Sri K.Venkatesh

1 of 8 CC.No.1529 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

PRESENT: K. VENKATESH, XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

Tuesday, this the 27 th day of April, 2021

CALENDER CASE NO.1529 OF 2017

Between: The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Ramgopalpet

... Complainant

AND

1. Avusula Raju, S/o Anantha Chary, Age: 19 Years, Occ: Student, R/o 1-65, Damaragidda Village, Chevella (M), Ranga Reddy District.

2. Kalasani Kiran Kumar Yadav, S/o Somaiah, Age: 26 Years, Occ: Police Constable, R/o H.No.8-164/1, New Ramalayam Back, Damaracherla, Nalgonda.

... Accused no.1 and 2

This case is coming up for final hearing before me on 23-04-2021 in the presence of Sri M.Shekara Chary, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri V.Rajender Rao, Learned Counsel for Accused no.1 and 2, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Ramgopalpet had filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 in Crime No.16/2012 for an offence punishable under section 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet in brief as follows:

That, on 21-01-2012 at about 05.30am Sri K.Jagannath Reddy, ACP,

CCS, DD, North Zone & ADR Teams were the Officer Incharge at the holding point for SCTPCs selection and the Preliminary Selection Test (PST 5 Km) was 2 of 8 CC.No.1529 of 2017 conducted at Peoples Plaza, Necklace Road, Sanjeevaiah Park, in that event,

A1 and A2 participated in the above test and the rest i.e., 164 candidates qualified, whereas A1 and A2, have not qualified and were marked as “Not qualified”. Inspite of not qualifying, A1 and A2 enterted into the Tent No.1 for getting hall tickets and the Officers verified the video footage and found A1 and A2 as not qualified but, A1 and A2 entered into the tent and claims to be in qualified group and thus involved in malpractice in Preliminary selection

Test and thus A1 and A2 were sent out and thus cheated the police officials and indulged in malpractice in Preliminary Selection Test. Hence, the complainant lodged a report before Pw8 Sri B.Ramesh, SI of Police, PS

Ramgopalpet.

3.Basing on the contents of the above report, Pw8 Sri B.Ramesh, Sub

Inspector of police has registered a case in Crime No.16/2012 under section 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code and tookup the investigation. During the course of investigation, PW8 has recorded the statements of PWs1 to 3 alongwith other witnesses. Later Pw8 after checking the video recording of the selection process and seized the Token Nos.166 and 184, later Pw8 affected the arrest of A1 and A2 and produced them before the court. Later

Pw8 laid charge sheet against A1 and A2 under section 420 read with 511 of

Indian Penal Code.

4.This court took cognizance for an offence punishable under section 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code. On appearance of the accused no.1 and 2, copies of documents was supplied to them as required under Section 207

Code of Criminal Procedure.

3 of 8 CC.No.1529 of 2017

5.The accused no.1 and 2 are examined Under section 239 Code of

Criminal Procedure. A charge has been framed against the accused no.1 and 2 for an offence punishable under section 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal

Code and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which, the accused no.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution has cited 15 witnesses, out of them it could be examined 08 witnesses and got marked ExP1 to P9. Pw1 Sri C.G.Rajan, is the complainant and the then Administrative Officer in the Office of

Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad. Pw2 Sri Mohd Fazal-ur-Rahaman, Pw3 Sri

N.Sudhakar Reddy, Pw4 A.Shiva Krishna, Pw5 Sri A.Seethaiah and Pw6 Sri

K.Jagannadha Reddy are the Police personnel and eye witnesses to the incident. Pw7 Sri Suresh Pareek is the one of the mediator for confessional statement of A1 and A2 and seizure report. Pw8 Sri B.Ramesh is the

Investigating Officer. ExP1 is the complainant lodged by Pw1. ExP2 is the signature of Pw7 on the confession statement of A1 and A2. ExP3 is the signature of Pw7 on the seizure report. ExP4 is the First Information Report.

ExP5 is the confession statement of A1 and A2. ExP6 is the Mini Video Tape (recorder) Sony. ExP7 is the Mini Video Tape (recorder) JVC. ExP8 is the PST

Card bearing registration No.579382 dated 21-01-2012. ExP9 is the PST Card bearing registration No.579498 dated 21-01-2012. The learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining listed witnesses i.e., Lw5 D.Someshwar Rao,

Lw6 E.Sai Ram, Lw7 Sri C.Manoj, Lw8 S.Yadagiri, Lw9 G.Sevya Naik and Lw10

Sri L.Balu Chawhar, who are the police personnel, even if they are examined, no purpose would be served to the case of the prosecution. The police failed to produce Lw4 Sri V.Naresh, who is the another panch for confessional statement of A1 and A2, despite granting several adjournments, hence, this court has no other option, except to close the evidence of above witness.

4 of 8 CC.No.1529 of 2017

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same was read over and explained to accused no.1 and 2 in

Telugu, to which, accused no.1 and 2, denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned Counsel for the accused no.1 and 2.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 for an offence punishable under section 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT: The accused no.1 and 2 are charged for an offence punishable under section 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code. To prove the said offence, the prosecution must be able to prove that, the accused no.1 and 2 are the persons who attempted to cheat either Pw1 or any other witness.

11.Pw.1 Sri C.G.Rajan, is the Complainant, his testimony is that, on 21-01- 2012 as part of SLPRP State level police recruitment, conducted preliminary test of the candidates and all the candidates shall undergo 5 K run qualifying test from Necklace road to Sanjeevaiah Park. Each batch comprising of 100

Candidates. A1 and A2 are members of fifth batch. After verifying their eligibility, they collected their hall tickets and they fixed chest band to them.

