Page 1 of 34
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT
HANAMKONDA
Monday, this the 07th day of October, 2024
Present: Kshama Deshpande,
Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,
Hanamkonda.
Sessions Case No.144 of 2015
(P.R.C.No.03/2015 on the file of VI-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal in Crime No.488/2014 of P.S, Hanamkonda.
1. Name and description: The State of Telangana of the Complainant.through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S, Hanumakonda.
2. Name and description of the accused :
A-1) Sk.Ali Hyder, S/o: Mahmood, Aged: 38 years, Caste: Muslim, Occu: Glass Polish Worker, R/o: H.No: 19-08-35, Ashoknagar, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.
A-2) Somidi Kumara Swamy, S/o: Narsaiah, Aged: 30 years, Caste: Madiga, Occu: Painter, R/o: H.No: 17-2-80, NTR Nagar, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. (died)
A-3) Radandi Shankar, S/o: Mallaiah, Aged: 41 years, Caste: Mala, Occu: Superivisor in Bricks factory, R/o: H.No: 19-1-33/1, Ashoknagar, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.
A-4) Masipeddi Madhukar, S/o: Narayana Rao, Aged: 38 years, Caste: Velma, Occu: Rice Mill Operator, R/o: H.No: 17-1-17/1/C, Sanjay Gandhinagar, Godavarikhani Karimnagar District.
A-5) Panduga Shiva Krishna, S/o: Rambabu, Aged: 37 years, Caste: Mala, Occu: Typist (Contract) at Korutla RTC Bus Depot, R/o: H.No.36/1, Bheemuni Dubba, Korutla.
A-6) Md.Asif, S/o: Khaleel, Aged: 30 years, Caste: Muslim, Occu; Student and Driver, R/o: Ambedkarnagar, Korutla, Karimnagar District.
(The case against A-2 is abated as he died)
3. Offences with which charged : u/sec.455, 347 and 395 of IPC against A-1 to A-6.
4. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Page 2 of 34
5. Finding of the Judge: Accused No’s. 1, 3, 4 to 6 found guilty.
6. Sentence or Order :
In the result, the accused No.1, 3 and 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five(05) years each and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.455 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, Accused No.1, 3 and 4 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of five (05) months each.
Further, the accused No.1, 3 and 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Two(02) years each and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.347 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, Accused No.1, 3 and 4 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of five(05) months each.
Further, the accused No.1, 3 and 4 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five(05) years each and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.392 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, Accused No.1, 3 and 4 shall undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of five (05) months each.
Further, the accused No.5 and 6 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One (01) year each and shall pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence U/Sec.411 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, Accused No’s.5 and 6 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three (03) months each.
M.O’s.1 to 4 which were given for interim custody to P.W-1/A.Sammaiah shall become absolute after Appeal time is over. M.O- 5/Cotton Ropes and M.O-6 is the Hand Kerchief shall be destroyed after Appeal time is over. M.O-7 is the Tavera Vehicle which is given for interm custody to its owner namely Haimed, S/o: Ibrahim vide Crl.M.P.No.3496 of 2014, dated: 13.11.2014 shall become absolute after Appeal time is over. The quantum of sentences imposed against Accused No’s.1, 3 and 4 shall run concurrently.
The period of Judicial remand already undergone by the accused No.1 from 17.10.2014 to 19.11.2014, Accused No.3 from 17.10.2014 to 15.11.2014, Accused No.4 from 17.10.2014 to 10.11.2014, Accused No.5 from 17.10.2014 to 14.11.2014, Accused No.6 from 17.10.2014 to 17.11.2014 shall be set off under section.428 of Cr.P.C.
The Accused are informed about their right of Appeal and right to Legal Aid from the District Legal Services Authority, Hanumakonda.
Page 3 of 34
7. Prosecution conducted by :Sri G.Bhadradri Addl. Public Prosecutor.
8. Accused defended by: Sri K.Ambareesha Rao, Advocate for A-1 to A-4, A-6
Sri.M.Sahoder Reddy, Advocate for A-5
This case coming up before me on 30.09.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Srinivas ,Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.K.Ambareesha Rao, Learned Counsel for the accused No’s.1 to 4, 6, Sri.M.Sahoder Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Accused No.5; upon hearing both sides, and the matter having 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, P.S, Hanumakonda has laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.488/2014 for the offences under section.455, 347, 395 of IPC against the accused No’s.1 to 6.
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 26.09.2014 at about 5.00 PM, the complainant L.W-1/Aluvala
Sammaiah lodged a complaint stating that about 1 ½ years back, he along with his wife and children came down to Hanamkonda and started residing in a second floor of rented house of Pagadala Kali Prasad bearing
H.No: 3-7-265/2/3, Ganeshnagar, Madireddykunta for the studies of their children. He used to shuffle to Bhupalpally for employment. That on 26.09.2014 afternoon at about 12.00 hours, he started from his house with his friend Md.Rafiq Pasha to get DTP of his college material and went to Kandhari Institute, Naimnagar and after getting DTP works in the
Page 4 of 34 afternoon at about 2.45 PM, his friend Rafiq dropped him in front of his house and went away and he went to his house at the second floor and found that the door was closed, he found one black tall and fat person was present near front of his house, he asked the said person about his identity upon which the said person snatched away his cell phone, opened the doors and forcibly pushed him into his house.
