Sri K.V.Ramakrishnaiah

1/9CC 110 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS :: GUNTAKAL

Present : Sri K.V. Ramakrishnaiah

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Guntakal,

FAC/Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Guntakal.

Wednesday, this the 19 th day of October, 2022

CALENDAR CASE No.110 of 2019

Between:

Union of India by Inspector/RPF Bellary.

…..Complainant

And

Manjunath, age 24 yers, S/o Gadiripalaiah, R/o Kudekolla village, Kudligi Taluk, District Ballari.

...Accused

This case came for final hearing before me on 13.10.2022 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V.Nagaraju, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police/RPF, Bellary, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.570 of 2018 for the offence punishable u/s 154, 159 and 160 (2) of Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008 against the sole accused.

2.The facts necessary for disposal of the present case briefly stated are as follows

On 02.12.2018 at 3.10 hours received information through

DSCR/UBL message stating that Shri Vasu Prasad on duty gateman at LC

Gate No.14 at Km 14/7-8 between Bellary and Obulapuram Railway stations reported that when the gate was in closed condition for passing of the Goods 2/9CC 110 of 2019 train No.KUL/VAPM, one Motor Cycle bearing registration KA 17 EL 7685 dashed against the LC gate No.14 due to which the LC gate boom of LH side (Obulapuram side) was bend and damaged. On receipt of the information on 02.12.2018 PW.3 Inspector along with his staff reached the said spot and observed that the said LC gate boom of the Obulapuram side was bent and damaged condition and unable to close the gate for which the PW.3 enquired the matter with PW.1 for which the Pw.1 has narrated the particulars of the occurrence of the incident as stated above and thereafter the PW.3 registered this case as in Cr.No.570/2018 under section 154, 159 and 160(2) of Railways Act 1989 and enquired the matter further. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 28.01.2019 the accused along with the said Motor cycle has voluntarily surrendered before the RPF Post office, Bellary for which the Pw.3 has enquired the accused about the occurrence of the incident and recorded his confession statement in which he admitted his guilt for which the PW.3 arrested him and seized the said Motor cycle and the LW.1 has forwarded him for judicial remand.

3. My predecessor in the office took the case on file for the offence

U/sec. 154, 159 and 160 (2) of Railways (Amendment) Act.

4. Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence U/sec. 154, 159 and 160 (2) of Railways (Amendment) Act. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

were furnished to the accused.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the offence. Charge framed U/sec. 154, 159 and 160 (2) of

Railways (Amendment) Act, was read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3/9CC 110 of 2019

6.In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15.

7.Accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he stated that entire incriminating evidence appearing against him is false and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

9. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt

of the accused for the offence U/sec. 154, 159 and 160 (2) of

Railways (Amendment) Act beyond speak of doubt?

10.Point: -

Among the prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 is the points Man at the scene of offence and direct witness to the occurrence of incident. P.W.2 is another points Man and witness for the joint observation report prepared by the revenue authorities, P.W.5, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the investigation officers.

P.W.5 is the railway authority who replaced damaged LC gate boom. And

P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer that arrested the accused and seized the crime vehicle involved in the occurrence.

11. P.W.1 is the Pointsman deposed that on 02.12.2018 between 1.50 am., and 1.55 am., he received the information from PW.6 instructing him to close the said LC gate for passage of the Goods train NO.KUL/VAPM for which at about 02:00 am., he closed the said LC gate for passage of the said goods train and later the accused came to the said LC gate on his Motor cycle 4/9CC 110 of 2019 bearing registration No.KA 17 EL 7685 belongs to Discover Company from

Obulapuram side to Bellary side and dashed the said LC gate resulting the

Obulapuram side gate damaged and he fell down along with his motor cycle and thereafter, the said Goods train has passed through in the said LC gate from Bellary side to Obulapuram side and he went away along with his motor cycle from the spot and he opened the said LC gate for which he informed the same to the Pw.6 and after the occurrence of the said incident and he arranged the sliding boom in the place of the said damaged Obulapuram side gate for passage of trains through the said LC gate.

12.PW.2 is the another points man deposed that on 02.12.2018 at about 07:00 am., he joined in his duty at LC gate No.14 and found that

Obulapuram side gate is some extent is bend and is cut and is in open condition for which he arranged the emergency gate for passage of the trains in the smooth manner and on the same day at 09:00 am., the PW.5 and his staff came to the said LC gate and enquired him that how the said incident was happened for which the accused came to the said LC gate along with his motorcycle and dashed the said LC gate between 01:30 am., and 02:00 am., resulting the said LC gate was bend and damaged and cut towards

Obulapuram side gate.

13.PW.3 is the Investigating Officer deposed that on 02.12.2018 at about 03:10 am., he received message from DSCR Hubli stating that at LC gate

No.14 situated at KM.No.14/7-8 situated between Bellary and Obulapuram

Railway stations for which he visited the said place and enquired the matter with on duty gateman/PW.1 for which he relplied with him that at about 01:55 hours on 02.12.2018 he received message from the PW.6 stating that he instructing him to close the said LC gate for passage of goods train 5/9CC 110 of 2019

No.KUL/VAPM for which the PW.1 closed the said LC gate and thereafter at about 02:05 hours the said motorcycle came there and dashed the said LC gate’s boom resulting the same was bend and damaged and is unable to closed condition for which the PW.1 using the sliding gates on left side in order to avoid the road traffic and for smooth passage of the trains and then he registered this case as in Cr.No570/2018 U/Sec.154, 159 and 160(2) of

Railways Act and on 28.01.2019 at about 13:10 hours the accused voluntarily surrendered before him and admitted his guilt and he recorded his voluntarily confession statement and he arrested him and forwarded him for judicial remand.

14.Pw.4 is the Head Constable deposed that on 02.12.2018 he received message from DSCR Hubli stating that there was an accident occurred at LC

Gate No.14 situated at KM.No.14/7-8 situated between Bellary and

Obulapuram Railway stations for which he accompanied with the PW.3 and visited the spot and found the Obulapuram LC gate’s boom was damaged and bet and is unable to operee for which the Pw.1 using the emergency sliding gates to control the road traffic for smooth passage of the trains.

15.Pw.5 is the Signal Maintainer deposed that on 02.12.2018 at about 03:00 am., Pw.7 gave intimation about the accident at LC gate No.14 between Bellary Bypass to Obulapuram and then along with his staff reached the place by 06:30 am., and found damage of LC gate boom towards

Obulapuram side and replace the same, after the RPF authorites conducted panchanama.