They were assigned chest number 166 and 184. They were allowed to participate in run from the end of the Sanjeevaiah Park. One Assistant 5 of 8 CC.No.1529 of 2017

Commissioner alongwith 10 other team headed by the Joint Commissioner of

Police, will be at the finishing point. The entire process is under video graphed. After completion of run of the successful candidates, they remove the chest band and they will send to Tent No.1. Their joint Commissioner of police is personally round off the selected candidates and the supported team removed the chest bands. After five minutes, the Joint Commissioner will be the list of selected candidates, basing on which, they will make head count. Basing on the list given by the Joint Comissioner, they sort out the hall tickets from the successful candidates and they put qualified stamps on the hall tickets, which will be issued to the qualified candidates for next round of tests. Subsequently, the accused went to Joint Commissioner and represented that though they were qualified they were not issued hall tickets for next round of tests. By that time, both the accused holding the batches, which is not possible. Afterwards, their joint Commissioner verified with the ground staff and also video clippings and found the accused unauthorizedly claimed as qualified candidates. Basing the instructions of their Joint

Commissioner of Police, he gave a complaint.

As seen from the evidence of Pw1, he is not an eye witness to the incident. Basing on the instructions of Joint Commissioner of Police, he lodged a report. However, his evidence prove that after the alleged incident, he lodged a report. Further, Pw1 has admitted in his cross examination that, he did not file any document to show that how many candidates were participated and disqualified, so also, notification pertaining to the above recruitment. So, the evidence of Pw1 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution. Pw2 Sri Mohd Fazalur Rahman and Pw3 N.Sudhakar Reddy are the police constables, who videographed the entire 5K run event. Their testimony is that, they have videographed 5K run event and during the said event, two persons were jumped into the selection group and the same was 6 of 8 CC.No.1529 of 2017 identified by his Superior Officers. So, the evidence of Pws2 and 3 prove that they came to know about jumping of two persons into the selection group through their Superior Officers and they did not see while the A1 and A2 were jumping into the qualified group. Pw4 Sri A.Shiva Krishna and Pw6 Sri

K.Jaganadha Reddy are the other police personnel, have deposed more or less in similar lines to that of Pws1 to 3. As seen from the evidence of Pw1 to 6, they all stated that basing on the videograph, they noticed the A1 and A2, as they jumped into the selection group.

12.Pw7 Sri Suresh Pareek is one of the mediator for confession statement of A1 and A2, so also, seizure report, his testimony is that, on 21-01-2012 in between 05.00pm to 05.30pm the SI of Police, Ramgopalpet called him near next street road and obtained his signatures on some written documents and he does not know the contents of the said documents. Pw7 did not support to the case of the prosecution. The learned APP with permission of the court has declared Pw7 as hostile. The learned APP with permission of the court has cross examined the Pw7, during cross examination, the learned APP did not elicit anything against the accused, except to put suggestions, which were denied by him.

13.Then there remains the evidence of Pw8 Sri B.Ramesh, who is

Investigating Officer in this case, his evidence prove with regard to receiving report from Pw1, registration of FIR, recording the statements of witnesses and conducting confession statement of A1 and A2, as well as, seizure report.

As seen from the evidence of Pws1 to 8, Pws1 to 7 have deposed evidence, basing on the alleged Videograph, which was taken on the date of alleged incident. Except said videograph, which are marked as ExP6 to P9, there is no eye witness to the said incident. Even, Pw8 did not examine atleast one candidate, who attended in the above recruitment. Further, to prove the 7 of 8 CC.No.1529 of 2017 offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code, the offence should be committed. Mere attempt is not an offence under section 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code.

14. The learned counsel for Accused no.1 and 2 has vehemently argued that ExsP6 to P9 shall not be considered, since the prosecution failed to file certificate as required under section 65-B (4) of Indian Evidence Act. To support his contention, he relied on the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anwar P.V. Vs P.K.Basheer and Others, reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court

Cases (Cri) 24. Yet another judgment in Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs Kailassh

Kaushan Rao Gorantyal and Others reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court

Cases (Cri) 1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that certificate required under Section 65B(4) of the Act, is mandatory and a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record. The court further clarified that, the required certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Act, is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. So, in this case the originals are not produced as such ExsP6 to P9 cannot be considered. Even ExsP6 to P9 were not sent to the Forensic Science

Laboratory for comparison to show that, the persons who are appearing in the said videograph and the accused are one and the same. This is also one of the lacunae to the case of the prosecution.

15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and foregoing reasons, I am of considered view that, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 with which they were charged. Hence, I hold that, the accused no.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.

The point is answered accordingly.

16.In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for an offence punishable under section 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code and 8 of 8 CC.No.1529 of 2017 accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 and 2 shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. ExsP6 to P9 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Type to dictation to the Stenographer on the computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27th day of April, 2021).

XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Pw1 Sri C.G.Rajan, is the complainant and the then Administrative -Nil-

Officer in the Office of Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

Pw2 Sri Mohd Fazal-ur-Rahaman, Pw3 Sri N.Sudhakar Reddy, Pw4 A.Shiva

Krishna, Pw5 Sri A.Seethaiah and Pw6 Sri K.Jagannadha Reddy are the Police personnel and eye witnesses to the incident.

Pw7 Sri Suresh Pareek is the one of the mediator for confessional statement of A1 and A2 and seizure report.

Pw8 Sri B.Ramesh is the Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

ExP1 is the complainant lodged by Pw1. -Nil-

ExP2 is the signature of Pw7 on the confession statement of A1 and A2.

ExP3 is the signature of Pw7 on the seizure report.

ExP4 is the First Information Report.

ExP5 is the confession statement of A1 and A2.

ExP6 is the Mini Video Tape (recorder) Sony.

ExP7 is the Mini Video Tape (recorder) JVC.

ExP8 is the PST Card bearing registration No.579382 dated 21-01-2012.

