Smt. Kolar Latha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

CUM V ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GUNTUR

Present :: K. Latha, V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum V Addl. Jud. Magistrate of I Class, Guntur. Monday, the 06th day of April, 2026.

Calendar Case No.6158 of 2025.

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police,

Arundelpet P.S. …Complainant.

And

1. Badugu Prabhu Kumar, S/o. Bagyalu, age 19 years, Caste/Mala, 24th lane,

Sarada colony, Guntur Town.

2. Eturi Elizabeth Raju @ Raju @ Tinku, S/o. Nagaraju, age 21 years,

Caste/Rajaka, 5th lane, Vengalarao Nagar, Guntur town. (Split up)

... Accused.

This case coming on 24.03.2026 for final hearing before me in open court in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri

D.Kalyani, learned counsel for accused 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, Arundelpet P.S. laid charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 in Cr.No.670/2025 for the offence punishable U/Sec.303(2) of BNS.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

Lw.1/Shaik Shafi is living by working as car driver at Endowment office. As

Lw.1 does not have motor bike, his owner gave his Honda Activa bearing

No.AP07BT8553. On 02.09.2025 at about 9.00 PM Lw.1 parked the Honda

Activa 3G vehicle bearing No.AP07BT8553 in front of Vajram Hotel, Brodipet 4/13 line and went to his personal work. After some time, Lw.1 returned to the parking place and the said vehicle was found missing. He searched here and there but in vain. Later Lw.1 lodged a report to the police. On basis of report of

Lw.1, the SI/Lw.8 registered a case in Cr.No.670/2025 u/sec.303(2) of BNS and 2 investigated into. During the course of investigation, the SI/Lw.8 examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. The SI/Lw.8 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the same. On 22.09.2025 at about 12.30

PM, the Inspector/Lw.7 arrested the accused no.1 and 2 along with other accused in other Cr.No.672/2025 at LEM school road, 6/12 Brodipet, Guntur. At the time of their arrest, the accused confessed and admitted the offence in this crime number. Then the Inspector/Lw.7 recovered the stolen property i.e. Honda

Activa in this case and also recovered the property in other cases from A1 and

A2. The Inspector/Lw.7 sent A1 and A2 for judicial custody. On 24.10.2025, the

SI/Lw.8 produced A1 and A2 before the Hon’ble court on execution of P.T.

warrant and A1 and A2 were sent to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the SI/Lw.8 filed charge sheet. Hence the charge sheet.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence u/sec.303(2) of BNS against the

Accused no.1 and 2.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 230 of BNSS.

5.The Accused no.1 and 2 were examined U/sec.262 of BNSS and they denied the offence and the charge u/sec.303(2) or alternatively 317(2) of BNS are framed against the Accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

7. At the stage of 351 BNSS examination A2 called absent. No representation. Hence, this court issued NBW against A2. As the A1 is in judicial custody as Under Trial Prisoner, the case against A2 is split up as NBW is pending against A2 and numbered as C.C.1288/2026.

8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 was examined under section 351 of BNSS, and explained the incriminating material found against him, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard arguments on both sides.

3

10. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused no.1

for the offence u/sec.303(2) or alternatively 317(2) of BNS beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor given up the evidences of Lws.2 to 5.

12. Pw.1/Shaik Shafi who is defacto complainant deposed that, their deputy commissioner endowment gave two wheeler i.e., Activa AP07 BT 8553 to him for his personal use. On 02.09.2025 at about 8-00 PM he parked his vehicle i.e.,

Activa in front of Vajram hotel, 4/13 Brodipet, Guntur and he went to medical shop. Then he returned to the said place after 10 minutes and his vehicle was found missing. He searched here and there but in vain. Pw.1 further deposed that, he informed LW2 to LW4 they also searched for vehicle but in vain. Some unknown offenders committed theft of his motor bike. After 15 days he lodged a report to the police under Ex.P1. He was examined by the police. After 10 days he was informed by police that, his stolen motorbike was recovered. Then, he went to the PS and identified his motor bike. Later he took his motor bike i.e.,

Activa AP07 BT 8553 i.e. MO.1 to his interim custody.

13. Pw.2/Meda Pavan Kumar, who is mediator, deposed that, on 22-09-2025 at about 10-00 AM the police came to their office and called him and LW5 to act as mediators. Then they went to the PS and again he along with LW5, CI,

Women constables and other police constables were proceed to 6/12th line,

Brodipet, Guntur beside LEM school i.e., vacant place at about 10-30 AM. There they found some persons keeping 7 motor bikes and on seeing police they tried to skulk away but police caught hold the 8 persons i.e., A1 and A2 and other 6 persons. Pw.2 identified the A1 and A2. Pw.2 further deposed that, the CI enquired A1 and he revealed his name and address i.e., Bodugu Prabhu Kumar, resident of Guntur. On further enquiry A1 confessed and admitted the offence that, he addicted for ganja and also selling the ganja and also he used to commit theft of motor bikes along with A2 and other persons. A1 further confessed that, he along with A2 committed theft of one motor bike i.e., Honda Activa bearing

No.AP07BT8553 in front of Vajram hotel, Brodipet. A1 also confessed and admitted the offence and other crimes. Pw.2 further deposed that, A1 produced 4 the said stolen motor bike i.e., MO.1 concerned this crime and police identified the same. Pw.2 further deposed that, on enquiry by CI, A2 revealed his name

Eturi Elizibeth Raju resident of Guntur and confessed and admitted the offence.

A2 confessed in same lines as confessed by A1. Then police also seized ganja from 8 persons concerned in different crime numbers. Police prepared mediatornama under Ex.P2 and arrested A1 and A2 and also other 6 persons and seized the stolen motor bikes i.e., MO1 and other motor bikes, Ganja from their possession under cover of mediatornama attested by him and LW5. Later police brought the accused and seized property to the police station.

During cross examination Pw.2 stated that, he did not take written permission from his superiors to act as a mediator before going to place of arrest.

14. Pw.3/K.Arogya Raju, who is Inspector of police, deposed that, on 22.09.2025 at about 10.00 AM while he was present in the police station he received credible information about suspects in ganja case. Then he secured the presence of mediators i.e., PW2 and LW5 and also deputy Tahasildar. Then he along with mediators, Deputy Tahasildar, his staff rushed to Brodipet, 6/12 line, outside vacant place of LEM school at about 10-30 AM. There they found 11 to 12 persons as a mob and on seeing police they try to skulk away from that place.

Immediately he caught hold 8 members with the assistance of his staff. Then he enquired them separately in the presence of mediators and Deputy Tahasildar.

Pw.3 further deposed that, on enquiry the 1st person revealed his name as

I.Injapalli Mary Babu, the 2nd person revealed his name as Uddanapudi

Deenabaskar, the 3rd person revealed his name as Badugu Prabhu Kumar i.e.,

A1, the 4th person revealed his name as Muddraboina Samuel, the 5th person revealed his name as P.Amarajoythi, the 6th person revealed his name as Yeturi

Eligibath Raju @ Raju i.e., A2, the 7th and 8th persons revealed their names as

Tutika Alias Paturi Syni @ Hani and Parima Joyamaji. On enquiry A1 voluntarily confessed admitted the offence that, he committed theft of motor bike bearing

No.AP07BT8553 along with A2. A1 also confessed that, he along with all above accused committed theft of another motor bike and also they used to sell ganja for their illegally monitory benefit. Then Pw.3 recorded the confessional statement of all accused. Pw.3 further deposed that, he arrested the A1 and A2 along with other accused in the presence of mediators and seized the motor bike bearing No.AP07BT8553 i.e., MO1 from possession of A1 and A2 under cover of mediatornama attested by mediators. Then he along with all accused and Deputy 5

Tahasildar put their signatures on Ex.P2 mediatornama. Pw.3 identified the MO1 as it is relating to crime No.670/2025. Then he brought the arrested the accused and seized the property to the police station. After observing all formalities he sent the accused to the court for judicial remand. Later LW8 continued investigation in this case.

During cross examination Pw.3 stated that,he did not seize motor bike key from the possession of A1. A1 and A2 showed the motor bike i.e., MO1 and he seized the same. A1 and A2 showed the motor bike and he seized the same from their possession. He did not ask the school authorities or school staff to act as mediators.

15. Pw.4/Rojalatha who is SI of police deposed that, on 21.09.2025 at about 7.40 PM while she was present in the police station Pw1 came to police station and presented ExP1 report. On basis of ExP1 report she registered a case in

Cr.No.670/2025 u/sec.303(2) of BNS under Ex.P3. Then she examined Pw1 and recorded his statement. Then she visited scene of offence which is situated at 4/13 Brodipet, in front of Vajram hotel i.e., parking area and she observed the same and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P4. At scene of offence she secured the presence of LW2 to LW4 and examined and recorded their statements. PW3 arrested A1 and A2 along with other accused in

Cr.No.672/2025 of Arundelpet PS and sent them to the judicial remand. Pw.4 further deposed that, on basis of confessional statement of A1 and A2, they identified MO1 is relating to this present crime. Then she obtained PT warrant and produced the A1 and A2 before the court on execution of PT warrant. She handed over the MO1 to the defacto complainant under proper acknowledgment under Ex.P5. After completion of investigation she filed charge sheet.

DISCUSSION:

16. During cross examination Pw.2 admitted that, the place of arrest is a busy locality. Police prepared only one mahazarnama for all cases. Police called him to act as mediator as they received information about possession of Ganja.

17.During cross examination Pw.3 admitted that, MRO office is situated on the back side of Arundelpet PS. The place of arrest is a busy locality.

18.During cross examination Pw.4 admitted that, as per Ex.P1 report it is mentioned that, some unknown offender committed theft of MO1. The offence took place on 02.09.2025 and the FIR registered on 21.09.2025. There is delay of 19 days for lodging FIR. Pw.4 voluntarily said that, the complainant searched 6 for stolen motor bike for period of 18 days and later he came to the police station and lodged a report. Pw.4 further admitted that, she did not obtain the signature of PW1 in column No.14 of FIR. She did not examine any independent witnesses at scene of offence.

19.It is the stand of accused that, Pw.2 never saw the A1 and A2 and today he saw the accused and identified them on instructions of police. Pw.2 never rushed to place of arrest and he never saw them at place of arrest and he put his signature at police station. A1 and A2 are no way concerned to the present case and Pw.2 deposed false on instructions of police.