16.PW.6 is the Station Master deposed that on 01.12.2018 he was on night duty from evening 07:00 pm, to 07:am., on the next day at about 6/9CC 110 of 2019 02:10 am., Pw.1 informed him about the occurrence of the accident to LC gate No.14 bewteen Obulapuram and Bellary by a Two wheeler vehcile bearing NO.KA 17 EL 7685 and according to left side of the LC gate boom was damaged.

17.Pw.7 is the Signal Operator deposed that on 02.12.2018 at about 02:45 am., he received information from SNT control regarding the accident to LC gate No.14 between Bellary Bypass to Obulapuram caused by two wheeler bearing No.KA 17 EL 7685 and then he conformed the scene with on duty SM/Pw.6 and then on the same day at about 08:00 am., he visited the scene of offence and assessed the cost of damage and issued letter to the

RTI authorities.

18.Pw.8 is the Investigating Officer deposed that he taken up further enquiry from PW.3 and on 24.06.20119 the accused voluntarily surrendered

before him along with crime vehicle and he confessed that the commission of

the said offence and enquired him for which he reveals that he drove rash and negligent manner and seized the said vehicle and caused the accident endangering the safety of travelling passengers in the train by violating the cautions while crossing by LC gate and he arrested the accused and seized the crime vehicle and forwarded him for judicial remand.

19. Now coming to the appreciation of material on record regarding the incident proper that occurred on 02.12.2018 at 2.00 a.m., at the scene of offence i.e., LC Gate No.14/718 KM between Bellary and Obulapuram railway station, the testimony of P.W.1 who is a direct witness to the incident is not shaken even during the cross examination. Evidence of P.W.1 is clear and in categorically terms that while the L.C gate No.14 /718 was closed to pass goods train around 2.00 a.m the accused came in a rash and negligent driving on Bajaj Discovery company motor cycle bearing No.KA17 EL 7685 7/9CC 110 of 2019 hit the closed LC gate from Bellary side and caused damage to the gate. It is also his evidence that the accused being the driver of the vehicle involved in the incident in spite of his instructions and directions to stop after the accident, left the scene of offence without heeding his directions. Regarding the identity of the accused is concerned P.W.1 specifically identified the accused while in box in open court. Though it may be true that no test identification parade on the accused through P.W.1 was conducted , yet, nothing was suggested to P.W.1 to falsely implicate the accused in this case by Scot free real culprit. As it is the evidence of P.W.1 that after the goods train was passed when he lifted the gate, the accused along with other vehicles escaped from the scene as such identification of the accused is believed even in the absence of any test identification parade, it is not the case of the defence that P.W.1 has no occasion or chance to observe the accused. Thus the identity of the accused is established by the prosecution.

20. Regarding the damage to the LC gate at the scene of offence is concerned: the evidence of P.W.2 who is another points Man speaks that on the report of P.W.1, the RPF prepared joint observation report in his presence and that the testimony of P.W.7 the signal operator that he deputed the staff to replace the damaged boom coupled with the testimony of P.w.5

Signal Manager that with the assistance of his staff he replaced the damaged gate would establish the fact of damage of LC gate at the same. The other evidence of prosecution through P.W.3 the Inspector Bellary RPF that he recorded the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also collected the joint observation report with the help of P.W.5 and registration of crime based on the report of P.W.1. So that after occurrence of incident, the damaged LC gate was replaced and as per the material on record, the cost of the damage is Rs.7,550/-. Though the suggestion was elicited through P.W.5 the signal

Manager that possibilities of damage to the gate boom, while operating the 8/9CC 110 of 2019 gate is there, yet, if any such damage is caused while opening or closing the gate such damage would be on either end of the L.C. booms but not on the gate. It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that the accused on his bike i.e., crime vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the LC gate and fell down along with his motor bike causing damage to the gate. Though the learned counsel for the accused would submit that confessional statement of the accused recorded by the RPF police is not admissible in the evidence , yet however in view of the several legal pronouncements, the said argument is not accepted as the RPF authorities are not equated with that of regular police and confessions recorded by the RPF police is admissible in the evidence. Thus the evidence of prosecution witnesses from P.Ws.1 to 8 would clinchingly established that the accused drove in a rash and negligent manner and caused the incident occurred against to the safety of passengers in the train and also and he disobeyed the directions of the railway servant and that he caused damage to the closed railway gate at the scene of offence and thereby found guilty of the charges leveled against him. The point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

21. In the result, the accused is found guilty of the charges

U/sec.154, 159 and 160 (2) of Railways (Amendment) Act 2008 and he is convicted U/sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.3,000/- for the offence U/sec.154 of the Railway Act and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month, the accused is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence U/sec.159 of Railway Act and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one week. The remand period from 30.01.2019 to 08.02.2019 i.e., 9 days is held sufficient sentence for the offence punishable U/sec.160 (2) of Railway (Amendment) Act. The interim custody of crime vehicle to its original owner as per order dated 9/9CC 110 of 2019 07.09.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.521 of 2019, holds good, after completion of appeal time.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 19 th day of October, 2022.

Sd/- K.V.Ramakrishnaiahaiah

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTAKAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Defence

P.W.1: Vasu Prasad. -None- P.W.2: M.Krishna Kanth. P.W.3: Bipin Kumar Shah (IO). P.W.4: V.G.Shiva Kumar. P.W.5: L.Subba Rao. P.W.6: S.Mallikarjuna Rao. P.W.7: K.Sreenivasulu. P.W.8: B.T.Chawan (IO).

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P.1:Statement of PW.1. Ex.P.2:Statement of Pw.2. Ex.P.3:Observation panchanama. Ex.P.4.:Confessional statement of accused. Ex.P.5.:Statement of PW.4. Ex.P.6:Signature of Pw.5 Ex.P.7.:All concerned message of Pw.6 Ex.P.8:Cost of damage certificate Ex.P.9:Statement of Pw.5 Ex.P.10:Statement of Pw.10 Ex.P.11:Statement of accused on 24.06.2019. Ex.P.12:Seizure panchanama Ex.P.13:Statement of D.Rajasekhar. Ex.P.14:Statement of Vonnur Swamy. Ex.P.15:Vehicle release order.

Material Objects marked for Prosecution

-NIL-

Material Objects marked for defence

-NIL-

Sd/- K.V.R

S.J.M.F.C./R/GTL // True copy // Attested // 10/9CC 110 of 2019 11/9CC 110 of 2019

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for

Railways ::Guntakal

Calendar in C.C.No.110 of 2019

Date of Offence: 02.12.2018 Date of Report: 02.12.2018 Date of apprehension of the accused: 02.08.2019 Date of release on bail: 02.08.2019 Date of Commencement of Trial: 14.02.2020 Date of Close of trial: 01.04.2022 Date of Judgment: 19.10.2022

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.110/2019 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

BETWEEN:-

Union of India by Inspector/RPF Bellary.

