CC.No. 132 of 2013 Page. 1
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
AT :: KODANGAL.
Thursday, this the 19 th day of December, 2019
Present: Sri. Mohd Abdul Khaleel,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Narayanpet. FAC., JCJ, Kodangal.
C.C. No. 132 of 2013
Between State represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bomraspet, Police Station.
…Complainant.
And
1)Munnuru Srinivas @ Srinu S/o. Ramulu, ge 34 yrs., Munnur Kapu, Occ. Pvt. Bus driver, R/o. Lagacherla, Bomraspet.
2)Md. Wazeed S/o. Khajamiya, age 30 yrs., Occ. Car driving, R/o. Dudyala village, Bomraspet.
3)Mohd. Zaheer S/o. Ismail, age 30 yrs., Occ. DCM driver, R/o. Dudyala village, Bomraspet.
...Accused.
Offence u/s: 392, 120-B of IPC.
-o0o-
This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the Sri B.Yadaiah A.P.P., on behalf of the State and of Sri P.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that A1 to A3 conspired together and hatched a plan to robe the cash from
LW1 (P.Venkataiah) who is having ground nuts business and
CC.No. 132 of 2013 Page. 2
transporting the same in DCM and accordingly, on 25.2.2013,
LW2 (K. Chandraiah) driver of DCM, LW3 (P. Narsimulu and LW4 (G. Bheemaiah) took the ground nuts load by DCM bearing
No.AP22X2057 and another load belongs to LW1 (P.Venkataiah) by another DCM of A3 (Driver of DCM) to Jedcherla and on the advice of A3, A1 and A2 waited at Rangareddipally since there is another route for LW2 to go to Yerupumalla village of LW1 and
A3 knowing the movements of LW2 informed A1 and A2 on phone. Accordingly, A1 and A2 followed the DCM by motor cycle from Rangareddipally and while the DCM was going towards
Kosgi, they stopped the DCM near Bappaly thanda and abused
LW2 for not giving side to their motor cycle and A1 sprinkled chilly powder into the eyes of LW2 and LW4 and pulled them out and in the meanwhile, A1 went to left side of the door and knocked the window glass upon which LW3 wake up from sleep and got down, then A2 searched for cash in cabin and broke open the tool box and took the cash of Rs.5,50,000/-, while they were decamping from the scene, A1 snatched the cell phone of
LWs2 and 4. Basing on the report of complainant P.Venkataiah, complainant, the investigating agency registered the case in
Cr.No.29/13, examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence got conducted enquires, collected material evidence and during their investigation, on 27.2.2013 affected arrest of accused persons and seized the stolen property and later accused was charge sheeted for committing the offence
U/sec.392, 120-B IPC.
2.This court taken cognizance of the offence u/s. 392, 120-B
IPC against accused.
3.On appearance of A1 to A3, copies of documents were furnished to them U/s.207 Cr.P.C., and they were examined
U/s.239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the charges levelled against them U/s. 392, 120-B of IPC and to which accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
CC.No. 132 of 2013 Page. 3
4.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined (12) witnesses as PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P23 and MOs.1 to 3.
5.After close of prosecution side evidence the accused examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence voiced against accused for which accused denied the same and reported no defence.
6.Heard both sides and perused the record.
Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?
7.The learned A.P.P., argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed the court to convict the accused person.
8.The case of the accused is one of total denial. It is contended by the learned defence counsel that the evidence of
PWs1 and 2 is not corroborating with any of the other prosecution witnesses and not connecting the accused with the offence in a proper way due to hostile behaviour of other witnesses. As such he prayed the court to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt.
I have the gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
9.PW1 (P.Venkataiah) is the complainant in this case. He deposed that about 3 years back, on one day he sent the load of ground nuts in DCM van along with LW2 and LW3 to
Mangilal Oil depot at Jadcherla and on the same day midnight
LW2 called him over phone and informed him that some unknown persons robbed cash of Rs.5,50,000/- and on the said information he lodged report with police.
CC.No. 132 of 2013 Page. 4
10.PW3 (K.Chandaiah) Driver of DCM, PW6 (P.Narsimulu) and PW10 (G.Bheemaiah) are the important eye witnesses to the case of prosecution but they turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution stating that they do not know anything about the case.
11.PW8 (G.Raju) is the circumstantial witness. According to him he is the bike owner who handed it to A1 on his request for his personal use and on the next day he collected the said bike but from the police he came to know that A1 to A3 committed theft by using his bike.
12.PW9 (P.Narsimha Reddy) and PW4 (P.Mahipal Reddy) are the panch witnesses for scene of offence, they turned hostile.
13.PW5 (G.Mallikarjun) and PW7 (K.Buggappa) are the panch witnesses for confession and recovery, but they turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution except identifying their signatures on panchanamas.