20.It is further stand of accused that, Pw.3 never went to the place of arrest and he never arrested the accused and he deposed false. A1 and A2 never admitted the offence in the presence of mediators and Deputy Tahasildar and

Pw.3 deposed false. Pw.3 never seized the MO1 and other property from possession of A1 and A2 in the presence of mediators and Deputy Tahasildar and Pw.3 deposed false. Pw.3 falsely implicated the A1 and A2 in this case and they are no way concerned to the present case. It is further stand of accused that, to dispose the unclaimed property he falsely implicated them. The mediators are not the respected persons of that locality. The mediators are stock mediators.

Pw.3 never arrested A2 and he never seized MO1 from possession of A2. Pw.3 falsely implicated the A2 and he is no way concerned to the present case and

Pw.3 deposed false.

21. It is further stand of accused that, Pw.4 filed false charge sheet against accused and they never confessed and admitted the offence in the present crime and Pw.4 deposed false. She filed false charge sheet for statistical purpose. A1 and A2 are no way concerned to the present case and Pw.4 deposed false.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:

22.On careful perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that, the PW.1 deposed about the commission of theft of his motor bike which was kept in front of Vajram hotel, Brodipet, Guntur and he went to his personal work and after sometime he returned to the parking place and he noticed that, some unknown offenders committed theft of his motor bike which was kept in front of Vajram hotel, Brodipet, Guntur. The defence counsel did not cross examine the Pw1 and reported nil. There is no material to discredit his version.

7

23.Now it is for the prosecution to establish that, the Accused no.1 and 2 are the persons committed the theft of motor bike i.e. M.O.1. In general, in theft cases, we cannot expect the direct witnesses and obviously the total case rest upon the circumstantial evidence. In this case also the property said to have found from the possession of the accused no.1 and 2. So, now we have to ascertain what weightage to be given to the arrest and seizure mediatornama.

24. It is settled law that, under section 23 of Bharatiya Sakhsya Adinayam, 2023 when the seizure made in the custody of Police, it is inadmissible in evidence. It is also settled law that, when the search and seizure made in the presence of independent mediators and the accused confessed about the offence before the independent mediator, it could be termed as extra judicial confession. Here is the case of extra judicial confession/Ex.P2 by the Accused no.1 and 2 before the independent witness/Pw.2/VRO. Therefore it will not fall under the ambit of Sec.23 of Bharatiya Sakhsya Adinayam, 2023. Confession which leading to recovery is admissible under proviso of section 23 of Bharatiya

Sakhsya Adinayam, 2023.

25. Coming to the confession and seizure, the Pw.2 evidence is crucial. He candidly deposed that, the accused no.1 and 2 confessed in his presence that, they committed theft of motor bike i.e. Honda Activa bearing No.AP07BT8553 under MO.1 in front of Vajram Hotel, Brodipet, Guntur and showed the same which was in their possession.

26. Pw.2 further deposed that, in pursuance of confessional statement of the accused no.1 and 2, the I.O. also seized other motor bikes from possession of other accused relating to different crime numbers. On enquiry by police, A2 also voluntarily confessed and admitted the offence. MO.1 seized from the possession of A1 and A2 in the presence of mediators under cover of Ex.P3/mediatornama attested by mediators. Pw.2 identified the accused who present in the court hall.

27. The evidence of Pw.2/M.Pavan Kumar, Village Revenue officer,

Kankaragunta, who is mediator for recording the Scene of Offence mediatornama and the contents of said documents marked as Ex.P2, clearly proves the visiting of the place of arrest and place of recovery of stolen property of this crime by the

Police and the recording of said proceedings at that place. Even in cross examination also, Pw.2 evidence is became unshaken. Though the Pw.2 8 subjected to lengthy cross examination nothing is elicited by the learned defense counsel for A1 and A2.

28.The Inspector of Police/PW.3 who arrested the accused no.1 and 2 and recovered stolen property and other properties relating to other crimes from their possession and the independent witness/PW2 deposed in one voice about their proceeding to the place of arrest, seizure of stolen property from the possession of the Accused no.1 and 2. Their evidence is specific and vivid. When the stolen property found in possession of the Accused no.1 and 2 immediately after the commission of the theft it is for the Accused no.1 and 2 to explain how they received those property.

29.Pw.4/Roja Latha, SI of police who registered the case on basis of report and registered the case and visited the scene of offence clearly deposed that, at scene of offence she examined the witnesses and Pw.3 arrested A1 and A2 along with other accused in Cr.No.672/2025 of Arundelpet P.S. and sent them to judicial remand. She obtained P.T. warrant and sent the accused to judicial remand in this crime and identified the seized stolen motor bike i.e. MO.1 from possession of accused by Pw.3 which is relating to this crime.

30.Though, PW1 to PW4 are cross examined at length by the learned defence counsel, there is no material to discredit their version. The evidence of

PW1 to PW4 clearly corroborated with each other. However, it is clear from the evidence of Pw1 that, he is not the direct or eye witness to the theft of motor bike from in front of Vajram hotel, Brodipet, Guntur. To prove the charge for an offence

U/Sec.303(2) of BNS, that the removal of the motor bike/property by the accused no.1 and 2 from the possession of the owner is to be directly established. Here, there is no direct or eye witness to prove the ingredients for the said offence. As the evidence of Pw1 shows that, he noticed about the theft of his motor bike which was kept in front of Vajram hotel, Brodipet, Guntur. Such evidence only raises a suspicion against the accused and the said evidence is not direct. It is the settled law that, the suspicion however the grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for real proof. PW1 never stated the accused committed theft of his motor bike in front of Vajram hotel, Brodipet, Guntur. Therefore, I hold that there is no direct evidence against the accused to hold that they were committed theft of motorbike/MO1 from in front of Vajram hotel, Brodipet, Guntur and the prosecution could not make out the ingredients of the offence U/Sec.303(2) of

BNS against the Accused.

9

31. Here it is the case of the prosecution that, the accused was apprehended by Pw.3 while he was in possession of stolen property. The Pw.2, mediator clearly stated about the recovery of the stolen property i.e. MO.1 from the possession of accused no.1 and 2 under mediatornama marked as Ex.P2. The evidence of Pw.2 corroborates the evidence of the Pw.3 who stated that, he has arrested the accused no.1 and 2 and seized the stolen property from the possession of accused no.1 and 2. The evidence of Pw.2 and the seizure part of mediatornama marked as Ex.P2 fully supports the version of PW1 to PW4 and though the PW1 to PW4 are cross examined at length, no material could be elicited to discredit their version. Thus, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 inspires confidence in prosecution case as to the seizure of stolen property i.e. MO.1 from the possession of Accused no.1 and 2.

32. No doubt as per Ex.P1/report, MO.1 was found missing on 02.09.2025 and the defacto complainant/Pw.1 lodged a report on 21.09.2025. On perusal of FIR in Col.No.8, the reasons for delay it is mentioned that, they searched for stolen motor cycle. Pw.1 also deposed the same in his evidence. The evidence of Pw.1 and contents of Ex.P1 clearly corroborated and there is no contradictions. Pw.1 identified the MO.1. It is not the case of accused no.1 and 2 that, Pw.1 never lodged a report and his motor bike was not stolen by unknown offenders. Under these circumstances, the delay and admissions of prosecution witnesses are not fatal to the prosecution’s case.

33.The evidence of Pws.2 and 3 and also the contents of seizure part of mediatornama under Ex.P2, are clearly proving that the Police arrested the accused no.1 and 2 while they were in possession of the stolen property. The evidence of PW1 to PW4 and the contents of Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 clearly corroborated.

“Section 119(a) of Bharatiya Sakhsya Adinayam, 2023” rises a

presumption that, Court may presume that a person who found with the stolen goods immediately after the commission of theft, is either the thief or receiver of the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he account for his possession. In spite of positive evidence let in by the independent witness, in spite of burden on the Accused to give proper explanation to rebut the presumption, thereby failed to account for his possession. There is no plausible explanation on part of the

Accused no.1 and 2, which connects the accused no.1 and 2 with the crime.

10

34.I hold that a presumption is to be drawn U/Sec.119(a) of Bharatiya

Sakhsya Adinayam, 2023, that the property recovered from the Accused no.1 and 2 are the stolen property. Therefore, I am of the view that, there is cogent evidence on record to prove that, the stolen property was seized by the Police from the possession of accused no.1 and 2, for which they could not furnish the account. Thus, the prosecution though could not make out a case U/Sec.303(2) of BNS, could successfully prove the guilt of the accused for an offence

U/Sec.317(2) of BNS. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and considering the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 and the contents of Exs.P1 to P5 and

M.O.1, I hold that, prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 for an offence U/Sec.317(2) of BNS beyond all reasonable doubt and they are to be convicted accordingly.

35.After completion of trial and at the stage of 351 BNSS examination, A2 called absent, no representation and this court issued NBW against A2, but the police failed to execute the warrant against A2. Under these circumstances, this court split up the A2 from main case and numbered as C.C.1288/2026 as A1 is under judicial custody.

36.Therefore the accused no.1 is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.303(2) of BNS but he is found guilty for an offence U/Sec.317(2) of BNS.

37.In the result, the Accused no.1 is found guilty for the offence under section 317(2) of B.N.S. He is convicted under section 271(2) of B.N.S.S.

Typed to my dictation directly on system by the stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-K.Latha

V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum V Addl. Jud. Magistrate of I Class, Guntur.

11

Hearing of Quantum of Sentence

When I questioned the Accused no.1 about the quantum of sentence and he pleaded mercy stating that, his father died. He and his mother are living together. His mother is suffering from ill health and he has to look after his mother. She is depending upon him. Accused no.1 also requested the court to take lenient view. Under the facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to give any benefit to the accused no.1 under Sec.401 B.N.S.S.

Hence the accused no.1 is convicted under Sec.271(2) BNSS and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months for

the offence under Sec.317(2) of B.N.S. The remand period of A1 from

24.10.2025 to 06.04.2026 shall be given set off u/sec.468 of B.N.S.S. The bail

bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months. The

property under M.O.1 was given to the interim custody of defacto complainant is made absolute, after expiry of appeal or appeal time.

The accused no.1 appraised of his right to appeal and means to engage counsel, he stated that, he is having means to engage counsel. The office is directed to provide free copy of judgment to the accused no.1 forthwith.

Quantum of sentence typed directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 06th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-K.Latha

V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum V Addl. Jud. Magistrate of I Class, Guntur.

MEMO OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For Defence: Nil Pw.1: Shaik Shafi. Pw.2: Meda Pavan Kumar. Pw.3: K.Arogya Raju. Pw.4: Rojalatha.

Exhibits marked

For prosecution: For Defence: Nil Ex.P1: Report. Ex.P2: Mediatornama.

