing the evidence adduced by both sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

The offence alleged against the accused person is U/s.379 IPC.

2The case of the prosecution is that, on 25.3.2015 one Ramesh Goud parked his vehicle TVS Victor GX Motor cycle bearing number AP.09 AY 5509 infront of his house ie.,Latha House, Chapel Road, Abids,Hyderabad, where he observed that he found his vehicle is missing.. Therefore, he lodged a complaint before the police, who registered as a case in

Cr.No.87/2015 U/S 379 IPC and the case file was handed over to LW6

D.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, the S.I of police. During the course of investigation, the S.I of police examined the complainant and recorded his statement verified the documents of the vehicle and on 27.3.2015 he received information from the S.I of police, Saifabad that one md.Saleem was arrested in Cr.No.103/15 U/S 379 IPC. Thereafter, he confessed to have committed theft of vehicle pertains to this case. Inpursuance of his

Page No. 2CC No.401 of 2015 confession, the vehicles were seized from h is possession. Later, the accused was arrested and produced before the Court of I ACMM Hyderabad and he was remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter,the accused was produced o n P.T.Warrant on 2.4.2015 and the property pertains to this case was deposited in the Court and on completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed for the offence U/S 379 IPC.

3The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable u/sec U/s.379

IPC against the accused . On production of the accused from jail, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/sec 207 of

Cr.PC.

4The accused was examined u/sec 239 of Cr.PC for the allegations levelled against him for the offence punishable U/s.379 IPC. A charge u/sec U/s.379 IPC, has been framed, read over and explained to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5The prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses out of whom

PW.1 is the complainant, PW.2 is the panch witness and PW3 is the S.I of police, and PW4 is the S.I of police and the Investigating Officer and during their evidence, EX.P.1 to P.5 and MO.1 were marked.

6 On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined u/sec 313 Cr.PC and was put all the incriminating material evidence appearing against him. He pleaded not guilty and adduced no evidence.

7Heard the arguments from both sides.

8Now the point for determination is :

Page No. 3CC No.401 of 2015 “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable ?” 9 I would like to discuss the evidence adduced by the prosecution:

10To substantiate the charges the prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses out of whom PW.1 is the defacto complainant who lodged the complaint to the police. PW.2 is one of the panch witness and PW3 is the

Investigating Officer of Saifabad P.S. PW4 is the S.I of police, Abids P.S and during their examination EX.P.1 to P.5 and MO.1 were marked.

11 The evidence adduced by the prosecution is as follows:

PW1 Ramesh Goud in his evidence has deposed that on 21.3.2015 at night hours he parked his vehicle AP.09 AY 5509 infront of his house and in the morning he found it missing. After searching he gave a report on25.3.2015 vide EX.p.5. After four days, he came to know that his vehicle was recovered and he obtained the vehicle as interim custody from the

Court on 2.4.2015 which is marked as MO.1. Thus the identity of the vehicle was established by the person who took it for interim custody.

12 PW2 is the panch witness who had stated before the Court that on 261.2015 at about 6.30 p.m he was called by Saifabad police and one person by name Mohd.Saleem confessed that he committed theft of two wheeler bikes including the Hero Honda shine of Abids P.S, the accused took them to h is house and police recovered four vehicles pertains to other offences from his possession under EX.P.2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama. EX.P.3 is the seizure report. During his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he was a stock panch witness to the police.

Page No. 4CC No.401 of 2015 13According to PW3 on 26.3.2015 they found the accused travelling on a bike without documents and on his enquiry he was willing to confess that he has committed two wheeler thefts at various places and they brought him to the Police Station and before whom he confessed and they seized one vehicle from h is possession and 4 vehicles from his house under cover of panchanama vide EX.P.2 and P.3, EX.P.4 is he attested copy of FIR in

Cr.No.103/15. Thereafter, he informed to P.S.Abids and remanded the accused to judicial custody in Cr.No.103/15 of P.S.Saifabad on 27.3.20125.

14PW4 has deposed that on receipt of FIR from LW5 Dali Naidu S.I of police on 25.3.2015 it was registered as a case in Cr.No.87/2015 U/S 379

IPC vide EX.P.5 the I.O deposed in a routine manner about the examination of the defacto complainant and receiving the message from PW5, about the apprehension of the accused and confession of the accused. Lastly he deposed that he obtained P.T.Warrant from the Court produced the accused

before the Court.

