Smt. M. Satya Kumari

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

EXCISE COURT, W.G., ELURU

Present: Smt.M.Satya Kumari, B.Sc., LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Spl. Mobile Court

FAC/Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Eluru.

Thursday, the 12th day of September, 2013

C.C.No.80 of 2010

Between:

State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru Rural Police Station …Complainant AND

1. Addepalli Srimannarayana Chadra Mouli Suman @ Suman

2. Mallisetti Ravi Kiran

3. Chelluboina Ramana

... Accused

This case is coming on 10/09/2013 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the complainant and of Sri B.P.Chandra

Sekhar, Advocate for Accused No.1 and of Sri K.Visweswara Rao, Legal

Aid Counsel for A-2 and A-3 and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case is tried against the accused 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under section 384 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The brief case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the de facto complainant in Cr.No.150/2009. On 15/07/2009, after purchasing cloths P.W.1 came out of the shop and when she was waiting for an auto, an auto came there and the driver of the auto asked her where she has to go and she replied that she has to go near Kummarirevu

Anjaneyaswamy temple, Kandrikagudem. She bargained for Rs.15/- and boarded the auto. By that time, one person was already there in the back seat of the auto having small silver ear ring to his ear and a long curly hair keeping a cap. The drive of the auto informed P.W.1 that he will drop the said person in Ashok Nagar on the way to

Kummarirevu. Another person was also sat by the side of the driver.

22C.C.No.80 of 2010 Excise Court, Eluru

The auto driver did not drop the said person in Ashok Nagar and proceeded in Chodimella route. When P.W.1 questioned the driver about the same, he replied he will drop him at R.T.O office. Then the auto was proceeded towards Vanguru bridge. When P.W.1 questioned about the same, immediately the person who sat in the back seat of the auto put a kerchief on her mouth and kept a knife on her neck, kept his hand around her neck and threatened that he will kill her if she shouts and asked her to give her gold, money and phone otherwise he would kill her. Out of fear, P.W.1 gave her two pairs of gold bangles, black beads chain, gold chain and ring. Meanwhile, driver came to the back seat and sat another side of P.W.1 they threatened her to kill if she raised her voice. Another person who sat front side also threatened her by showing a knife not to raise her voice.

They dropped P.W.1 at bricks kiln area Vanguru bridge and they escaped in the said auto. Then P.W.1 observed the auto number as AP 07 W 955. P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1. P.W.9 registered Ex.P.1 as a case in

Cr.No.150/2009 u/sec.384 IPC and issued Ex.P.6 FIR. On the same day

P.W.9 examined P.Ws.1 and 2 in the Police station and recorded their statements. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence situated at Kandrikagudem Centre.

3.P.W.3 is the de facto complainant in Cr.No.210/2008. On 09/12/2008 at 5.40 AM, P.W.1 boarded an auto at fire station centre for

Rs.25/- to go to Railway Station as she has to go to Rajahmundry to attend a ceremony. There were two persons in the auto including driver. The auto was proceeded towards Ameenapet, Ashok Nagar,

B.D. Colony, Tangellamudi Bridge and Railway station and at the railway station arch, the auto was driven at high speed and when

P.W.3 questioned the driver, he replied that there is no way to go back and there was a short cut on the left side. Then the auto was proceeded at high speed towards Mavayyagari Thota and from there to 33C.C.No.80 of 2010 Excise Court, Eluru right side towards Somavarappadu. When they reached JMJ Collage again when P.W.3 questioned, he kept a knife on her neck and threatened her not to shout and asked her gold. Due to fear, P.W.3 gave four gold bangles, two lines of gold chain along with suthram, two lines Palakasarlu chain and one gold chain with Venkateswara Swamy locket and other articles. P.W.3 stated that she can identify those persons. P.W.3 lodged Ex.P.2. P.W.9 registered a case in

Cr.No.210/2008 u/s. 384 IPC and issued Ex.P-5 FIR. On the same day,

P.W.9 examined P.Ws.3,4 and L.W.5 M.Uma Maheswara Rao in the

Police Station and recorded their statements.

4.On 07/08.08.2009 P.W.7 arrested A-1 at Kotipalli bus stand,

Rajahmundry, in the presence of mediators and his staff. On the confession of A-1, they came back to Eluru and went to the house of A- 1 bearing Door No.7B-15-22 situated at Uppuvari Street, Eastern

Street, Eluru. A-1 went inside and brought two covers containing gold ornaments and handed over the same to P.W.7 in presence of mediators. Then P.W.7 opened first cover in the presence of mediators and found four gold bangles weighing about 42.110 grams. They identified the said property as the property in Cr.No.150/2009 of Eluru

Rural Police station. P.W.7 opened the second cover in the presence of mediators P.W.5 and L.W.7 Satyala Murali and found one gold chain weighing about 32.400 grams, two plain gold bangles weighting about 24.19 grams and two designed gold bangles weighing about 24.70 grams. They identified the property as the property in Cr.No.210/2008 of Eluru Rural Police station. P.W.7 seized the property under the cover of mediators report and he arrested A-1 and produced him before the court for Judicial remand. He sent the property to court.

5.On 31/08/2009, on credible information, P.W.8 along with his staff and mediators P.W.6 and L.W.9 R.C.H.S. Naidu, proceeded to

Railway New Colony, Gopalakrishna Nagar, Visakhapatnam. There they 44C.C.No.80 of 2010 Excise Court, Eluru observed three persons about to board an auto parked opposite to the lodge. On seeing them, when those persons tried to escape, P.W.8 with the assistance of his staff caught hold two of them and they revealed their identity particulars and they are A-2 and another person by name Pandu. P.W.8 arrested them and interrogated in the presence of Mediators. A-2 confessed about his commission of offences in the jurisdiction of P.W.8 and Eluru under Ex.P.4. P.W.8 gave information about the same to the officials concern and he produced A-2 before the court concerned for judicial remand.

6.On 08/08/2009 P.W.7 informed to P.W.9 that he arrested A-1 in this case and seized the stolen property. P.W.9 filed a petition for issuance of PT warrant for A-1 in the court concerned and produced A- 1 before this court on execution of PT warrant on 09/10/2009 from

Visakhapatnam Central Jail. P.W.8 informed P.W.9 that he arrested A-2.

P.W.9 filed a petition for issuance of PT warrant for A-2, and A-2 was produced before the court on execution of PT warrant from

Visakhapatnam Central Jail on 09/10/2009. After completion of investigation P.W.9 filed charge sheet against A-1 and A-2 showing A-3 as absconding.

7. On 17/03/2010 this case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 384 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and issued summonses to the accused for their appearance.

8. On appearance of accused 1 to 3 on 19/01/2013 copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under section 207

Cr.P.C.

9. On 21/01/2013 A.1 to A.3 were examined under section 239

Cr.P.C. and framed a charge under section 384 of I.P.C., read over and explained the same to accused in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

55C.C.No.80 of 2010 Excise Court, Eluru

10. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. and M.Os.1 to 3 .Exs.D1 and D2 are marked accused.

11. After closure of the prosecution evidence, on 06/09/2013 accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution is read over and explained to accused in

Telugu. After having understood the same, they denied the incriminating evidence and stated that the said evidence is false.

Accused reported no defence evidence.

12. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A-1 and legal aid counsel for A-2 and A-3.

13. Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 384 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

14. P O I N T:

In order to establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9. P.Ws.1 and 3 are de facto complainants. P.W.2 is husband of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the brother in law of P.W.3. P.Ws.5 and 6 are the VROs who acted as mediators. P.Ws.7 to 9 are the investigating Officers.

15.P.W.1 deposed that on 15/07/2009 she went to Apco shop at

R.R.Pet. After purchasing cloths at APCO shop at about 3.00 P.M. she came out from the shop. One auto came and stopped in front of her and she asked the driver to drop at Pushpaleelanagar and she accepted to give fare Rs.15/-. One person was in the passenger seat.

Along with driver another person sat by the side of the driver. One person who was back passengers seat wore ear ring. He was having long curly hair. Driver informed her that he will drop the passenger at 66C.C.No.80 of 2010 Excise Court, Eluru

Ashok Nagar on the way to Pushpaleelanagar. She boarded the auto.

Driver has taken the auto to Chodimella road. Passenger who was on the back seat was not dropped at Ashok Nagar. She questioned the driver of the auto about the reason for taking auto towards Chodimella.