14.PW11 (R.Malsoor) Inspector Finger print. According to him he collected the chance prints on the spot and on comparing found identical with the finger impression of A1.
15.PW2 (K. Laxmi Narsimulu) is the S.I. of police and PW12 (K.Rama Rao) is the C.I. of police. PW2 stated about registering the case and PW12 stated about his investigation and later filing of charge sheet. They deposed the same about the investigation done by them.
16.The main charge levelled against the accused is u/s. 392
IPC which deals with punishment for robbery. To prove it, the prosecution must prove that which type of robbery was committed by the accused as defined u/s. 390 IPC. To prove it, the prosecution is mainly relying on the evidence of investigating officer. It is settled law that confession made to
CC.No. 132 of 2013 Page. 5
the police is not admissible and the recovery of the robbed articles from the possession of the accused persons is unexplained by the prosecution for the reason that all the witnesses to the panchanama are turned hostile.
17.More over in this case, neither section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act nor 24 of Indian Evidence Act is followed by the prosecution during the investigation. More over lifting of the finger print of the accused by PW11 (R.Malsoor) who admitted that the C.I. of police is not technically trained to lift the sample of finger print and moreover one of the samples is not fit for comparison as stated by the expert himself. As such, the lifting of finger print samples of the accused does not prove that the accused were the same persons who robbed the cash from the possession of the victim. More over identity of the accused is not established and surprisingly during the investigation of the case, no test identification parade of accused was conducted by the police. Even though the witnesses are readily available to the prosecution when the accused were arrested. So the identity of the accused as robbers is not proved by the prosecution. As such, the evidence of police witnesses is of no use to the case of prosecution.
18.Further, on perusal of prosecution evidence, in this case even though the evidence of PWs1 and 2 says that the complainant lost M.O.1 cash, but who has robbed that cash was not proved by the prosecution for the reason that PW1 is the hearsay witness in his evidence stated that he received phone call from PW3 that some unknown persons robbed his cash whereas, PW3 driver of DCM and eye witnesses, panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama are turned hostile. In view of the said hostile behaviour of prosecution witnesses, the evidence of investigating agency is of no use to the case of prosecution and no presumption can be drawn
CC.No. 132 of 2013 Page. 6
against the accused and on seeing the hostile behaviour of other prosecution witnesses, it can be said that the prosecution miserable failed in proving the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences levelled against them.
19.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences u/s. 392, 120-B of IPC, and accordingly they are acquitted u/s.248(1) of CrPC. The bail bonds of the accused person shall stands cancelled. M.O.1 cash which is given for interim custody to PW1, M.O.2 motor bike which is given for interim custody to its owner made absolute after appeal time. M.O.3 cell phones shall be returned to its owner under proper receipt of ownership and identification if any after appeal time.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19 th day of December, 2019.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Narayanpet FAC., JCJ, Kodangal
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined For
Prosecution:
PW1 P.Venkataiah
PW2 K. Laxmi Narsimulu
PW3 K.Chandaiah
PW4 P.Mahipal Reddy
PW5 G.Mallikarjun
PW6 P.Narsimulu
PW7 K.Buggappa
PW8 G.Raju
PW9 P.Narsimha Reddy
PW10 G.Bheemaiah
PW11 R.Malsoor
PW12 K.Rama Rao
CC.No. 132 of 2013 Page. 7
Defence:
-None -
Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:
Ex P1 Report
Ex P2 First Information Report Ex P3 161 CrPC statement of PW3 Ex P4 Signature of PW4 on CDF
Ex P5 Signature of PW4 on confession recovery panchanama Ex P6 Signature of PW5 on confession recovery panchanama
Ex P7 Signature of PW5 on confession seizure panchanama Ex P8 Signature of PW5 on seizure panchanama
Ex P9 Signature of PW5 on seizure panchanama Ex P10 161 CrPC statement of PW6
Ex P11 Signature of PW7 on confession seizure panchanama Ex P12 Signature of PW7 on confession seizure panchanama
Ex P13 Signature of PW7 on confession seizure panchanama Ex P14 Signature of PW7 on seizure panchanama Ex P15 Signature of PW7 on seizure panchanama
Ex P16 Signature of PW9 on CDF Ex P17 161 CrPC statement of PW10
Ex P18 Finger print expert opinion Ex P19 Crime details form
Ex P20 Seizure part of statement of A1 Ex P21 Seizure part of statement of A2
Ex P22 Seizure part of statement of A3 Ex P23 Call date record
Defence:
-Nil-
Material Objects Marked
MO1 Photograph of cash showing denomination of four bundles of 1000 notes and six bundles of 500 notes along with 5 cellphones.
MO2 Photographs of bike No.AP22AH 1981
MO3 5 photograph of Cellphones; 1) Nokia 2) Cellkon, 3) Nokia,
4) Micromax 5) Cellkon
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Narayanpet FAC., JCJ, Kodangal