1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS AT NAKREKAL
PRESENT: Smt.K.Swapna Rani,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
NAKREKAL, NALGONDA DISTRICT.
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2019
C.C. NO. 282 OF 2012
Between:
The State Represented by S.H.O of Police, Kattangur.
Complainant
And
1. Gugulothu Veerabhadram @ Rambabu S/o Venkanna, R/o Dharmaram Thanda H/o Mari Peta (M) Warangal District (Splitup Vide C.C.No. 51 of 2019)
2. MD.Saleem Yousuf Shaik S/o Yousuf Shaik, Aged: 53 years, R/o Sklus village of Sholapur District, Maharashtra State.
3. Gundagoni Narsimha S/o Laxmaiah, Aged: 32 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Akkalaigudem (V) Kattangur (M).
4. Sorapally Rajamani W/o Nagabushanam, Aged: 48 years, Occupation: Business, R/o Sahara Estates, Hyderabad.
5. Gugulothu Venkanna S/o Bheeku Naik, R/o Dharmaram Thanda H/o Maripeta (M) Warangal (D).
… Accused No. 1 to 5.
This case is coming before me on 22.01.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K.Laxman Naik, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for State and of Sri MD.Hafeez, Advocate for the Accused No. 1 to 5, upon perusing the material on record, having heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:
: J U D G M E N T:
1.The Sub inspector of police, Kattangur Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.15/2010 Under Section 379 R/w 511 of
Indian Penal Code, and Section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act.
2
2.It is the case of prosecution that on 04.02.2010 the complainant Ch.Prathap, Manager Operations, Hindustan
Petrolem Corporation Limited, Suryapet Booster Station, lodged a report before Nakrekal police that on the same day i.e., 04.02.2010 at around 02.30 p.m. the security super visior Sri Venkat Swamy reported to him that fresh soil has been dumped on various places near by field around pipe lines of Ch.491.850. This location is nearer to Chandampally village. Upon such information he proceded to the said place and observed that soil around pipe line was distrubed. Detailed probing led them to find a big pit which was dug on the pipe line with a flange valve fitted to the pipe line.
The complainant reported that some unknown persons with an intention of pilfering petroleum products from the pipe line, committed such act.
3.On the strength of report submitted by complainant
Ch.Prathap Investigation Offier, LW—10 registered the case in
Cr.No. 15/2010 under section 379 of IPC, and took up investigation. During investigation LW—10 Investigating Offier examined the complainant as LW—1 and recorded his detailed statement. He also visited the scene of offence near Chandampally village and observed the scene, secured the presence of panch witnesses, LW—5 N.Raghu Nandan Reddy and LW—6 N.Ramulu and in thier presence recorded scene of offence panchanama.
3
4.He further examined three (3) other witnesses and recorded their statements. LW—10 Investigating Offier caused detailed and discreet enquires about the occurrence of offence. Subsequently
LW—11 ASI of police took up investigation and on 26.06.2010 LW —9 C.I of police Nakrekal arrested the accused by name Malothu
Munindar Naik in Cr.No. 88/2010 under section 379, 120 (b) of
IPC, at Kattangur Police Station. During interrogation , the said accused confessed that A.1 to A.5 herein have committed the present offence. Therefore, his confessional statement was recorded in the presence of panch witnesses, LW—7 K.Amarnadh,
LW—8 P.Rama Rao respectively. Thus, A.1 to A.5 are charged under section 379 R/w 511 of IPC.
5.Subsequently on 20.07.2010 LW—9 arrested A.1, on 03.07.2010 he arrested A.3 and A.5, on 19.06.2010 Excise SHO arrested A.4 and on 23.09.2011 the C.I of police Nakrekal arrested
A.2 and produced them before the court for judicial remand and upon completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against them under sections 379 R/w 511 of IPC and Section 3 of P.D.P.P.
Act.
6.Basing on the material papers filed along with the charge sheet as required under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code, one of my learned predecessors had taken cognizance of the offences punishable Under Sections 379 R/w 511 of IPC and Section 3 of
P.D.P.P. Act.
4
7.Upon their appearance, accused No. 1 to 5 were examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, by duly explaining the sum and substance of accusation of offences punishable under sections 379 R/w 511 of IPC and Section 3 of
P.D.P.P. Act, in their known language after due compliance of section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in furnishing case documents. The accused No. 1 to 5 person pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.