Driver of auto informed that the passenger is having work at R.T.O.

Office and after dropping him at R.T.O office he will take her to

Pushpaleelanagar. Auto was not stopped at R.T.O office and proceeded further. When P.W.1 questioned, one person who sat by the side of the driver informed him that one person is coming with money and after taking money they will drop the passenger at R.T.O office and auto was taken to Vanguru bridge. She again questioned the driver. Passenger who sat in the passenger seat kept his hand kerchief on her mouth, he kept a knife on her throat and threatened her not to raise voice. He asked her to give gold, money and cell phone. One person who sat by the side of driver came to back seat and both of them threatened her to kill if she raise hue and cry. P.W.1 gave gold black beads chain, gold nanu tradu, four bangles M.O.1 and gold ring to the passenger and also to the person who came to back seat from the driver seat. She was dropped at bricks kiln area. When auto was taking turn, she observed the number of the auto as AP 07 W 955. There is a house near the bricks kiln. Later she lodged Ex.P-1. P.W.1 identified A-1 as the person who sat by the side of the driver and came back to the passenger seat, threatened her, taken gold along with another accused who was on the passengers seat. A-2 is the driver of the auto. P.W.1 again stated one accused came to the passengers seat and one accused was in the passenger seat. P.W.1 identified A-1 to A-3 as the persons who have taken her by auto and taken her gold.

16.The evidence of P.W.1 is consistent with the contents of Ex.P-1.

Learned counsel for A-1 contended that contrary to the evidence of

P.W.1, in Ex.P-1, P.W.1 stated that the driver of the auto came to back 77C.C.No.80 of 2010 Excise Court, Eluru seat and another person who sat beside the driver also threatened her.

But those minor discrepancies do not cut the roots of the case of prosecution. Learned counsel for A-1 further contended that no test identification parade was conducted by the police for identification of the accused in this case and it was admitted by P.W.1, and P.W.1 stated during her cross-examination that she has seen the accused on the date of incident and again she is seeing them in the Court; P.W.1 did not mention the physical features of accused in Ex.P-1. But P.W.1 being an innocent lady could not be expected to mention all those particulars in the report. Non-conducting of test identification parade is fault on the part of investigating officer but it is not the fault of

P.W.1. However, P.W.1 identified the accused in the Court despite long delay. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused

No.1 is not sustainable. The evidence of P.W.1 is consistent with the contents of Ex.P-1. The learned counsel for A-1 further contended that no property identification parade was conducted. But since the property was identified by P.W.1, M.O.1 was given in interim custody.

17.P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.1. P.W.2 is not a direct witness.

P.W.2 deposed that on 15/07/2009 at about 3-15 PM, P.W.1 informed him over phone about three persons committing theft of her gold land she was at the bricks kiln. Immediately, he went to Vanguru cross road area. There are some houses near bricks kiln. P.W.1 is at said houses.

He enquired about the said incident. P.W.1 narrated him about the incident and informed that at 3 PM she boarded an auto and one person who was in the passenger seat, another person who sat by the side of driver of the auto along with driver taken her to bricks kiln area, threatened her by keeping a knife over her throat and taking away black beads chain, nanutradu gold chain, M.O.1 four bangles and a ring. They went to Eluru Rural Police Station. P.W.1 lodged report.

Subsequently, they came to know that police have recovered stolen 88C.C.No.80 of 2010 Excise Court, Eluru gold ornaments. They have taken M.O.1 four gold bangles from the

Court for interim custody. The evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 as to the date, time, place and occurrence of offence.

18.P.W.3 deposed that on 09/12/2008 she started from her house in order to reach railway station with a view to board a passenger train as she intended to go to Rajahmundry for attending death ceremony of mother of her colleague. She came to fire station center and stopped an auto which was going towards new bus stand from flyover. She bargained for an amount of Rs.20/- to go to railway station. One person sat by the side of the driver of the auto. She boarded the said auto and when she was taken to Ashoknagar area, the auto was stopped and one person who sat by the side of driver of auto came back to passengers seat. Auto proceeded towards B.D. colony,

Tangellamudi Bridge, and reached near railway station. The driver maintained high speed and auto was not stopped at railway station.

She questioned the driver about the reason for taking her fast without stopping at railway station. The auto reached a damaged road to

Mamayyagari thota. When P.W.1 questioned the driver, he maintained high speed, auto was taken towards Somavarappadu. One person who came to passengers seat from the drivers seat kept a knife on her throat and threatened her to kill. He warned her not to raise hue and cry. The said person has taken four gold bangles i.e., MO2 and one gold chain i.e., MO3. Driver of the auto continued to take her at high speed, suddenly auto stopped, she drafted from auto and the auto went away at high speed. P.W.3 lodged Ex.P.2 report. A.1 came to the passengers seat from the drivers seat and threatened her by putting knife on her throat. P.W.3 identified A.1 and she identified A.3 as driver of Auto.

99C.C.No.80 of 2010 Excise Court, Eluru

19.Learned counsel for A-1 contended that in Ex.P.2, P.W.3 did not mention that A.1 came back to the passengers seat from the drivers seat. It is important to note that minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witness would not cut the roots of the case of prosecution.

Learned counsel further contended that no test identification parade was conducted by the police for identification of the accused in this case and it was admitted by P.W.3, and P.W.3 stated during her cross- examination that she has seen the accused on the date of incident and again she is seeing them in the Court; P.W.3 did not mention the physical features of accused in Ex.P-2. The offence was occurred on 09/12/2008 and P.W.3 deposed on 05/02/2013. Nearly there is four years gap between the date of incident and her evidence. Non- conducting of test identification parade is fault on the part of investigating officer but it is not the fault of P.W.3. However, P.W.3 identified the accused in the Court despite long delay. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused No.1 is not sustainable. The evidence of P.W.3 is consistent with the contents of

Ex.P-2. The learned counsel for A-1 further contended that no property identification parade was conducted. But since the property was identified by P.W.3, M.Os.2 and 3 were given in interim custody.

20.P.W.4 deposed that on 09/12/2008 P.W.3 reached fire station center at 4 O' clock in order to board an auto for reaching railway station. At about 6.00 AM, P.W.3 came to his house and informed when she boarded an auto, driver and another person took her to bye- pass area, threatened her and taken her gold bangles and gold chain.

He accompanied P.W.3 to the police station and P.W.3 lodged report.

The evidence of P.W.4 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.3 as to the date, time, place and occurrence of offence.

101C.C.No.80 of 2010 Excise Court, Eluru

21.The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 established that A-1 to A-3 extorted gold articles from P.Ws.1 and 3 on different dates. The evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 3 attracted the ingredients of extortion. Though no test identification was conducted, there is every possibility for P.Ws.1 and 3 to identify the accused as they watched them for a considerable time while the accused were taking them in auto and extorting their gold. It is a lapse on the part of investigating officer in non-conducting of test identification. Mere omission to mention the physical features of accused in the FIR is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. Since the property is identified and taken for interim custody by

P.Ws.1 and 3, non-conducting of property identification is not fatal to the case of prosecution.

22. P.W.5 deposed that on 07/09/2009 at 9.00 PM he was called by CI and SI of Eluru I Town Police Station. From the police station, he along with CI and SI, staff and another mediator S.Murali went to Kotipalli Bus stand Rajahmundry. There they found one car at out gate of said bus stand and on seeing the police the car was started. But the police stopped the said car. They found A.1 and another person N.Ajay in the said car. On questioning A.1 confessed about his identity particulars and on further questioning, he confessed that they engaged the said car in Tanuku for hire and they took the same to Vijayawada and on the way to Vijayawada they tied the driver of the said car and thrown him out of the car. Then they changed the colour of the car in

Vijayawada from silver to white and they also changed the number of the car and they used the said car for committing offences. They searched the car and found two knives in dash board and in dickey they found a rod which is used to remove the tires and two nylon ropes and number plate. A.1 further confessed that in July, 2009 he along with A.2 and A.3 and one Suman took one lady in an auto to Vanguru bridge and threatened her and took away her gold ornaments and 111C.C.No.80 of 2010 Excise Court, Eluru they sold away some of the ornaments. A.1 further confessed that in

May 2009 they took one lady from Eluru Railway station and when they reached near JMJ School Jangareddigudem, they have taken away her gold ornaments. Then they returned to Eluru along with A.1 and

N.Ajay. On 08/09/2009 at 3.00 AM they went to the house of

Sitaramayya, fire constable at Uppuvari Street where A.1 was staying.