ExP9 is the PST Card bearing registration No.579498 dated 21-01-2012.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

- Nil - - Nil -

XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE,SECUNDERABAD

1 of 8 CC.No.2884 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, SECUNDERABAD

PRESENT: K. VENKATESH,

XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

Thursday, this the 22 nd day of April, 2021

CALENDER CASE NO.2884 OF 2020

Between: The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Tukaramgate

... Complainant

AND

1. Sri Pabitra Kumar Jaysingh, S/o Pravakar Jaysingh, Age: 23 Years, Occ: Glass Cleaning Work, R/o H.No.18-482, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad.

2. Sri Dilip Dalei, S/o Jogi Dalei, Age: 19 Years, Occ: Glass Cleaning Work, R/o H.No.18-482, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad.

...Accused no.1 and 2

This case is coming up for final hearing before me on 19-04-2021 in the presence of Sri M.Shekara Chary, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri P.Srinivas, Learned Legal Aid Counsel for Accused nos.1 and 2, and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Tukaramgate Police Station had filed charge sheet in Crime No.181/2020 for an offence punishable under section 382 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) against the accused nos.1 and 2.

2 of 8 CC.No.2884 of 2020

2. The case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet in brief is that:

That on 04-08-2020 at about 05.00pm Smt. Dundigalla Sailaja (Pw1), has lodged a report, wherein she stated that while she was going to evening walk from her residence East Marredpally, Secunderabad to Teacher’s Colony

Park and on reaching near Kennedy School, in the mean time, two unknown persons came from backside on their two wheeler Black Colour Honda Activa and snatched away her Hand Purse (Navy Blue Colour) from her right hand and the said bag containing her POCO mobile phone and net cash of

Rs.2,000/- and sped away towards St.Johns Road.

3.Basing on the contents of the said report, Smt. Devija (Lw7), Sub

Inspector of Police, P.S.Tukaramgate has registered a case and issued FIR.

Later she handed over the case file to Pw5 Sri D.Srinu, SI of Police, PS

Tukaramgate for investigation. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of Pw1 at PS. Later he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene observation panchanama and drew rough sketch before the two mediators. While the investigation was in progress, on 16-11-2020

Pw5 has received information from Pw4 Sri Ch.Hari Prasad, SI of Police, PS

Malkajgiri about the arrest of A1 and A2 in Crime No.550/2020 of PS

Malkajgiri and during the course of interrogation, A1 and A2 confessed to have committed this offence and remanded them to Judicial custody. Later

Pw5 has produced the accused before this court on execution of PT warrant and regularized their remand. Later Pw5 laid charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under section 382 read with 34 of Indian Penal

Code.

3 of 8 CC.No.2884 of 2020

4.This court took cognizance for an offence punishable under section 382 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. On production of the accused no.1 and 2, from Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District, copies of documents were supplied to them as required under section 207 Code of Criminal

Procedure.

5.The accused nos.1 and 2 are examined under section 239 Code of

Criminal Procedure. A charge has been framed against A1 and A2 under section 382 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, and the same is read over and explained to A1 and A2 in Hindi, to which, the accused no.1 and 2 are pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution has cited 08 witnesses, out of them it could be examined only 05 witness and got marked ExP1 to P6. Pw1 Smt Dundigalla

Sailaja is the Complainant and victim. Pw2 Sri Dinesh Vishwakarma is the one of the mediator for scene observation panchanama. Pw3 Sri Bandi Nikhil is one of the mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama. Pw4 Sri Ch.Hari

Prasad, SI of Police, PS Malkajgiri, who arrested A1 and A2. Pw5 Sri D.Srinu is the Investigating Officer. ExP1 is the report lodged by Pw1. ExP2 is the Scene

Observation Panchanama. ExP3 is the attested copy of scene, confession cum seizure panchanama. ExP4 is the attested copy of seizure report. ExP5 is the First Information Report. The learned APP has given up the evidence of

Lw7 Smt. Devija, SI of Police, who issued FIR. The police failed to produce the

Lw2 Sri Yempati Prasad and Lw5 Sri Sanku Chandrakanth, who are the one of the mediator for scene observation panchanama and seizure panchanama, despite granting several adjourments and addressing letters to the Assistant

CommissionerofPolice,GopalpuramDivisionvideDis 4 of 8 CC.No.2884 of 2020

No.471/XXIIACMM/Sec.bad/2021 dated 22-03-2021, hence this court has no other option, except to close the evidence of above witnesses.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused nos.1 and 2 are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same are read over and explained to A1 and A2 in Hindi, to which, the accused nos.1 and 2 denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned Legal Aid

Counsel for the accused nos.1 and 2.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused nos.1 and 2 for the charge punishable under section 382 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT: The accused no.1 and 2 were charged for an offence punishable under section 382 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. To prove the said offence, the prosecution must be able to prove that, the accused are the persons, with common intention, committed theft having made preparation for causing death, hurt, or of restraint, towards Pw1

Smt.D.Sailaja in order to committing theft.

11.PW1 Smt D.Sailaja is the defacto complainant and victim, her testimony is that on 04-08-2020 at about 05.30pm while she was going to evening walk at Garden, Kennedy School, in the meantime, two persons came from her 5 of 8 CC.No.2884 of 2020 backside on two wheeler Activa Honda vehicle and A1 snatched away purse from her right hand and the said purse containaining one POCO mobile phone, cash of Rs.2,000/-, spectacles and house keys. A1 is the person, who snatched away her purse. Later she went to PS and lodged a report. On the same day, the police informed that the culprits were arrested and called her to PS to identify them. Upon which, she went to PS, where she identified the

A1. Though Pw1 has stated that she went to PS and identified the A1, but in her cross examination, she categorically admitted that at the instance of police only, she came to know that A1 is the person, who snatched away her cell phone. So, it is clear that Pw1 did not notice the person who snatched her purse, which is containing POCO mobile phone, cash of Rs.2,000/- and other articles. However, the evidence of Pw1 prove that after the incident she went to PS and lodged a report.