…..Complainant

And

Manjunath, age 24 yers, S/o Gadiripalaiah, R/o Kudekolla village, Kudligi Taluk, District Ballari.

...Accused

Offence: Under Section 154, 159 and 160(2) of Railways Act. Finding: Found guilty. In the result, the accused is found guilty of the charges U/sec.154, 159 and 160(2) of Railways (Amendment) Act 2008 and he is convicted U/sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence U/sec.154 of the Railway Act and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month, the accused is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence U/sec.159 of Railway Act and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one week. The remand period from 30.01.2019 to 08.02.2019 i.e., 9 days is held sufficient sentence for the offence punishable U/sec.160(2) of Railway (Amendment) Act. The interim custody of crime vehicle to its original owner as per order dated 07.09.2019 in

Crl.M.P.No.521 of 2019, holds good, after completion of appeal time.

Explanation for delay and remarks if any:- This case was taken on file on 21-08-2019. Copies of documents were furnished to the accused on 13-09-2019 and he was examined Under section 246(2) of Cr.P.C., and a charge was framed on 18-10-2019, PW.1 was examined on 14-02- 2020, prosecution evidence is closed on 01-04-2022, after closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined Under section 313 of Cr.P.C., on 06-10-2022 and on 13-10-2022 heard the arguments by the both sides, Judgment delivered on 19-10-2022. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- K.V.Ramakrishnaiah

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate

(Railways), Guntakal.

// True copy // Attested //

GUNTAKAL, FAC/URAVAKONDA

1 C.C.No 7 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR

RAILWAYS, GUNTAKAL

Present: Sri K.V.Ramakrishnaiah,

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Guntakal

Thursday this the 20th day of October, 2022

Calendar Case No.7 of 2020

Between:

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kurnool RPS (Cr.No.21/2019 of Kurnool R.P.S.) ….Complainant

And

Shaik Dasthagiri, aged about 40 years, S/o Shaikshavali, Native of H.No.2-186, Chigurumanpeta, Dhone Town, Kurnool District and Now residing at Baitipeta Veedhi, Bethamcherla Town, Kurnool District.

…….Accused.

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri V.Nagaraju, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, Kurnool Railway police station, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.21/2019 of Kurnool Railway police station for the offence under section 392 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.04.2019 at evening hours while the P.W.1 Neella Vijaya Lakshmi along with her family members have been travelling in train No.12770 Seven Hills Super Fast Express in S-8 Coach at berth

Nos.65 to 70 and they were slept on their berths at about 11:20 hours after passing Dhone Railway station before to Malyala Railway station the train was stopped and after some time she awaken from sleep and laying down in same position on her berth and mean while some unknown offenders tried to pull her gold chain from her neck from the outside of train through window, as she wrapped her neck with sari paitakongu, nothing went to the hands of the offender and then the offender with his hand forcibly pulled her left ear, as a result her left ear lobe cut and one small gold butta ear stud with gold mattee weighing about 5 grams, worth 2 C.C.No 7 of 2020 of Rs.10,000/-went to the hand of the offender and then she shouted loudly, on hearing of her cries her family members came to her and enquired about the occurrence of the incident and then she lodged the report before the police and they registered this case as in Cr.No.21/2019 U/Sec.392 IPC and investigated in this case. During the course of investigation on 13.01.2020 at about 06:30 hours

LW.10 N.Venkateswarlu, Inspector of police Kurnool RPS along with his staff were arrested the accused at near parking place in front of Booking Counter on Nandyal

Railway station and on interrogation he confessed his involvement in this case in the presence of mediators and seized the cash of Rs.10,000/- from the possession of the accused under the cover of panchanama. The PW.4 Medical officer who treated the injured Pw.1 issued wound certificate stating that the injuries sustained by simple nature and later LW.10 has forwarded the accused for judicial remand and after completion of investigation L.W.10 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.On 07.02.2020 cognizance of offence was taken for the offence under section 392 of Indian Penal Code against the accused.

4.On production of accused copies were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code, and they were examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code. A Charge under section 392 of Indian

Penal Code was framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5.In the course of trial, Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.6. The remaining witnesses were given up by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor.

6.After closing the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by granting an opportunity to offer their explanation on the incriminating material evidence available against him for which accused denied as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

3 C.C.No 7 of 2020

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel.

Perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under section 392 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt? POINT:

9. Unfolding the case of the prosecution, PW.1 deposed that on 30.04.2019 around 06:00 pm., her husband, her children, her relatives and herself about 16 numbers started journey in Seven Hills Superfast Express from

Secunderabad to go to Tirupathi. During her journey about 11:25 pm., the train stopped at Malyala Station near Dhone and she slept on her berth by keeping her head towards the window, after some time one unknown person pulled her left ear studs with maties, as a result, she received bleeding injury to her left ear and the gold ear studs went in to the hands of that person and inspite of her search they could not find the culprit and she gave report to Railway police, Tirupathi, after reaching there and after six months thereafter, she was informed by the police that they recovered money of Rs.10,000/- being the sale proceeds of her stolen ear studs.

10.PW.4 Dr.Y.Srinivasulu, CAS has deposed that on 01.05.2019 around 09:42 am., he examined the Pw.1and found the following injuries:-

1. A small laceration on left ear lobule. He opined that the above said injury is simple in nature and the age of wound is less than 12 hours and he issued wound certificate accordingly.

11.PW.5 is the Investigating Officer deposed that on 01.05.2019 at about 09:00 am., LW.5 R.Manohar, SI of police, Tirupathi RPS received complaint 4 C.C.No 7 of 2020 from Pw.1 and basing on the same he registered a case in Cr.No.43/2019,

U/Sec.392 IPC at Tirupathi RPS. He examined the Pw.1 and recorded her statement U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C., thereafter Lw.5 referred Pw.1 to SVRRGHP,

Tirupathi for treatment. On 02.05.2019 at 07:00 hours he received case file for further investigation and on the same day he examined Pw.1 but he did not record any statement from her. Hence, on the point of jurisdiction he transferred the case file to Kurnool RPS through Sub-Divisional Police

Officer, RPS for further investigation.