There A.1 brought four pockets containing MO1 to MO3. Then police weighed the said ornaments and affixed slips containing the signatures of P.W.5 and another mediator. Police arrested A.1 and N.Ajay and seized gold ornaments in his presence. To that effect P.W.5 drafted mediator report and L.W.7 also signed on the said report. Mediator report is marked as Ex.P.3.

23. Learned counsel for accused contended that P.W.5 stated that he drafted 108 mediator reports and after retirement he drafted 22 mediator reports; P.W.5 stated that he do not remember the name of

CI who requested him to act as mediator; P.W.5 stated that he do not remember whether he stated in C.C.No.125/2010 that he do not know where the accused sat in the car; P.W.5 further stated that they reached Eluru at 2.00 or 2.30 AM, but he do not remember whether he deposed in C.C.No.757/2009 in the court at Kovvur regarding the same facts but the signature on the said deposition shown to him is admitted as himself. He further submitted that Ex.D-1 is 5th line from last of second page of the deposition in C.C.No.757/2009 i.e., “ I completed Ex.P.3 at about 6.00 AM in the early hours”. Learned counsel further contended that P.W.5 stated that he knows A.1 prior to the incident; 9th line from last para of page number 2 of the deposition in C.C.No.125/2010 i.e., “ prior to the incident he has not acquainted with A.1” is marked as Ex.D.2. Learned counsel further submitted that

P.W.5 admitted that the police did not enquire the owner of the house 121C.C.No.80 of 2010 Excise Court, Eluru where A.1 was resided. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the evidence of P.W.5 is inconsistent and is not reliable.

24. Minor discrepancies in the evidence of mediator would not be fatal to the case of prosecution. Since P.W.5 is a V.R.O., there is no need for him to depose falsehood against accused. Confession of A-1 in the presence of mediator leading to discovery of property is admissible. Mere non-recovery of any property from A-2 and A-3 is not a ground to discredit the evidence of prosecution witnesses. P.W.5 is a

V.R.O. Hence, he could not be treated as a stock mediator. It is his duty to act as mediator whenever necessary under the provisions of

Cr.P.C.. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is not sustainable.

25. P.W.6 deposed that on 31/08/2009 at 11.30 AM, he along with CI of police, SI of police, L.W.9 R.C.H.S.Naidu went to New Railway colony,

Gopalakrishna Lodge, there they found three persons on suspicious circumstances, trying to start in a auto. On seeing the police when the accused tried to skulk away, police caught hold A.2 and one Pandu.

On enquiry, they stated their identity particulars and A.2 confessed about his commission of thefts. A.2 confessed that in 2008 he picked up one lady in Eluru railway station in an auto and after traveling some distance when there is no one, he stopped the auto and took away the gold ornaments of that lady. Police drafted the detailed report and seized property from the accused in his presence. From there, they came to Eluru and police seized property from the accused. Ex.P.4 is attested copy of mediator report. The evidence of P.W.6 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.8.

26. P.W.7 during his cross-examination stated that they started from

Eluru at about 9.00 PM on 07/08/2009. He admitted that Kotipalli bus stand area is a busy locality. But at 11.00 PM traffic was decreased.

He further admitted that he did not call for any mediators at Kotipalli 131C.C.No.80 of 2010 Excise Court, Eluru bus stand area. P.W.7 stated that he could not secure mediators at that time due to non availability. Hence, the evidence of P.W.7 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.5.

27. Hence, the prosecution proved the guilt of A-1 to A-3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sec.384 IPC. A.1 to

A.3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 384 of

Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.150/2009 of Eluru Rural Police Station. A.1 and A.3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 384 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.210/2008 of Eluru Rural Police Station.

The point is answered accordingly.

28. In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 384 of Indian Penal Code and A.1 to A.3 are convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of September, 2013.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari

Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Spl. Mobile) FAC/Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise) Eluru.

29. A-1 to A-3 are questioned on quantum of sentence and they submitted that they are the sole bread winners of their respective families and prayed the court to take a lenient view.

30. Considering the submissions made by A-1 to A-3, this court is not inclined to take a lenient view, since taking lenient view would send ataking lenient view would send a wrong signal to the society at large. The accused are also not entitled wrong signal to the society at large.

to benefit under the provisions of P.O. Act.

31. A.1 to A.3 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year for the offence punishable under section 384 of

Indian Penal Code.

141C.C.No.80 of 2010 Excise Court, Eluru

32. The remand period of A.1 from 09/10/2009 to 06/11/2009 i.e., 28 days shall set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The remand period of A.2 from 09/10/2009 to 04/02/2011 and 11/12/2012 to 11/09/2013 i.e., 757 days shall set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The remand period of A.3 from 05/12/2012 to 06/12/2012 i.e., 2 days shall set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.

33. As per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.1765/2009 dt.20/11/2009, the case property i.e., M.O.1 i.e., four gold bangles were already given to

P.W.1 for interim custody. As per the orders in Crl.M.P. No.1764/2009 dt.20/11/2009 the case property i.e., M.O.2 four gold bangles and

M.O.3 one gold chain were already given to P.W.3 for interim custody.

The said orders shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 12th day of September,

2013.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari

Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Spl. Mobile) FAC/Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise) Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Accused Nil

P.W.1 : Kalluri Sarala

P.W.2 : K.N.V.G.Somayajulu

P.W.3 : P.Ganga Bhavani

P.W.4 : M.Hema Sundar

P.W.5 : T.Sadasiva Rao

P.W.6 : Mandapaka Srinivasa Rao

P.W.7 : M.R.L.S.S.Murthy

P.W.8 : Sri Ch.Papa Rao

P.W.9 : Sri G.Madhu Babu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P-1 : Report of P.W.1

Ex.P-2 : Report of P.W.3

Ex.P-3 : Attested copy of mediator report

Ex.P-4 : Attested copy of mediator report 151C.C.No.80 of 2010 Excise Court, Eluru

Ex.P-5 : FIR in Cr.No.210/08

Ex.P-6 : FIR in Cr.No.150/09

For Accused:

Ex.D-1 : Marked portion of deposition in C.C.No.757/09

Ex.D-2 : Marked portion of deposition in C.C.No.125/10

MOs Marked:

M.O.1 : Four gold bangles

M.O.2 : Four gold bangles

M.O.3 : Gold chain

Id/- M.S.K. JFCM, SMC, Eluru FAC.SJFCM(E), Eluru 161C.C.No.80 of 2010 Excise Court, Eluru

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN C.C.No.80/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, (EXCISE COURT):: W.G.:: ELURU.

OffenceComplaiApprehenRelease CommeClose of Sentenc nt or sion of on Bailncement triale of reportAccusedof trialOrder 09/12/0809/12/0819/01/13A-1:7/11/901/02/110/09/112/09/13 15/07/0915/07/09A-2:5/2/1133 A-3:7/12/12

A-2 : Now in jail

Explanation for delay: No unavoidable delay.

Complainant: The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru Rural Police Station.

Offence: Under Section 384 IPC

Cr.Nos.: 150/09 and 210/08

Name of the accused:

1) Addepalli Srimannarayana Chandra Mouli Suman @ Suman, S/o. Appa Rao, Age: 26 years, Caste: T.Kapu, Eastern Street, Eluru.

2) Mallisetti Ravi Kiran, S/o. Veerraju, Age: 29 years, Kapu, Eastern Street, Near Ramalayam, auto driver, Eluru.

3) Chelluboina Ramana, S/o.Late Ramu, Age: 20 years, Settibalija, Opp. B Gate, Timpuni School, CBM compound, Visakhapatnam.

Finding : Guilty

RESULT: A.1 to A.3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 384 of Indian Penal Code and A.1 to A.3 are convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C.

A-1 to A-3 are questioned on quantum of sentence and they submitted that they are the sole bread winners of their respective families and prayed the court to take a lenient view.

Considering the submissions made by A-1 to A-3, this court is not inclined to take a lenient view, since taking lenient view would send ataking lenient view would send a wrong signal to the society at large. The accused are also not entitled wrong signal to the society at large.

to benefit under the provisions of P.O. Act.