12.Pw2 Sri Dinesh Vishwakarma is the one of the mediator for scene observation panchanama, his testimony is that, on 04-03-2020 at about 06.00pm the police Tukaramgate called him near cross road of Kennedy

School, Secunderabad, where they informed that the purse of Pw1 was stolen by some unknown persons. In that regard, the police have conducted scene observation panchanama in his presence. So, the evidence of Pw2 prove that after the incident the police visited the scene of offence and conducted scene observation panchanama.

13.Pw3 Sri Bandi Nikhil is one of the mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama, his testimony is that, on 06-08-2020 at about 04.00pm PW4 called him to PS, where he noticed A1 and A2. Then Pw4 asked him to enquire A1 and A2. Upon which, he took A1 and A2 to some distance in PS and enquired them. On enquiry, A1 and A2 confessed that they have 6 of 8 CC.No.2884 of 2020 committed various offences alongwith this offence and they kept the stolen property in their house situated at Malikarjuna Nagar, Malkajgiri. Upon which, he alongwith Lw5 Sri S.Chandrakant, accused and Pw4 went to the house of

A1 and A2, where they searched the house of accused, on search they found one Red MI, POCO and Lenova mobile phones, two Aadhar Cards, net cash of

Rs.7,400/-. Then the police seized the said property. Thereafter the police had taken away the accused. Prior to the visit of the accused, the police have drafted confession cum seizure panchanama, as well as, seizure report at PS.

Pw4 Sri Ch.Hari Prasad, who arrested the A1 and A2 and seized the alleged stolen property, his testimony is that on 06-08-2020 on credible information, he arrested A1 and A2 at cross roads of Malkajgiri in Crime No.550/2020 under section 382 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code of PS Malkajgiri. During the course of interrogation, in the presence of mediators i.e., Pw3 Sri D.Nikhil and S.Chandrakanth (Lw5), A1 and A2 confessed to have committed this offence alongwith with other offences, then he seized one POCO mobile phone from the possession of A1 pertaining to Crime No.181/2020 of PS

Tukaramgate, so also net cash of Rs,.7,400/- from the possession of A1, pertaining to Crime No.182/2021 of PS Tukaramgate. As seen from the evidence of Pws3 and 4, their evidence is not corroborating each other.

Because Pw2 has stated that basing on the confession of A1 and A2, they went to the house of accused, where they seized mobile phones and cash of

Rs.7,400/-. Whereas, Pw4 has stated that immediately after the arrest of A1 and A2, they recovered the stolen property from the possession of Accused.

Even Pw4 did not state that they visited the house of the accused and seized the stolen property. Further, as per the evidence of Pw3, by the time he reached to PS, the accused were already in the custody of the police. So, the confession made before the police is not admissible in evidence. Further, as per the evidence of Pw3, Pw4 took them to the house of A1 and A2, where 7 of 8 CC.No.2884 of 2020 they recovered the stolen property. If really, Pw4 recovered the stolen property from the house of A1 and A2, who prevented Pw4 to secure the presence of two respectable persons of the local inhabitants, where the alleged property was recovered. Even for a moment, it assumes that, Pw4 recovered the property from the house of A1 and A2, he did not follow the procedure as contemplated under section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. So, the evidence of Pw3 and 4 is not believable and trustworthy.

Even the prosecution failed to mark the stolen property as material object.

14.Then there remains the evidence of Pw5 Sri D.Srinu, who is the another investigating Officer, his evidence prove with regard to receiving report from

Pw1, registration of FIR, conducting scene observation panchanana and filing of charge sheet. The evidence of Pw5 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. As seen from the evidence of Pws1 to 5, there is no cogent and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of the Accused no.1 and 2.

15.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and foregoing reasons, I am of considered view that, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 with which they were charged. Hence, I hold that, the accused no.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.

The point is answered accordingly.

16.In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for an offence punishable under section 382 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The

Superintendent Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District, is directed to release the accused no.1 and 2 forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. The unmarked property i.e., POCO Mobile phone, which was 8 of 8 CC.No.2884 of 2020 deposited before this court vide P.I.No.170/2020 dated 17-10-2020, the same was in the safe custody of the police, the same shall be returned to Pw1 after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 22nd day of April, 2021).

XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Pw1 Smt Dundigalla Sailaja is the Complainant and victim. -Nil-

Pw2 Sri Dinesh Vishwakarma is the one of the mediator for scene observation panchanama.

Pw3 Sri Bandi Nikhil is one of the mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama.

Pw4 Sri Ch.Hari Prasad, SI of Police, PS Malkajgiri, who arrested A1 and A2.

Pw5 Sri D.Srinu is the Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

ExP1 is the report lodged by Pw1. -Nil-

ExP2 is the Scene Observation Panchanama.

ExP3 is the attested copy of scene, confession cum seizure panchanama.

ExP4 is the attested copy of seizure report.

ExP5 is the First Information Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil--Nil-

XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE,SECUNDERABAD

1 of 8 CC.No.2962 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, SECUNDERABAD

PRESENT: K. VENKATESH,

XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

Thursday, this the 22 nd day of April, 2021

CALENDER CASE NO.2962 OF 2020

Between: The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Tukaramgate

... Complainant

AND

1. Sri Pabitra Kumar Jaysingh, S/o Pravakar Jaysingh, Age: 23 Years, Occ: Glass Cleaning Work, R/o H.No.18-482, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad.

2. Sri Dilip Dalei, S/o Jogi Dalei, Age: 19 Years, Occ: Glass Cleaning Work, R/o H.No.18-482, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad.

...Accused no.1 and 2

This case is coming up for final hearing before me on 19-04-2021 in the presence of Sri M.Shekara Chary, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri P.Srinivas, Learned Legal Aid Counsel for Accused no.1 and 2, and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Tukaramgate Police Station had filed charge sheet in Crime No.182/2020 for an offence punishable under section 382 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) against the accused no.1 and 2.