12

Ex.P3: FIR. Ex.P4: Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P5: Acknowledgment.

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1: Motor bike i.e. Activa bearing No.AP07BT8553.

Sd/-K.Latha

V ACJ (Jr. Dvn.) cum V AJFCM, Guntur.

//True copy//

V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)cum V Addl. Jud. Magistrate of I Class, Guntur.

13

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

CUM V ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GUNTUR.

C.C. No.6158/2025

Date of Offence:On 02.09.2025Explanation for delay & remarks

Date of Filing:21.09.2025No delay is occurred

Date of Appearance:-21.11.2025

Release on bail:----------------

Date of Commencement of :22.01.2026 trial

Closure of trial:19.02.2026

Date of Judgment:06.04.2026

CC.No.6158/2025 on the file of V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.

COMPLAINANT:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Arundelpet P.S.

ACCUSED:

1. Badugu Prabhu Kumar, S/o. Bagyalu, age 19 years, Caste/Mala, 24th lane,

Sarada colony, Guntur Town.

2. Eturi Elizabeth Raju @ Raju @ Tinku, S/o. Nagaraju, age 21 years,

Caste/Rajaka, 5th lane, Vengalarao Nagar, Guntur town. (Split up).

Offence:U/Sec.317(2) of B.N.S.

Finding:Accused no.1 is found guilty.

Sentence:In the result, the Accused no.1 is found guilty for the offence under section 317(2) of B.N.S. He is convicted under section 271(2) of

B.N.S.S.

Hearing of Quantum of Sentence

When I questioned the Accused no.1 about the quantum of sentence and he pleaded mercy stating that, his father died. He and his mother are living together. His mother is suffering from ill health and he has to look after his mother. She is depending upon him.

14

Accused no.1 also requested the court to take lenient view. Under the facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to give any benefit to the accused no.1 under Sec.401 B.N.S.S.

Hence the accused no.1 is convicted under Sec.271(2)

BNSS and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months for the offence under Sec.317(2) of

B.N.S. The remand period of A1 from 24.10.2025 to 06.04.2026 shall be given set off u/sec.468 of B.N.S.S. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months. The property under M.O.1 was given to the interim custody of defacto complainant is made absolute, after expiry of appeal or appeal time.

The accused no.1 appraised of his right to appeal and means to engage counsel, he stated that, he is having means to engage counsel. The office is directed to provide free copy of judgment to the accused no.1 forthwith.

Sd/-K.Latha

V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum V Addl. Jud. Magistrate of I Class, Guntur.

Copy To:

The Hon’ble Chief judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

//True copy//

V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)cum V Addl. Jud. Magistrate of I Class, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Present :: K. Latha,

V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

Tuesday, the 12th day of November, 2024.

Calender Case No.3075 of 2022

Between:

State: Sub- Inspector of Police,

Medikonduru P.S., Guntur. …Complainant.

And

1. Arudra Pedda Peraiah @ Peraiah, S/o.Chinthaiah, 58 years, Yadava by caste,

Sripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Arudra Padma W/o.Pedda Peraiah @ Peraiah @ Peraiah, 58 years, Yadava by caste, Sripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Arudra Sivakrishna S/o. Pedda Peraiah @ Peraiah @ Peraiah, 38 years,

Yadava by caste, Sripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District.

4. Arudra Sivamurali S/o. Pedda Peraiah @ Peraiah @ Peraiah, 31 years,

Yadava by caste, Sripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District.

.. Accused.

This case coming on 11.11.2024 for final hearing before me in open court in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri AAP, learned counsel for accused 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, Medikonduru P.S. laid charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 4 in Cr.No.102/2022 for the offence punishable U/Sec.323, 506 and 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

LW.1 is a resident of Siripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur

District and living on cultivation works. Around 30 years ago, LW.1 got married with L.W.2 and they were blessed with two daughters. L.W.2's parents were blessed with three female and three male children. A1 is elder son. L.W.3 is second son and L.W.2 is third son and they all residing in Siripuram village. A2 is wife of A1 and A3, A4 are the sons of A1 and A2. Around 5 years ago, A1 got registered 3 cents of vacant site, which is in the name of his mother, in his name 2 without informing L.Ws. 2 and 3. Having come to know about the same, L.Ws.1 to 4 asked A1 and he questioned them as to why he has to tell the same to them, uttered that they have no business with the said site and his mother registered the same to him with love and affection. Since then, disputes arose between A1 and L.Ws.2 and 3. At about 3 years back, L.W.2's mother-in-law died. Since then,

A1 and A2 have been abusing L.ws.1 to 4 in filthy language regarding the said site, though they have not been asking them about the said site. A3 and A4 have been abusing L.Ws.1 to 4 in filthy language by consuming liquor. As A1, L.Ws. 2 and 3 are own brothers, L.Ws.1 to 4 have been getting adjust. Since 5 years,

L.Ws.1 and 2 have been placing hayrick in the said 3 cents of vacant site and A1 never informed them to remove the hayrick. On 26.04.2022 at about 7.30 A.M, while L.W.1 was attending chores in the house, A1 came to the house of L.W.1, asked L.W.1 to remove the hayrick and he would get half of share in his site.

When L.W.1 questioned A1 for talking offensively. A1 abused L.W.1 in filthy language. In the meanwhile, L.W.2 returned to house from centre, having seen the same, when L.W.2 questioned A1 for abusing, A1 abused L.W.2 in filthy language and beat L.W.2 with hands and legs and pounced upon L.W.2 with bamboo stick. Having seen the same, L.Ws.5 and 6 went there, pacified them and sent them away. Again A1 went to the house of L.W.3 and abused L.W.4 in filthy language and threatened that, he would kill L.Ws.1 to 4. On that L.W.1 lodged a report in Medikonduru Police Station for taking necessary action against

A1 to A4. On receipt of report of LW.1, the S.I./L.W 7 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.102/2022, U/S 323, 506, 509 R/W 34 IPC of Medikonduru P.S on 27.04.2022 at 4.00 P.M, and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, L.W.7 examined L.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their detailed statements and he visited the scene of offence, and observed the same and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence and also examined L.Ws.3 to 6 and recorded their detailed statements. On 01.05.2022 L.W.7 served notices U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the A1 to A4. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence u/sec.323, 506 and 509 r/w 34 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 4.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused were examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. They denied the offence and charge for the offence u/sec.323, 506 and 509 r/w 34 of IPC and read over 3 and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to

P.W.5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.

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

Section 313 of Cr.P.C and explaining the incriminating material found against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused no.1

to 4 for the offence u/sec.323, 506 and 509 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 to P.W.5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor given up the evidences of L.Ws.3 and 6.

11. Pw.1/A.Krishna Kumari who is defacto complainant and wife of PW.2 deposed that, her mother in law is having Ac.0.03 cents of agricultural land which is joint property. Without her knowledge A1 got executed the said property in his favour from her mother in law. Later her mother in law died. Before her death when PW.1 along with her husband asked her about the said property and she said that, she does not know about the said property. They are using the said place as hayrick (Gaddi vamu). PW.1 further deposed that, on 26.4.2022 at about 7.30 AM while she was working in their house at the time A1 went to her and abused her in most filthy language and threatened her to remove the said

Gaddi vamu as the said place belongs to him and her mother in law got registered in his name. In meanwhile her husband came to them and questioned about his attitude of A1. For which A1 beat her husband with stick on his shoulder. In meanwhile the neighbours came to them and rescued them. Again

A1 went to the house of L.w.4 which is situated beside the house of PW.1 and abused her in filthy language and went away. A2 to A4 used to come to their house and abused her and her husband. They also informed the village elders but in vain. Later on the next day they went to police and she lodged a report under Ex.P1. She was examined by the police.

During cross examination PW.1 stated that, she studied up to 10th class.

On her oral report the police reduced into writing. She does not know the 4 designation of police who scribed the Ex.P1 report. She does not remember the date of death of her mother in law. Lw.6/Govindamma is not her relative. PW.1 along with Lws.2 to 4 went to police station and she lodged a report. PW.1 lodged report on 27.04.2022 at 10.00 AM. The police took her oral report at 2.00

PM. After one week of filing of FIR police went to her and recorded her statement. PW.1 further stated that, at the time of recording of statement the police also enquired their neighbours and she cannot say their names.

12. PW.2/A.Srinivasarao who is husband of PW.1 deposed that, he came to know that prior to filing of this case about 5 years back A1 got registered the agricultural land for an extent of Ac.0.03 cents from his mother. Then he asked the same to Lw.3 and he said that he does not know about the said registration of property. Then himself and Lw.3 went to A1 and asked him about the registration of agricultural land. For which A1 said that his mother got registered the same to him with love and affection and he has no need to inform the same to them. Later PW.2 and Lw.3 went to his mother and asked her about his share in the said land. His mother said that she never registered the said agricultural land in favour of A1. After some period his mother died. PW.2 further deposed that, he used to keep the hayrick (gaddivamu) in the said vacant place. After death of his mother A1 and A2 used to go to them and abused them in filthy language as they kept the hayrick in the said vacant place. On 26.04.2022 at about 07.00 AM he went to bazar and he returned at 8.00 AM and he came to know through his wife that, A1 went to his house in his absence and made galata with his wife and abused her in filthy language and threatened her to remove said

Hayrick and also said that he is having share in their house. PW.2 further deposed that, in meanwhile he found A1 and he made galata with him and threatened him with dire consequences by saying that he will see their end.

Again A1 beat him with his hands on his face due to which PW.2 pushed him and again A1 took a stick and tried to beat him in meanwhile the neighbours went to them and rescued Pw.2. The A3 and A4 also used to go to their house and abused them about the said vacant place. Later they lodged a report. He was examined by the police.

During cross examination PW.2 stated that, LW5 and 6 are not their relatives. They came to know about registration of property in favour of A1 by his mother prior to 2019. He has seen the said registered document and also filed civil suit for partition. PW.2 further stated that, since 6 years they used to hayrick in the said vacant space le. prior to death of his mother. The Journey time to go 5 to police station is 1/2 hr from their house. Police examined him, his wife and

Lw3 and 4 at police station on 27.04.2022.