A.1 to A.3 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year for the offence punishable under section 384 of

Indian Penal Code.

171C.C.No.80 of 2010 Excise Court, Eluru

The remand period of A.1 from 09/10/2009 to 06/11/2009 i.e., 28 days shall set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The remand period of A.2 from 09/10/2009 to 04/02/2011 and 11/12/2012 to 11/09/2013 i.e., 757 days shall set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The remand period of A.3 from 05/12/2012 to 06/12/2012 i.e., 2 days shall set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.

As per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.1765/2009 dt.20/11/2009, the case property i.e., M.O.1 i.e., four gold bangles were already given to

P.W.1 for interim custody. As per the orders in Crl.M.P. No.1764/2009 dt.20/11/2009 the case property i.e., M.O.2 four gold bangles and

M.O.3 one gold chain were already given to P.W.3 for interim custody.

The said orders shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari

Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Spl. Mobile) FAC/Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise) Eluru.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru

Copy to accused

Id/- M.S.K.

JFCM(SM)

FAC/SJFCM(E) Eluru.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

(EXCISE) COURT, W.G., ELURU

Present: Smt.M Satya Kumari, B.Sc., LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Spl. Mobile)

FAC/Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Eluru.

Friday, the 06th day of September, 2013

C.C.No.101 of 2013

(Cr.Nos.55, 59 & 60 of 2013 of Pedavegi Police Station)

Between:

State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Pedavegi Police Station …Complainant

AND

Nandipamula Rambabu ...Accused

This case is coming on 04/09/2013 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the complainant and of Sri

K.Visweswara Rao, Legal Aid Counsel for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case is tried against the accused for the offence punishable under section 411 IPC.

2.The brief case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is resident of

Garlamadugu and he is an agriculturist. On 15/02/2013 at 2.00 PM, he returned from fields, parked his cycle of B.S.A. Company in front of his house and went inside. After sometime, he came out side and found his cycle was missing and committed theft by some unknown offenders. He searched for the same in the surroundings and later he lodged Ex.P.1 report. Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.5 registered a case in Cr.No.55/2013 under section 379 IPC and issued Ex.P.5 FIR and took up investigation. On the same day, P.W.5 examined P.W.1 in the

Police Station and recorded his statement. On the next day, P.W.5 went to scene of offence situated at Garlamadugu village and he prepared Ex.P-6 rough sketch of the scene of offence. There he 2 examined L.Ws.2 and 3 M.Subbarao and M.Baburao and recorded their statements. On 03/03/2013 at 1.00 PM on confession of accused they went to the house of accused at Garlamadugu village and from a lemon garden situated opposite to the house of accused, they seized three cycles in Crime Nos.55, 59 and 60 of 2013 in the presence of mediators. P.W.5 filed a petition for issuance of PT warrant for accused on 08/03/2013. On 12/03/2013 he produced the accused before the court on execution of PT warrant and the accused was remanded to judicial custody.

3.P.W.2 is resident of Garlamadugu village and he is doing agricultural cooli works. On 25/02/2013 at about 11.00 AM he returned from fields, parked his cycle of Hero Jet Company in front of his house and went inside for lunch. After some time, he came out of his house and found his cycle was missing and committed theft by some unknown offenders. He searched for the same in the surroundings and later he lodged Ex.P.2, report. Basing on the report of P.W.12, P.W.5 registered a case in Cr.No.59/2013 under section 379 IPC and issued

Ex.P.7 FIR and took up investigation. On the same day, P.W.5 examined P.W.2 in the Police Station and recorded his statement. On the same day, P.W.5 went to scene of offence situated at Garlamadugu village and he prepared Ex.P-8 rough sketch of the scene of offence.

There he examined L.Ws.5 and 6 Ch.Venkateswarao and P.Venkanna and recorded their statements. On 03/03/2013 at 1.00 PM on confession of accused they went to the house of accused at

Garlamadugu village and from a lemon garden situated opposite to the house of accused, they seized three cycles in Crime Nos.55, 59 and 60 of 2013 in the presence of mediators. P.W.5 filed a petition for issuance of PT warrant for accused on 08/03/2013. On 12/03/2013 he produced the accused before the court on execution of PT warrant and the accused was remanded to judicial custody.

3

4.P.W.3 is resident of Garlamadugu village and he is doing agricultural cooli works. P.W.3 has Hero Royal Company green colour cycle. In February 2013 he wore japamala of Jesus. On 28/02/2013 at about 9.00 PM, he parked his cycle at the church and he slept in the church after prayers. On the next day i.e. on 01/03/2013 at 4.00 AM, he woke up and found his cycle was missing and committed theft by some unknown offenders. He searched for the same in the surroundings and later he lodged Ex.P.3 report. Basing on the report of P.W.3, P.W.5 registered a case in Cr.No.60/2013 under section 379

IPC and issued Ex.P.9 FIR and took up investigation. On the same day,

P.W.5 examined P.W.3 in the police station and recorded his statement. On the same day, P.W.5 went to scene of offence situated at Garlamadugu village and he prepared Ex.P-10 rough sketch of the scene of offence. There he examined L.Ws.8 and 9 P.Nagaraju,

P.Venkateswarao and recorded their statements. On 03/03/2013 at 1.00 PM on confession of accused they went to the house of accused at

Garlamadugu village and from a lemon garden situated opposite to the house of accused, they seized three cycles in Crime Nos.55, 59 and 60 of 2013 in the presence of mediators. P.W.5 filed a petition for issuance of PT warrant for accused on 08/03/2013. On 12/03/2013 he produced the accused before the court on execution of PT warrant and the accused was remanded to judicial custody.

5.After completion of investigation P.W.5 filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.Nos.55, 59 and 60 of 2013 on 27/03/2013.

6. On 28/03/2013 this case has been taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code.

7. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4

8. On 09/04/2013 the accused was examined under section 239

Cr.P.C. and a charge under section 411 of I.P.C. was framed, read over the charge sheet allegations, explained to him in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5. P.Ws.1 to 3 are de-facto complainants. P.W.4 is an independent mediator. P.W.5 is Investigating Officer. Prosecution marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and M.Os.1 to 3.

10.After closure of the prosecution evidence, on 04/09/2013 the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution is read over and explained to accused in Telugu. After having understood the same, accused denied the incriminating evidence and stated that the said evidence is false. Accused reported no defence evidence.

11.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

12.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

13.P O I N T:

In order to establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5. P.Ws.1 to 3 are de-facto complainants. P.W.1 deposed that on 15/02/2013 at about 2 PM, he parked his bicycle in front of his house. After some time he came out of his house and noticed that some unknown offender committed theft of his bicycle.

He tried to trace his bicycle but in vain. Then he lodged Ex.P-1 report on 26/02/2013. M.O.1 is the bicycle of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 and contents of Ex.P.1 are consistent.

5

14.P.W.2 deposed that on 25/02/2013 at 11.00 AM some unknown offenders committed theft of his Hero Jet Cycle when he was taking lunch in his house. After finishing his lunch he came out side and found missing his cycle and searched surroundings for the cycles and asked the neighbours. After searching for one week, he gave Ex.P-2 report to the police. M.O.2 is the cycle of P.W.2. The evidence of

P.W.2 is consistent with the contents of Ex.P-2 report. The evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent with regard to the committing of offence by unknown offenders.

15.P.W.3 deposed that on 28/02/2013 he slept in a church as he wore japamala by keeping his cycle outside the church. When he woke up at 4.00 AM, he found that his Hero royal cycle was missing. Then he searched surroundings for his cycle and asked the neighbours. He lodged Ex.P-3 report. Later police informed that they recovered the cycle. M.O.3 is the cycle of P.W.3. The evidence of P.W.3 is consistent with the contents of Ex.P-3.

16. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 established that M.Os.1 to 3 were stolen by some unknown offenders.