3.Then he observed two more persons were sitting in Sofa, he also found his wife Latha Sree sitting in another sofa and her hands were tagged. Later, the three persons closed the front door and also tagged his hands and gagged his mouth with a Kerchief and threatened him with dire consequences asked him to inform as to where money was available or otherwise they would kill him, further they searched in the Alimrah, under the beds and other places and thrown all the articles in the house in Pelmel condition and snatched away Rs.10,000/- from his pocket, abused him in a filthy language and while they were going out of the house, his wife caught her legs and requested them to return her gold pusthela thadu, on which they kicked his wife with legs and went out of the house by closing the main door from outside. Later, he along with his wife managed to open the window doors with their tagged hands and his wife made hue and cries and on hearing the same, his house owners wife
Pagadala Sagarika, her daughter soni, Son Tinku came to their house and opened the door and entered into their house, opened the tags of their hands, removed Kerchief in the mouth and that his wife informed that three persons entered into their house at about 2.30 PM and threatened
Page 5 of 34 her, tagged her hands and snatched away her gold pusthelathadu, cell phone from their house, Further, they have two gold chains, three rings, ear studs, maatilu from the alimarah and they have tortured his wife for cash.
4.Further, the said unkown persons confined them and snatched away 3 Tulas of Pusthela Thadu, Gold Chains – 2 No’s weighing about 1 ½ Tulas, 3 rings, ear studs and matis weighing 1 ½ tulas and two cell phones (Samsung, Nokia) and net cash of Rs.10,000/- all worth Rs.2,20,000/- and later with the help of Kathula venu came to the Police Station and he stated that he can identify the three persons if he saw them and prayed to take necessary action.
5.Basing on the complaint of L.W-1, L.W-21/Kiran Kumar, Inspector of
Police, P.S, Hanamkonda registered a case in Cr.No.488/2014, U/sec.392 of
IPC, issued express FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, L.W-21 examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 and 2 in Part-II Case Diary, rushed to the scene of offence situated at
Ganesh Nagar, Hanamkonda, drew rough sketch of the scene of offence, incorporated the crime details in the CDF in the presence of panch witnesses L.Ws.12, 13 i.e., Rajaboina Ashok Yadav, Gongalla Kattaiah respectively, seized one green coloured Kerchief, four white coloured ropes used by the accused for tagging their hands, seized one Kerchief used in gagging the mouth of L.W-1 while committing dacoity. L.W-21 collected the chance prints from the scene of offence with the help of finger prints expert, collected the CC TV Camera footage from
Page 6 of 34
L.W-8/Ponnam Sudhakar, summoned L.W-9/Ravula Raghuveer and witnessed the footage with the help of L.W-9, examined and recorded the detailed statements of L.Ws.9 to 11 i.e., Ravula Raghuveer, Pilli Mani,
Bolla Kavitha. That on 17.11.2014 at 10.00 hours, L.W-21 along with his available staff were performing vehicle checking duty near Aishwarya
Garden, outskirts of Peddammagadda, Hanamkonda, they stopped one
Tavera Car bearing No.AP 29 BJ 0703 and L.W-21 while checking the five inmates of the car including the driver tried to flee away.
6.Thereafter, L.W-21 along with his staff apprehended A-1, A-3 to A-6, secured the presence of L.Ws.14, 15 i.e., Chidhirala Venu, Barthapuram
Sudhakar and interrogated them in their presence upon which A-1, A-3 to
A-6 voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence with the association of the A-2 and that they were proceeding to sell the gold ornaments of this case in Khammam District. Further, they revealed that they spent away the cash of Rs.10,000/- of this case for their lavish expenses and further revealed that they have thrown away two cell phones pertaining to this case due to fear of apprehension by the police with the help of network. L.W-21 recorded the confessional statements of
A-1, A-3 to A-6 and seized one Gold Pusthela Thadu with two pusthelu and
Pusalu weighing about three tulas from their possession at the instance of
A-1, one pair gold Kammalu and Matilu weighing about 1 ½ tula from their possession at the instance of A-3, three gold rings weighing about two tulas from their possession at the instance of A-4, one Gold chain weighing about ¾ grams from the possession at the instance of A-5 and
Page 7 of 34
Tavera Car bearing No.AP 29 BJ 0703 from the possession of A-6 under a cover of confession and seizure panchanama in the presence of L.Ws.14 and 15 i.e., Chidhirala Venu, Barthapuram Sudhakar, brought A-1 and A-3 toA-6 to the P.S, Hanamkonda at 1.00 PM, affected their arrest by issuing arrest cards duly informing the grounds of arrest to the A-1, A-3 to A-6 and their relatives and produced them before the court for judicial remand.
7. On 21.10.2014 on credible information about the presence of A-2 in front of the Bus Stand, Hanamkonda, he along with his staff rushed to the spot and apprehended A-2 at 11.00 hours and interrogated A-2 in the presence of L.Ws.16 and 17 i.e., Vankey Srinivas Rao and Vemula Om
Prakash respectively upon which the A-2 voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence with the association of A-1, A-3 to A-6, recorded the confessional statement of A-2 and seized one Gold Chain weighing about 7.5 grams from the possession and at the instance of A-2 under a cover of confessional and seizure panchanama in the presence of L.Ws.16 and 17, brought A-2 to the P.S, Hanamkonda at 12.00 hours and affected his arrest by issuing arrest cards, duly informing the grounds of arrest and his relatives and produced A-2 before the Court for Judicial remand.