12.PW.6 SI of police deposed that on 11.05.2019 at about 09:00 hours., while he was present in the police station he received memo from

Superintendent of police, Railways, Guntakal vide in C.NO.208/RCRB-GTL- 2019, U/Sec.392 IPC. Accordingly, he re-registered Cr.No.21/2019,

U/Sec.392 IPC of Dhone RPS. As it is the grave offence, the further investigation was done by LW.9 V.Prabhakar Reddy, Inspector of police,

Kurnool RPS.

13.Coming to the appreciation of material on record, the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge U/Sec.392 IPC as to establish;

That 1) There was a commission of theft of movable property.

2) That the accused while committing such theft or in order to comit theft voluntarily caused or attempted to cause death or hurt.

Or

3) That the accused while carrying away the booty, voluntarily caused or attempted to cause hurt to commit theft.

14.The prosecution to establish the offence of commission of the theft, relied on the testimony of PW.1 and PW.5 coupled with Ex.P.1, P.5 and P.6.

5 C.C.No 7 of 2020

15.It is the evidence of the PW.1 that on 30.04.2019 around 11:25 pm., along with her family members while she was travelling in the Seven Hills Super Fast

Express form Secunderabad to Tirupati and when the train reached near Malyala station some unknown offender, through the window of the train from out side, pulled her left ear studs with matis and decamped with the booty and in such course she received bleeding injury on her left ear and inspite of her search she could not find the culprit. It is also her evidence that she presented Ex.P.1 report at

Railway police Tirupathi. This fact of presentation of report is further corroborated by PW.5 the Inspector of police, Kalluru Circle that on 01.05.2019 one R.Manohar the SI of police, GRP, Tirupathi received report from PW.1 and registered Ex.P.1 as a case in Cr.No.43/2019 U/Sec.392 IPC at GRP Tirupathi and recorded the statement of PW.1 U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C., and also referred Pw.1 to SVRRGHP, Tirupathi for treatment. The evidence of PW.6 another SI of police, Dhone Railway station is that he received memo from the Superintendent of police, Railways, Guntakal on 11.05.2019 and also the FIR in Cr.No.43/2019 and that he re-registered this case as in Cr.No.21/2019 of Dhone RPOP Under Ex.P.6. Thus, the testimony of Pw.1 that she lost her gold ear studs in the committing of the offence in a moving train with in the jurisdiction of Dhone RPS is further corroborated by the testimonies of PW.5 and 6 coupled with Ex.P.1, P.5 and P.6. therefore, the prosecution with the aid of the evidence of Pw.1, 5 and 6 is able to establish the first ingredient of the offence that there was a commission of theft.

16.The prosecution in order to establish that the culprit while committing such theft caused hurt to PW.1 is relying on the evidence of PW.1 and PW.4, coupled with

Ex.P.4 wound certificate. In this regard, apart from the evidence of PW.1 that she received a bleeding injury while the commission of theft, the testimony of PW.4 the

Medical Officer at SVRRGGH, Tirupathi is that on 01.05.2019 around 09:42 am., he has examined PW.1 and found a small laceration on her left ear lobule and accordingly he issued Ex.P.4 wound certificate of Pw.1. This fact is not denied or disputed by the defence. Thus, the prosecution with the aid of the testimonies of 6 C.C.No 7 of 2020

Pw.1 and Pw.4 coupled with Ex.P.4 would certificate, establish that the victim-PW.1 was subjected to hurt while commission of theft.

17.Regarding the identity of the accused that involved in commission of the offence and the recovery of case property is concerned the prosecution failed to examine the investigation Officer i.e., LW.10 Inspector of police, Railways, Kurnool who, according to prosecution version, arrested the accused in the presence of

Pws.2 and 3 and recovered cash of Rs.10,000/- from his possession on 13.01.2020 at 08:30 am., near Parking place in front of Booking counter at Nandyala Railway station under the cover of confession cum seizure mediatornama. The non- examination of Investigation Officer by the prosecution is fatal to the case.

Admittedly, the property that was lost in the theft that occurred from PW.1 was her gold ear studs, whereas the investigation Officer recovered cash from the possession of the accused. Thus, the property that was lost is not tallied with the property recovered by the police. The prosecution is also failed to put forth any material to show as to how and in what manner the accused converted the gold ear studs into cash to connect to the case. Though the production examined PW.2 and

PW.3 the alleged mediators, in whose presence accused made confession and the property was recovered in pursuance of the confession, yet, Pw.2 and 3 have not supported the prosecution version and in toto turned hostile. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution failed to produce any legally acceptable evidence connecting the cash recovered to the property lost by PW.1.

18.As regards the identity of the accused herein to connect with the offence is concerned, the complainant i.e., PW.1 was sole identification witness to prove offence against the accused. But, turning to the facts of the case on hand, no whisper is made by PW.1 in her first report to the police or in her 161 Cr.P.C., statement and also in the chief examination before the court about the identification or the descriptive features of the accused involved in the offence. The

Investigation officer did not conduct any Test identification parade on the accused with the aid of the victim to point out the involvement of the accused in the 7 C.C.No 7 of 2020 commission of the offence. It is not out place to note hear that as per the testimony of PW.1 it was dark at the platform where the offence occurred and she could not see the culprit at the time of the theft. The availability of source of light to identity the accused person at the place of incident is doubtful even as per the version of the PW.1. Therefore, in the light of non examination the Investigation Officer, non conducting test identification parade on the accused and not tallying the property lost and the property recovered and that the non identification of the accused, a serious doubt raises in the mind of the report to raise the finger against the accused herein to find him or connect him to the offence and as such a benefit goes in favour of the accused.

19.The culmination of entire evidence brought on record on behalf of prosecution does not inspire this court to hold the guilt of the accused for the charge leveled against him and therefore, he is entitled to be acquitted.

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the charge U/Sec.392 IPC and consequently he is acquitted of same U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be in force for further period of six months in compliance of section 437A Cr.P.C. No property was produced before this court in this case.

Dictated to the /Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 20th day of October, 2022.

Sd/- K.V.Ramakrishnaiah

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Guntakal Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Guntakal

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence

P.W.1: N.Vijaya Lakshmi -None- P.W.2: S.Jakeer Hussain. P.W.3: M.Ravi Kumar. P.W.4: Dr.Y.Srinivasulu. P.W.5: M.Asheervadham. (IO). P.W.6: N.Hanumanthaiah. (IO).

8 C.C.No 7 of 2020

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P.1:Report of P.W.1 Ex.P.2:Signature on the mahazar dated 13.01.2020. Ex.P.3:Signature on the mahazar dated 13.01.2020. Ex.P.4.:Wound certificate of the Pw.1. Ex.P.5.:Memo issued by the Superintendent of police Railways, Guntakal. Ex.P.6:Original FIR in Cr.No.21/2019.