2 of 8 CC.No.2962 of 2020

2. The case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet in brief is that:

That on 04-08-2020 at about 04.30pm has lodged a report, wherein she stated that Pw1 Smt.Janjanam Laxmi Devasena, working as Private Teacher at Sri Vidhya Special School, Mahindra Hills, as usual, after completion of her work, started to home by walk via Tukaramgate and on reaching near Kondal

Reddy Park, in the meantime, two unknown persons came from her backside on Honda Activa (Black Colour) and forcibly snatched away her hand bag (brown colour) from her right hand shoulder and her hand bag contains

Rs.8,400/- cash and ID Card and they sped away on their two wheeler Honda

Activa towards Railway Under Bridge towards Malkajgiri.

3.Basing on the contents of the said report, Lw8 Smt. Devija, Sub

Inspector of Police, P.S.Tukaramgate has registered a case and issued FIR.

Later she handed over the case file to Pw4 Sri D.Srinu, SI of Police, PS

Tukaramgate for investigation. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of Pw1 at PS. Later he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene observation panchanama and drew rough sketch before the two mediators. While the investigation was in progress, on 16-11-2020

Pw4 has received information from Pw3 Sri Ch.Hari Prasad, SI of Police, PS

Malkajgiri about the arrest of A1 and A2 in Crime No.550/2020 of PS

Malkajgiri and during the course of interrogation, A1 and A2 confessed to have committed this offence and remanded them to Judicial custody. Later

Pw4 has produced the accused before this court on execution of PT warrant and regularized their remand. Later Pw4 laid charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under section 382 read with 34 of Indian Penal

Code.

3 of 8 CC.No.2962 of 2020

4.This court took cognizance for an offence punishable under section 382 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. On production of the accused no.1 and 2, from Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District, copies of documents were supplied to them as required under section 207 Code of Criminal

Procedure.

5.The accused nos.1 and 2 were examined under section 239 Code of

Criminal Procedure. A charge has been framed against A1 and A2 under section 382 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, and the same is read over and explained to A1 and A2 in Hindi, to which, the accused nos.1 and 2 are pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution has cited 09 witnesses, out of them it could be examined only 04 witness and got marked ExP1 to P7. Pw1 Smt Janjanam

Laxmi Devasena is the Complainant and victim. Pw2 Sri Bandi Nikhil is the one of the mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama. Pw3 Sri Ch.Hari

Prasad, SI of Police, PS Malkajgiri, who arrested A1 and A2. Pw4 Sri D.Srinu is the Investigating Officer. ExP1 is the report lodged by Pw1. ExP2 is the photograph. ExP3 is the attested copy of scene, confession cum seizure panchanama. ExP4 is the attested copy of seizure report. ExP5 is the First

Information Report. ExP6 is the Crime Details Form. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lw6 Smt B.Sowjanya and Lw8 Smt. Devija, SI of

Police, who issued FIR. Even if they are examined, no purpose would be served to the case of the prosecution. The police failed to produce the Lw2

Sri Gourav jaiswal, Lw3 M.Deepak and Lw5 Sri Sanku Chandrakant, who are the mediators for scene observation panchanama, as well as, confession cum seizure panchanama, despite granting several adjournments and addressing 4 of 8 CC.No.2962 of 2020 letters to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gopalpuram Division vide Dis

No.278/XXIIACMM/Sec.bad/2021 dated 22-02-2021 and letter Dis No.

470/XXIIACMM/Sec.bad/2021 dated 22-03-2021, hence this court has no other option, except to close the evidence of above witnesses.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused nos.1 and 2 are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same are read over and explained to A1 and A2 in Hindi, to which, the accused nos.1 and 2 denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned Counsel for the accused nos.1 and 2.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused nos.1 and 2 for the charge punishable under section 382 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT: The accused nos.1 and 2 were charged for an offence punishable under section 382 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. To prove the said offences, the prosecution must be able to prove that, the accused are the persons, who committed theft, having made preparation for causing death, hurt, or of restraint, towards Pw1 Smt.J.Laxmi Devasena in order to committing theft.

5 of 8 CC.No.2962 of 2020

11.PW1 Smt J.Laxmi Devasena is the defacto complainant and victim, her testimony is that on 04-08-2020 at about 05.30pm while she was going from

Mahindra Hills towards Malkajgiri, on the way she reached Railway bridge, near park Lallaguda, meanwhile, two persons came on scooty vehicle from her backside and pulled her bag and fled away alongwith said bag. The said bag containing cash of Rs.8,400/- and one ID card. A1 and A2 are the persons, who snatched away her bag. Though Pw1 has stated that A1 and A2 are the persons who snatched away her bag, but in her cross examination, she categorically admitted that at the instance of police only, she came to know that A1 is the person, who snatched away her bag. So, it is clear that

Pw1 did not notice the person who snatched her bag, which is containing net cash of Rs.8,400/- and one ID Card. However, the evidence of Pw1 prove that after the incident she went to PS and lodged a report.

12.Pw2 Sri Bandi Nikhil is one of the mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama, his testimony is that, on 06-08-2020 at about 04.00pm PW3 called him to PS, where he noticed A1 and A2. Then Pw3 asked him to enquire A1 and A2. Upon which, he took A1 and A2 to some distance in PS and enquired them. On enquiry, A1 and A2 confessed that they have committed various offences alongwith this offence and they kept the stolen property in their house situated at Malikarjuna Nagar, Malkajgiri. Upon which, he alongwith Lw5 Sri S.Chandrakant, accused and Pw3 went to the house of

A1 and A2, where they searched the house of accused, on search they found one Red MI, POCO and Lenova mobile phones, two Aadhar Cards, net cash of

Rs.7,400/-. Then the police seized the said property. Thereafter the police had taken away the accused. Prior to the visit of the accused, the police have drafted confession cum seizure panchanama, as well as, seizure report at PS.