Thereafter, L.W-21 has altered the section of law from 392 of IPC to 395 of
IPC.
8.L.W-21 has submitted a requisition to the Inspector of Police, Finger
Prints Office, Warangal Urban (L.W-18/N.Raghu) with a request to compare the chance prints collected from the scene of offence with the finger prints collected from the accused and to issue reports. L.W-18
Page 8 of 34 compared the chance prints marked as “A, B,C,D with finger impressions of A-1 to A-4 and issued reports. Thereafter, L.W-21 has submitted a requisition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Warangal with a prayer to nominate a judicial officer to conduct the Test Identification Parade of A-1,
A-3 and A-4 and accordingly, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has nominated the L.W-19/VII-Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal to conduct the Test Identification parade of A-1, A-3 and A-4 through L.Ws.1 and 2 i.e., Aluvala Sammaiah and Aluvala Latha Sree respectively vide order
Dis.No.1081, dated: 05.11.2014.
9.On receipt of the orders, L.W-21 submitted a requisition before the
VII-Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate/Smt.Naseem Sulthana to conduct the Test Identification Parade of A-1, A-3 and A-4 and L.W-19 conducted the Test Identification Parade on 10.11.2014 and L.Ws.1 and 2 identified the accused through Test Identification Parade from the Court and after investigation L.W-21 filed charge sheet.
10.On appearance of the accused No’s.1 to 6, the Learned Magistrate furnished the copies of case documents to the accused as required under
Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. As the offences charged against the accused, are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned
Magistrate after compliance of Sec.209 Cr.P.C., committed the case vide
P.R.C.No.3 of 2015 to the Hon'ble Principal Sessions Court, Warangal.
(After bifurcation Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda)
Page 9 of 34
11.The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, assigned the
Sessions Case No.144 of 2015 and made over to the Court of the Principal
Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal (After bifurcation Principal Assistant
Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda) for disposal according to law.
12.Upon hearing both sides, the accused No’s.1 to 6 were examined under section 228(2) Cr.P.C. Charges under Sections.455, 347, 395 of IPC were framed against the accused No.1 to 6, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Warangal fixed the trial schedule and issued summons to the witnesses to record their evidence.
13.During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P1 to
P-8 and M.O’s.1 and 7 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.
14.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No’s.1 to 6 were examined under section 313 Cr.PC with regard to the incriminating material on record against the accused, but they denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their behalf.
15.Heard the learned Addl.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for accused.
16.Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution has
Page 10 of 34 proved the guilt of accused No.1 to 6 for the offences U/sec. 455, 347, 395 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
17. POINT: It is submitted on behalf of prosecution that prosecution witness has deposed all the facts regarding the accused committing the offence and from the evidence, prosecution proved the guilt of the accused. It is submitted on behalf of accused that accused are not concerned with the offence, the witnesses did not state about physical features of the accused and the MOs.1 to 4 are shown to the witnesses at their house and that CCTV footage not produced before the Court. The confession panch witness does not belong to same locality and further
Pw.11 is not finger print expert and he belongs to police department and the offence under section 395 is not attracted and prosecution failed to show the guilt of the accused.
18.The accused are charge sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 455, 347, 395 of IPC.
19.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused entered into the house of Pws.1 and 2 and confined them and taken away gold ornaments and cash and also Mangalasuthram of Pw.1.
20.Upon perusing the evidence of P.W-1, he deposed that previously he was tenant in the house of Pw.3 at Ganeshnagar, Madireddykunta,
Hanamkonda and in view of education of his children he shifted his family
Page 11 of 34 to Hanamkonda. He further deposed that he used to up and down from
Hanamkonda to Bhupalpally to attend his job in private Degree college at
Bhupalpally and that on 26.09.2014 he did not attended his duties and stayed at Hanamkonda due to college DTP work. That day, Pw.1 and his friend i.e., Pw.2 went to Kandari Institute, Naimnagar for DTP work. After completion of work they both returned to his house at about 2.30 PM.
Pw.2 dropped Pw.1 at his house and he left the place. His family tenant in the second floor of the Sagarika and when he went to his house i.e., second floor, Pw.1 noticed one black, tall and also fat person in front of his house by talking with cell phone and moving there. There was a iron gate to access his house, he opened the gate and questioned the said person about his presence. The said person asked Pw.1 as he is the head of the family and he forcibly took his cell phone and also he forcibly pushed Pw.1 into his house. Pw.1 further noticed in the house that his wife hands are tied with a rope and also kerchief was put in her mouth and she sat in a sofa. Pw.1 noticed two other persons in his house apart from the person who pushed Pw.1 into the house. In total Pw.1 noticed three (3) persons in the house. One of the person is black in complex and short, another is red in complex and small height. The said three persons tied the hands of
Pw.1 with a rope and also put a kerchief in his mouth and tied around his head. He sat besides his wife on sofa. He further stated that one of the said person again went out of the house to watch the movement, and one of the person searched for the valuables in the house, and one of them beat him with hands on his both cheeks and asked me about the money.
He further deposed that Rs.10,000/- was in shirt pocket of Pw.1 and which
Page 12 of 34 was taken by the one of them and also abused Pw.1 in filthy language.