17. P.W.4 is an independent mediator and he is working as VRO,

Vanguru from 2008. He deposed that on 03/03/2013 when he was in office, P.W.5 took him along with his assistant L.W.11

M.Laxminarayana to Vanguru cross roads. There they found the accused in suspicious circumstances on TVS 50 moped. On seeing the police, the accused tried to skulk away and P.W.5 along with his staff detained him and questioned him. The accused confessed his name and identity particulars. He also confessed that he is committing thefts like cycles etc., and at that time he committed theft of TVS 50 moped which is in his possession and he is trying to sell away the same. He further confessed that he committed theft of some cycles and kept them in lemon garden opposite to his house. Police seized TVS moped 6 and arrested the accused in C.C.No.102/2013. To that effect L.W.11

Mendem Lakshminarayana drafted mediator report at 10.30 AM,

L.W.11 also signed on the mediator report. On the same day at 1.00

PM, they proceeded along with accused to the place where the accused kept the cycles and there they found three cycles by covering with plastic gunny bag. Police seized the said three cycles i.e. M.Os.1 to 3. To that effect L.W.11 drafted Ex.P-4 mediator report. The evidence of P.W.4 who is an independent mediator supported the case of prosecution so far as the confession of accused regarding recovery of stolen property and seizure of M.Os.1 to 3 by the police in his presence under the cover of Ex.P-4 mediator report.

18.The evidence of P.W.4 and contents of Ex.P.4 disclosed that

P.W.5 arrested the accused on 03/03/2013 at about 10.30 AM at

Vanguru cross roads in C.C.No.102 of 2013. Date, time and place of arrest are consistently deposed by independent mediator P.W.4 and

Investigating Officer P.W.5.

19.The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 and contents of Ex.P-4 established that accused found in possession of M.Os.1 to 3 and they were seized from the possession of the accused. During cross-examination, no evidence is elicited to doubt the credibility of evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5.

20. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 is consistent, cogent and reliable.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 411 of

Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

21. In the result, the accused found guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code and the accused is convicted under section 248 (2) Cr.P.C.

7

As per orders in Crl.M.P.Nos.1712/13, 1987/13 and 1986/13

dated 07/05/2013 and 24/06/2013, the case property i.e. M.Os.1 to 3

i.e. three cycles, were given to P.Ws.1 to 3 for interim custody. The said orders shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 6th day of September,

2013.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari

Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Spl. Mobile) FAC/Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise) Eluru.

22.Accused is questioned on quantum of sentence. Accused submitted that he is the sole bread earner of his family and he has to look after his family including his children. Hence, he prayed the court to take a lenient view.

Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is in judicial custody for 178 days. Hence, he prayed the court to take a lenient view.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused and considering the mitigating circumstances explained by the accused, this court is inclined to take a lenient view.

23.Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine amount, accused shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

The remand period of the accused from 12/03/2013 to 05/09/2013 i.e.

178 days shall set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 6th day of September,

2013.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari

Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Spl. Mobile) FAC/Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise) Eluru.

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

P.W.1 : Medikonda Srinivasa Rao

P.W.2 : Chodimella Ramu

P.W.3 : J.Rambabu

P.W.4 : K.Raghunadh Babu

P.W.5 : Sri B.Mohan Rao

For Accused: NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P-1: Report of P.W.1

Ex.P-2 : Report of P.W.2

Ex.P-3 : Report of P.W.3

Ex.P-4 : Mediator report

Ex.P-5 : FIR in Cr.No.55/13

Ex.P-6 : Rough sketch in Cr.No.55/13

Ex.P-7 : FIR in Cr.No.59/13

Ex.P-8 : Rough sketch in Cr.No.59/13

Ex.P-9 : FIR in Cr.No.60/13

Ex.P-10 : Rough sketch in Cr.No.60/13

For Accused: NIL

MOs Marked:

M.O.1 : B.S.A. Cycle

M.O.2 : Hero Cycle

M.O.3 : Hero Cycle

Id/- M.S.K.

JFCM (SM)

FAC/SJFCM(E) Eluru.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.101/2013 ON THE FILE OF

THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, EXCISE COURT,

ELURU.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence Complaint Apprehension Release Taken Commencement Close sentence or report of accused on bail on file of trial of trial of order 15.02.13 26.02.13 09.04.13 Now in jail 28.03.13 07.05.13 04.09.13 06.09.13 25.02.13 02.03.13 28.02.13 02.03.13

Explanation for delay: No avoidable delay took place.

Complainant : The State : Sub Inspector of Police, Pedavegi Police Station.

S.No. Name of the Father’s name Age Religion Sex Calling Village Mandal Accused Nandipamula Ram Babu, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, 22 years, SC Madiga, Coolli, Garlamadugu village, Pedavegi Mandal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence: Under Section 411 IPC.

Cr.Nos.55, 59 & 60/13

Finding : Guilty.

RESULT: the accused found guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code and the accused is convicted under section 248 (2) Cr.P.C.

As per orders in Crl.M.P.Nos.1712/13, 1987/13 and 1986/13

dated 07/05/2013 and 24/06/2013, the case property i.e. M.Os.1 to 3

i.e. three cycles, were given to P.Ws.1 to 3 for interim custody. The said orders shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Accused is questioned on quantum of sentence. Accused submitted that he is the sole bread earner of his family and he has to look after his family including his children. Hence, he prayed the court to take a lenient view.

Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is in judicial custody for 178 days. Hence, he prayed the court to take a lenient view.

10

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused and considering the mitigating circumstances explained by the accused, this court is inclined to take a lenient view.

Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine amount, accused shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

The remand period of the accused from 12/03/2013 to 05/09/2013 i.e.

178 days shall set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari

Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Spl. Mobile) FAC/Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise) Eluru.

Seal

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G. Eluru.

Copy to accused

Id/- M.S.K.

JFCM(SM)

FAC/SJFCM(E) Eluru.

1 C.C.No.405 of 2013 Spl.Mobile Court, Eluru

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, W.G., ELURU

Present: Smt.M Satya Kumari

Tuesday, the 11th day of March, 2014

C.C.No.405 of 2013

Between:

State: Rep.by Sub Inspector of Police, Denduluru Police Station …Complainant

AND

Mulagala China Raju ... Accused

This case is coming on 05/03/2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the complainant and of Sri D.Umamaheswara

Rao, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case is tried against accused for the offence punishable under section 380 or 411 IPC.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is working as Reporter in 'N' Studio. On 19/04/2011 at 7 PM while P.W.1 was taking bath at his house, his Nikon Camera D-40 Kit along with ED 18-55 mm Lence was stolen.

The value of the said camera is Rs.48,000/-. On enquiry, P.W.1 came to know that the said camera was stolen by the accused. Hence, P.W.1 lodged

Ex.P-1 report. Basing on Ex.P-1, P.W.6 registered a case in Cr.No.64/2011 under section 380 IPC and issued FIR.

3. During the course of investigation, P.W.6 examined P.W.1 in the police station and recorded his statement. On the same day, P.W.6 visited the scene of offence which is situated at the house of P.W.1, examined the scene and prepared Ex.P-7 rough sketch. There P.W.6 examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and recorded their statements. P.W.6 made enquiries about the stolen 2 C.C.No.405 of 2013 Spl.Mobile Court, Eluru property in and around Pothunuru and Eluru. On 26/04/2011, on receipt of credible information from P.W.4, P.W.6 along with mediators and his staff went to Mani Photo Studio, Eluru, arrested the accused at 8 AM and seized the stolen property in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediator report. PW..6 returned to police station along with accused and seized property. P.W.6 produced the accused before the court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation P.W.6 filed charge sheet against the accused on 27/04/2011.

4. This case has been taken cognizance on 28/06/2011 for the offence punishable under section 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code and issued summons to accused for his appearance.

5. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

6. On 08/07/2013 accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. and a charge under section 380 or 411 of I.P.C. was framed, read over the charge sheet allegations, explained to accused in Telugu for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to establish the guilt of accused, prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 6. P.W.1 is de-facto complainant. P.W.2 is wife of P.W.1. P.W.3 is neighbour of P.W.1. P.W.4 is a photographer. P.W.5 is VRO, Pothunuru.

P.W.6 is Investigating Officer. Prosecution marked Exs.P.1 to P.7.

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution is read over and explained to accused in Telugu. After having understood the same, accused denied the incriminating evidence and stated that the said evidence is false. accused reported no defence evidence.

3 C.C.No.405 of 2013 Spl.Mobile Court, Eluru

9. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for accused.

10. Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.380 or 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

11. P O I N T:

In order to establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 6. P.W.1 is de-facto complainant.