Pw3 Sri Ch.Hari Prasad, who arrested the A1 and A2 and seized the alleged 6 of 8 CC.No.2962 of 2020 stolen property, his testimony is that on 06-08-2020 on credible information, he arrested A1 and A2 at cross roads of Malkajgiri in Crime No.550/2020 under section 382 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code of PS Malkajgiri. During the course of interrogation, in the presence of mediators i.e., Pw2 Sri D.Nikhil and S.Chandrakanth (Lw5), A1 and A2 confessed to have committed this offence alongwith with other offences, then he seized one POCO mobile phone from the possession of A1 pertaining to Crime No.181/2020 of PS

Tukaramgate, so also, net cash of Rs,.7,400/- from the possession of A1, pertaining to Crime No.182/2021 of PS Tukaramgate. As seen from the evidence of Pws2 and 3, their evidence is not corroborating each other.

Because Pw2 has stated that basing on the confession of A1 and A2, they went to the house of accused, where they seized mobile phones and cash of

Rs.7,400/-. Whereas, Pw3 has stated that immediately after the arrest of A1 and A2, they recovered the stolen property from the possession of Accused.

Even Pw3 did not state that they visited the house of the accused and seized the stolen property. Further, as per the evidence of Pw2, by the time he reached to PS, the accused were already in the custody of the police. So, the confession made before the police is not admissible in evidence. Further, as per the evidence of Pw2, Pw3 took them to the house of A1 and A2, where they recovered the stolen property. If really, Pw3 recovered the stolen property from the house of A1 and A2, who prevented Pw3 to secure the presence of two respectable persons of the local inhabitants, where the alleged property was recovered. Even for a moment, it assumes that, Pw3 recovered the property from the house of A1 and A2, he did not follow the procedure as contemplated under section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. So the evidence of Pw2 and 3 is not believable and trustworthy.

7 of 8 CC.No.2962 of 2020 13.Then there remains the evidence of Pw4 Sri D.Srinu, who is the another investigating Officer, his evidence prove with regard to receiving report from

Pw1, registration of FIR, conducting scene observation panchanana and filing of charge sheet. The evidence of Pw4 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. As seen from the evidence of Pws1 to 4, there is no cogent and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of the Accused no.1 and 2.

14.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and foregoing reasons, I am of considered view that, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 with which they were charged. Hence, I hold that, the accused no.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.

The point is answered accordingly.

15.In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for an offence punishable under section 382 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The

Superintendent Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District, is directed to release the accused no.1 and 2 forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. The property i.e., net cash of Rs.7,400/- which was given to Pw1 for interim custody vide Crl MP No.93/2020 dated 22-11-2020 shall be made absolute, after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 22nd day of April, 2021).

XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

8 of 8 CC.No.2962 of 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Pw1 Smt Janjanam Laxmi Devasena is the Complainant and victim. -Nil-

Pw2 Sri Bandi Nikhil is the one of the mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama.

Pw3 Sri Ch.Hari Prasad, SI of Police, PS Malkajgiri, who arrested A1 and A2.

Pw4 Sri D.Srinu is the Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

ExP1 is the report lodged by Pw1. -Nil-

ExP2 is the photograph.

ExP3 is the attested copy of scene, confession cum seizure panchanama.

ExP4 is the attested copy of seizure report.

ExP5 is the First Information Report.

ExP6 is the Crime Details Form.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil--Nil-

XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE,SECUNDERABAD

1 of 7 CC.No.1318 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, SECUNDERABAD

PRESENT: K. VENKATESH,

XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

Wednesday, this the 07 th day of April, 2021

CALENDAR CASE NO.1318 OF 2017

Between:

The State through the

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Lallaguda.... Complainant

AND

Boyalapalli Prem Paul, S/o Late Jeevarathnam Paul, Age: 57 Years, Occ: Un-employed, R/o Flat No.401/A, Janapriya Apartments, Ram Nagar Gundu, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

... Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me on 01-04-2021in the presence of Sri M.Shekahara Chary, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and of Sri M.E.Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for Accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Lallaguda Police

Station had filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.174/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 449, 427, 506, 323 of Indian Penal

Code and Section 25(1) (B) of Indian Arms Act.

2. The case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet in brief as follows:

That, on 25-11-2014 at 05.50pm while Lw1 Dr. Samuel Paul, resident of

H.No.12-5-149/13/1, was present in his St.Paul’s Hospital, Vijayapuri Colony, 2 of 7 CC.No.1318 of 2017

South Lallaguda, his uncle by name Boyalapalli Prem Paul, Aged about 57

Years had forcibly entered into his hospital and poured Chilli powder into his eyes and also pulled out a dagger from his bag and attacked the complainant and also damaged the property of the hospital. His uncle was caught by him, till arrival of police. On receiving the information through DG Dial 100 from main PCR, immediately Pw5 Sri B.Veera Babu, Sub Inspector of Police, alongwith his staff i.e., Lws8 and 9 rushed to the spot and taken his uncle into custody and brought him to PS alongwith coconut cutter (sickle) and bag containing one press handy cutter, one rope, chilli powder half packet and plastic bottle full of petrol and one MC diet mate 180ml empty bottle without cap and three sealed charms cigerette packets. The complainant got simple injury on his left hand.

3.Basing on the contents of the above report, Sri B.Veera Babu (Lw10)

Inspector of Police, has registered a case in Crime No.174/2014 U/Sec.449, 427, 506, 323 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(B) of Indian Arms Act.

During the course of investigation, Pw5 has recorded the statements of witnesses. After collecting relevant documents Pw5 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.449, 427, 506, 323 of Indian

Penal Code and Section 25(1)(B) of Indian Arms Act.