After searching the house, the said persons while leaving the house threatened Pws.1 and 2 not to disclose till they left the place and not to talk and also threatened to kill. While they are leaving, Pw.2 begged by fall on feet of one of the persons and asked for return of the
Mangalasutram which was taken by the said persons. They kicked Pw.2 and did not return Mangalasutram. The said persons also taken the cell phone of Pw.2. The said persons by threatening left the house and also bolted the door from outside of the home.
He further deposed that they managed to open the window and
Pw.2 shouted loudly from window due to which, the owners came to their house and opened the bolt. Pw.3, Lw.4/Manaswee and Lw.5/Manishwar removed the ropes and also kerchief. On enquiry by Pws.1 and 3 and
Lws.4 and 5, Pw.2 disclosed that she opened the door by presuming that
Pw.1 arrived. The said persons tied her with rope and also put kerchief in the mouth and snatched Mangalasutra from her neck and made her to sit on the sofa. She was frightened. On verification of the articles at their house, Pw.1 noticed that, they lost of 2 Gold chains, 3 Gold rings, one pair of earrings and one pair of mattilu of Pw.2, two cells and cash of
Rs.10,000/- in total they had been lost by his family on the date of incident. On arrival of ground floor Pw.5, who is tenant in the ground floor and both of them went to Police station and lodged the complaint in Police
Station Hanamkonda. Further Pw.1 identified Accused No.1 by stating that the Accused No.1 put him in his house forcibly and Pw.1 also identified Accused No.3 and 4 who are in the house already prior to his
Page 13 of 34 arrival. Pw.1 could not identify other accused. Pw.1 further stated that he received summons to identify the culprits. Accordingly, he attended Test
Identification parade at Warangal Jail and identified the accused No.1, 3 and 4 in the Test Identification parade conducted by the Magistrate.
21.P.W-2 is the wife of Pw.1 and she deposed that on 26.09.2014 while
Pw.2 was alone in the house at about 2:30 PM, she heard someone knocked the door and by presumed that Pw.1 knocked the door as such, she opened the door. Then Pw.2 asked them about their identity. Then they stated they are sent by one Sudharshan and they entered into her house. The said three persons entered into her house and asked Pw.2 to sit in sofa. They suddenly taken the ropes from their possession and tied her hands with rope. They asked Pw.2 about the cash and one of the person by talking with phone on the outside of the door. They also threatened her and the two persons searched the house for valuables.
After 15 minutes of passing the time, Pw.1 came to house. The said persons taken Mangalasutram from the neck of Pw.2. The person who was watching the movement by talking in the cell phone pushed Pw.1 into the house and the said persons abused Pw.1 in filthy language and taken cash of Rs.10,000/- from Pw.1 and also cell phone. Pw.1 was also tied with ropes to both hands and also kerchief was kept in his mouth and he was made to sit beside Pw.2 in sofa. Two persons searched in the house and one person was with Pws.1 and 2 and moving in and out. The said persons left the house by bolting the door from outside. Pw.2 also begged for return of Mangalasutram but they did not considered and pushed her.
Page 14 of 34
Pw.2 went to the window and shouted loudly, due to which, Lws.3 to 5 came to their portion and set free Pws.1 and 2 from ropes. Later Pw.1 went to Police station and lodged complaint. Pw.2 deposed that she identified the accused in Test Identification parade conducted at Warangal
Jail. Pw.2 identified Accused No.1, 3 and 4.
22.Pw.3, who is the house owner of the Pws.1 and 2 has deposed that in the year 2014 at about 3.00 P.M., her children heard hues and cries from second floor of Pws.1 and 2, at that time her children are at balcony.
She further deposed that she noticed that bolt was put from outside of the door and she opened the door and went inside and noticed that
Pw.1’s mouth was covered with cloth and Pws.1 and 2 are also tied with ropes to a sofa. Then she set free Pws.1 and 2. Pw.3 deposed that she did not notice who gained access into the house of Pws.1 and 2 on that day.
Pw.2 stated to her that her Gold ornaments taken by the culprits by threatening.
23.Pw.4, who is friend of Pw.1, has deposed in his evidence that about 6 years ago, he dropped Pw.1 on his motorcycle at his house of Pw.3 at about 2.45 P.M. Both of them on that day went to Bheemaram for DTP work and after completion of work returned, accordingly he dropped Pw.1 at his house at 2.45 P.M. At about 5.00 P.M he came to know about the incident. Pw.4 further deposed that police came to house at about 7.00
P.M and he was present in the house of Pw.1. Pws.1 and 2 disclosed about the incident to Pw.4.
Page 15 of 34
24.Pw.5, who is also friend of Pw.1, has deposed in his evidence that in the year 2014 theft was occurred in the house of Pws.1 and 2 and he came to know about the incident from pw.1. He further deposed that at the time of incident, he was not present at his house and after that he accompanied Pw.1 to give report. Pw.5 further deposed that he do not know what was the articles lost by Pw.2.
25.Pw.6, who is neighbor of Pws.1 and 2, has deposed in his evidence that in the year 2014 CI of police, Hanamkonda came to him and informed about the theft of the articles at the house of Pws.1 and 2 and requested him to provide CCTV footages to identify the culprits. On the request of CI of police, Pw.6 provided CCTV footage. Pw.6 further deposed that his house is covered with CCTV footages, which also covered the road. That the Technician brought by the police taken the CCTV footages.