13. PW.3/A.Siva Naga Malleswari who is co-sister of PW.1 deposed that, her mother in law is having Ac.0.03 cents of land which is in the name of her father in law. At about 6 years back A1 got executed the said property in his favour from her mother in law without their knowledge. For which they are having property disputes. At about 5 years back on one day at about 08.00 AM A1 came to the house of Pw2 and made galata to remove hayrick. They are residing beside the house of Pw2. For which Pw1 said that the said land is in the name of her mother in law. But A1 did not listen her words and made galata by stating that, she has no right in the house also. A1 also abused in filthy language by stating that ‘lanja’ to Pw1. In meanwhile, Pw2 came to the house and asked A1 why he is made galata. Due to which A1 beat Pw2 with his hands and then with stick. In meanwhile the neighbours rushed to the spot. A2 to A4 also abused them in filthy language. Later A1 also abused her in filthy language and also threatened her with dire consequences that he will see her end. Later Pw1 preseneted a report.

She was examined by the police.

During cross examination PW.3 stated that, she does not remember whether she stated before the police that, she came to know about the incident through her co-sister i.e., Pw1 through phone. She does not know A2 is appointed as a trust board member of one of the temple in the village. Police examined her at police station on the date of report. Police examined her, Pws.1 & 2 and Lw.3.

14. PW.4/Shetty Gopi who is material witness did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Even he denied his statement given to the police under Ex.P2.

15. PW.5/N.Narahari, SI of police who is investigating officer deposed that, on 27.04.2022 at about 4.00 p.m, while he was present in the police station Pw1 went to police station and presented Ex.P1 report. On the basis of Ex.P1 report, he registered a case in Cr.No.102/2022 u/sec.323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC under

Ex.P3. Then he visited scene of offence which is situated at Siripuram ie, house of PW1 and he observed the same and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P4. At scene of offence he secured the presence of PW1 to

PW4 and LW3 examined and recorded their statements. On 1.5.2022 accused

No.1 to 4 voluntarily surrendered before him and he served 41-A notice to the accused. After completion of investigation, I filed charge sheet.

6

During cross examination PW.5 stated that, PW.5 registered the FIR on 27.4.2022 at 4.00 pm. He typed 161 Cr.P.C statements through his laptop at scene of offence.

DISCUSSION:

16. During cross examination PW.1 admitted that, as per the contents of her report there is a land dispute and Lw2 and Lw4 filed civil suit against A1 in respect of the property which is involved in this case vide OS.440/2015 on the

Prl. Junior civil Judge, Sattenapalli.The suit in O.S.440/2015 was dismissed on 17.09.2018.Her mother in law got registered the disputed land for an extent of

Ac.0.03 cents in favour of A1 in the year 2013. PW.1 did not state before the police or in ExP1 report that before death of her mother in law herself and her husband asked for about the said property and she told that she does not know about the said property. After dismissal of OS.440/2015 PW.1 filed the present case. PW.1 voluntarily said that the said suit was again restored. PW.1 further admitted that, she did not file any police report against accused during the lifetime of my mother in law.

During cross examination PW.2 admitted that, the said civil suit was dismissed and PW.2 filed the present case after dismissal of civil suit. PW.2 did not state before police that, at about 5 years back prior to filing of case he came to know about registration of property. PW.2 came to know through his wife that,

A1 abused his wife.

During cross examination PW.3 admitted that, she did not lodge any report to the police. She did not put her signature on Ex.P1 report. She is an eye witness to the alleged incident. Her mother in law by name Mangamma lodged a report against her husband i.e., Lw3 and also against her vide Cr.No.41/2018 u/sec.324, 506 r/w 34 IPC. PW.3 further admitted that, Pw2 and Lw3 filed civil cases against A1, deceased Mangamma in OS.440/2015 and the same was dismissed on merits.

During cross examination PW.5 admitted that, PW1 did not mention the date and time on Ex.P1 report and no signature of scribe. PW.5 voluntarily said that, Pw1 presented written report. PW.5 further admitted that, PW1 did not mention the reasons for delay in Ex.P1 report. Frequently autos are very much available in Siripuram to go to Medikonduru P.S. Any person will reach from

Siripuram to Medikonduru PS within 20 minutes by any vehicle. The dispute arose in between the accused and the complainant with regard to hayrick yard which was kept by PW1 to PW4 in the place which belongs to A1. PW.5 did not 7 mention the date and time of alleged incident in 161 statements. As per the case of prosecution, the injured person did not lodge the report. PW.5 mentioned the date of 161 statements of LW1 to LW6 on 26.4.2022 and he signed and put date ie, 26.4.2022. PW.5 further admitted that, as per record, 161 statements are recorded prior to filing of FIR. PW.5 voluntarily said that by mistakenly he mentioned the date i.e, 26.4.2022 instead of 27.4.2022. PW.5 further admitted that, he did not examine the witnesses shown in the rough sketch. He did not examine any independent witnesses. PW.5 voluntarily said that, that PW4 and

LW6 are neighbours of PW1 and also relatives of PW1. He did not obtain the signature of PW1 in Col.No.14 of FIR. PW.5 did not fill the Col No.15 of FIR when he sent the FIR to the court.

17.It is stand of accused that, the said suit was not restored and again Lw2 and 4 filed fresh suit vide OS.No.419/2023 on the file of Junior civil Judge,

Sattenapalli. Lw6/ Govindamma is her sister in law by relation and PW.1 deposed false. It is further stand of accused that, PW.1 did not state before the police or in ExP1 report that A1 beat her husband with stick on his shoulder and she did not state before the police or in ExP1 report that A2 to A4 used to go to their house and abused her and her husband. The husband of PW.1 is supporter of YCP party. Since 7 or 8 years, they are using the said place as hayrick. PW.1 filed false case against accused as the civil case was dismissed. After execution of property in favour of accused by her mother in law her family and Lw4 family bore grudge against the accused and lodged a false complaint in collusion with police. It is further stand of accused that, the accused are no way concerned to the present case and PW.1 and Lws.2 to 4 filed false report due to property disputes.

18. It is further stand of accused that, Lw5 and 6 are his relatives but he deposed false. PW.2 did not state before the police that himself and Lw3 went to

A1 and asked him about the registration of agricultural land, for which A1 said that, his mother got registered the same to him with love and affection and he has no need to inform the same to them. It is further stand of accused that, his wife/Pw1 acted as member in the temple situated in the village. No incident took place and they filed false case with political influence and the accused never beat him, never caused any injury to him and he never abused him in filthy language and he deposed false. PW.2 and Pw.1 deposed false evidence to harass the accused.

8

19.It is further stand of accused that there is no specific overtacts of A2 to A4 in their 161 statements and PW1 filed false case with intent to grab the property of accused and PW.5 supported PW1 due to political pressure. The accused is no way concerned to the present case and he never committed any offence and

PW.5 deposed false.

20. On perusal of entire evidence on record it is clear that, there are civil disputes in between the PW.1, PW.2 and accused. The evidence of PW.1 to 3 and PW.5 are totally contradictory and there is no corroboration and improvements and omissions. PW.1 deposed that, “On 26.4.2022 at about 7.30

AM while she was working in their house at the time A1 went to her and abused her in most filthy language and threatened her to remove the said Gaddi vamu as the said place belongs to him and her mother in law got registered in his name.

In meanwhile her husband came to them and questioned about his attitude of A1.

For which A1 beat her husband with stick on his shoulder. But PW.2 deposed that, on 26.04.2022 at about 07.00 AM he went to bazar and he returned at 8.00

AM and he came to know through his wife that, A1 went to his house in his absence and made galata with his wife and abused her in filthy language and threatened her to remove said Hayrick and also said that he is having share in their house. Again PW.2 further deposed that, in meanwhile he found A1 and A1 made galata with him and threatened him with dire consequences by saying that he will see their end and A1 beat him with his hands on his face due to which

PW.2 pushed him and again A1 took a stick and tried to beat him.

21.But PW.3 deposed that, A1 came to the house of Pw2 and made galata to remove hayrick for which Pw1 said that, the said land is in the name of her mother in law. But A1 did not listen her words and A1 also abused in filthy language by stating that ‘lanja’ to Pw1. In meanwhile, Pw2 came to the house and asked A1 why he is made galata. Due to which A1 beat Pw2 with his hands and then with stick. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 itself created doubt on the prosecution’s case.

22.The evidence of PW.1 and contents of Ex.P1 report also totally contradictory and there is no corroboration. The core contention of accused that, they never made any galata and no incident took place as stated by by them as there are property disputes and PW.1 to 3 deposed false and Pw2 and Lw3 are supporters of YCP and also Lw5 and 6 are their relatives. They filed false case against the accused and they are no way concerned with the present case.

9

23. No doubt there are civil disputes in between PW.1, 2 and accused. On perusal of FIR the IO did not obtain the signature of PW.1 of Col.No.14 of FIR and he did not fill the Col.no.15 of FIR. On perusal of FIR the I.O. sent FIR to the court on 29.04.2022 at 10.30.AM but the case was registered on 27.04.2022.

There is 24 hours delay in sending FIR to the court. It creates doubt on the prosecution’s case.

24. The material witnesses i.e. PW.4 did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Admittedly the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses to corroborate the version of PW.1. The evidence on record creates cloud on prosecution’s case.

25. Admittedly, there are property disputes in between Pw.1 family and accused. When there are prior enmity between the parties there may be chance to file false criminal cases. The court must very cautious while delivering the judgment when Civil or Criminal cases are pending prior to this incident.

Admittedly no independent witnesses are examined by the prosecution.

Admittedly the prosecution did not adduce any evidence to connect the A2 to A4 in this case, PW.1 to 3 simply stated that, A2 to A4 used to go to their house and abused her but in what manner they abused and whose presence they abused they never stated. At outset the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against accused No.1 to 4. Hence, the accused are entitled benefit of doubt.

26. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that, the prosecution is not able to prove case against the accused No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore the accused are entitled for acquittal.

27.In the result, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 323, 506 and 509 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months and thereafter they shall stand cancelled. The accused were never in judicial custody.

Typed to my dictation directly on system by the stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of November, 2024.

Sd/-K.Latha

V Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Guntur.

10

MEMO OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For Defence:Nil PW.1: A. Krishna Kumari. PW.2: A. Srinivasa Rao. PW.3: A. Sivanagamalleswari. PW.4: Shetty Gopi. PW.5: N. Narahari.

Exhibits marked

For prosecution: For Defence: Nil Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.4 Ex.P3: FIR. Ex.P4: Rough Sketch.

Material Objects Marked -NIL-

Sd/-K.Latha

V ACJ (Jr Div), Guntur.

11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

C.C.No.3075/2022

Date of Offence:On Explanation for delay & 26.04.2022remarks

Date of Filing:27.04.2022No delay is occurred

Date of Appearance:-26.09.2022

Release on bail:41-A Cr.P.C notices

Date of Commencement of :08.07.2024 trial

Closure of trial:06.11.2024

Date of Judgment:12.11.2024

CC.No.3075/2022on the file of V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur

COMPLAINANT:

State: State: Inspector of Police, Medikonduru P.S., Guntur.