Material Objects marked for Prosecution

-NIL-

Material Objects marked for defence

-NIL-

Sd/- KVR

J.M.F.C./GTL S.J.F.C.M/R/GTL // True copy // Attested // 9 C.C.No 7 of 2020

In the court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways),

Guntakal.

Present:- Sri K.V.Ramakrishnaiah, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal, FAC/Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

Tuesday, the 13th day of September, 2022

Calendar Case No.157/2019

BETWEEN:

State represented by The Sub-Inspector, Guntakal Railway Protection Force.

….. Complainant.

AND

Pullagura Veeranjineyulu, aged about 40 years, S/o Pullagura Laleppa, R/o BC Colony, Nagasamudram Village, Guntakal Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. ………Accused.

This case has come before me on 30-08-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri S.Younus Ahammed, advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon perusing the material available on record, this court has delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector, Guntakal Railway Protection Force has filed complaint against the accused in Crime No.02/2019 under section 3(a) of R.P.

(UP) Act.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: On 04.05.2019 at about 10:30 hours a theft report received from SSE/Traction

Distribution regarding missing of 10 numbers of ATD Tube guides (G.I.Pipes) at

KM.Nos.246/23, 246/24, 255/13, 255/14, 255/20, 256/17, 256/18, 256/23 and 256/24 in 10 locations between Kalluru – Khaderpeta – Venkatampalli Railway stations worth of Rs.6,000/- and after preliminary enquiry, the PW.1/SI of police registered the case in Cr.No.2/2019, U/Sec.3(a) of R.P(UP) Act and took up investigation in this case. On 08.08.2019 at about 06:30 hours, the SI along with his staff while making confidential watch and detained the accused at -2-

KM.No.255/13-15, Donw line, between Khaderpeta and Kallur Railway station, while he was carrying one white coloured heavy polythene bag on his right shoulder on suspicious manner and then SI of police enquired him, he revealed his name and address particulars mentioned in the complaint and on further enquiry they examined the said polythene bag and found 20 numbers of Elastic

Rail (ER) Clips worth of Rs.1,000/- and he voluntarily confessed the commission of the offence and they seized that said 20 numbers of ER clips connected to

Cr.No.6/2019, U/Sec.3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act and on further enquiry as led and shown by him, the PW.1 along with his staff to attended at KM.No.246/23 where he committed theft of 10 numbers of G.I.Pipes on 02.05.2019 as such he confessed the commission of the offence and they seized the same connected to this case and recorded his confession statement in which he admitted his guilt for which the PW.1 has forwarded him for judicial remand and after completion of investigation PW.1 filed complaint in this case.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act and on appearance of the accused

before this court, copies of documents were furnished to the accused under

section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.When the accused was examined under section 246(2) of Cr.P.C., he denied the substance of accusation. After perusing the entire material available on record and on hearing the both sides charges under section 3(a) of R.P.(UP)

Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claims the case to be tried.

5.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has listed 04 witnesses, examined the 01 witness as Pw.1, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and

MO.1. The evidence of remaining witnesses are given up by the A.P.P on 25.08.2022.

-3-

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and explained incriminating material appearing from the prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard the both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

8. Now the point for consideration is, whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of

R.P.(UP) Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:- 09.The evidence of PW.1 Sub-Inspector of Police, R.P.F.Post, Dhone is that on 18.08.2019 at about 06:30 hours., while he along with his staff were watching in between Khadar Peta and Kallur Railway stations and they noticed the accused while he was carrying a white polythene bag and on suspicion he detained him and secured presence of mediators and when he eqnuired the accused he revealed his name and address particulars mentioned in the complaint and he examined the said bag and noticed 20 numbers of ER clips used in Railways and the accused confessed that he committed theft of the same along the railway track in between Kadar Peta and Kalluru Railway stations and he further voluntarily confessed that about 3 months ago from then he committed theft of GI Pipes of 1 inch (10 numbers) and he kept the same in his house. The accused failed to produce any receipt for possession of ER Clips and then PW.1 seized ER clips from his possession and affixed identity slips on it and he recorded confessional statement of the accused in the presence of mediators and he prepared the scene observation mahazar and on the same day along with the said mediators when the accused lead them to his house in BC Colony of

Nagasamudram Village they went there and the accused produced 10 numbers of GI Pipes of 6 meters each from his house and he seized the said GI Pipes in this case and arrested the accused and then he registered this case as in -4-

Cr.No.2/2019, U/Sec.3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act and he forwarded him for judicial remand in Cr.No.2/2019 and Cr.No.06/2019 and after completion of investigation he filed complaint in this case.

10.At this stage this court heard the arguments of both learned Public

Prosecutor for Railways and the accused counsel.

It is the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor for Railways that in this case the prosecution examined PW.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and MO.1, on behalf of the defence no-body was examined and no document was marked and convict the accused for the offence U/Sec.3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful

Possession) Act 1966 beyond all reasonable doubt.

11.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused submits that a false case has been foisted against the accused for statistical purpose and no railway property was seized as alleged by the prosecution from the possession of the accused and prays the court to acquit the accused.

It is further contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the confessional statement of the accused, Ex.P.3 is recorded by PW.1 under coercion and therefore it is hit by Sec.24 of Indian Evidence Act and also confession to the police officer is not admissible under Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act as R.P.F.Officer is also police officer.

It is further contention of the learned counsel for accused counsel that as per Sec.3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act 1966 the three essential ingredients to constitute the gist of the offence are (1) That the accused has been in possession of railway property (2) The said property was seized from the accused and (3) It is reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained.

The learned counsel for the accused contends that as the above ingredients have not been proved by the prosecution, the accused is by marking Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.8 the prosecution proved that the accused was in possession of railway -5- property and the above said railway property was seized from the possession of the accused and also the prosecution proved that the property was unlawfully obtained by the accused and as such the accused is liable to be convicted. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution did not prove the ingredients of Sec.3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act 1966 is rejected.

12. He relied upon a decision reported in Abdul Rashid, Revisionist V. State of

U.P., 1991 Crl.J.3065 and submits that fact of recovery of alleged railway property from adjoining land of the house of the accused is not conclusive proof of his possession over them and the prosecution must prove that recovered articles were in use and possession of the accused. But in this case on hand, the accused produced MO.1 from his house and hence the observations made in the above case have no application to the present case.