26.Pw.7, who is the technician of CCTV has deposed in his evidence that in the year 2014 Circle Inspector of police, Hanamkonda took him to the house of Pw.6 at Ganesh nagar and as per the instruction of CI of police, about the time of offence, he verified the CCTV footages at the house of Pw.6 and he had taken the CCTV footage data in the form of CD.
27.Pw.8, who is the neighbor of Pws.1 and 2, has deposed that about 7 or 8 years back herself and her cousin sister Kavitha returned to their house from her maternal grandmother house and when they reached
Page 16 of 34
Ganesh area one person in hurry manner dashed to her sister at about 2.00 to 2.30 pm. Then she admonished the said persons. She further deposed that she also noticed three persons in hurry manner and they boarded a TAVERA vehicle parked some distance. After reaching house at
Mahireddykunta, she came to know that offence occurred at Ganesh
Nagar area. She further deposed that later she came to the scene of offence and disclosed to police that three persons left the Ganesh Nagar area in hurry manner and dashed to Kavitha. Pw.8 further deposed that she can identify one person among the said three persons. She came to know that the said three persons committed offence i.e., robbery and taken gold ornaments by tying. Pw.8 identified Accused No.1 and 4 and
Pw.8 also identified that accused No.1 is the said person who dashed to
Kavitha.
28.Pw.9, panch witness for scene of offence, has deposed that in the year 2014 police Hanamkonda conducted scene of offence panchanama at the house of Pw.1 at Ganesh Nagar situated at second floor. He further deposed that in his presence police conducted scene of offence panchanama as theft occurred. One Ashok Kumar Yadav also signed.
Police seized four (4) cotton threads and also seized one hand kerchief i.e., MO.5 and 6.
29.Pw.10, panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama has deposed in his evidence that previously he worked as VRO. He know
Lw.15/B.Sudhakar. He further deposed that he noticed the accused in the
Page 17 of 34 custody of police Hanamkonda on 17.10.2014 at Ishwarya Garden at about 10.00 am. Police seized golden ornaments from the possession of each accused. He further deposed that from accused No.1 police seized golden pusthelathadu, from accused No.3 police seized kammalau and mateelu, from accused No.4 police seized 2 rings, from the accused No.5 one chain, from accused No.6 one ring. Accused confessed that they committed theft in the building located at Hanamkonda town Ganesh
Nagar colony. MO.1 to 4 produced by the police through Pw.1. He further deposed that one constable scribed the panchanama i.e., Ex.P3 and signed by him along with Sudhakar. Accused confessed that MO.1 to 4 stolen by them at a building at Ganesh Nagar.
30.Pw.11, Inspector of police, Finger Print Unit, Warangal urban who issued finger prints report, has deposed in his evidence that on 22.10.2014 Inspector of police Hanamkonda addressed letter to office of finger prints office, Warangal urban vide letter No.C.No.488/CR/S1-B/2014 with a request comparison of chance prints collected from scene of offence with the finger prints collected from the accused and issue report.
Accordingly he given report to Inspector of Police, Hanamkonda by sending comparison report. He further deposed that his report dated 26.10.2014 is the chart showing the identical ridge characteristics in substantiation. Ex.P4 is covering letter to Inspector of police and Ex.P5 is finger print expert report dated 26.10.2014. He further deposed that he has minutely examined and compared the chance prints marked A, B, C,
D with the finger impression of the accused No.1 to 6.
Page 18 of 34
He further deposed that on comparison the chance print marked “B” found identical with left ring finger impression marked “S2” and the chance print marked “C” found identical with the Right Middle impression marked “S2b” on the finger print slip marked “S2” of Sk.Ali Hyder, S/o.
Mahamood, Caste: Muslim, Age: 28/14 years. Occupation: Private employee, R/o. Ashoknagar, Godhavarikhani (mandal), Karimnagar
District.
He further deposed that the chance print marked “D” found identical with Right Index finger impression marked “S1a” on the finger print slip marked “S1” of Misipeddi Madhukar, S/o. Narayana Rao, Caste: Veluma,
Age: 28/14 years, Occ: private employee, R/o. Sanjayagandhi nagar,
Godhavarikhani Mandal, Karimnagar District.
He further deposed that the chance print marked “A” remained unidentified with the above accused.
31.Pw.12, Senior Civil Judge, Armor, deposed about conducting Test
Identification Parade of A1, A3 and A4 by following due procedure and the witness Pws.1 and 2 identified the accused in the Test Identification
Parade.
32.Pw.13, Inspector of Police, Hanamkonda deposed about receiving complaint, issued FIR, investigated into and filed charge sheet against the accused.
Page 19 of 34
33.Section 455 of IPC deals with punishment for Lurking House- trespass or house-breaking after preparation of hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.
Section 347 of IPC deals with punishment for Wrongful confinement to extort property, or constrain to illegal act.
Section 395 of IPC deals with punishment for punishment for dacoity.
The word lurking and house trespass is defined u/Sec.443 of IPC.
443: Lurking house-trespass: Whoever commits house-trespass having taken precautions to conceal such house-trespass from some person who has a right to exclude or eject the trespasser from the building, tent or vessel which is the subject of the trespass, is said to commit “lurking house-trespass.
The word house trespass is defined u/Sec.442 of IPC.
442: House-trespass:-If any person commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit “house trespass”.