15Thus the above evidence on record goes to show that the vehicle of

PW.1 Ramesh Goud was stolen on 21.3.2015 in the night time or in the early hours and on the next day it was recovered from the possession of the accused on26.1.2015 in between 6.30 p.m to 7.15 p.m in the presence of

PW.2 and one Mohd.Maqbool Hussain from the possession of the accused

Md.Saleem at H.No.3-6-541/3 Birjubabulal Bhavan, Himayathnagar,

Hyderabad. The evidence of PW2 PW2 along with the evidence of the I.O supports that the said vehicle was recovered from the possession of the accused Md.Saleem soon after the commission of theft. Thus the recovery

Page No. 5CC No.401 of 2015 of the vehicle from the possession of Md.Saleem and it was stolen on 21.3.2015 the presumption of section 114 of Cr.P.C. That means who is in possession of stolen goods soon after theft is or receipt of the stolen goods unless he can give possession. Thus in the present case, the accused in the presence of panch witnesses was produced 4 vehicles out of which stolen vehicle of PW.1 was also produced before the panch witness. Though there is no direct witness who deposed that the accused has committed theft the court can presumed that the accused has produced some vehicles in his presence who has committed theft of of MO.1 as per procedure laid down

U/S 114(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus the recovery of stolen vehicle from the possession of the accused has been established by the evidence of

Pws.2 and 3 respectively. When the recovery of the stolen vehicle is proved by the prosecution, it can be presumed that the person from whom the vehicle has been recovered has no other than the person who has committed theft of the vehicle as he has failed to give satisfactory explanation to possess the vehicle. Thus, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/S 379 IPC.

16In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence U/S 379 IPC and he is convicted U/s 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Grade-I Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 24th day of July, 2015.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Page No. 6CC No.401 of 2015 17The accused is heard with regard to the quantum of sentence, that can be imposed on him. The accused has stated that he pleaded for mercy and to show leniency in awarding the sentence. The accused happened to be a habitual offender and he has involved in number of cases. Therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit U/S 360 Cr.P.C or Probation of Offenders

Act. However, considering the age of the accused and his family back ground, I am inclined to impose a lenient sentence to give an opportunity to the accused to reform himself. The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for 3 ( Three ) months. The remand period undergone by him shall be set off U/S 428 Cr.P.C.

18The MO.1 was already given to PW.1 for interim custody, he shall hold good after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Grade-I Stenographer, transcribed and typed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 24th day of July, 2015.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence No. of witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence

PW1 : S.Ramesh Goud, complainant,Nil PW2 :Mohd.Saleem,panch witness. PW3 : M.Krishna S.I of police,apprehended the accused. PW4 : D.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy,S.I and I.O.

No. Of documents marked for

Prosecution Defence Ex.P1 : Report given by PW1.Nil Ex.P2 : Confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P3 : Seizure report. Ex.P4 : Attested copy of the FIR. Ex.P5 : FIR. No. of Material Objects marked: MO.1: AP.09 AY 5509Nil.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Page No. 7CC No.401 of 2015

FORM NO.71 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO: 401/2015

DATE OF OFFENCE : 25-3-2015

DATE OF REPORT OF COMPLAINT : 25-3-2015

DATE OF APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : 27-3-2015

DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL : 27-3-2015

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 30-04-2015

DATE OF CLOSE OF TRIAL : 13-7-2015

DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER : 24.07.2015

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS : -

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT; The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Abids, Hyderabad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED:

Mohd.Saleem.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 379 IPC.

FINDING Acccused is found guilty for the offence u/sec.379 IPC and he is convicted U/sec 248 (2) Cr.PC

SENTENCE : Convicted for 3 months. Remand period is set off U/S 428Cr.P.C. TO THE HON'BLE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD

DIS NO /II ACMM/HYD DATED 06-08-2015

CALENDER CASE NO: 401/2015 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24-7-2015

DATE OF DESPATCH DATE OF RECEIPT

01. DATE OF FILING CHARGE SHEET : 04-04-2015

02. DATE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE : 16-04-2015 03 . DATE OF FURNISHING COPIES TO ACCUSED : 27-4-2015 04 . DATE OF RECORDING PLEA OF ACCUSED : 30-4-2015

05. DATE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313 Cr.P.C. : 13-7-2015

II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 

HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE,HYDERABAD.

Present : Smt. K Sailaja, II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated Tuesday the 14th day of July, 2015.

C.C.No.780/2006.

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police,

Abid Road Police Station, Hyderabad ... Complainant

And

A.1.Madari Krishna S/o.M.Kumaraiah, aged 30 years, Occ:: Pvt, employee, R/o.14-8-223/4,Chudibazar, Hyderabad.

A.2.Satteti Ashok S/o.S.Narsimha aged 33 yrs occu:Electrician r/o.Plot No.72 Karmanghat, RR Disrict.

A.3.Mohd.Samiullah Khan S/o.Mohd.Abdullah Khan aged 41 yrs occ:un-employee r/o.4-1-277 Troopbazar,

Hyderabad. ...... Accused.

(The case against A.1 is splitup and numbered as CC.No.912/13)

This case coming before me for final hearing on 07-07-2015 in the presence of learned APP for the state and of Sri. Muzafarullahkhan – Counsel for the accused Nos.2 and 3,the case against A.1 is split up and numbered as CC.912/13 and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court has made the following :

J U D G M E N T

The above named accused persons are charge sheeted for the offences U/s.420,468 and 471 of IPC.

2The present case in brief are that on 26.9.2002 at about 3.30 p.m a complaint was received from K.Laxmaiah, MRO, Nampally

Mandal,HyderabadstatingthatonePrakashMehatre r/o.Sultanbazar,Hyderabad has submitted an application for issuing of caste certificate of ST (Gond) to his son by name Lalith Mehtre in the RDO office

Page No. 2CC No.780 of 2006 and while enclosing the necessary documents, including the copy of caste certificate in respect of Sachin Gaikwad S/o.Prakash Gaikwad which was purported to have been issued by MRO office, Nampally, Hyderabad. While verifying the papers by the MRO, it was found that the caste certificate of

Sachin Gaikwad was not issued by the MRO and the stamps and signature found on the certificate do not belong to their office. Therefore, he prayed the police to take necessary action against the accused. On receiving the complaint, the SHO registered a case in Cr.No.280/2002 U/S 420,468 and 471 IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined the complainant, K.Laxmaiah along with other witnesses namely, Prakash Mehatre,Sachin Gaikwad, Prakash Gaikwad and his investigation reveals that one Prakash Gaikwad has obtained the caste certificate to his family member about one year back by paying him Rs.200/- for each certificate and he gave a xerox copy of the said certificate to

Laxmaiah for ready reference to obtain his caste certificate. The original and fake caste certificates of M.Prakash Mehatre and his 4 children were taken for the purpose of investigation and meanwhile, the accused No.1,A.2 and A.3 were arrested on 27.9.2002 in Cr.No.267/2002 of Abids Police

Statiion and they were sent to judicial custody and on obtaining the

P.T.Warrant, the accused were produced in the Court and later, the

Investigating Officer obtained the police custody of A.1 who confessed the offence and on completion of investigation,the S.I of police filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences U/S 420,.468 and 471

IPC.

3Since A.1 remained absconding, the case against him was separated and numbered as C.C.No.912/2013 and the trial was proceeded against A.2 and A.3.

Page No. 3CC No.780 of 2006 3The cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/s.420,468 and 471 IPC against the accused A.2 and A.3. On appearance of the accused ,A.2 and A.3 copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/sec 207 of Cr.PC.

4The accused A.2 and A.3 were examined u/sec 239 of Cr.PC for the allegations levelled against them for the offences punishable U/s.420,.468 and 471 IPC. A charge u/sec U/s.420.468 and 471 IPC, has been framed, read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5 To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses and out of whom PW.1 is the defacto complainant and PW.2 is Sachin Gaikwad, PW3 is the Inspector who filed the charge sheet and PW4 is the I.O who conducted investigation and

EX.P.1 to P.3 were marked during their examination.

6On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, accused were examined u/sec 313 Cr.PC and was put all the incriminating material evidence appearing against him. They pleaded not guilty and adduced no evidence.

7Heard the arguments from both sides.

8Now the point for determination is :

“1.Whether the accused has committed the offence of cheating by preparing fake certificates and committed the offence of preparing the false documents of caste certificates and committed the forgery and used it as a genuine document?

Page No. 4CC No.780 of 2006 2.Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences U/S 420,468 and 471 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?” 9Points 1 and 2:- A perusal of evidence on record, it is found that the defacto complainant who was examined as PW1 has stated that one Prakash

Mehatre for issue of caste certificate in the name of his son Lalith Kumar and along with application, he enclosed the copy of the caste certificate issued by MRO Nampally inrespect of Sachin Gaikwad as supporting document. On verification of the said supporting document it was found th at the certificate was not issued by him and the office seals affixed on the certificates are not belongs to their office. Therefore, he made a complaint at Abids P.S which is marked as EX.P.1. He further stated that he did not issued any caste certificate in favour of Lalith Mehetre,Prakash Mehtre and

Sachin Gaikwad and the caste certificates EX.P.2 to P.6 did not conain their office seals. Except the above information, the defacto complainant did not mention about the role of the accused in preparing the said documents.