13.It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the confession given by the accused under Ex.P.3 document is not judicial confession and it is extra judicial confession and therefore the confessional statement of the accused Ex.P.3 recorded by PW.1 is weak piece of evidence and therefore it should not we accepted without corroboration and it is not safe to base a conviction by relying upon Ex.P.3 confessional statement of the accused.

14. In reply the learned Public Prosecutor for Railways relied upon a decision reported in A.I.R.1981 S.C.379 in between Balakishan A.Devidayal Vs. State of Maharastra where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “Officer of Railway

Protection Force making inquiry in respect of offence under section 3 of

Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 is not Police Officer by

interpreting Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and also held that, the

confession made to Railway Protection Force Officer by the accused is

admissible in evidence”. In this case also PW.1 is not police officer as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore Ex.P.3 confessional statement of the accused is admissible. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the -6- accused that Exs.P.3 to P.5 confessional statements of the accused are not admissible under section 25 of evidence Act is rejected.

15.This court is of the view that non production of the railway property in this case is not fatal to the Prosecution case. As the prosecution produced the case property and got it marked as material object No.1 (MO.1).

16.The contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that Ex.P.3 confessional statement of the accused is extracted from PW.1 under coercion and compulsion, this court is of the view that the accused never stated before anybody nor before the court during trial or at the time of their having remanded to the court nor before any Superior Officers of Railway Protection Force that their confessional statement are recorded forcibly by PW.1. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the accused at this stage that the confessional statement of the accused is recorded forcibly under compulsion cannot be accepted.

17.Therefore, for the aforesaid discussion, and when Pw.1 was in the box except putting a suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated in this case, nothing to discredit his testimony was elicited and as such the testimony of Pw1 the investigation officer remains unchallenged and uncontroverted on material aspect and thus it can be safely held that his evidence before the court is reliable, and trustworthy to base a conviction.

18.In view of the above discussion it is held that the prosecution proved guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec.3(a) of R.P.(UP)

Act 1966. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence U/Sec.3(a) of R.P.

(UP) Act and consequently he is convicted of the offence U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 13th day of September, 2022.

Sd/- K.V.Ramakrishnaiah

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

(Railways), Guntakal.

-7- 13.09.2022:

When questioned about the quantum of sentence, the accused submitted that he is a poor person and eking out livelihood by attending coolie works and pleads to take a lenient view.

Having heard the submissions of the accused and under the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the offence, this court is not inclined to apply the provisions of P.O. Act, but to take a lenient view while imposing sentence.

Record reveals that the accused was in jail for 08 days during first remand. Hence, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence U/Sec.3(a) RP(UP) Act. The interim custody of MO.1 to the railway authority holds good after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation in open court, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on 13th day of September, 2022.

Sd/- K.V.Ramakrishnaiah

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

(Railways), Guntakal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: A.Venugopal. (I.O). -None -

Exhibits Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1: Panchanama dt.08.08.2019 at 09:45 hours. -Nil - Ex.P2: Seizure list of GI Pipes dt.08.08.2019 at 10:45 hours. Ex.P3: Confessional statement of accused. Ex.P4: Theft report dt.04.05.2019. Ex.P5: Case property certificate dt.23.10.2019. Ex.P6: Statement of U.Yerriswamy dt.08.09.2019. Ex.P7: Statement of N.Raghu dt.08.09.2019. Ex.P8: Observation panchanama dt.08.08.2019 at 8 hrs.

Material Objects Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

MO.1: (ATD Guid tubes) GI Pipes (10 numbers). -Nil-

Sd/- K.V.R

JMFC/GTL

SJMFC/R/GTL

In the court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways),

Guntakal.

Present:- Sri K.V.Ramakrishnaiah, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal, FAC/Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

Tuesday, the 13th day of September, 2022

Calendar Case No.158/2019

BETWEEN:

State represented by The Sub-Inspector, Guntakal Railway Protection Force.

….. Complainant.

AND

PullaguraVeeranjineyulu,agedabout40years,S/o Pullagura Laleppa, R/o BC Colony, Nagasamudram Village, Guntakal Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. ………Accused.

This case has come before me on 30-08-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri S.Younus Ahammed, advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon perusing the material available on record, this court has delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector, Guntakal Railway Protection Force has filed complaint against the accused in Crime No.02/2019 under section 3(a) of R.P.

(UP) Act.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: On 04.05.2019 at about 10:30 hours a theft report received from SSE/Traction

Distribution regarding missing of 10 numbers of ATD Tube guides (G.I.Pipes) at

KM.Nos.246/23, 246/24, 255/13, 255/14, 255/20, 256/17, 256/18, 256/23 and 256/24 in 10 locations between Kalluru – Khaderpeta – Venkatampalli Railway stations worth of Rs.6,000/- and after preliminary enquiry, the PW.1/SI of police registered the case in Cr.No.2/2019, U/Sec.3(a) of R.P(UP) Act and took up investigation in this case. On 08.08.2019 at about 06:30 hours, the SI along with his staff while making confidential watch and detained you at KM.No.255/13-15,

Donw line, between Khaderpeta and Kallur Railway station, while he was -2- carrying one white coloured heavy polythene bag on his right shoulder on suspicious manner and then SI of police enquired him, he revealed his name and address particulars mentioned in the complaint and on further enquiry they examined the said polythene bag and found 20 numbers of Elastic Rail (ER) Clips worth of Rs.1,000/- and he voluntarily confessed the commission of the offence and they seized he said 20 numbers of ER clips connected to Cr.No.6/2019,

U/Sec.3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act and on further enquiry as led and shown by him, the

PW.1 along with his staff to attended at KM.No.246/23 where he committed theft of 10 numbers of G.I.Pipes on 02.05.2019 as such he confessed the commission of the offence and they seized the same connected to this case and recorded his confession statement in which he admitted his guilt for which the PW.1 has forwarded him for judicial remand and after completion of investigation PW.1 filed complaint in this case.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act and on appearance of the accused

before this court, copies of documents were furnished to the accused under

section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.When the accused was examined under section 246(2) of Cr.P.C., he denied the substance of accusation. After perusing the entire material available on record and on hearing the both sides charges under section 3(a) of R.P.(UP)

Act was framed by my predecessor in office against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claims the case to be tried.

5.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has listed 04 witnesses, examined the 01 witness as Pw.1, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and

MO.1. The evidence of remaining witnesses are given up by the A.P.P on 25.08.2022.