The word criminal trespass is defined u/Sec.441 of IPC.
441. Criminal Trespass:- Whoever enters into or upon property in possession of another with an intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or, having lawfully entered into or upon such property, lawfully remains
Page 20 of 34 therewith intention, thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “Criminal trespass”.
The word Wrongful Confinement is defined u/Sec.340 of IPC.
340: Wrongful confinement: Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.
The word wrongful Restraint is defined u/Sec.339 of IPC.
339. Wrongful restraint: Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
34. The learned counsel for accused cited decision reported in 2022 (1)
ALD (Crl) 969 (AP) in between Shaik Khasim and others Vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh in which it is held that “Firstly, the Test Identification
Parade of these properties was not conducted in terms of Rule 35 of
Criminal Rules of Practice, which was held to be mandatory. Apart from that the evidence of the Investigating Officers, who effected recovery of these ornaments throw some doubt for the reason that the Panchanama prepared at the time of seizure does not refer to affixation of slips on
M.O’s.1 to 6 containing the signature of the mediators”.
Page 21 of 34
35.In cross examination Pw.1 stated that in Ex.P1 and in his 161 Cr.P.C statement he did not stated that there is an iron gate is existing to access to his house and he did not stated about the descriptive particulars of two other persons except one person as black, tall and fat and that he did not mention about the face identification marks, he also did not stated threaten to kill and that he did not stated that one person searched in the house and that he did not stated that kerchief was put to his wife in her mouth.
He further stated in his cross examination that Test Identification parade was conducted 15 to 20 days below the date of incident. Police disclosed that they recovered MO Nos. 1 to 4 after 10 days of the incident. He Identified M.Os. 1 to 4 while taking interim custody from the
Court and prior to that there was no identification of MO Nos. 1 to 4 by him. He did not mention descriptive particulars of MO No.1 and also MO
Nos. 3. Separately not mentioned weight of the each chain. He denied the suggestion that MO Nos.1 to 4 does not belongs to them. He did not stated to police that from where he purchased MO Nos.1 to 4 or from whom he make it.
36.Pw.2 stated in her cross examination that she did not stated descriptive particulars of the accused and also not stated facial identification in her statement to police. She identified MO Nos. 1 to at her house as brought by the police. She denied the suggestion that accused also taken to my house along with MO Nos. 1 to 4 and that police shown
Page 22 of 34 the accused at the Police Station and also their photos to him and Pw1 prior to identification at Jail. That individual weight particulars of MO Nos.
1 to 4 not mentioned. Descriptive particulars of rings not mentioned.
37.Pw.3 stated in cross examination that he do not know when police apprehended the accused.
38. Pw.4 stated in cross examination that he do now know when culprits were arrested by police.
39.Pws.5 and 6 were not cross examined by the counsel for the accused.
40. Pw.7 stated in cross examination that he took pendrive and with pendrive converted data into CD. There is no signature of Pw.7 on the CD as well as pendrive.
41. Pw.8 stated in cross examination that Ganesh Nagar colony having a road and having traffic and he do not know the name and particulars of victim and house owner name and particulars of ornaments. She denied the suggestion that she did not state to police that three persons boarded tavera vehicle by taking turn. She do not have prior acquaintance with accused. She did not give descriptive particulars of the persons in her 161
Cr.P.C statement. She did not disclose about the incident of A1 dashed to the Kavitha and disclosed only when she came to scene.
Page 23 of 34
42.Pw.9 stated in cross examination that he suo moto went to the scene of offence at 5.40 pm. Police were already present when he reached scene of offence.
43.Pw.10 stated in cross examination that on receiving phone call from police, he went to Ishwary Garden, Peddammagadda. Hanuman nagar 3 kms away from Peddammagadda. He noticed accused and police and also passers on the road. The said road is busy road. He further stated that six members entered into the house to commit the offence at building. He further stated that if ornaments are weighed prior to panchanama then only its correct weight will be mentioned in Ex.P3. In his presence MO.1 to 4 are not weighed. He further stated that himself and Sudhakar jointly went to Peddammagadda. Himself and Sudhakar are at Collector office then both joinly reached to Peddammagadda. Collector office is at a distance of 5 to 6 kms from Peddammagadda.
44.Pw.11 stated in cross examination that he do not know whether finger prints taken at scene of offence is immediately forwarded to the
Court and he do not know whether any requisition is filed by the IO to take sample finger prints of the accused in the court.
45.Pw.12 stated in cross examination that she has not asked the witnesses that before TIP and after date of incident whether they noticed the suspects or not.
Page 24 of 34
46.Pw.13 stated in cross examination that he do not remember whether there are general public on the road or not. That witnesses did not disclose facial description but stated body descriptions and CCTV footages and photos are not filed in the court. Further stated witness not stated particulars descriptive particulars of MOs.1 to 4. For MOs.1 to4 he did not conduct any IT parade. That he taken the finger prints at scene of offence and also of accused in the P.S. That after remanding of accused he did not filed any application in the court to seek permission to obtain finger prints of accused through court. Finger prints obtained at scene of offence not sent to the court. That Pw.11 belong to police department.
Pancha witness are not residents of Aishwarya gardens i.e.,
Peddammagadda area and the MOs.1 to 4 are easily available in the market. That in remand report it is not mentioned that accused was remanded by covering their identity.