4.This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 449, 427, 506, 323 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1) (B) of Indian Arms

Act. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to the accused, as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

3 of 7 CC.No.1318 of 2017

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Charges have been framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 449, 427, 506, 323 of Indian Penal Code and

Section 25(1) (B) of Indian Arms Act, the same are read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused on behalf of prosecution, Pw1 to 5 were examined and ExP1 to P4 are got marked. Pw1 Sri N.Sai Venu is one of the Eye witness. Pw2 Sri A.Mohan and Pw3 Sri N.Manikanta are the mediators for confession cum seizure panchanama. Pw4 Sri P.Praveen Kumar is the mediator for Crime Details Form. Pw5 Sri B.Veera Babu is the Investigating

Officer. Ex.P1 is the confession cum seizure panchanama. ExP2 is the Crime

Details Form. ExP3 is the report. ExP4 is the First Information Report. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Sri A.Subbaiah Chowdary (Lw7) is the another panch for Crime Details Form, Sri K.Nagaraju (Lw8) and Sri

Naresh Kumar are the Police Constables, who assisted Investigating Officer, even if they are examined, no purpose would be served to the prosecution.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same were read over and explained to accused in Telugu, to which, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the accused.

4 of 7 CC.No.1318 of 2017

9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has

brought home the guilt of the accused for the charges punishable

under Section 449, 427, 506, 323 of Indian Penal Code and Section

25(1) (B) of Indian Arms Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT: The accused was charged for the offence under Section 449, 427, 506, 323 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1) (B) of Indian Arms

Act. To prove the said offences, the prosecution must be able to prove that, the accused is the person who trespassed into the Hospital of the defacto complainant i.e., Dr.B.Samuel Paul (Lw1) and poured chilly powder in the eyes of the complainant and dragged him and attacked him with coconut cutter (sickle), so also, the accused threatened Lw1 with dire consequences.

11.Pw1 Sri N.Srinivas is one of the alleged eye witness to the incident, his testimony is that, on 24-01-2014 in between 02.00 to 07.00pm while he was in his shop, situated near Axis Bank, Tarnaka, Smt. N.Laxmi (Lw2) came and informed that some quarrel was taken place in their hospital. By the time of his reaching, the incident already completed. As seen from the evidence of

Pw1, he was not present at the time of alleged incident, as such, his evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

12.Pw2 Sri A.Mohan is the one of the mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused, his testimony is that, on 25-11-2014 at about 06.00pm, the police Lallaguda called him to Police Station and asked him whether he knows the accused. Upon which, he told the police he got acquaintance with the accused. Later Sri B.Veera Babu (Lw10), Sub Inspector of Police has shown one bag, in which, he noticed coconut cutter and 6 inches knife, one rope, one litre petrol, chilly powder, one MC alcohol bottle 5 of 7 CC.No.1318 of 2017 and cigarette packet. Thereafter, the police have obtained his signatures on written documents. As seen from the evidence of Pw2, the police called him and shown some articles. Pw2 did not state about the confession of the accused. Even Pw2 did not state that the police have seized the above articles at the instance of accused. So, the evidence of Pw2 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

13.Pw3 Sri N.Manikanta is the another mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama, though he turned hostile, during the cross examination of the learned APP, Pw3 admitted that on 25-11-2014 at about 08.15pm Pw5 Sri

B.Veera Babu, SI of Police called him alongwith Pw2 to PS Lallaguda and produced one person and requested them to enquire the said person, upon which, they enquired the said person, on enquiry the said person revealed his name as Boyalapalli Prem Paul and he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Later the police seized one press best and hand cutter length about 6 inches, one plastic bottle, one MC Dowels Diet mate 180ml empty bottle, three singled charms mini kings cigerette packets and one Nokia mobile phone with SIM card. Later the police prepared confession cum seizure panchanama. Though Pw3 has stated that the accused has confessed to have committed this offence and the police seized the above material objects at the instance of accused. But, the evidence of Pw3 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. Because, confession made by the accused while he was in the custody of the police is not admissible in evidence, so the evidence of Pw3 is hit by Section 25 and 26 of Indian

Evidence Act.

6 of 7 CC.No.1318 of 2017 14.Pw4 Sri P.Praveen Kumar is one of the mediator for scene observation panchanama, his evidence prove that, the police have conducted scene observation panchanama, after the alleged incident.

15.Then there remains, the evidence of Pw5 Sri B.Veera Babu, who is the

Investigating Officer, his evidence prove with regard to receiving of report from Lw1, registration of FIR, recording the statements of witnesses and conducting of scene observation panchanama, as well as, confession cum seizure panchanama and filing of charge sheet. As seen from the evidence of

Pws-1 to 5, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused with which he was charged. Even the police failed to examine Lw1 B.Samuel and Lw2 Kum. N.Laxmi, to prove the version of the prosecution. The police filed a report stating that where abouts of Lw2 is not known and Lw1 is died.

In these circumstances, this court has no other option, except to close the evidence of above witnesses. Even the prosecution failed to produce the material objects to prove the guilt of the accused.

16.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and foregoing reasons, I am of considered view that, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges punishableunder Section 449, 427, 506, 323 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1) (B) of Indian Arms Act. Hence, I hold that he is entitled for acquittal.

The point is answered accordingly.

17.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under Section 449, 427, 506, 323 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1) (B) of Indian Arms Act and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) of 7 of 7 CC.No.1318 of 2017 the Code of criminal procedure. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as per Section 437-A of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III after his transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 07th day of April, 2021.

XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Pw1 Sri N.Sai Venu is one of the Eye witness. -Nil-

Pw2 Sri A.Mohan and Pw3 Sri N.Manikanta are the mediators for confession cum seizure panchanama.

Pw4 Sri P.Praveen Kumar is the mediator for Crime Details Form.

Pw5 Sri B.Veera Babu is the Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is the confession cum seizure panchanama. -Nil-

ExP2 is the Crime Details Form.

ExP3 is the report.

ExP4 is the First Information Report.