12. P.W.1 deposed that he is resident of Pothunuru and he is a reporter of 'N' Studio. He further stated that accused is his neighbour; at about two years back, he kept a bag at his house containing Nikon Camera kit, lence, battery and charger and the same was found missing. He further deposed that he suspected the accused and gave Ex.P-1 report to the police. After some time, police recovered the camera kit and he took the same in interim custody under Ex.P-2 acknowledgement. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not witness the commission of offence by the accused. He denied a suggestion that he falsely implicated the accused in this case due to political rivalry in the village.

13. The evidence of P.W.1 is consistent with the contents of Ex.P-1.

The evidence of P.W.1 established that his camera under Ex.P-2 acknowledgement was found missing and the same was recovered by the police after giving Ex.P-1 report. Further, P.W.1 did not witness the commission of offence personally.

14. P.W.2 who is the wife of P.W.1 deposed that on 19/04/2011, when she was taking bath at 7 PM, on hearing the gate sound when she asked who is that, the accused replied that he is Raju. Later the camera 4 C.C.No.405 of 2013 Spl.Mobile Court, Eluru was found missing. She admitted during her cross-examination that she does not know how the camera was missed. The evidence of P.W.1 established that their camera was found missing and she did not witness the theft.

15. P.W.3 is a neighbour of P.Ws.1 and 2 and he deposed that he came to know that camera of P.W.1 was found missing. He deposed that he does not know the facts of the case and by stating so, he turned hostile to the case of prosecution and did not depose any incriminating evidence against accused. P.W.4 who is an independent witness also turned hostile to the case of prosecution and did not depose any incriminating evidence against the accused.

16. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 did not establish the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC against accused. No independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the said offence. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is only to say that their camera was found missing and stolen by somebody.

17. P.W.5 is an independent mediator. P.W.5 who is VRO,

Pothunuru, deposed that in 2011 on one day at 8 AM he was called by SI of

Police, Denduluru Police Station, to act as mediator and to come to Fire

Office Centre, Eluru. Immediately, he went there and found a person trying to skulk away from the scene, police caught hold him and on interrogation he confessed about the offence. To that effect, he drafted Ex.P-5 mediator report. He along with another mediator signed on Ex.P-5. Police seized camera bag from the accused in his presence.

18. During the course of cross-examination, P.W.5 stated that he informed about his acting as mediator to the MRO orally. He went to the scene immediately as he is resident of Eluru. He admitted that the SI of 5 C.C.No.405 of 2013 Spl.Mobile Court, Eluru police did not enquire the local inhabitants in his presence and he did not mention the descriptive particulars of camera in Ex.P-5.

19. Learned counsel for accused contended that the offence took place on 19/04/2011 and the report was given on 25/04/2011 but the delay was not explained.

20. As seen from Ex.P-1, P.W.1 stated that on enquiry he came to know that the camera was stolen by the accused. The evidence of P.W.6 also shows that the reason for delay is P.W.1 made enquiries. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for accused is not sustainable.

21. The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 and contents of Ex.P.5 discloses that

P.W.6 arrested accused on one day in 2011 at 8 AM. Date, time and place of arrest are consistently deposed by independent mediator P.W.5 and

Investigating Officer P.W.6.

22. The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 and contents of Ex.P-5 established that accused found in possession of stolen property. Evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 and contents of Ex.P-5 established that stolen property was seized from the possession of accused. During cross-examination, no evidence is elicited to doubt the credibility of evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6. Even though no descriptive particulars were mentioned, since the property was identified by

P.W.1 and was taken in interim custody, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is not sustainable.

23. Under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, the court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after theft is either thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. In this case, accused did not adduce any evidence to rebut the said presumption.

6 C.C.No.405 of 2013 Spl.Mobile Court, Eluru

24. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 is consistent, cogent and reliable. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 411 of

Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

25. In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code and he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th day of March, 2014.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

26. When questioned about the quantum of sentence, accused submitted that he has old aged parents and wife and he is the sole bread winner of his family. Accused further submitted that he was not involved in any other offence and pleaded mercy.

27. The property involved in the crime is camera worth Rs.48,000/- and as seen from the material on record, it is evident that accused is aged 20 years. In view of the nature of the offence and taking into consideration of the age and submissions of the accused, this court feels it proper to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act instead of sentencing the accused at once. Call for the report of DPO of accused. Call on 25/03/2014.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th day of March, 2014.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

7 C.C.No.405 of 2013 Spl.Mobile Court, Eluru

The District Probation Officer filed preliminary enquiry report of the accused stating that he has interested, dependent parents, wife and other family members. He studied upto 10th class, worked as coolie in the previous and present occupation is not known as he is living in Hyderabad from two years along with his wife as reported by his parents. His parents and nighbours and villagers furnished satisfactory reports about him. He has no previous criminal history reported. His behavior and habits are reported satisfactorily by his parents and villagers. His enquiry reveals that he has no previous institutional record and his neighbnours gave satisfactory report about his character and behaviour and that if he is released on probation of good conduct and kept under his surveillance, there is possibility of reformation and rehabilitation.

Taking into consideration the report submitted by District Probation

Officer and submissions of accused and the nature of the offence, I am inclined to apply the provisions of section 4(1) of PO Act against the accused instead of sentencing them at once to any punishment. The accused is directed to be released on executing a self bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and he is kept under the supervision of DPO for a period of one year. The accused is directed to appear and receive sentence when called during the above period and in the mean time, the accused is directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The accused is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal against Calendar and Judgment.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 25th day of March, 2014.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

8 C.C.No.405 of 2013 Spl.Mobile Court, Eluru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Accused:

P.W.1 : Bonthu Prabhakar NIL

P.W.2 : Bonthu Prasanthi

P.W.3 : Gummadi Bhagyavathi

P.W.4 : Ch. Chandra Sekhar

P.W.5: Palagani Venkata Surya Chandra Rao

P.W.6: B V Rama Krishna

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Accused

Ex.P-1: Report given by P.W.1. NIL

Ex.P-2 : Receipt

Ex.P.3: U/sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3

Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4

Ex.P.5: Mediator Report

Ex.P.6: FIR

Ex.P.7: Rough sketch

MOs Marked: NIL

JFCM, SMC, Eluru 9 C.C.No.405 of 2013 Spl.Mobile Court, Eluru

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN C.C.No.405/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

Offence ComplaiApprehensRelease CommenClose of Sentenc nt or ion of on Bail cement trial e of report Accused of trial Order 19/04/11 25/04/11 26/04/11 28/04/11 22/01/14 05/03/14 25/03/14

Explanation for delay: This case is transferred from II AJFCM Court, Eluru on 26/04/2013.

Complainant: The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Denduluru Police Station.

Name of the Accused:

Mulagala China Raju s/o John, 20 years, Mala, Pothunuru, Denduluru Mandal

Offence: Under Section 411 IPC

Cr.No.: 64/2011 of Denduluru PS

Finding: guilty

RESULT: In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code and accused is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. But taking into consideration the report submitted by District Probation Officer and submissions of accused and the nature of the offence, I am inclined to apply the provisions of section 4(1) of PO Act against the accused instead of sentencing them at once to any punishment. The accused is directed tobe released on executing a self bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and he is kept under the supervision of DPO for a period of one year. The accused is directed to appear and receive sentence when called during the above period and in the mean time, the accused is directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The accused is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal against Calendar and Judgment.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru

2. The Superintendent of Police, Eluru.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

(EXCISE) COURT, W.G., ELURU

Present: Smt.M Satya Kumari, B.Sc., LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Spl. Mobile)

FAC/Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Eluru.

Friday, the 06th day of September, 2013

C.C.No.102 of 2013

(Cr.No.58 of 2013 of Pedavegi Police Station)

Between:

State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Pedavegi Police Station …Complainant

AND

Nandipamula Rambabu ...Accused

This case is coming on 04/09/2013 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the complainant and of Sri

K.Visweswara Rao, Legal Aid Counsel for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case is tried against the accused for the offence punishable under section 411 IPC.

2.The brief case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is resident of

Jagannadhapuram and he is a bike mechanic. On 01/03/2013 at about 8.00 P.M., he parked his TVS XL super moped bearing No.6752 infront of his house and he went inside. After half-an-hour when he came out of his house to keep the cycle inside, he found the same was missing.

Then he searched surroundings for his bike and asked the neighbours.

He was informed by his villagers that one Nandipamula Rambabu took the moped. Then he gave Ex.P1 report to the Police. Basing on Ex.P1 report, P.W.3 registered the same as case in Cr.No.58/13 under section 379 IPC and issued Ex.P3 FIR and took up investigation. Then P.W.3 examined P.W.1 in the Police Station and recorded his statement. On the same day, P.W.3 went to the scene of offence situated at the house of P.W.1 in Jagannadhapuram village and prepared Ex.P4 rough sketch 2 of scene of offence. P.W.3 examined L.Ws.2 and 3, Gone

Venkateswara Rao and Lankapalli Rama koti and recorded their statements. On 03/03/2013 at 9.30 A.M., on receipt of credible information, P.W.5 along with mediators P.W.2 and L.W.5

M.Lakshminarayana went to Vangoor Cross roads and there they found the accused under suspicious circumstances. Then they caught hold him and on questioning, he confessed about his identity particulars and also commission of offence. Then they arrested the accused and seized M.O.1 from his possession in the presence of mediators. To that effect, P.W.3 got prepared Ex.P2, mediator report. On the same day at 1.00 P.M., on the confession of the accused, they went to the house of accused at Garlamadugu village and from the lemon garden situated opposite to the house of accused they seized three cycles in

Cr.Nos.55/13, 59/13 and 60/13 in the presence of mediators. On the same day at 3.00 P.M., they brought the accused to the Police Station along with seized articles. On the same day, P.W.5 produced the accused before the court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, P.W.5 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. On 28/03/2013 this case has been taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code.

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

5. On 09/04/2013 the accused was examined under section 239

Cr.P.C. and a charge under section 411 of I.P.C. was framed, read over the charge sheet allegations, explained to him in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1 is de-facto complainant. P.W.2 is an 3 independent mediator. P.W.3 is Investigating Officer. Prosecution marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, on 04/09/2013 the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution is read over and explained to accused in Telugu. After having understood the same, accused denied the incriminating evidence and stated that the said evidence is false.

Accused reported no defence evidence.

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

9.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.P O I N T:

In order to establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1 is de-facto complainant. P.W.1 deposed that on 01/03/2013 at about 8.00 P.M., he parked his TVS XL super moped bearing No.6752 infront of his house and he went inside. After half-an-hour when he came out of his house to keep the moped inside, he found the same was missing. Then he searched surroundings for his bike and asked the neighbours. He was informed by his villagers that one Rambabu took the moped. Accused is the said Rambabu. After searching, he gave Ex.P1, report to the Police. M.O.1 is moped of

P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 and contents of Ex.P.1 are consistent.

11. The evidence of P.W.1 established that M.O.1 was stolen by some unknown offenders.

12. P.W.2 is an independent mediator and he is working as VRO,

Vanguru from 2008. He deposed that on 03/03/2013 when he was in 4 office P.W.3 took him along with his assistant L.W.5 M.Laxminarayan

Rao to Vanguru cross roads. There they found the accused in suspicious circumstances on TVS 50 moped. On seeing the police, the accused tried to skulk away and P.W.3 along with his staff detained him and questioned him. The accused confessed his name and identity particulars. He also confessed that he is committing thefts like cycles etc., and at that time he committed theft of TVS 50 moped which is in his possession and he is trying to sell away the same. He further confessed that he committed theft of some cycles and kept them in lemon garden opposite to his house. Police seized TVS moped and arrested the accused in Cr.No.58 of 2013. To that effect L.W.5

Mendem Lakshminarayana drafted mediator report at 10.30 AM and

L.W.5 also signed on the mediator report. On the same day at 1.00 PM, they proceeded along with accused to the place where the accused kept the cycles and there they found three cycles by covering with plastic gunny bag. Police seized the said three cycles i.e. M.Os.1 to 3 in

Crime Nos. 55, 59 and 60 of 2013 in the presence of mediators.To that effect L.W.5 drafted mediator report. The evidence of P.W.2 who is an independent mediator supported the case of prosecution so far as the confession of accused regarding recovery of stolen property and seizure of M.O.1 by the police from his presence under the cover of

Ex.P-2 mediator report.

13.The evidence of P.W.2 and contents of Ex.P.2 disclosed that

P.W.3 arrested the accused on 03/03/2013 at about 10.30 AM at

Vanguru cross roads. Date, time and place of arrest are consistently deposed by independent mediator P.W.2 and Investigating Officer

P.W.3.

14.The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and contents of Ex.P-2 established that accused found in possession of M.O.1 and they seized M.O.1 from 5 the possession of the accused. During cross-examination no evidence is elicited to doubt the credibility of evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3.

15. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent, cogent and reliable.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 411 of

Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

16. In the result, the accused found guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code and the accused is convicted under section 248 (2) Cr.P.C.

As per the order in Crl.M.P.No.1988/13 dated 24/06/2013, the case property M.O.1 i.e. TVS XL Super moped bearing No.AP 29 AB 6752 was already given to P.W.1 for interim custody. The said order shall be made absolute after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 6th day of September,

2013.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari

Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Spl. Mobile) FAC/Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise) Eluru.

17.Accused is questioned on quantum of sentence. Accused submitted that he is the sole bread earner of his family and he has to look after his family including his children. Hence he prayed the court to take a lenient view.

Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is in judicial custody for 186 days. Hence, he prayed the court to take a lenient view. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused and considering the mitigating circumstances explained by the accused, this court is inclined to take a lenient view.

6

18.Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine amount, accused shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

The remand period of the accused from 04/03/2013 to 05/09/2013 i.e.

186 days shall set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 6th day of September,

2013.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari

Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Spl. Mobile) FAC/Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise) Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

P.W.1 : G.Suneel

P.W.2 : K.Raghunadh Babu

P.W.3 : Sri B.Mohan Rao

For Accused: NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P-1: Report of P.W.1

Ex.P-2 : Mediator report

Ex.P-3 : FIR

Ex.P-4 : Rough sketch

For Accused: NIL

MOs Marked:

M.O.1 : TVS XL super moped.

Id/- M.S.K.

JFCM (SM)

FAC/SJFCM(E) Eluru.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.102/2013 ON THE FILE OF

THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, EXCISE COURT,

ELURU.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence Complaint Apprehension Release Taken Commencement Close sentence or report of accused on bail on file of trial of trial of order 01.03.13 02.03.13 09.04.13 Now in jail 28.03.13 24.06.13 04.09.13 06.09.13

Explanation for delay: No avoidable delay took place.

Complainant : The State : Sub Inspector of Police, Pedavegi Police Station.

S.No. Name of the Father’s name Age Religion Sex Calling Village Mandal Accused Nandipamula Ram Babu, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, 22 years, SC Madiga, Coolli, Garlamadugu village, Pedavegi Mandal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence: Under Section 411 IPC.

Cr.No.58/13

Finding : Guilty.

RESULT: the accused found guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code and the accused is convicted under section 248 (2) Cr.P.C.

As per the order in Crl.M.P.No.1988/13 dated 24/06/2013, the case property M.O.1 i.e. TVS XL Super moped bearing No.AP 29 AB 6752 was already given to P.W.1 for interim custody. The said order shall be made absolute after appeal time.

Accused is questioned on quantum of sentence. Accused submitted that he is the sole bread earner of his family and he has to look after his family including his children. Hence he prayed the court to take a lenient view.

Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is in judicial custody for 186 days. Hence, he prayed the court to take a lenient view. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused and considering the mitigating circumstances explained by the accused, this court is inclined to take a lenient view.

8

Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine amount, accused shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

The remand period of the accused from 04/03/2013 to 05/09/2013 i.e.

186 days shall set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.

Sd/- M.Satya Kumari

Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Spl. Mobile) FAC/Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise) Eluru.

Seal

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G. Eluru.

Copy to accused

Id/- M.S.K.

JFCM(SM)

FAC/SJFCM(E) Eluru.

C.C.No.308 of 2013 1 Spl.Mobile Court, Eluru

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, W.G., ELURU.