47.As seen from the evidence on record, Pws.1 and 2 are the victims and eye witnesses to the incident. Pw.1 and 2 deposed on same lines as regards the accused No.1, 3 and 4 entering into their house and about the accused tied them with rope and put kerchief in their mouth and taken away Rs.10,000/-, mobile and gold ornaments and after the accused went away on hearing hues and cries Pw.3 coming to their house and untied them. Pws.1 and 2 both identified Accused No.1, 3 and 4 before the court.
48.The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is corroborated with the evidence of
Page 25 of 34
Pw.3 who is, though not an eye witness but stated about on hearing hues and cries from the house of Pws.1 and 2, they went to their house and opened the door and noticed Pw.1 mouth was covered with cloth and were also tied with ropes and they set free Pws.1 and 2. So also their evidence is corroborated with the evidence of Pws.4 and 8 since Pw.4 dropped Pw.1 at his house at 2.45 pm and further as per Pw.8 she has observed three persons in hurry manner and they boarded Tavera vehicle when they reached Ganesh area and one person dashed to her sister and she also identified Accused No.1 and 4 in the court.
49.It is the fact that Pws.1 and 2 did not state about descriptive particulars of two other persons and also Pw.8 did not give descriptive particulars of the persons in her 161 Cr.P.C statement.
50.There may be certain omissions in stating the facts in 161 Cr.P.C statements and in the complaint, but the said facts does not disprove the version of the Pws.1 and 2 with regard to happening of the incident and point to be looked into is whether the accused has committed the offence.
51.In the instant case, Pws.1 and 2 are the victim to the incident and they have identified A1, A3 and A4 before the court and further the test identification parade is also conducted, wherein the witnesses identified the accused to be the said persons who has committed the offence in their house.
Page 26 of 34
52.The other corroborative evidence to the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is that of the pancha for scene of offence, in whose presence the scene of offence panchanama is conducted and police seized the cotton threads and one hand kerchief in his presence and also the evidence of Pw.10 who is the pancha for confession and seizure, and according to Pw.10 the police seized the gold ornaments A1, A3, A4 and A6 and they confessed to have committed theft in a building at Ganesh Nagar colony,
Hanamkonda.
53.It is a fact that the Test Identification Parade of M.O’s.1 to 4 is not conducted. But, P.W-2 being the owner of the articles has identified
M.O’s.1 to 4.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment in AIR 1983
Supreme Court 446 between Earabhadrappa Alias Krishnappa Vs
State of Karnataka on 11 March, 1983 has held that “it is a matter of common knowledge that ladies have an uncanny sense of identifying their own belongings, particularly articles of personal use in the family.
That apart, the description of the silk sarees in question shows that they were expensive sarees with distinctive designs. There is no merit in the contention that the testimony of these witnesses as regards to the identity of the seized articles to be stolen property cannot be relied upon for want of prior test identification. There is no such legal requirement”.
54.As per Pw.13, Pw.11 belongs to police department and further Pw.13
Page 27 of 34 did not file any application to obtain finger prints of accused through court, but the evidence of Pw.11 goes to show finger prints of A1 and A4 were found identical.
55.It is the argument that the panch witnesses for confession and seizure does not belong to the same locality. In this regard it can be stated that though panch witness turned hostile the case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside if there is other corroborative evidence on record and in the instant case, P.W-9 very much deposed about seizure of the gold ornaments from the possession of accused and also minor defects in the investigation does not itself disprove the case of the prosecution.
56.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2004 AIR SC 1920 between Dhanraj Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab has held that “perfunctory investigation is not fatal to the prosecution. When occular testimony is found credible and cogent, accused cannot be acquitted solely basing on the defective investigation”.
57.Since in the instant case Pws.1 and 2 being the victim to the incident and having come across the accused, have very much identified the accused No.1, 3 and 4 as they had opportunity to see the accused when they were present in the house and when Pws.1 and 2 were tied with ropes, as such the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 with regard to accused committing the offence in their house by trespassing illegally and by
Page 28 of 34 wrongful confining them is proved, thereby attracting the ingredients of the offence under section 455 and 347 of IPC.
58.As regard the offence under section 395 of IPC which deals with punishment of dacoity, the Word Dacoity having been defined in section 391 IPC as follows:
When five of more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit Dacoity.
As per the section there should be five or more persons committing or attempt to commit robbery or whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempt to commit robbery and in the instant case as per evidence on record there are three persons i.e., A1, 3 and 4 whom Pws.1 and 2 identified in the court and also in the test identification parade, the ingredients of the offence under section 395 IPC cannot be said to be attracted and further as per the evidence of Pw.10, the gold ornaments were seized from A1, A3, A4, A5 and A6 and from his evidence it can be stated that A5 and A6 are found to be in possession of stolen property.
59.As per the whole evidence on record, it is proved that Accused
No,.1, 3 and 4 has committed the offence and the acts of said accused attracts ingredients of the offence under Section 390 of IPC which read as follows:
Page 29 of 34 “when theft is robbery: Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the
committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying
away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft,
the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to
cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear
of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful
restraint”.
As per section 222 (2) of Cr.P.C “when a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it”.
60.The accused are charged with offence 395 IPC and the offence under section 395 IPC has not been proved from the evidence on record since the persons i.e., A1, A3 and A4 were only found to be trespassed into the house of Pws.1 and 2 and wrongly confined them, wrongfully restrained them by putting them in fear and taken away the valuables from the house of Pws.1 and 2 and A5 and A6 are found in possession of stolen property.