M.Os MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

-Nil--Nil-

XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

1 of 6 CC.No.883 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, SECUNDERABAD

PRESENT: K. VENKATESH,

XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

Wednesday, this the 07 th day of April, 2021

CALENDAR CASE NO.883 OF 2017

Between:

The State through the

Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Market.... Complainant

AND

Komakula Srinivas, S/o K.Rajamouli, Age: 26 Years, Occ: Pan Shop Business, R/o H.No.8-4-146, Ganesh Nagar, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

... Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me on 01-04-2021in the presence of Sri M.Shekhara Chary, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Sri A.C.Srinivas, learned Counsel for Accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Market Police

Station had filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.109/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet in brief as follows:

That, on 17-05-2011 at about 06.30pm received written report from

Lw1 Sri Isuru Mohan Rao, wherein he stated that while he alongwith Jommali 2 of 6 CC.No.883 of 2017

Murali were coming in Falaknuma Train, one person who sat beside him introduced himself as K.Srinivas and he is a P.A. to the Minister Sridhar Babu and told that he knows many Officials in Secretariat and Railway Department and shown some photographs which were taken with the Minister and

Y.S.Jagan. The said K.Srinivas had given his phone number to them and asked to call him, if he need of job. After 15 days, the said K.Srinivas made a phone call and told them about sweeper posts in Railways and if interested, asked them to bring Rs.1 Lakh for arranging jobs to them. To this, the said complainant and Jommali Murali told the said K.Srinivas that they have

Rs.1,60,000/-, each Rs.80,000/-, then the said K.Srinivas told them to bring the above cash to Alpha Hotel, Opposite to Secunderabad Railway Station on 23-04-2011. Accordingly, they met the said K.Srinivas and gave the above cash to him and the said K.Srinivas told them to bring remaining balance amount before giving appointment letter. Later the said K.Srinivas told them to wait at Rail Nilayam Gate to take appointment letters. Accordingly, they both went to Rail Nilayam Gate and awaited for two days, but the said

K.Srinivas did not return nor lifted the phone call and also switched off his mobile phone. After sometime, they both came to know that they were cheated on the pretext of providing jobs. Hence, Lw1 alongwith his friend by name Jommali Murali went to PS Market and lodged a report.

3.Basing on the contents of the above report, Pw1 Sri B.Upender Rao,

Sub Inspector of Police, PS Market, has registered a case and investigated into. During the course of investigation, Pw1 has recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence at Alpha Hotel, Secunderabad. Later he apprehended the accused and drafted confession cum seizure panchanama and seized total Rs.10,000/- and seized letter pads of Minister 3 of 6 CC.No.883 of 2017

Sri D.Sridhar Babu, Y.S.Jagan Charitable Trust, photographs and one camera from his possession and brought him to PS alongwith the seizure and affected his arrest and produced before this court and remanded to judicial custody.

After completion of investigation, Pw1 laid charge sheet against the Accused.

4.This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to him as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused is examined under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. A charge has been framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and the same is read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution has cited as many as (07) witnesses, out of them, it could be examined only one witness and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. Pw.1 Sri

B.Upender Rao, is the Investigating Officer. ExP1 is the report lodged by Lw1.

ExP2 is the First Information Report. ExP3 is the letter pads of the then

Minister of Sri D.Sridhar Babu. ExP4 is the letter pads of Y.S.R.Foundation

Trust (2). ExP5 is the photographs (13). ExP6 is the confession cum seizure panchanama. The police filed a report stating that whereabouts of Lw1 Sri

Isuru Mohan Rao, Lw2 Sri Jommali Murali, Lw3 Sri K.Lakshman and Lw4 Sri

R.Rajeshwar Rao are not known. Hence, the evidence of above witnesses are closed by the court. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lw5 Shaik

Azhar Ahmed and Lw6 G.Venkat Reddy, who are the police personnel, even if they are examined no purpose would be served to the case of prosecution.

4 of 6 CC.No.883 of 2017 7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same was read over and explained to accused in Telugu, to which, accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the accused.

09. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution

has brought home the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable

under section 420 of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT: To prove the offence under section 420 of IPC, the prosecution must be able to prove that the accused is the person, who deceived Lw1 Sri

Isuru Mohan Rao with a view to deliver any property, under such deception,

Lw1 delivered property, and the accused cheated him.

11.Pw1 Sri P.Upender Rao is the Investigating Officer, his investigation prove with regard to receiving of report from Lw1, registration of FIR, recording the statements witnesses and filing of charge sheet. Further, Pw1 has stated that he seized net cash of Rs.10,000/- so also, letter pads under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e., Lw3 Sri K.Laxman and Lw4 R.Rajeshwar Rao, but the prosecution failed to examine the above mediators, to prove the version of Pw1. Even the prosecution failed to examine the alleged victim i.e., Lw1, to prove the guilt of the accused.

5 of 6 CC.No.883 of 2017

Without examining any material witness, it is not proper to come to a conclusion that the accused cheated Lw1.

12.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and foregoing reasons, I am of considered view that, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused, with which he was charged. Hence, I hold that the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

13.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Code of criminal procedure. The bail bonds of the

Accused shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as per Section 437-

A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ExP3 and 4 i.e., letter pads shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property i.e., net cash of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), which was deposited before this court vide P.I. No.314/2011 dated 03-09-2011, same was in the custody of police for safe custody, shall be given to the Lw1, after expiry of appeal time.

The unmarked property i.e., one camera, which was not claimed by any person, as such the same shall be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to dictation to the Stenographer on the computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 07th day of April, 2021).

XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

6 of 6 CC.No.883 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Pw.1 Sri B.Upender Rao, is the Investigating Officer. -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

ExP1 is the report lodged by Lw1. -NIL-

ExP2 is the First Information Report.

ExP3 is the letter pads of the then Minister of Sri D.Sridhar Babu.

ExP4 is the letter pads of Y.S.R.Foundation Trust (2).

ExP5 is the photographs (13).

ExP6 is the confession cum seizure panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil--NIL-

XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD