IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
JAGGAYYAPETA
PRESENT:-SRI M. JACOB, B.A., L.L.B.,
ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAYYAPETA.
Friday, dated this the 5th day of January, 2018
C.C.NO. 697 of 2017
Between:
The State – Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaggayyapet Police Station. … Complainant
AND
Itham Ravisekhar @ Ravi S/o Subbarao, 48 Yrs, SC-Madiga, Davuluru (V), Kankipadu (M). …. Accused
This case is coming before me for arguments on 22.12.2017 in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor representing the State/Complainant and of Sri G.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate for Accused, Upon perusal of record and upon hearing both the counsel and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1. The Accused is charged and tried for the offences punishable U/s.
417, 420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
On 09.02.2017 at 1.00 p.m. LW.1 gave a report to the police by stating that in the month of February, 2016 the accused came to the house of
LW.1 situated in Vallapuram, Khammam district when she was alone, informed her that he knows her elder brother and as there are disputes with regard to her land and he knows the persons working in MRO office and so he can settle the matter and thereby induced LW.1 with deceitful words and asked her the phone number of LW.3 and he would talk to him and also to come to MRO office, believing the words of the accused, she got upon his bike, but the accused stopped the bike near S.M.Pet cross road and asked her to remove her gold chain (Nanthadu) from her neck and to keep in the cover as she would lose and informed her that if the revenue officials see her with gold chain, they would think that she is rich and so she cannot be done justice, then LW.1 removed her gold chain and kept in the cover, the accused took the cover from 1
LW.1 and placed it in the zip cover of the bike, later he diverted her attention and informed her that he would come again and asked her to wait there and fled away.Basing on the report, LW.13 registered a case in Cr.No. 27/2017 for the offences u/s. 417, 420 of IPC, later he visited the scene of offence and examined LW.1 to LW.5 and recorded their statements in detail, on 05.03.2017
LW.13 received information from LW.12 that the accused was arrested on 04.03.2017 in Cr.No.263/2016 of Chebrolu P.S, accordingly the accused was arrested on P.T.warrant, later after obtaining police custody order the accused was interrogated in the presence of LW.6 and LW.7 and recorded his confessional statement and as the accused pledged the property in Muthoot
Finance Ltd., Rajahmundry, LW.13 seized the property from that Branch
Manager and drafted a mediators report, and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
3.This Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable U/s. 417, 420 of IPC against the accused.
4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him
U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.
5. The Prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.9 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked. Accused denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.
6. Heard both sides.
7. Now the point for Consideration is “Whether the prosecution has
proved the guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence
punishable U/Sec. 417, 420 of IPC ?
8. PW.1 deposed that she knows the accused and in the year 2016 the accused came to her house at Vallapuram by saying that he knows her brother who is Lw.3 and informed her that he can resolve the land dispute which is pending in MRO office, Jaggayyapet and asked her to come with him and took 2 her on his motor cycle and brought her to Santhinagar, Jaggayyapet and asked her to take away the gold chain and after taking it he kept in the motor cycle front side pouch and informed her that he will return back within five minutes by meeting his friend and left her at the place, then she waited for two hours and informed the same to her husband and later they enquired how the accused know Lw.3 and they found that the accused do not know LW.3, later she gave a report to the police and accused who is standing in the open Court is the person who has taken her gold chain and ran away from the place.
PW.2 deposed that PW.1 is his wife and he knows the accused, on 22.2.2016 when PW.1 was in Bhimavaram the accused came to their house and took her by saying that he knows the Revenue people in MRO office and informed her that he will resolve the land dispute and took her to S.M.Pet, then the accused asked PW.1 to take away the gold chain from the neck and kept in the motor cycle front pouch and left Pw.1 and fled away from the place, he came to know about the incident through PW.1, later PW.1 gave a report to the police.
PW.3 deposed that on 25.2.2016 the accused came to him and informed him that he belongs to his village and he will help him by arranging finance for purchasing an auto, then the accused took him to the State bank and found that there no balance in his account and later took him to Muthoot Finance,
Rajahmundry and took his identity particulars and pledged the gold chain in his name in Muthoot Finance and took Rs.40,000/- and later the accused left with the money and he came to know that the accused has utilized his identity proofs, then he gave a report to Bommuru police and police examined him after one year in this case.
PW.4 deposed that in the month of February, 2016 the accused along with PW.3 came to their branch in Rajahmundry and sought gold loan by bringing a gold chain weighing at about 22 grams along with the identity proofs of PW.3, after pledging his gold chain they have given Rs.40,000/- to PW.3, 3 later Jaggayyapet police informed her that the gold pledged by the accused was the theft property, after obtaining permission from their head office she handed over the gold chain to Jaggayyapet police, police drafted the mediators report and obtained her signature, then she handed over the gold chain to them.
PW.5 deposed that on 15.4.2017 at about 10.30 a.m. PW.9 called him to act as a mediator, then he went to the police station and in his presence one
Itham Rajasekhar has confessed that in the month of February, 2016 he has committed theft of Pulsar motor cycle and has written police on it and by saying that he will help the woman that he will resolve the disputes in
Jaggayyapet MRO office, the accused was bringing her from Vallapuram to
Jaggayyapet and they reached S.M.Pet and has taken a gold chain of the woman and left her there and went to Rajahmundry and pledged the gold chain by saying that the said gold chain belongs to his wife and taken Rs.40,000/- by pledging the gold chain in Muthoot gold Finance, then himself along with Pw.9 went to Lala cheruvu, Rajahmundry and seized the gold chain from Muthoot
Finance, Rajahmundry, the confession statement of the accused has drafted by him in the police station in the presence of Advocate Commissioner one
P.Nagaraju, Lw.7 and LW.11.
PW.6 deposed that on 4.3.2017 at about 6.30 a.m. himself along with
Pw.8 and one S.I. of Police went to Badampudi “Y” junction for vehicle checking on a report by one Raghavendra that his car was missing and he was also present at the Y junction and has identified the car which was driven by the accused, then Pw.8 apprehended the accused and on questioning him he confessed that he committed theft of a motor cycle and also gold ornaments from a woman near Jaggayyapet in the name of settling a land dispute and ran away from the place and pledged the gold ornaments in Muthoot Finance,
Rajahmundry with the help of another person, then he drafted the mediators report at the scene of offence.
4
PW.7 deposed that on 28.6.2017 he was called by the S.I. of Police,
Jaggayyapet to act as a mediator in which the accused Itham Ravisekhar has pledged the gold chain in Rajahmundry Muthoot Finance with the help of one
Mallikarjun in order to seize the said gold chain he was called to the police station and one Kameswari Subbalakshmi who is PW.4 the Manager was also present in the police station and she has given the gold chain to the S.I. of
Police in his presence and he drafted the mediators report which contains his signature.
PW.8 deposed that at the time of alleged offence he was working as
Inspector of Police, Ganapavaram circle, on 4.3.2017 at about5.00 a.m. he received a credible information about the movement of the offender, then he secured the presence of mediators whoare PW.5 and LW.7 and the complainant one S.Raghavendra along with his staff went to Badampudi Y junction and while they were conducting vehicle checking at about 6.30 a.m. one Maruthi
Swift car coming towards them from Tadepalligudem, on seeing the car and the person who was sitting in the car was identified by one S.Raghavendra as
Itham Ravisekhar who is the accused in Cr.No.263/2016 of Chebrolu police station, then he apprehended the accused and PW.6 has drafted the confession statement of the accused in which the accused has confessed that in the month of February, 2016 near S.M.Pet cross roads in Jaggayyapet on the way to MRO office, Jaggayyapet accused took away the gold chain and ran away from the place by saying that he will settle the land dispute.
PW.9 deposed that on 9.2.2017 at about 13.00 hours he received a written report from PW.1 who stated that an unknown person came to her house and introduced himself as friend of her brother and asked her that he will settle the land dispute in the MRO office by deceiving her he asked her to come along with him, then she boarded his motor cycle and when they reached
S.M.Pet cross roads and asked her to remove her gold chain and keep it in the front zip of motor cycle and left the place by saying that he will return after 5 some time by bringing another vehicle, basing on the report he registered a case in Cr.No.27/17 for the offence u/s. 417, 420 of IPC, then he visited the scene of offence and examined PW.1, PW.2 and LW.3 and drafted the rough sketch and he received an information from CCS SHO, Chebrolu on 5.3.2017 and informed him that the accused was arrested in a case at Chebrolu who has confessed that he has committed an offence in their jurisdiction, then he produced the accused before the Court on P.T.warrant and the accused has confessed in the police custody that after committing the offence he took the gold ornaments and pledged them in Muthoot Finance, Rajahmundry with the help of one Mallikarjun who is PW.3 by saying that he is a police officer, then he examined PW.3 and PW.4 at Rajahmundry, then PW.4 handed over the gold ornaments in the presence of the mediators, the mediators report was drafted and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet.
9. The Counsel for the accused has raised the following contentions:- 1)PW.1 says the land dispute in Vallapuram, Khammam district but the accused stated her that he can solve the dispute at MRO office, Jaggayyapet.
2)As per the FIR the accused took away the gold chain at S.M.Pet cross roads but Pw.1 says near Santhinagar in Jaggayyapet, the accused took away her gold chain from S.M.pet which was also admitted by the Investigation officer.
3)The alleged incident has occurred in the month of February, 2016 and PW.1 and Investigation officer has admitted that PW.1 gave a report in the month of
February, 2017. 4)The delay in reporting the case without proper explanation of the delay may give presumption that allegations were false which was held in
“Bhagalu Lodh and another Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Appeal No.
207/2007 as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 5)PW.1 says the accused took her from her house at Vallapuram and PW.2 says the accused took PW.1 from
Bhimavaram village. 6)The Investigation officer has admitted the contradiction in between PW.1 and PW.2. 7)PW.3 says he do not know the accused prior to this case and accused took him to Muthoot Finance, Rajahmundry to pledge 6 the gold as he do not have any account in the Muthoot Finance. 8)PW.4 who is the Manager of Muthoot Finance did not filed any documents to show that the accused has pledged the gold and the Investigation officer did not seized the CC
TV footage as admitted by him. 9)PW.5 is the VRO who drafted the mediators report. 10)PW.8 drafted the mediators report dated 4.3.2017 in which he did not obtained the signature of one S.Raghavendra who is the complainant in that case.11)The evidence of PW.1 to PW.9 does not corroborate with each other and creates doubt in the prosecution case and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and prayed to acquit the accused.
10. In the cross examination PW.1 has admitted that there is a land dispute in between them and the adjacent land owner at Vallapuram,
Mudigonda mandal, Khammam district and prior to this case she do not know the accused and she did not informed about the arrival of the accused to her husband and her brother as the accused has taken her mobile phone when he came to her house. In the cross examination PW.2 has admitted that prior to this case he do not know the accused and PW.1 gave a report in the month of
February, 2017. In the cross examination PW.3 has admitted that he do not know the accused prior to this case and he did not verified the particulars when he approached him. In the cross examination PW.4 has admitted that she did not gave any report to the police against the accused for cheating them by pledging theft gold by taking Rs.40,000/- from them and she has given
Rs.40,000/- basing on producing local identity proofs. In the cross examination PW.5 has admitted that whenever any property is seized in his presence they will draft the seizure report but they did not drafted any seizure report when they went to Rajahmundry and seized the gold chain from
Muthoot Finance as per the contents of Ex.P2 confession statement it was drafted in PW.9’s office. In the cross examination PW.6 has admitted that
Ex.P3 Mediators report does not contains the signature of one Raghavendra and he did not received any notice to act as a mediator. In the cross examination PW.7 has admitted that the mediators report was drafted with a 7 carbon copy and denied that they did not signed Ex.P4 at a time and PW.7 has admitted that he did not mentioned in Ex.P4 that who scribed Ex.P4. In the cross examination PW.8 has admitted that he did not obtained the signature of one S.Raghavendra in the mediators report. Ex.P3 Mediators report was drafted by PW.6. In the cross examination PW.9 has admitted that as per Ex.P1 report the offence occurred in the year February, 2016 and he registered the FIR in the year 2017 and it was revealed in his investigation that the accused has deceived PW.1 for settlement of land dispute in Khammam district MRO office.
PW.1 did not stated before him that the accused has taken gold chain at
Santhinagar, Jaggayyapet and left her at the same place. PW.2 did not stated
before him that the accused has taken PW.1 from Bhimavaram to S.M.Pet.
Pw.3 did not stated before him that himself along with the accused went to
State Bank of India, Rajahmundry and on coming to know about the accused who deceived him, he gave a report, he did not seized any CC TV footage of
Muthoot Finance, Rajahmundry.