8.During course of trial, prosecution examined PW—1 and PW— 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2.
9.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused No. 1 to 5 are examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material available on record, which they pleaded as false and reported no defence evidence.
10.Heard Sri. K.Laxman Naik, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for
State and learned counsel for the accused persons, Sri. MD.Hafeez, and perused the evidence of PWs1 and 2 and Exs.P.1 and P.2.
P O I N T:
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Accused for
the offences punishable Under Sections 448 and 427 of
Indian Penal Code ?
11.To prove its case prosecution examined only 2 witnesses. PW —1 is the complainant, Ch.Prathap and PW—2 is the panch witness 5 for scene of offence panchanama by name N.Raghu Nandan Reddy.
The evidence of PW—1 is only to the effect that he received phone call from LW—2 Venkata Swamy, security super visor stating that diesel pipe line at Chandampeta appeared to have been disturbed since the soil over the pipe line was in uneven condition. Immedi ately, himself along with three of his sub ordinates rushed to Chan dampeta and found that the soil over the pipe line was disturbed.
That some bags were arranged for two feet depth and somebody ar ranged some valve in order to derive diesel from the pipe lines. Due to late hours he again went to the scene along with required mecha nism and on verification it was found that an attempt was made to make the hole to the pipe line. Subsequently, the pipe line were set right. Later he lodged report with police Nakrekal.
12.As PW—1 stated that some unknown persons committed the acts, he was not examined in cross by the defence counsel and cross examination was reported Nil.
13.PW—2 is one of the panch witnesses for scene of offence pan chanama. PW—2 stated that in the year 2010 some persons made attempt to derive diesel from the pipe line of Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited which was passing from Chandampally Village by making hole to the pipe line and in that connection a report was lodged with the police. Later the police visited the scene and con ducted panchanama after observing the scene in his presence, as well as in the presence of LW—6, another panch witness.
6
14.During cross examination, PW—2 stated that at the request of owner of land he went to the scene of offence, to act as panch wit ness. Except above two (2) witnesses, prosecution failed to examine any other witness, including Investigating officers.
15.On perusal of Ex.P.1 report, there is no mention of any ac cused persons or even suspicion against accused persons by the complainant. It is categorically mentioned in the report that some unknown persons with an intention of pilfering petroleum products from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited pipe line, have com mitted the act of disturbing the soil by placing bags at the pipe line.
The complainant who is examined as PW—1 has not deposed any thing incriminating against accused persons, except stating about pipe lines being disturbed at Chandampeta.
16.As discussed above, PW—2 is only a panch witness for scene of offence panchanama. Except the evidence of these two (2) wit nesses, there is nothing available on record as any evidence relied upon by prosecution. It is merely basing on the confessional state ment of some other accused in Cr.No. 88/2010 of Kattangur Police
Station, the accused herein came to be charged under section 379
R/w 511 of Indian Penal Code. Except this confessional statement which is recorded by police official, there is no other piece of mate rial relied upon by the prosecution to connect the accused with the present offence of attempting to commit theft of diesel.
7
17.Even the Investigation Officer has not adduced his evidence to prove the case of prosecution. In these circumstances, this court holds that there is no corroboration to the case of the prosecution that A.2 to A.5 (case against A.1 split up vide C.C.No. 51/2019) are the persons who attempted to commit theft of diesel from the pipe line of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited at Chandampeta.
18.For the above reason, this court finds that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A.2 to A.5 and they are entitled for acquittal.
In the result, Accused No.2 to 5 are found not guilty of the of fences punishable under Sections 379 R/w 511 of Indian Penal
Code. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the same under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused No. 2 to 5 shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as per provision under section 437 A Cr.P.C.
Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to Stenographer/P.A., corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of February, 2019.
Sd/-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
NAKREKAL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
PW—1: Ch.Prathap. PW—2: N.Raghunandan Reddy.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:--Nil--
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION.
Ex.P.1: is complaint of PW—1. Ex.P.2: is scene of offence panchanama.
8
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED -Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED -Nil-
Sd/-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
NAKREKAL.
//TRUE COPY//
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
NAKREKAL