Present: Smt.M.Satya Kumari,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Thursday, the 27th day of March, 2014

C.C.No.308 of 2013

Between:

State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town Police Station. …Complainant

AND

1.Penjarla Charan Kalyan

2.Mohd.Rafi

3.Damasetti Sudhakar ... Accused

This case is coming on 27/03/2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of the A.P.P. for the complainant and of Sri K.Ganga Raju, Advocate for accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town Police Station, registered

Cr.No.117/2010 against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 332, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

2. The brief contents of the charge sheet are as follows:

P.W.1 is the de facto complainant. P.W.1 has been working as Home-

Guard 829 in Eluru II Town PS and he is injured in this case. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses. On the intervening night of 31/05/2010/ 01/06/2010 at about 1.15 A.M., A.1 to A.3 and three others gathered near

Samba Siva Bar and Restaurant in Tangellamudi, Eluru, and while they were making nuisance by consuming alcohol, P.W.2 along with P.W.1 who were on

Night Beat duty in Beat No.6 area, came there, saw them and admonished them to go away from there. Except A.1 to A.3, the remaining three persons went away from there. A.1 to A.3 abused P.Ws.1 and 2 in vulgar language,

C.C.No.308 of 2013 2 Spl.Mobile Court, Eluru attacked P.W.1 with beer bottles and beat him with beer bottle. P.W.1 sustained bleeding injury on his fore head. A.1 to A.3 threatened P.Ws.1 and 2 that they would kill them and bury their dead bodies in the canal. On receipt of the information about the attack on police, police personnel rushed there in police jeep, on seeing them, the accused fled away from there. P.W.1 sustained bleeding injury on his fore head and he was admitted to the Government Hospital, Eluru, for treatment. The accused caused hurt to the police personnel who are on night Beat Duty and threatened them with dire consequences. Basing on the hospital intimation along with statement of P.W.1, L.W.9 SI of police registered a case in

Cr.No.117/2010 under sections 332, 506 read with 34 IPC and took up investigation.

3. During the course of investigation, on 01/06/2010 L.W.9 seized blood stained kakhi shirt and pant of P.W.1 at Government Hospital, Eluru, in the presence of mediators L.W.6 Oleti Suresh Kumar and L.W.7 T.Sadasiva Rao and to that effect a mediator report was drafted. There he examined

P.Ws.1 to 3 and L.W.3 Veeranki Rangarao and L.W.4 Antharvedi Sekhar and recorded their statements. On the same day, L.W.9 SI of police visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. L.W.9

SI of police arrested the accused and produced him before the court for judicial remand. L.W.8 Dr.A.C.V.J.Kiran, gave treatment to P.W.1 and issued wound certificate of P.W.1 opining that the injuries sustained by

P.W.1 are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, L.W.9 SI of

Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

4. On 30/11/2011 the case was taken on file for the offence punishable under sections 332, 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC and summonses were issued to the accused for their appearance.

C.C.No.308 of 2013 3 Spl.Mobile Court, Eluru

5. On appearance of A.1 to A.3, on 21/03/2011 copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

6. On 01/07/2013, A.1 to A.3 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the charge under sections 332, 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, A.1 to A.3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P-1 to P.4.

8. Since there is no incriminating material against the accused, Sec.313

Cr.P.C. examination of the accused is dispensed with.

9 Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for accused.

10. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the prosecution proved

the guilt of A.1 to A.3 for the offence punishable under sections 332,

506(ii) read with 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.”

11. P O I N T:

P.W.1 is the de facto complainant and injured. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses.

P.W.1 deposed that on 31/05/2010 when he was on night duty along with P.W.2 at 5th number from 9.00 PM to 7.00 A.M., and at 1.15 AM at

Tangellamudi they went to Sambasiva Bar and restaurant and found six persons consuming alcohol, they asked them to go away. Three of them have gone, but three of them did not go and those three persons abused him and P.W.2 in filthy language and beat him with a broken bottle on his head and he sustained injury on his right eyebrow and then he informed the same to police, he was shifted to Eluru Government Hospital for treatment and police recorded his statement. Ex.P.1 is statement. He further deposed

C.C.No.308 of 2013 4 Spl.Mobile Court, Eluru that he handed over blood stained uniform to the police. MO1 is shirt.

During cross examination by learned APP, he denied a suggestion that he stated to the police as in Ex.P.2. During cross examination by the counsel

for accused he admitted that the Home Guard is not a public servant and he

can not show any proof that he was present at the scene on the date of incident. He further admitted that himself and P.W.2 attended duties in different streets and at the time of incident P.W.2 was not present with him. He further stated that he did not state before the police that his duty timings are from 9.00 PM to 7.00 AM and he did not state before the police that three persons beat him with a broken bottle and he did not state

before the police that his blood stained shirt was seized by the police. He

denied a suggestion that he sustained injuries when he accidentally fell down and falsely filed the present case against the accused.

12. P.W.2 deposed that on 31/05/2010 when he was on night duty along with P.W.1 at 5th beat area, Tangellamudi, from 9.00 PM to 7.00 A.M, at 1.15

AM, they went to Sambasiva Bar and restaurant and found six persons consuming alcohol and making galata. They asked them to go away, three of them have gone, but three of them did not go. He further deposed that he went to the nearby place where some nuisance was going on. Then three persons beat P.W.1 with a bottle on his right eyebrow and he can not identify those three persons. He further deposed that P.W.1 was shifted to

Eluru Government Hospital for treatment in 108 ambulance and as such there was an obstruction to his duties. During cross examination by learned

APP, he admitted that he stated to the police as in Ex.P.3.

13. P.W.3 deposed that at about three years back when he was returning from a function he found that there was a dispute at Tangellamudi, he went

C.C.No.308 of 2013 5 Spl.Mobile Court, Eluru there to see the same and the SI of police came there and enquired about the persons. He does not know the facts of the case and he was examined by the police and he stated the same to the police. During cross examination by learned APP, he denied a suggestion that he stated to the police as in Ex.P.4.

14. P.Ws.2 and 3 who witnessed the incident turned hostile to the case of prosecution. They did not depose any incriminating material against the accused.

15. By stating so, P.W.1 who is injured person turned hostile to the case of prosecution. P.Ws.2 and 3 who are the direct witnesses also turned hostile to the case of prosecution. P.Ws.1 to 3 did not depose any incriminating material against the accused to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under sections 332 and 506(ii) read with 34 of

IPC.

16. As the main/material witnesses turned hostile, the learned A.P.P.

given up the remaining witnesses as no purpose would be served even if they are examined. Though the other witnesses were not invited, as seen from the record, the role of the said witnesses is merely perfunctory in nature. Hence, there is no scrap of evidence against the accused to implicate the complicity for the offence punishable under section 332 and 506(ii) read with 34 IPC.

17. In the facts and circumstance of the case, this court is of the view that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of accused 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under sections 332 and 506(ii) read with 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

C.C.No.308 of 2013 6 Spl.Mobile Court, Eluru

18. In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 332, 506(ii) read with 34 IPC and A.1 to A.3 are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 27th day of March, 2014.

JUDL. MAGISTRATRE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

For Prosecution: For Accused

P.W.1: Penjarla Charan Kalyan NIL

P.W.2: Mohd. Rafi

P.W.3: Damasetti Sudhakar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Accused

Ex.P-1: statement of P.W.1 NIL

Ex.P-2:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1

Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2

Ex.P.4: part of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5

MOs marked:

MO1 blood stained Kaki shirt

J.F.C.M.(Spl. Mobile), Eluru.

C.C.No.308 of 2013 7 Spl.Mobile Court, Eluru

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO: 308/2013 ON THE FILE OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SPECIAL MOBILE COURT:: W.G.,ELURU

Date of Offence Complaint AppreheRelease on CommenClose of Sentence or report nsion of bail -cement trial of Order accused of trial 03/12/11 04/12/11 09/10/12 20/12/11 05/03/14 27/03/14 27/03/14

Explanation for delay: Received by transfer to this court on 08/04/13 from II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

Cr.No. : 117/2010 of Eluru II Town Police Station

Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police Eluru II Town P.S.

Offence : Under section 332, 506(ii) read with 34 IPC

Name of the accused:

1.Penjarla Charan Kalyan, S/o Srinivasa Rao, 23 years. Devanga, lakshmivarapupet, Eluru.

2.Mohd Rafi s/o Yonus, 22 years, Muslim, Tangellamudi, Eluru.

3.Damasetti Sudhakar, s/o Lakshmana Rao, 22 years, SC Madiga Near Balayogi Bridge, Eluru.

Finding: Found not Guilty

Result: In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 332 and 506(ii) read with 34 IPC and A.1 to A.3 are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Seal. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru

2. The Superintendent of Police, Eluru.