11. PW.1 says in the year 2016 the accused took her from Vallapuram by saying that he will resolve the land dispute which is pending in MRO office,
Jaggayyapet but in the cross examination PW.1 has admitted that the land dispute is in Vallapuram in Khammam district. PW.2 says the accused took
PW.1 from Bhimavaram by saying that he will resolve the land dispute in MRO office, Jaggayyapet. PW.1 has admitted that the alleged incident has occurred in the year 2016 and PW.2 says PW.1 gave a report in the month of February, 2017 which was admitted by PW.9 who is the Investigation officer. PW.3 says he do not know the accused prior to this case and without verifying his particulars he gave his identity particulars to the accused and the accused took Rs.40,000/- from Muthoot Finance, Rajahmundry but PW.4 says
Rs.40,000/- was given to PW.3 after pledging the gold chain and the accused was along with him and PW.4 says she did not gave any report against the accused for cheating them by pledging the theft gold by taking Rs.40,000/- from them and gave Rs.40,000/- basing on the local identity proofs produced 8 by PW.3. PW.5 says himself along with PW.9 went to Lalcheruvu, Rajahmundry and seized the gold chain from Muthoot Finance, Rajahmundry but they did not drafted any seizure report when they went to Rajahmundry and seized the gold chain from Muthoot Finance and Ex.P2 confession statement was drafted in PW.9’s office as per its contents. PW.4 did not deposed anything about at which place she has handed over the gold chain to Jaggayyapet police whether in Jaggayyapet or at Muthoot Finance, Rajahmundry as PW.5 says they did not drafted any seizure report after seizing the gold chain from Muthoot Finance,
Rajahmundry. PW.6 says PW.8 apprehended the accused at Badampudi “Y” junction and on questioning him he confessed about the said offence and on being confessed by the accused he drafted the mediators report at the scene of offence. PW.7 says on 28.6.2017 he was called by S.I. of Police, Jaggayyapet to act as a mediator then he went to police station and found the accused at that time PW.5 who is the Manager of Muthoot Finance, Rajahmundry was also present in the police station and she has given the gold chain to S.I. of Police in his presence and he drafted the mediators report which contains his signature but Pw.5 says himself along with PW.9 S.I. of Police went to Rajahmundry
Muthoot Finance and seized the gold chain from PW.4 and PW.4 says after obtaining the permission from their Head office she handed over the gold chain to Jaggayyapet police. PW.8 says on a report by one Raghavendra they were on vehicle checking duty on a credible information received by them caught hold the accused and the accused confessed about the said offence in the present case that PW.8 has admitted in the cross examination that he did not obtained the signature of one S.Raghavendra in the mediators report drafted by PW.6, if the said Raghavendra would have present at the scene of offence on 4.3.17 at 5.00 a.m. PW.8 would have obtained his signature. PW.9 says on 9.2.2017 at about 13.00 hours he received a report from PW.1 who stated that an unknown person came to her house and introduced himself as friend of her brother and asked her that he will settle the land dispute in MRO office by deceiving her then she boarded his motor cycle and when they reached S.M.Pet cross roads 9 the accused asked her to remove the gold chain and kept in a polythene cover by keeping it in front jip of the motor cycle and left the place but PW.1 says the accused took her gold chain at Santhinagar, Jaggayyapet which was not stated to PW.9 and PW.1 says the accused took her from Vallapuram but PW.2 says
PW.1 was taken from Bhimavaram which was not stated by PW.2 before PW.9.
PW.1 says she was taken from Vallapuram by the accused and PW.2 says the accused took PW.1 from Bhimavaram and PW.9 says PW.1 and PW.2 did not stated before him that the accused has taken her gold chain at Santhinagar in
Jaggayyapet and the accused has taken PW.1 from Bhimavaram. PW.3 says when the accused introduced himself as his villager without verifying about the accused particulars he has given identity proofs to the accused but PW.4 says she has given Rs.40,000/- to PW.3 after pledging the gold chain with the identity proofs of PW.3 and PW.4 says the accused accompanied Pw.3. PW.4 says after obtaining permission from the Head office she has given the gold chain to PW.9 but PW.5 says himself along with PW.9 went to Muthoot
Finance, Rajahmundry and seized the gold chain but did not drafted the seizure report. PW.7 says when he was called by PW.9 to the police station to act as a mediator he found the accused and PW.4 in the police station and
PW.4 has handed over the gold chain to PW.9 and he drafted the mediators report. PW.8 says the accused has confessed in Cr.No.263/16 of Chebrolu police station with regard to the said offence in this case but he did not obtained the signature of the complainant in the said crime of Chebrolu P.S.
who is one S.Raghavendra who was also present at the time of arrest of the accused at Badampudi Y junction which creates doubt in the evidence of PW.8.
As per the evidence of PW.5 to PW.8 the accused has confessed about the offence in this case.
12. As per Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act “Confession to the police
officer not to be proved against the accused”. As per Sec.26 of Indian
Evidence Act “Confession by the accused while in the custody of the
police not to be proved against him”. The confession given by the accused in 10 the presence of the police which was drafted by PW.5 to PW.7 cannot be proved against the accused as it was drafted in the police station and in the immediate presence of the police. As per the evidence of PW.4 the gold was pledged by
PW.3 and Rs.40,000/- was given to PW.3 and the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 does not corroborate with each other with regard to the accused taking PW.1 from her house and the place of the accused taking the gold chain from PW.1 as admitted by PW.9 that PW.1 did not stated before him that the accused took away the gold chain from Santhinagar in Jaggayyapet but PW.1 deposed that the accused took away her gold chain from Santhinagar road, Jaggayyapet. As per Ex.P1 PW.1 has mentioned that the alleged offence has occurred in the month of February, 2016 but she has given a report in the month of February, 2017 which was also admitted by the Investigation officer there is a delay of one year in reporting the case which is fatal to the prosecution case and the explanation given by PW.9 with regard to delay in reporting the case is PW.1 and her husband and her family members were searching for the accused but they could not find the accused and then they gave a report on 9.2.2017 at 13.00 hours. The reasons mentioned for the delay in reporting the case is unconvincing and cannot be believed and delay in reporting the case without proper explanation for the delay creates doubt in the prosecution case as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhagalu Lodh Vs Stated of U.P. that “Prompt
and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid
details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. In case there is
some delay in filing the FIR the complainant must given explanation for
the same. In absence of such an explanation the delay may give
presumption that allegations were false and had been given after thought
or had given a coloured version of events. Undoubtedly delay in lodging
the FIR does not make the complainant’s case improbable when such
delay is properly explained. However deliberate delay in lodging the
complaint is always fatal.” 11
13. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.9 does not corroborate with each other and all of them deposed differently with regard to the accused taking PW.1 from her house and taking the gold chain from the place which was not deposed clearly by PW.1 and PW.2 which was admitted by PW.9 and as per the evidence of
PW.4 there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused has accompanied PW.3 to the Muthoot Finance, Rajahmundry and there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused has pledged the gold chain with
PW.4 and has taken Rs.40,000/- as PW.4 has admitted that she did not gave any report to the police that the accused has cheated them by pledging the theft gold which shows that the accused did not pledged the gold and PW.8 and
PW.9 did not deposed anything about the seizure of the relevant documents with regard to pledge of the gold by the accused with Pw.4 and mere confession by the accused before the police and in the police custody cannot be proved against the accused. As per Sec. 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act and delay in reporting the case without proper explanation for the delay creates doubt in the prosecution case and as there was no seizure report with regard to the seizure of the gold chain from PW.4 as the evidence of PW.4, PW.5 and PW.7 does not corroborate with each other and they deposed differently with regard to the seizure as PW.5 says they seized the gold chain at Muthoot Finance,
Rajahmundry and PW.7 says PW.4 has given the gold chain to PW.9 at
Jaggayyapet police station in his presence which creates doubt with regard to seizure of the gold chain in the presence of independent mediators. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.9 does not corroborate with each other and all of them deposed differently and in the absence of any direct witness to the occurrence of the offence while the accused was taking away PW.1 and took away the gold chain of PW.1 is fatal to the prosecution case and the evidence of PW.1 to Pw.9 cannot be believed. In the absence of direct and circumstantial witnesses the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
12
14. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 417, 420 of IPCand he is acquitted u/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. As the accused is in judicial custody the accused may be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. The unmarked material object the gold chain which was given on interim custody shall made absolute after expiry of the appeal period.
Transcribed and Typed to my dictation by Stenographer-Gr.III of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th day of January, 2018.
Sd/- M. Jacob
ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
JAGGAYYAPET
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION: DEFENCE
PW.1 – Thatikonda Kalvathi - None - PW.2 – Thatikonda Srinivasa Rao PW.3 – Mavuluri Mallikarjun Rao PW.4 – S.S.K.Subba Lakshmi PW.5 – Eluri Rambabu PW.6 – R.Venkata Pothu Raju PW.7 – T.Babu Rao PW.8 – N.Durga Prasad PW.9 –T.V.VenkateswarRao
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION DEFENCE
Ex.P1 – Report - NIL - Ex.P2 – Confession statement Ex.P3 – Mediators report Ex.P4 – Signature of PW.7 in Mediators report Ex.P5 – F.I.R. Ex.P6 – Rough sketch
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION DEFENCE
- Nil –
Sd/- M.Jacob
ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
JAGGAYYAPETA
13 14