As per section 114 (a) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 “the court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen good soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession”.
Section.411 of IPC deals with Dishonestly receiving stolen
property: Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property,
Page 30 of 34 knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment or either description for a term which may extent to three years, or with fine, or with both, thereby attracting ingredients of the offence under section 411 IPC.
61.As such, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused No’s.1, 3 and 4 beyond all reasonable doubt
Under Sections.455, 347 and 392 of IPC instead of under Section.395 of
IPC and against A-5 and A-6 for the offence u/Sec.411 of IPC.
62. In the result, Accused No’s.1, 3 and 4 are found guilty for the offences u/Sec.455, 347, 392 of IPC and accordingly, they are convicted u/
Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C. Further, Accused No’s.5 and 6 are found guilty for the offence u/Sec.411 of IPC and accordingly, they are convicted u/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C.
PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
HANUMAKONDA.
EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED U/Sec.235 of Cr.P.C:
63.When the accused No.1 was questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, he pleaded mercy of the Court by stating that he is having wife and four sons and he is a painter by profession and is the sole bread winner of his family.
Page 31 of 34
When the accused No.3 was questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, he pleaded mercy of the Court by stating that he is having wife and two children and he is a coolie by profession and is the sole bread winner of his family.
When the accused No.4 was questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, he pleaded mercy of the Court by stating that he is having a wife and a daughter and he eaks out his livelihood by doing welding works and is the sole bread winner of his family.
When the accused No.5 was questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, he pleaded mercy of the Court by stating that he is having wife and two daughters and he is a private employee and he is the sole bread winner of his family.
When the accused No.6 was questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, he pleaded mercy of the Court by stating that he is having a wife and three children, mother and father and he is an Auto Driver by profession and is the sole bread winner of his family and A-1 to A-6 requested to take a lenient view.
63.Considering the facts submitted by the accused, the accused No.1, 3 and 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five(05) years each and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence
U/Sec.455 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, Accused No.1, 3 and 4
Page 32 of 34 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of five (05) months each.
Further, the accused No.1, 3 and 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Two(02) years each and shall pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.347 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, Accused No.1, 3 and 4 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of five (05) months each.
Further, the accused No.1, 3 and 4 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five(05) years each and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.392 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, Accused No.1, 3 and 4 shall undergo simple
Imprisonment for a period of five (05) months each.
Further, the accused No.5 and 6 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One (01) year each and shall pay fine of
Rs.500/- each for the offence U/Sec.411 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, Accused No’s.5 and 6 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three (03) months each.
M.O’s.1 to 4 which were given for interim custody to
P.W-1/A.Sammaiah shall become absolute after Appeal time is over. M.O- 5/Cotton Ropes and M.O-6 is the Hand Kerchief shall be destroyed after
Appeal time is over. M.O-7 is the Tavera Vehicle which is given for interm custody to its owner namely Haimed, S/o: Ibrahim vide Crl.M.P.No.3496 of
Page 33 of 34 2014, dated: 13.11.2014 shall become absolute after Appeal time is over.
The quantum of sentences imposed against Accused No’s.1, 3 and 4 shall run concurrently and default sentences shall run separately.
The period of Judicial remand already undergone by the accused
No.1 from 17.10.2014 to 19.11.2014, Accused No.3 from 17.10.2014 to 15.11.2014, Accused No.4 from 17.10.2014 to 10.11.2014, Accused No.5 from 17.10.2014 to 14.11.2014, Accused No.6 from 17.10.2014 to 17.11.2014 shall be set off under section.428 of Cr.P.C.
The Accused are informed about their right of Appeal and right to
Legal Aid from the District Legal Services Authority, Hanumakonda. Copy of Judgment is furnished to the accused free of costs as per Section 363(1) of Cr.P.C.
(Typed to my dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of October, 2024).
Sd/-
PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
HANUMAKONDA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: PW-1 : A.Sammaiah PW-2 : A.Lathasri PW-3 : P.Sagarika P.W-4: Md.Rafeeq Pasha P.W-5: K.Venu P.W-6: Ponnam Sudhakar P.W-7: Ravula Raghuveer P.W-8: P.Mani P.W-9: G.kattaiah P.W-10: Ch.Venu
Page 34 of 34
P.W-11: N.Raghu P.W-12: Naseema Sulthana P.W-13: V.Kiran Kumar
For the Defence: - None -
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution: Ex.P-1 : Complainmt Ex.P-2 : Crime Detail Form Ex.P-3 : Seizure Panchanama Ex.P-4 : Letter addressed to Inspector of Police by P.W-11. Ex.P-5: Finger Print Expert Report, dated: 26.10.2014 Ex.P-6: Test Identification Parade Report prepared by P.W-12 Ex.P-7: FIR Ex.P-8: Seizure report of Accused No.2.
For the Defence: - Nil -
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
M.O-1: Three(03) Gold Rings M.O-2: Two (02) Gold Chains M.O-3: Gold Ear Rings with Mattilu M.O-4: Pusthelathadu M.O-5: Cotton Ropes M.O-6: Hand Kerchief M.O-7: Tavera Vehicle
Sd/-
PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
HANAMKONDA.