10 PW.2 in h is evidence has stated that he has obtained the above certificates trough one broker and subsequently his friend asked him to give a copy of the certificate inorder to obtain caste certificate. The prosecution has failed to produce the witnesses Sachin Gaikwad and

Prakash Gaikwad and other panch witnesses.

11PW4 S.Gangadhar, the then S.I of police, Abids has stated that on 26.9.2002 on receipt of the complaint of PW.1, he registered a case and took up the investigation and examined PW.1,LWs 2 and 3, arrested A.1 to

A.3 in Cr.No.267/2002 and obtained police custody among them A.1 confessed before him in the presence ofd panch witnesses Manoj and

Nagappa and his confession is marked as EX.P.3. During his cross

Page No. 5CC No.780 of 2006 examination, he admitted that no material documents were seized from the possession of A.2 and A.3. Thus as per the version of the prosecution it came to the note of PW.1 that some fake certificates were issued in the name of Prakash Gaikwad and Sachin Gaikwad and others, as if they were issued by MRO of Nampally and PW.1 could compared the same when they were submitted to him as supporting documents. But there is no evidence on record to show that A.2 and A.3 were involved for the offences as even according to the evidence of PW2 h is father has given the said certificates for apply of caste certificate. Even the I.O has admitted that no docuements were seized from the possession of A.2 and A3. The only piece of evidence

before the Court is of the confessional statement of A1. But it is not

admissible as nothing was recovered from his possession. Therefore, the section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not attracted and even his confessional statement made before the police under EX.P.3 is not admissible in evidence as the said confession before the police is not confession. Therefore, the mentioning of the names of A.2 and A.3 or their involvement in the above said offences can not be considered by this Court which is the part of confession made by A.1 before the police officer.

12In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that absolutely, there is no corroborative evidence against the accused that they have cheated the complainant by preparing the fake caste certificates and the prosecution also failed to produce the panch witnesses to prove the alleged charges levelled against the accused.

13In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that A.2 and A.3 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

Page No. 6CC No.780 of 2006 14In the result, the accused A.2 and A.3 are found not guilty for the offences U/S 420,468 and 471 IPC and the accused are acquitted U/S 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A.2 and A.3 shall be in force for a period of 6 months.

Dictated to Grade­I Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected 

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14 th day of July, 2015. 

 II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 

 HYDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence No. of witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence

PW1 : K.Laxmaiah, complainant,Nil PW2 : Sachin Gaikwad, witness. PW3 : S.Srinivas,S.I and issued FIR. PW4 : S.Gangadhar,S.I and I.O.

No. Of documents marked for

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1 : Report given by PW1.Nil Ex.P2 : FIR. Ex.P3 : Confessional panchanama.

No. of Material Objects marked: Nil.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Page No. 7CC No.780 of 2006

FORM NO.72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO: 912/2013

DATE OF OFFENCE : 26-9-2002

DATE OF REPORT OF COMPLAINT : 26-9-2002

DATE OF APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : 26-9-2002

DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL : 10-10-2002

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 10-09-2007

DATE OF CLOSE OF TRIAL : 06-07-2015

DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER : 14.07.2015

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS : -

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT; The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Abid Road, Hyderabad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED:

A.1Madari Krishna and others.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 420,468 and 471 IPC.

FINDING A.2 and A.3 are found not guilty for the offence u/sec. 420,.468 and 471 IPC and they are acquitted U/sec 248 (1) Cr.PC

SENTENCE : Acquittal TO THE HON'BLE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD

DIS NO /II ACMM/HYD DATED 30-07-2015

CALENDER CASE NO: 912/2013 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14-7-2015

DATE OF DESPATCH DATE OF RECEIPT

01. DATE OF FILING CHARGE SHEET : 25-03-2006

02. DATE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE : 29.7-2006 03 . DATE OF FURNISHING COPIES TO ACCUSED : 24-08-2007 04 . DATE OF RECORDING PLEA OF ACCUSED : 10-09-2007

05. DATE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313 Cr.P.C. : 07-07-2015

II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 

HYDERABAD