-3-

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and explained incriminating material appearing from the prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard the both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

8. Now the point for consideration is, whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of

R.P.(UP) Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:- 09.The evidence of PW.1 Sub-Inspector of Police, R.P.F.Post, Dhone is that on 18.08.2019 at about 06:30 hours., while hee along with his staff were watching in between Khadar Peta and Kallur Railway stations and they noticed the accused while he was carrying a white polythene bag and on suspicion he detained him and secured presence of mediators and when he eqnuired the accused he revealed his name and address particulars mentioned in the complaint and he examined the said bag he noticed 20 numbers of ER clips used in Railways and the accused confessed that he committed theft of the same along with railway track in between Kadar Peta and Kalluru Railway stations. The accused failed to produce any receipt for possession of ER Clips and then he seized ER clips in his possession and affixed identity slips on it and he recorded hi s confessional statement in the presence of mediators and he prepared the scene observation mahazar and arrested the accused and then he registered this case as in Cr.No.2/2019, U/Sec.3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act and he forwarded him for judicial remand in Cr.No.2/2019 and after completion of investigation he filed complaint in this case.

10.At this stage this court heard the arguments of both learned Public

Prosecutor for Railways and the accused counsel.

-4-

It is the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor of Railways that in this case the prosecution examined PW.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and MO.1, on behalf of the defence no-body was examined and no document was marked and convict the accused for the offence U/Sec.3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful

Possession) Act 1966 beyond all reasonable doubt.

11.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused submits that a false case has been foisted against the accused for statistical purpose and no railway property was seized as alleged by the prosecution from the possession of the accused and prays the court to acquit the accused.

It is further contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the confessional statement of the accused, Ex.P.3 is recorded by PW.1 under coercion and therefore it is hit by Sec.24 of Indian Evidence Act and also confession to the police officer is not admissible under Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act as R.P.F.Officer is also police officer.

It is also his contention that the case property is also not produced before the court which is also fatal to the prosecution case. But, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is rejected for the reason that the prosecution produced the seized case property and got it marked as MO.No.1.

It is further contention of the learned counsel for accused counsel that as per Sec.3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act 1966 the three essential ingredients to constitute the gist of the offence are (1) That the accused has been in possession of railway property (2) The said property was seized from the accused and (3) It is reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained.

The learned counsel for the accused contends that as the above ingredients have not been proved by the prosecution, the accused is by marking Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.8 the prosecution proved that the accused was in possession of railway -5- property and the above said railway property was seized from the possession of the accused and also the prosecution proved that the property was unlawfully obtained by the accused and as such the accused is liable to be convicted. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution did not prove the ingredients of Sec.3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act 1966 is rejected.

12. He relied upon a decision reported in Abdul Rashid, Revisionist V. State of

U.P., 1991 Crl.J.3065 and submits that fact of recovery of alleged railway property from adjoining land of the house of the accused is not conclusive proof of his possession over them and the prosecution must prove that recovered articles were in use and possession of the accused. But, in the case on hand, the case property was recovered from the physical possession of the accused and hence the observations in the above case have no application.

13.It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the confession given by the accused under Ex.P.3 document is not judicial confession and it is extra judicial confession and therefore the confessional statement of the accused Ex.P.3 recorded by PW.1 is weak piece of evidence and therefore it should not we accepted without corroboration and it is not safe to base a conviction by relying upon Ex.P.3 confessional statement of the accused.

14. In reply the learned Public Prosecutor for Railways relied upon a decision reported in A.I.R.1981 S.C.379 in between Balakishan A.Devidayal Vs. State of Maharastra where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “Officer of Railway

Protection Force making inquiry in respect of offence under section 3 of

Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 is not Police Officer by

interpreting Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and also held that, the

confession made to Railway Protection Force Officer by the accused is

admissible in evidence”. In this case also PW.1 is not police officer as per the law -6- laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore Ex.P.3 confessional statement of the accused is admissible. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that Exs.P.3 to P.5 confessional statement of the accused is not admissible under section 25 of evidence Act is rejected.

15.The contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that Ex.P.3 confessional statement of the accused is extracted from PW.1 under coercion and compulsion, this court is of the view that the accused never stated before anybody nor before the court during trial or at the time of their having remanded to the court nor before any Superior Officers of Railway Protection Force that their confessional statement are recorded forcibly by PW.1. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the accused at this stage that the confessional statement of the accused is recorded forcibly under compulsion cannot be accepted.

16.Therefore, for the aforesaid discussion, and when Pw.1 was in the box except putting a suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated in this case, nothing to discredit his testimony was elicited and as such the testimony of Pw1 the investigation officer remains unchallenged and uncontroverted on material aspect and thus it can be safely held that his evidence before the court is reliable, and trustworthy to base a conviction.

17.In view of the above discussion it is held that the prosecution proved guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec.3(a) of R.P.(UP)

Act 1966. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence U/Sec.3(a) of R.P.

(UP) Act and consequently they are convicted of the offence U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 13th day of September, 2022.

Sd/- K.V.Ramakrishnaiah

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

For Railways, Guntakal -7- 13.09.2022:

When questioned about the quantum of sentence, the accused submitted that they are poor persons and eking out livelihood by attending coolie works and plead to take a lenient view.

Having heard the submissions of the accused and under the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the offence, this court is not inclined to apply the provisions of P.O. Act, but to take a lenient view while imposing sentence.

Record reveals that the accused were in jail for 08 days during first remand. Hence, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousaqnd only) and in default of payment of fine, shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence U/Sec.3(a) RP(UP) Act. The interim custody of MO.1 to the railway authority holds good after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation in open court, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on 13th day of September, 2022.

Sd/- K.V.Ramakrishnaiah

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

For Railways, Guntakal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: A.Venugopal. (I.O). -None -

Exhibits Marked for

Prosecution: Defence: Ex.P1: Panchanama dt.08.08.2019 at 09:45 hours. -Nil - Ex.P2: Seizure list of GI Pipes dt.08.08.2019 at 10:45 hours. Ex.P3: Confessional statement of accused. Ex.P4: Theft report dt.04.05.2019. Ex.P5: Case property certificate dt.23.10.2019. Ex.P6: Statement of U.Yerriswamy dt.08.09.2019. Ex.P7: Statement of N.Raghu dt.08.09.2019. Ex.P8: Observation panchanama dt.08.08.2019 at 8 hrs.

Material Objects Marked for

Prosecution: Defence: MO.1: 20 numbers of ER clips. -Nil-

Sd/- KVRK

J.F.C.M/GTL FAC/Spl.J.F.C.M.(Rly’s), Guntakal

In the court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways),

Guntakal.

Present:- Sri. K.V.Ramakrishnaiah, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal. FAC/ Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

Tuesday, the 06th day of September, 2022

Calendar Case.No.45/2016

BETWEEN:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Guntakal Railway Police Station.