ACCUSED :

1. Arudra Pedda Peraiah @ Peraiah, S/o.Chinthaiah, 58 years, Yadava by caste,

Sripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Arudra Padma W/o.Pedda Peraiah @ Peraiah @ Peraiah, 58 years, Yadava by caste, Sripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Arudra Sivakrishna S/o. Pedda Peraiah @ Peraiah @ Peraiah, 38 years,

Yadava by caste, Sripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District.

4. Arudra Sivamurali S/o. Pedda Peraiah @ Peraiah @ Peraiah, 31 years,

Yadava by caste, Sripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District.

12

Offence:U/sec.323, 506 and 509 r/w 34 of IPC

Finding:Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty.

Sentence:In the result, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 323, 506 and 509 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months and thereafter they shall stand cancelled. The accused were never in judicial custody.

Sd/-K.Latha

V Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Guntur.

Copy To:

The Hon’ble Chief judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

//True copy//

V Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

Present : K. Latha,

V Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur. FAC: VI Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur. Tuesday, this the 29th day of October, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No.1650/2019

Between :

State: Inspector of Police, Old Guntur P.S. …. Complainant. -And-

1. Pendra Muttaiah S/o.Venkateswarlu, age 35 years, caste by Boya, R/o.Gadidalavari Bazar, K.V.P. Colony, Guntur Town.

2. Bandi Seshu, S/o.Rambabu, age 19 years, caste by Waddera, R/o. Near Burriel ground, 2nd lane, Srinivasaraopet, Guntur Town.

...... Accused.

This case is coming on 16.10.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP and of Sri V. Ankalu, Advocate, for the accused and after hearing both sides and having perused the material available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Old Guntur Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.30/2019 for the offence punishable under section 392 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The Case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/Lw.1 is resident of Mutluru village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District. He is living by doing cultivation. On 18.01.2019 at afternoon hours, Lw.1 came to Guntur from

Mutluru village to go to shopping. After completion of shopping while he was waiting at bus stand to board a bus to go their village, at the time 2 unknown persons i.e A1& A2 went to LW.1 and asked him where he is going and made him to believe that they would help him. LW.1 said that he is going to their village.

The A1& A2 asked him to come on their motor bike and they also going on the way. Then he boarded their bike and asked him to sit on their bike and made him to sit in between both the accused. They took him to Budam padu bypass 2 junction to Pedakakani NH.16 Flyover road, Near Railway Track, and robbed the cash of Rs.800/- and one gold ring from Lw.1 and escaped with the booty on their motor bike. Later on 20.01.2019 Lw.1 went to the police station and presented a report. The ASI/Lw.12 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.30/2019 under section 392 of IPC of Old Guntur police station.

During the course of investigation, the Inspector/LW.13 examined LWs.1 to 4 and recorded their detailed statements and inspected the two scene of offences in the presence of LWs.5 and 6 under cover of scene observation report duty attested by them and also prepared rough sketch of scenes. During the course of investigation, on 22.1.2019 at 3 p.m., LW.11 arrested the accused No.1 and 2 near NRI Flyover, Chinakakani, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District in

Cr.No.17/2019 U/s.392 I.P.C., of Mangalagiri Town P.S. in the presence of mediators/LWs.7 and 8 and seized the stolen properties. The accused confessed and admitted the offence in the present Cr.No.30/2019 U/s.392 I.P.C., of Old

Guntur P.S., and other crimes concerned in other Police Stations. On basis of confession statement of the accused, LW.11 seized the one gold ring and cash

Rs.800/- concerned in the present case and also other stolen properties in other cases from the possession of the accused under the cover of mediatornama and produced the accused before the Hon'ble Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri and the court forwarded the accused to judicial custody. On 31-01-2019 on execution of PT warrant, LW.13 produced the accused No.1 and 2 in this case

before this Hon'ble Court. L.W.1 identified his stolen property in test identification

of property proceedings. After completion of investigation, LW.13 filed charge sheet.

3.On appearance of the accused no.1 & 2, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused were examined Under Section 239 Criminal Procedure Code and they denied allegations. Charge under Sections 392 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code has been framed, against the accused, and the contents of the charge were read over, explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to Pw.11 and got marked Ex.P1 to 13. The learned A.P.P. has given up the evidences of Lw.7 and Lw10.

6. After completion of Prosecution evidence the accused were examined

Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The incriminating material 3 evidence appeared in the prosecution witnesses evidence read over and explained to them in Telugu language for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for offence punishable Under Sections 392 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.P.W1-Ch.Chinnaiah, who is defacto complainant and also victim categorically deposed that, on 18.01.2019, he came to Guntur for shopping at D- mart in Naaz center. After completion of shopping at about 6.45pm when he was present in the bus stand, to board the bus along with the grocery bag, two auto persons came to the bus stand and they inquired about his destination details and he told them that he has to travel to Mutluru. P.w.1 further deposed that, he does not have any prior acquaintance with A1 and A2 and he identified the A1 and A2. PW1 further deposed that then A1, A2 requested Pw1 to join, on a motorcycle by specifying that they were also traveling to Mutluru. He further deposed that he was sat in between A1 and A2 on the motorcycle and that they have started from Bus stand and they were traveling through Ponnur road and when they reached Ponnuru road, the person / the accused who is rider of the bike was advised to take a road through Vijayawada and that after traveling for about 1 km, the accused No.1 and 2 have diverted the vehicle to a mud road and upon, he questioned A1 and A2 about the deviation due to which A2 caught hold his collar and throat and threatened him with dire consequences if he raise a signal and that A1 stopped the motorcycle. Pw1 further deposed that, A1 and A2 threatened him to give them the valuables and money. Subsequently, A1 and A2 forced their hands in his pocket and took a money approximately Rs.800/- under

M.O.2 from his pocket by bet him. Pw1 further deposed that A1 and A2 did a thorough check of his clothes and they took a gold ring under M.O.1 and have taken the same and that he has begged, requested and cried for A1 and A2 to stop beating him with hands and legs and left him at the spot. Pw1 further deposed that, after that he has slowly reached to highway by walk, and have 4 called Lw2 who is his friend, and informed about the incident. On arrival of LW.2 he went to Mutluru along with LW.2 and that since he is a diabetic patient, and handicapped later two days he lodged a report under Ex.P1 to Old Guntur police.

During cross examination Pw.1 stated that he does not know the particulars of A1 and A2. But he can identify A1 and A2. He does not know the exact value of the ring for which he did not state before police and he stated that he lost his ring. He does not know the fact that he has called Lw.2 through phone has been mentioned in EX.P1 or not. He was examined by the police on the same day ie., on the date of report. No TIP was conducted by the police.

10.PW2/Ch.Mastanrao who is friend of PW.1 deposed that, he knows PW1 and that he does not specifically remember the year in which the offence was occurred and at about, approximately between 7.30 pm, he has received a call from PW1, saying that he was robbed of his valuables by two persons and that

Pw1 specified that he was present at the bypass road, and he has requested him for help to drop him back to Mutluru. PW2 further deposed that, immediately he proceeded from his house at Srinivasraopeta at Guntur and reached the bypass road where PW1 was there and that he has observed that PW1 was too weak to stand from the beatings, he has received from the accused and that PW1 has informed him that he was sought by A1 and A2 to drop PW1 at Mutluru, PW1 also informed him that after traveling awhile, they have diverted the vehicle towards Vijayawada road and after stopping the vehicle they have bet PW1 continuously with hands and legs and have snatched all the valuables which include a gold ring and a cash of Rs.800/- from possession of PW1. PW2 further deposed that after 2 days of the occurrence of the incident, PW1 lodged a report to the police. He was examined by the police.

In the cross examination Pw.2 stated that he did not take PW1 either to the police station or the hospital on the same day. PW2 adds that this was because of PW1 specifies that he wants to reach the home. Pw2 do not know the specific phone numbers from which the call was made from PW1 to him on the date of offence.

11.PW.3/Sk.Ameervali, PW.4/Venkata Durga Malleswarrao who are scene observation mediators did not support the case of prosecution and they turned hostile. They admitted only their signatures under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 under scene observation mahazarnama.

12.PW.5/K.Baburao, PW.6/K.Kaleshavali who are mediators for arrest of A1 and A2 and seizure of stolen property did not support the case of prosecution 5 and they turned hostile. They admitted only their signatures under Ex.P4 and

Ex.P5 under mahazarnama.

13.PW.7/K.Kondal Rao, PW.8/S.Babu did not support the case of prosecution and they turned hostile. Even they denied their statements given to the police under Ex.P6 and Ex.P7.

14.PW9-G. Venkateswararao, SI of police, deposed that on 20.01.2019 while he was present in the police station as In charge officer, at about 3.00 pm, Pw.1 came to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 report. On Basis of report he registered a case in Cr.No.30/2019 for the offence punishable under section 392 r/w 34 of IPC under Ex.P8 and Lw.13 has continued investigation.

During cross examination Pw.9 stated that the date of offence is 18.1.2019 at 19 hours. The FIR was registered on 20.1.2019 at about 3 pm. There is a delay of about 44 hours between the commission of offene and registration of the said case. There is no specification in Col No.8 with regard to the time lapse between the commission of offence and reporting of the incident. The value of the gold ring is not mentioned in Ex. P1.

15.PW10/Ch.Ravi Babu, CI of police, in his evidence deposed that on 22.01.2019 at about 12 hours, he has received credible information with regard to the said case, he has apprehended the accused No.1 and 2 and based on the confession of accused, the MO.1 and 2 were seized from the accused No.1 and 2 under cover of mediatornama under Ex.P9.

16. PW.11/A.Srinivasa Rao, CI of police, in his evidence deposed that on 20.01.2019 he took up investigation in this case and that he visited the scene of offence which is situated in front of RTC bus stand, Guntur and he observed the same and prepared rough sketch/Ex.P10 of the scene of offence. He further deposed that, he also examined Lw.1 to 4 at the scene of offence and recorded their statements, visited 2nd scene of offence which is situated at NH-16 agricultural fields and he observed the scene and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P11 and at the scene of offence he secured the mediators ie., Lw.5, Lw.6 and in their presence, he prepared scene observation report attested by them under Ex.P12. Pw.11 further deposed that, on 22.01.2019 he received information from Pw.10, as they arrested the accused

No.1 and 2 and that he obtained PT Warrant from the court and produced the accused No.1 and 2 before the court and the Honourable court sent them to the court for judicial remand. On 09.02.2019 he got conducted test identification of 6 property through Pw.6 and Lw.10 and Pw.1 identified his property under Ex.P13 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

During cross examination Pw.11 stated that, he produced the accused on

PT warrant before the court on 31.01.2019 but he cannot say the exact time. He prepared 2nd scene observation report at 5.30 pm.