…... Complainant.

AND

Dasari Hanumanthu, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Thimmappa, R/o Near Vannurswamy Temple, Bommanahal, Ananthapuramu District.

…. Accused

This case has come before me on 06-09-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri V.Nagaraju, Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon perusing the material available on record this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Guntakal Railway Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.02/2014 under section 411 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: On 31.10.2013 at about 02:45 hours while the defacto complainant/LW.1/Jitendra Anantha Rao

Deshpande and his family members have been travelling in Train No.16571

Yeswanthapur – Bidar Express in AC-2 coach, in berth Nos.31, 32, 33 and when the said train has reached Hindupur Railway station he woke up and when some unknown offenders have committed theft of his hand bag containing a1) Nokia

Handset C2 worth of Rs.6,000/-, 2) Nokia Handset worth of Rs.3,000/-, 3)

Samsung Handset worth of Rs.7,000/-, 4) SBI ATM Card, 5) Boroda ATM Card, 6)

PAN CARD, 7) Driving License, 8) Cash of Rs.15,000/-, all worth of Rs.31,000/- -2- and continued their journey and he lodged report before the Bidar Railway police and they registered a case as in Cr.No.09/2013 and the same was transferred to

Guntakal RPS on the point of jurisdiction and LW.4 B.R.Krishnaiah, SI of police has re-registered it as in Cr.No.02/2014, U/Sec.379 IPC of Guntakal RPS. On 23.10.2015 at about 09:30 hours PW.1 arrested the accused at Gooty Cabin and seized property nil concerned to this case but recovered properties involved in other cases from the accused under the cover of panchanama and then PW.1 forwarded him for judicial remand and after completion of entire investigation the

PW.1 Sub-Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file by my predecessor in office against the accused for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC and on appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.When the accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., he denied the substance of accusation. After perusing the entire material available on record and on hearing the both sides, a charge under section 411 of IPC was framed, read over and explained its contents to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

5. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has out of listed 8 witnesses, examined 4 witnesses as Pws.1 to 4, got marked Exs.P.1 to

P.4. The evidence of remaining witnesses was given up by the A.P.P on 28.11.2018.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing from the prosecution witnesses in Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported no -3- defence evidence on his behalf.

7. Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

9.Among the prosecution witnesses, PWs.1 and 2 are the investigating agency, Pws.3 and 4 are the mediators in this case. Ex.P.1 is the signature of

PW.3 on the mahazar dt.23.10.2015, Ex.P.2 is the signature of PW.4 on the mahazar dt.23.10.2015, Ex.P.3 is the confession, arrest and seizure of the property mahazarnama dt.23.10.2015, Ex.P.4 is the FIR in Cr.No.02/2014 in this case.

10.POINT: In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC, it is the prime duty of the prosecution to establish the following basic aspects.

a) that some property was stolen;

b) that the accused received or retained such property with a dishonest intention;

c) that the property in possession of the accused was a stolen property.

11.Unfolding the case of the prosecution, PW.1 the Sub-Inspector of police,

Guntakal Railway police station deposed that during the course of investigation he received CD file from PW.2/SI of police and found that his investigation is on correct lines. He got produced the accused before this court on PT Warrant with the permission of the court and thereafter as the investigation is completed the filed challan.

12. The testimony of PW.2 the Sub-Inspector of police, Guntakal RPS is that on 23.10.2015 at about 11:30 am., he arrested the accused at Gooty Cabin and -4- seized no property from the possession of the accused relating to this crime. He also deposed that the accused confessed before him in the prsence of mediators that he spent money for his personal expenses and he had thrown away mobile phone ATM Cards and other documents relating to this crime some where else.

Then he arrested the accused, brought him to Gooty RPS Post and sent him for judicial custody and after completion of investigation his another SI/PW.1 filed charge sheet in this case.

13.It was elicited in his cross examination that no property relating to this case was recovered from the possession of the accused.

14.The testimonies of PW.3 and PW.4, who are the alleged mediators, to speak about the alleged confession (Ex.P.3), arrest of accused on 23.10.2015 at South

Cabin, Gooty RPS, by the police. But according to them the SI of police prepared panchanama in their presence but they do not know the contents of the panchanama. They also deposed that the police recovered gold wg about 1 thula (10 grams) and cash Rs.1,000/- from the possession of the accused relating to some other crimes.

15.It was elicited in their cross examination that Ex.P.2 panchanama was prepared in the police station, but they denied the suggestions that they are the stock witnesses for the Railway police and no search of accused and seizure of any property was effected from the possession of the accused. They also denied the suggestion that the accused has not made any confession in their presence to the police about commission of any offences.

16.Coming to the appreciation of material on record, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge U/Sec.411 IPC the prosecution must establish that the accused was found in possession of stolen goods. The -5- prosecution failed to examine the victim who alleged to have lost his movables and lodged a report to show that some property was subjected to commission of theft from his possession to meet the first ingredient of the offence. As regards the recovery of case property from the conscious possession of accused is concerned, except the alleged confession recorded by the police which is inadmissible in evidence, none of the prosecution witnesses speaks that any property relating to this case was found in possession of the accused.

17. As admittedly, no property was recovered from the possession of the accused regarding this case, the question of retaining such property with dishonest intention by the accused does not arise and hence it is held that the prosecution miserably failed to put forth any legally definite evidence to connect the accused to the charge U/Sec.411 IPC. The prosecution also failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence U/Sec.411 IPC to connect the accused with the same. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the accused was found red handed while committing the offence alleged in this case to bring home the guilt for the charge U/Sec.379 IPC also. Hence the point is answered against the prosecution.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and he is acquitted of the same under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case. As no property was recovered and produced in this case, property order need not be passed.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer of Railway court, Guntakal, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on 06 th September, 2022.

Sd/- K.V.Ramakrishnaiah

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

For Railways, Guntakal -6-

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: S.M.Rahamthulla, IO. -None - PW.2: A.Ramesh Babu, IO. PW.3: Golla Dasu. PW.4: E.Vinod Kumar.

Exhibits Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.3 on the mahazar -Nil - dt.23.10.2015. Ex.P2: Signature of PW.4 on the mahazar dt.23.10.2015. Ex.P.3: Confession, arrest and seizure of the property mahazarnama dt.23.10.2015. Ex.P.4: FIR in Cr.No.02/2014 of Guntakal RPS.

Material Objects Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

-Nil- -Nil-

Sd/- KVRK

J.F.C.M/GTL FAC/Spl.J.F.C.M.(Rly’s), Guntakal.

// True copy // Attested //