DISCUSSION:

17. During cross examination Pw.1 admitted that, he did not lodge a report on the same day. PW.9 admitted that he did not fill the Col. No.15 of FIR. Pw.10 admitted that, there are no signatures of the police personnel /staff in Ex.P9 mediatornama.

18. It is the stand of the accused that, Pw.1 cannot identify A1 and A2. Pw.1 did not specify in Ex.P1 report or in 161 statement that, A1 and A2 had asked him to travel along with them to Mutluru. PW.1 did not state before the police or in

Ex.P1 report that A1 and A2 had been continuously beat him and he asked them to stop beating. PW.1 did not state before the police or in Ex.P1 report that A1 and A2 caught hold his throat and he did not specify the physical feature of the accused. PW.1 did not state before the police or in Ex.P1 report that he can identify A1 and A2 if he saw them. It is further stand of accused that, pw2 have specified in his 161 crpc statement that he had traveled from Srinivasaraopeta,

Guntur to pick up PW1 at the scene of offence and pw2 was not proceeded to the scene of offence after receiving a phone call from PW1 after the commission of the said offence. PW1 does not have a mobile phone / phone to call him and to inform about the said incident.

19. It is further stand of accused that there is an overwriting in Ex.P1 with regard to the section of offence and the time of the occrurence of the offence.

PW1 did not mention in Ex.P1 that, he can identify the accused. It is further stand of accused that the police obtained the signatures of accused on a blank paper. They never seized the said Mo.1 and Mo.2 from A1 and A2.

20. It is further stand of accused that, PW.11 never conducted test identification of property through PW6 and LW10 and he obtained their signatures at police station and PW1 never identified his property and he deposed false. PW.11 never visited the first and second scene of offences and he prepared all documents at police station and the accused are no way concerned with the present case and he filed false charge sheet to dispose unclaimed property.

7

21.On perusal of entire evidence on record, the material witnesses Pw3 Shaik

Ameervali and Pw4 Venkata Durga Malleswarrao who are scene observation mediators and also PW.5/K.Baburao and Pw.6 Shaik Kalesavali who are mediators for arrest and seizure of stolen property did not support the case of prosecution and they turned hostile. They admitted only their signatures under

Ex.P2 to Ex.P5.

22.Pw.7 M.Kondalrao and Pw.8 S.Babu also turned Hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution even they denied their statements and Ex.P6 and Ex.P7.

23.On perusal of evidence, the material witnesses i.e. Pw3 to Pw6 who are mediators for scene observation report and arrest mahazar nama turned hostile.

The I.O. who conducted the investigation committed so many latches in the investigation and he did not conduct test identification of accused. Even the

I.O/Pw.10. who arrested the accused and seized the property from possession of

A1 and A2 is simply deposed that, ‘’on 22.01.2019 at about 12 hours he received information and apprehended the A1 and A2 and seized the M.O.1 and 2 from possession of accused. But he never deposed about the mediators and whose presence the M.O.1 and 2 are seized and how he caught hold the accused and procedure followed by I.O./Pw10 at the time of seizure. The evidence of Pw10 itself shows the negligence of I.O/Pw.10. As per evidence of Pw1 the accused A1 and A2 bet the Pw1 and robbed the Gold ring and cash but no medical certificate was filed before the court. There is a delay of 2 days in lodging F.I.R. But in column no.8 of F.I.R. the I.O mentioned that no delay. The delay in lodging in

F.I.R. is fatal to the prosecution’s case and no prosecutions witnesses were explained the reasons for delay. There is no corraboration in the evidence of

Pw.1 and the contents of Ex.P1 report and there are improvements and omissions. Pw.1 never mentioned about the Pw.2 in Ex.P1 report. Pw.1 simply mentioned in Ex.P1 report that after incident he went to his house and informed about the incident to his family members and after two days he lodged a report. If really after alleged incident he telephoned to Pw.2, definitely Pw.1 will mention about the role of Pw.2 in his report. The evidence of Pw.1 itself creates the doubt on the prosecution’s case.

24.PW.1 never mentioned in his report or he never stated before the police that he can identify the accused who were robbed him. Further Pw.1 never deposed about test identification of property whether the said proceedings conducted in his presence or not and he identified the gold ring i.e. M.O.1 or not.

8

There is no signature of Pw.1 in Ex.P13/Test Identification of property proceedings. There is no clarity under Ex.P13 that, who conducted test identification of property proceedings and he did not put his signature in Ex.P13.

Except mediators signatures no one is put their signatures on Ex.P13. It is not the evidence of Pw.1 that, he identified M.O.1 in test identification of property proceedings in the presence of mediators/V.R.O. Therefore, the alleged seizure of the property from the possession of the accused No.1 and 2 are become doubtful.

25.‘At the outset’ the I.O who conducted investigation did not follow the procedure laid under Cr.P.C and he committed so many latches in the investigation and failed to adduce cogent evidence to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2. The prosecution could not able to establish the accused

No.1 and 2 robbed PW1 and also failed alleged seizure of MO1 & MO2 from possession of the accused No.1 and 2.

26. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence U/Sec.392 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

27. In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offence

U/s 392 r/w 34 IPC. The accused are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C . The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal or appeal time. The property under M.O. 1 and 2 given to the Pw.1/defacto complainant as per the orders in Crl.M.P. No.229/2019 dated 26.04.2019 are made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on laptop and corrected by me and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-K.Latha

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC, VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For prosecution: For Defence:-Nil.

P.W.1:Ch. Chinnaiah. P.W.2:Ch. Mastanrao.

9

P.W.3: Shaik Ameervali. P.W.4: Venkata Durga Malleswararao. P.W.5: K. Baburao. P.W.6: Sk. Kaleshavali. P.W.7: M. Kondalarao. P.W.8: S. Babu. P.W.9: G. Venkateswararao. P.W.10: Ch. Ravi Babu. P.W.11: A. Srinivas Rao.

Exhibits Marked.

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Report. Ex.P.2: Signature of Pw.3 on the scene observation report. Ex.P.3: Signature of Pw.4 on the scene observation report. Ex.P.4: Signature of Pw.5 on the attested copy of mediatornama. Ex.P.5: Signature of Pw.6 o n the attested copy of mediatornama dt.09.02.2019. Ex.P.6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.7. Ex.P.7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw.8. Ex.P.8: FIR. Ex.P.9: Attested copy of confession mediatornama dt.22.01.2019. Ex.P.10: Rough Sketch of 1st scene of offence. Ex.P.11: Rough sketch of second scene of offence. Ex.P.12: Scene observation report. Ex.P.13: The test identification of property Mahazarnama.

For Defence: -NIL-

Material Objects Marked M.O.No.1 is Gold Ring. M.O.No.2 is Cash of Rs.800/-(100X8 =800)

Sd/-K.Latha

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC, VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

//True copy//

V Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur FAC: VI Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur 10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

C.C.No.1650/2022

Date of Offence:On Explanation for delay & 18.01.2019remarks

Date of Filing:04.06.2019No delay is occurred

Date of Appearance:-31.01.2019

Released on bail:31.01.2019

Date of Commencement of :17.02.2020 trial

Closure of trial:31.08.2024

Date of Judgment:29.10.2024

CC.No.1650/2019 on the file of VI Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur

COMPLAINANT: State: Sub Inspector of Police, old Guntur P.S. Guntur

ACCUSED :

1. Pendra Muttaiah S/o.Venkateswarlu, age 35 years, caste by Boya, R/o.Gadidalavari Bazar, K.V.P. Colony, Guntur Town.

2. Bandi Seshu, S/o.Rambabu, age 19 years, caste by Waddera, R/o. Near Burriel ground, 2nd lane, Srinivasaraopet, Guntur Town.

Offence:U/Sec.392 of IPC

Finding:Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty.

Sentence:In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offence U/s 392 r/w 34 IPC. The accused are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C . The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal or appeal time. The property under M.O. 1 and 2 given to the Pw.1/defacto complainant as per the orders in

Crl.M.P. No.229/2019 dated 26.04.2019 are made

absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-K.Latha

VACJ(Jr Div), Guntur. FAC: VI ACJ(Jr Div), Guntur.

To : The Hon’ble Chief judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

//True copy//

V Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur FAC: VI Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

PRESENT :: K.Latha, V Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur. FAC: VI Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur. Tuesday, this the 29th day of October, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No.3202/2019

Between :

State: Inspector of Police, Chebrolu P.S. …. Complainant. -And-

1.Myla Naga Raju, S/o. Pothuraju, 23 years, C/Kshathriya, Pedamynavani Lanka, Narasapuram, West Godavari District.

2.Shaik Sadhik Basha, S/o.Hassan Basha, 31 years, Caste by Muslim, D.No.22-11-22/A, Near Old Savani Transport, Lalapet, Guntur.

...... Accused.

This case is coming on 09.10.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP and of Sri G.Venkata Ramana, for the accused and after hearing both sides and having perused the material available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Chebrolu Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.313/2015 for the offences punishable under section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code (herein after it is referred as I.P.C.).

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the deceased Manjay Sahani and others went to Salapadu village for attending coolie works on daily wages belongs to GMC water works which were taken by Nagarjuna Construction

Corporation on contract basis. On 19.12.2015 in the morning the said Manjay

Sahani and L.W.1 started the work and they want to cut the binding wire bundle in four pieces in the size of 6 inches and that they fixed the cutting blade to

Grinding Machine and they kept wooden pieces on the earth in front of iron sheeted shed which was using to keep the material and other equipment and that they took the support of the wooden pieces and the said Manjay Sahani was cutting the binding wire with electrical Grinding Machine. L.W.1 caught hold of the binding wire bundle and kept the same on the wooden pieces and caught hold it tightly and assisting the said Manjay Sahani in cutting of binding wire. Already they cut the binding wire two times. While they were cutting the binding wire in third time, all of sudden the round blade which was fixed to the Grinding Machine 2 was broken into three pieces, among them one piece was touched the right side neck of the said Manjay Sahani in heavy speed unexpectedly, resulting which the said Manjay Sahani has sustained severe cut injury on his right side neck at a length of about 6 inches and depth of about 3 inches, succumbed to the said multiple injury on the spot in pool of blood. The incident was occurred due to non supply of safety materials and not to take preventive steps towards untoward incidents and not supplied in good working condition machines to the coolie workers during execution, due to which the incident was occurred. If the accused might have provided needy amenities to the coolie workers during execution of works, the incident would be averted. It is clearly negligence of the accused as the accused have failed to take preventive steps and caused the death of the deceased. On receipt of the report of L.W.1, the ASI/L.W.17 has registered the same as case in Cr.No.313/2015 under section 304-A of IPC of Chebrolu police station and L.W.13 investigated into the case.

3. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused were examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C. They denied the substance of allegations. The substance of offence under Section 304-A IPC are read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MO.1 to MO.4. The Learned A.P.P.

has given up the evidence of L.Ws.1, 4 to 10, 12 to 15, 18 and L.W.19.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C and explaining the incriminating material found against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments on both sides.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for

the offence under Section 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT:

To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined

P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MO.1 to MO.4. The Learned

A.P.P. has given up the evidence of L.Ws.1, 4 to 10, 12 to 15, 18 and L.W.19.

10. P.W.1/P.Lakshmi Prasanna, who is Police constable deposed that, on 19.12.2015 at about 12 noon while she was on duty, L.W.1 went to the police station and gave a oral report but she spoke in Hindi language. As she is unable 3 to understand the Hindi language and she sent him to L.W.17/ASI and L.W.1 made a statement to L.W.17 and on the instructions of L.W.17. She reduced into writing the oral report of L.W.1 in Telugu language under Ex.P1. Later police/L.W.17 examined her and recorded her statement.

During cross examination P.W.1 stated that, L.W.1 showed the proof to

L.W.17 as she is working in the company. L.W.1 alone came to the police station.

L.W.17 knows the writing of Telugu language. L.W.1 revealed about the incident to L.W.17 and the same was translated into Telugu and she reduced the same into writing.

11. P.W.2/B.Anjaneyulu, who worked as security guard in the said company deposed that, on the date of alleged incident, he was working as security guard at Municipal water house recruited by Seva Supreme security service private limited. In the year 2015, on monday while he went to duty at the time, he found that one Manjay Sahani died and L.W.4 also present at that time. He came to know that while he was working he want to cut the binding wire bundle, at the time, accidentally the grinding machine was broken in 4 pieces and the same was touched in the neck of the said Manjay Sahani, due to which he sustained severe injury and died on the spot.

12. P.W.3/V.Chittibabu, who is scene observation mediator deposed that, on 19.12.2015 at about 12 noon, ASI called him and L.W.12, to act as mediators and that then they went to water plant at Selapadu village, Chebrolu mandal.

There they found one person fell on the road who met with an accident and died on the spot and they also found at the scene of offence that the binding wires, blades – 4 in number, cutter machine and wood pieces. In their presence, the police observed the scene and prepared scene observation report and also seized the above articles. He along with L.W.12 put their signatures on scene observation report under Ex.P2.

During cross examination P.W.3 stated that, ASI called him. He gave information to VRO about visiting of scene of offence.

13. PW4/Dr.V.Siva Kameswara Rao, professor Guntur Medical college who conducted Post mortem examination deposed that, on 20.12.2015 he received requisition from SHO, Chebrolu PS to conduct Postmortem examination over the dead body of Manjay Sahani, aged about 31 yrs. Accordingly, he conducted P.M examination at about 1.15 PM and that during PM examination, he found one

Anti-mortem injury as mentioned in his report and that the cause of death is due to cut laceration of the neck and that he issued PM report underEx.P3.

4

14. P.W.5/Shaik Aslam, who is SI of police deposed that, on 19.12.2015 while he was present in the police station at about 11.00 AM, L.W.1 came to police station and gave oral report as he belongs to Bihar State and he does not know

Telugu and that he knows only Hindi Language. Then he took the assistance of women Constable who knows Hindi language and he reduced into writing the report under Ex.P1. On basis of Ex.P1 report he registered a case in

Cr.No.313/2015 u/sec.304-A IPC and submitted FIR to all concerned officers underEx.P4.Then he examined L.W.1 and recorded his statement with the assistance of P.W.1. He also examined P.W.1 and recorded her statement. He visited scene of offence which is situated at Selapadu village, GMC water works plant and observed the same and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence underEx.P5. At scene of offence he secured the presence of L.W.3 to L.W.8 and examined and recorded their statements. He secured the presence of P.W.3 and

L.W.12 and in their presence, he observed the scene and seized the hand binding machine ie, Bosch company, binding wire, 3 pieces of the blade and 4 feet wood pieces under MOs.1 to 4 and prepared scene observation report under

Ex.P2. He found the dead body of Manjay Sahani at scene of offence and he forwarded the dead body to the mortuary of GGH, Guntur. Later, L.W.18 continued investigation, in this case. On 20.12.2015, L.W.18 conducted inquest over the dead body of Manjay Sahani in the presence of Inquest Panchayatdars ie, L.W.13 to L.W.15 and prepared inquest report under Ex.P6 attested by them.

Then he forwarded the dead body for autopsy. On 23.12.2015 L.W.18 served 41-

A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After receipt of PM report, L.W.19 filed charge sheet against the accused.

DISCUSSION:

15. During cross examination P.W.3 admitted that, police did not issue any summons to him to act as mediator. He did not take any written permission from their superiors to act as mediators. He does not know about the details of

L.W.12. He does not know L.W.12 personally.

During cross examination P.W.5 admitted that, he mentioned in FIR that

L.W.1 lodged a written report. As per charge sheet it is not mentioned how many persons were examined in the company on the date of alleged incident. As per material supplied by company, the workers will work. The workers not having any knowledge about the quality of material supplied by them.

16. It is stand of accused that she did not reduce into writing the Ex.P1 and

L.W.1 never went to her and he never made any oral report in Hindi language and she never sent to L.W.17 and she deposed false.

5

17. The core contention of accused that, PW.2 is not a employee of said company and he deposed false for the purpose of this case and police never examined him. The contention of accused that PW.3 is a stock witness to the police and he does not know anything about this case and at request of police he put his signature on Ex.P2. The core contention of accused that, the doctor prepared Ex.P3/PM report on basis of inquest and he never conducted

Postmortem examination and he deposed false. If any person fallen in running machine, the above injury may happen.

18. It is further stand of accused that they are no way concerned to the present case. The place of incident is no way concerned to the accused duty. The IO prepared all documents at police station. The opinion mentioned in the inquest is false. The I.O. falsely implicated the accused and they are no way concerned to the present case.

19. On perusal of entire evidence on record, no eye witnesses are examined by the prosecution. The prosecution failed to examine the LW1/defacto complainant who lodged a report under Ex.P1. It is fatal to the prosecution’s case. PW.1 is police constable who assisted the PW.5 for reducing into writing of the oral Hindi report given by PW.1. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.5 are totally contradictory. PW.1 deposed that, she does not know hindi language but PW.5 deposed that, he took the assistance of PW.1 who knows the hindi language. It creates doubt on the prosecution’s case.

20. As per evidence of P.W.2, hearsay witness and after incident he went to the scene and saw the dead body of Manjay Sahani. Admittedly, P.W.2 did not file any proof of document as he worked as security in the said company. P.W.3 is a scene observation mediator and he did not depose anything against the accused. Admittedly, police did not serve any summons to P.W.3 to act as mediator. P.W.4 is doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of Manjay sahani and issued PM report under Ex.P3.

21.In view of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, the Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of other witnesses. The remaining evidence is P.W.5 investigating officer. They did not collect any material evidence to connect the accused No.1 and 2 to the offence. The evidence on record did not show due to the negligence of A1 and A2 the incident occurred. The prosecution utterly failed to prove the negligence of accused and no prosecution witnesses are deposed about the negligence of A1 and A2. The evidence on record creates cloud on the prosecution’s case and it is not useful for prosecution’s case.

6

22. Further the prosecution did not examine the inquest mediators who present at the time of inquest conducted by I.O. over the dead body of deceased.

23.Therefore, the court finds no direct evidence to establish that due to the negligence of A1 and A2 this incident was occurred. Further, there is no whisper at all in the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses about the mode of incident implicating the negligence on the part of the accused.

24.On summing up of the entire evidence, the court finds no convincing and satisfactory evidence to hold that due to negligence of A1 and A2 this accident was occurred and this led to the death of deceased. Therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

25.In the result, the court found that the accused No.1 and 2 are not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC. As such the accused are acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused if any shall be in force for six months u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 to MO.4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on system by the stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-K.Latha

V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

FAC: VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1: P. Lakshmi Prasanna. -None- P.W.2: B. Anjaneyulu. P.W.3: V. Chitti Babu. P.W.4: Dr. V. Sia Kameswararao. P.W.5: Shaik Aslam.

7

Exhibits Marked.

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Report. Ex.P.2: Scene observation Report. Ex.P.3: PM Report. Ex.P.4: FIR. Ex.P.5: Rough sketch. Ex.P.6: Inquest Report.

For Defence: -NIL-

Material Objects Marked. M.O.No.1: BOSCH Company hand Grinding Machine. M.O.No.2: Binding wire. M.O.No.3: 3 Pieces of Blade. M.O.No.4: 4 Feet Wood Piece.

Sd/-K.Latha .

V ACJ(Jr.Div.), Guntur. FAC: VI ACJ(Jr.Div.), Guntur.

// TRUE COPY // //True copy//

V Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur

FAC: VI Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

C.C.No.3202/2019

Date of Offence:On Explanation for delay & 19.12.2015remarks

Date of Filing:11.10.2022No delay is occurred

Date of Appearance:-41-A notice

Release on bail:41-A notice

Date of Commencement of :28.08.2024 trial

Closure of trial:20.09.2024

Date of Judgment:29.10.2024

CC.No.3202/2019 on the file of VI Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur

COMPLAINANT: State: Sub Inspector of Police, Chebrolu P.S. Guntur

ACCUSED :

1. Myla Naga Raju, S/o. Pothuraju, 23 years, C/Kshathriya, Pedamynavani Lanka, Narasapuram, West Godavari District.

2. Shaik Sadhik Basha, S/o.Hassan Basha, 31 years, Caste by Muslim, D.No.22-11-22/A, Near Old Savani Transport, Lalapet, Guntur.

Offence:U/Sec.304-A of IPC

Finding:Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty.

Sentence:In the result, the court found that the accused No.1 and 2 are not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC. As such the accused are acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused if any shall be in force for six months u/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 to MO.4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-K.Latha

V ACJ(Jr.Div.), Guntur. FAC: VI ACJ(Jr.Div.), Guntur.

To : The Hon’ble Chief judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

//True copy//

V Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur FAC: VI Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

PRESENT:- Smt. K. Latha,

V Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur.

FAC: VI Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur.

Tuesday, this the 12 th day of November, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No. 3147 of 2021

Between :

State: Inspector of Police, Old Guntur P.S. …. Complainant. -And-

Syed Mehaboob Jony, S/o.Ansari, age 29 years, Caste by Muslim, R/o.1st lane, Maruthinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur.

...... Accused.

This case is coming on 08.11.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP and of Sri M. Sreevani, for the accused and after hearing both sides and having perused the material available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Old Guntur Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.253/2020 for the offences punishable under section 380 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The Case of the prosecution is that, LW.1 is the defacto complainant. Lw.2 is wife of LW.1. LW.2 to 5 are daughters of LW.1 and LW.2. The defacto complainant/Lw.1 is resident of 3rd lane, Anandapet, Ponnur road, Guntur Town and he is doing flower business. After completion his flowers business, on 08.07.2020 LW.1 returned to home at 10 pm., and took dinner, and he slept in

Varandah of their house. Lws.2 to 5 also slept in the house. On 09.08.2020 at about 1.00 am., the accused who is previously took the children of Lw.1 to the school in his auto gained entry into the house of Lw.1 and attempted to commit theft by searching in the house, in meanwhile, Lw.3 saw the accused and raised cries, then the accused closed her mouth with his hands and obstructed her not to raise cries. On hearing the cries of LW.1, the LW.2, 4 and 5 were woke up.

2

Lw.2 swithched on the light. In meanwhile on hearing the cries LW.1 went to his children and found that the things are in pelmel condition and the accused fled away from the said place. They find that the said accused drove the auto and he used to took the children of LW.1 to the school in his auto. The accused came to the house of LW.1 with intent to commit the theft. Later LW.1 lodged a report to the police and on basis of report the S.I./Lw.10 registered a case in

Cr.No.253/2020 under section 380 r/w 511 of IPC of Old Guntur police station and investigated into this case. Hence the charge sheet.

3.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. He denied the offence. The charge for the offence under sections U/Sec.380 r/w 511 of IPC against accused are framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to Pw.6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. The learned A.P.P. has given up the evidence of Lw.4 to 7.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C and explaining the incriminating material found against him, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the material on record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 380 r/w 511 of I.P.C and beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

9. PW.1/Shaik Jani who is defacto complainant deposed that at about three years back on one day midnight in between 12.30 to 1.00 A.M. while he was sleeping in their house Varanda and their family i.e. LW.2 to 5 were sleeping inside of the house, he heard cries from inside of their house and immediately he rushed to their wife and children, at the time his second daughter was caught hold by the accused and the accused was closed her mouth. He caught hold the accused and informed the police through 100. Later, he lodged a report. But he denied the contents of the report.

10.P.W2/Shaik Mallika, who is wife of PW.1 deposed that at about 5 years back, at about 12.30 am, while they were sleeping in their house and LW3 woke 3 up to use the wash room, when LW3 switched on the light, she found a person and she was caught hold by him and he closed her face and pushed to the wall, after which, LW3 fell to the ground and raised hues and cries. PW.2 further deposed that PW1 and herself caught hold the said person and he was taken into the house and subsequently he revealed his details as Jony i.e. the accused and mentioned himself as an auto driver with whom they were previously acquainted with, with regard to picking their children to the school. PW1 called his brothers and they have asked the accused to specify the details and his presence in their house. PW.2 further deposed that the accused did not gave any reply and subsequently, PW1 also recorded a video on his mobile. Later, PW1 lodged a report to police.

11.PW3/Sk. Firdose, who is daughter of PW.1 and 2 deposed that in the year 2020, at about 12.30 am or 1.00 am, her father was sleeping in the varandah of their house, she along with PW2, LW4 and LW5 were sleeping in the bed room.

Later with intent to go washroom she was wake up and switched on the light, and found one person because of which, she panicked and raised huge and cries, and the said person caught hold her face and pushed her to the wall she could not recognize the person because after heavy rain and the person being drenched with his hair falling/ covering all over the face. In meanwhile PW1 came to the place and pulled the person from them. She further deposed that subsequently, her paternal uncles/brothers of PW1 came to the scene and questioned the accused with regard to why he came to their house upon which, there was no response and that subsequently, a video was recorded of the accused and handed over the accused. PW.3 identified the accused who is present in the accused dock of the court.

During cross examination PW.3 stated that, she is studying 10th class. She did not state the physical features of accused.

12.PW.4/M.Venkata Murali Mohan Reddy and PW.5/S.Udaya Bhaskar who are mediators did not support the case of prosecution and they turned hostile.

They only admitted their signatures under Ex.P3 and Ex.P4.

13.PW6/T. Venkateswara Rao, S.I. of police and also who is investigating officer deposed that on 9.7.2020 at about 9:00 PM while he was present in the police station Pw1 along with PW2, PW3, LW4 and LW5 came to police station and PW1 presented Ex P1 report and on basis of ExP.1 report he registered a case in Cr.No.253/2020 under/sec 380 R/W 511 IPC under Ex.P4. Then he examined Pw1 to PW3 and LW4, LW5 and recorded their statements. Then he 4 visited scene of offence which is situated at 3 lane, Anandpet, Ponnuru road ie., house of Pw1 and he observed the same, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P5. PW.6 further deposed that he secured the presence of Lw6 and LW7 examined and recorded their statements. PW.6 further deposed that on 6.3.2021 at 10.00 am, he received credible information about the suspect in this case then he secured the presence of mediators ie., Pw4 and PW5, and proceeded to Nandivelugu road, along with his staff and mediators and reached

Venkateswara swamy temple junction at 11.00 am. PW.6 further deposed that there they found one male person, on seeing police, he tried to skulk away from that place and PW.6 caught hold him with the assistance of his staff. On enquiry by S.I., the said person revealed his name as Sayyad Mohammad Jani resident of Guntur ie., the accused. PW.6 further deposed that on further enquiry in the presence of mediators, he voluntarily confessed and admitted the offence that he tried to commit the theft in the house of PW1. Then the S.I. arrested the accused and prepared mahazarnama in the presence of mediators attested by them under Ex.P6. Then he served 41-A Cr.PC notice to the accused and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

DISCUSSION:

14.During cross examination PW.3 admitted that, she did not state before the police that, she wake up with intent to go washroom and found a person with long hair and drenched clothes. PW.3 did not state before the police that, her parents paternal uncle were called and they questioned the accused.

15. The core contention of accused that, PW.2 deposed false due to prior disputes in between them. PW.2 did not state before the police that, the accused was present in drenched clothes and that LW.3 was pushed to the wall by her face. PW.2 did not state before the police that, the accused used to pick her children in his auto rickshaw for school and the accused did not give any reply when they caught hold him on date of alleged incident.

16.It is further stand of accused that the accused is no way concerned to the present case and the S.I. registered false case with the influence of PW.1 and

PW.4 and PW.5 were stock witnesses. The accused is no way concerned to the present case and he never went to the house of PW.1 and he never tried to commit any offence and PW.1 to 3 and PW.6 deposed false.

17.At outset on perusal of evidence on record, as PW.1 did not support the case of prosecution he was declared hostile. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 are totally contradictory and there is no corroboration and improvements and 5 omissions. PW.1 deposed that, he heard cries from inside of their house and immediately he rushed to their wife and children, at the time his second daughter was caught hold by the accused and the accused was closed her mouth. He caught hold the accused and informed the police.

18.But PW.2 deposed that PW1 and herself caught hold the said person and he was taken into the house and subsequently he revealed his details as Jony i.e. the accused and mentioned himself as an auto driver with whom they were previously acquainted with, with regard to picking their children to the school. But

PW.3 deposed that, she woke up with intent to go washroom and switched on the light, and found one person because of which, she panicked and raised huge and cries, and the said person caught hold of her face and pushed her to the wall she could not recognize the person because after heavy rain and the person being drenched with his hair falling/ covering all over the face. In meanwhile PW1 came to the place and caught hold him.

19.As per the case of prosecution the accused was caught hold by the police but as per evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 they themselves caught hold the accused and produced before the police. Except confessional statement, the I.O. did not collect any material evidence to connect the accused in this case. During cross examination PW.6 stated that, he does not know whether there are any disputes in between PW.1 and accused.

20.Since the mediators i.e. PW.4 and PW.5 did not support the prosecution case and since the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the offence, I am of the view that the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

21.For all the above reasons, I am of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused, that the accused attempted to commit theft and that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused and thereby the accused is entitled for acquittal.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that, the prosecution is not able to prove case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal.

23.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 380 r/w 511 of IPC and he is acquitted for the charges leveled against him under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other cases.

6

Typed to my dictation directly on system by the stenographer corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12 th day of November, 2024 .

Sd/-K.Latha

V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

FAC:VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For prosecution: For Defence: Nil P.W.1: Shaik Johny. P.W.2: Shaik Mallika. P.W.3: Shaik Firdose. P.W.4: M.Venkata Murali Mohan Reddy. P.W.5: S.Udaya Bhaskar. P.W.6: P.Venkateswara Rao

Exhibits Marked.

For Prosecution: For Defence: -NIL-

Ex.P.1: Report. Ex.P.2: Signature of Lw.9 on Mediatornama. Ex.P.3: Signature of Lw.8 on Mediatornama. Ex.P.4: FIR. Ex.P.5: Rough Sketch. Ex.P.6: Mediatornama dt.06.03.2021.

Material Objects Marked.

-NIL-

Sd/-K.Latha .

V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

FAC:VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR //True copy//

V Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur

FAC: VI Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

C.C.No.3147/2021

Date of Offence:On Explanation for delay & 09.07.2020remarks

Date of Filing:11.10.2022No delay is occurred

Date of Appearance:-41-A notice

Release on bail:41-A notice

Date of Commencement of :28.07.2021 trial

Closure of trial:08.11.2024

Date of Judgment:12.11.2024

CC.No.3147/2021 on the file of VI Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur

COMPLAINANT: State: Sub Inspector of Police, Old Guntur P.S. Guntur

ACCUSED : Syed Mehaboob Jony, S/o.Ansari, age 29 years, Caste by Muslim, R/o.1st lane, Maruthinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur.

Offence:U/Sec.380 r/w 511 of IPC

Finding:Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 380 r/w 511 of IPC and he is acquitted for the charges leveled against him under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other cases.

Sd/-K.Latha

V ACJ(Jr.Div.), Guntur. FAC: VI ACJ(Jr.Div.), Guntur.

To : The Hon’ble Chief judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

//True copy//

V Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur FAC: VI Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Guntur