1
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
MIRYALAGUDA
Thursday, the 29th day of June, 2017
PRESENT: Smt M. Sobha Rani Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda
C.C.No. 1393 of 2013 Between: The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Miryalaguda II Town Police Station. …. Prosecution AND A.1: Kurra Bala Krishna S/o Ramulu, Age:21 years, Occ:Mason, R/o Ashoknagar, Miryalaguda. A.2: Dhanavath Ramesh S/o Munna Naik, Age:21 years,Occ: Student, R/o Raghavapuram thanda H/o Water tank thanda Village of Miryalaguda. A.3: Shaik Muneer S/o Imam, Age:22 years, Occ: Hotel Worker, R/o H.No.C-7, NSP Camp, Miryalaguda. A.4: Maroju Karthik S/o Brahmma Chary, Age:20 years, Occ: Sentring work, R/o H.No.18-364, Shanthinagar, Miryalguda.
…. Accused
This case is coming up for final hearing before me on 15.06.2017 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri L. Anjaiah, Advocate for Accused, upon hearing on both sides, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda II Town filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.250/2013 for the offence Under Sec.379 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 02.11.2013 at 12.00 hours LW.1-Cherukupally Chandramouli lodged a complaint stating that on 01.11.2013 at 19.00 hours his mother-in-law Sunki
Yellamma was standing in front of his house, meanwhile two unknown offenders came to her and snatched away her gold chain weighing about one tula from her neck. In this regard, on receipt of complaint from
LW.1-Cherukupally Chandramouli, a case in the above crime number was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW.7 recorded the statements of LWs.1 & 2 and visited scene of offence panchanama, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of 2 mediators LWs.3 & 4 and drew rough sketch. Later, on 04.11.2013 he along with his staff conducting vehicle checking at Nandipadu X road,
Miryalaguda, they found the accused came on Glamour motorcycle without number plate from Nandipadu side, on that LW.7 stopped the accused and asked them to show documents, upon which the accused tried to escape, but they were caught hold. Then LW.7 secured the presence of mediators LWs.5 & 6 and recorded confessional statement accused No.3. During confession, A.3 confessed that he is a worker in
Raghavendra hotel, Miryalaguda and also confessed that he along with his friends A.1, A.2 and A.4 decided to commit property offences. A.3 confessed that he along with A.1, A.2 and A.4 went to Ashoknagar,
Miryalguda, while A.3 and A.4 standing at the end of street and noticed one old aged lady standing in front of one house alone, upon which A.1 and A.2 snatched away her gold chain from her neck and fled away. Then
A.1 gave Rs.1000/- each to A.3 and A.4 towards expenses and A.3 and A.4 spent the same. The stolen property kept with A.2. A.3 also confessed other crimes in Cr.Nos.56/2013, 168/2013 and 249/2013. Thereafter, on interrogation A.4 adopted the confession of A.3, as such LW.7 recorded the confessional statement of A.4 in the presence of same mediators. As per the confession of A.3 and A.4, LW.7 along with LWs.5 & 6, A.3 and A.4 and staff proceeded to NSP Camp ground, where A.3 and A.4 shown A.1 and A.2, then LW.7 arrested A.1 and A.2, recorded the confessional statements of A.1 and A.2 in the presence of LWs.5 & 6. Further recovered one gold chain weighing about 10 grams pertains to Cr.No.249/2013 from the possession and at the instance of A.1 and thereafter recovered one gold chain weighting about 10 grams pertaining to this case form the possession and at the instance of A.2 under cover of panchanama in the presence of LWs.5 & 6. Later, effected the arrest of A.1 to A.4 and sent them to court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, LW.8 filed charge sheet.
3. This case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,
Miryalguda, against the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence Under Sec.379
IPC. After assigning case number, the case was made over to this Court for disposal according to Law. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
and accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., Charges under Sec.379 3
IPC and alternatively under Sec.411 IPC have been framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and MO.1.
PW.1 is the complainant, PWs.2 & 3 are the mediators for scene of offence panchanama, PW.4 is victim and mother-in-law of PW.1, PW.5 is one of the mediators for confession and recovery, PWs.6 & 7 are the investigating officers.
5. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under sec.313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.
6. Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and defence counsel.
7. Now the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against them, beyond all reasonable doubt ?
8. P O I N T :
In order to substantiate their case the prosecution had examined PWs.
1 to 7. PW.1 is the complainant for the offence committed by the unknown offenders for the theft of gold chain of his mother-in-law. PW.4 is the victim.
PWs.2 & 3 are the panch witnesses who acted as panchas for Exs.P.2 and P.3.
PW.5 is one of the panch witnesses who acted as panch for the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused. PW.6 is the SI of Police who investigate this case. PW.7 is the Inspector of Police who filed charge sheet.
9. As per PW.1, he stated that about three years back in the afternoon at about 2.00 p.m., while PW.4 was brooming in front of her house, he found raising voice stating that somebody snatched away her gold chain, on that he lodged a complaint before the police.
4
10. PW.4 deposed that PW.1 is her son-in-law and about three years ago during night time some unknown offenders came near to her and committed theft of her gold chain and MO.1 is the gold chain pertains to her and she stated that she cannot identify the said persons.
11. PW.2 panch witness for Exs.P.2 and P.3 who deposed that on 01.11.2013 at 2.00 p.m., police conducted the scene of offence panchanama at the house of PW.4 in respect of gold chain snatching incident and recorded the panchanama and also drawn rough sketch. He signed on both Exs.P.2 and P.3.
12. PW.3 also stated that PW.2 is his land lord and in the year 2013 the police called him to the house of PW.4 with regard to the commission of theft by some unknown offenders. Then he went there along with PW.2 and there the police conducted panchanama and drafted the panchanama and read over the contents in it. He signed on Ex.P.2 panchanama and also Ex.P.3 rough sketch.
13. PW.5 is one of the panch witnesses who acted as a panch for the confessional cum seizure panchanama of the accused, he deposed that about three years ago in the afternoon police called him Nandipad X Roads and in his presence the accused admitted the guilt of snatching away the gold chain from a lady. LW.6 was also present along with him. Police recovered the gold chain from them. Later, he signed on Ex.P.4 panchanama and in his cross examination he sated that he was called by the police to Nandipad X roads over phone. His house is at Yadgarpally. He stated that one Saidulu called him over phone. He admitted that LW.6 and himself were present at the time of panchanama. He stated that no written summons were given by the police to him. He stated that he does not remember from which accused the gold chain was recovered, but the gold ornament is a necklace and he again stated that the confessional statements were recorded of all the accused at
Nandipadu cross roads by the police and SI drafted the panchanama. He stated that he signed on one paper and he denied for the suggestion that as police showed him the accused, outside of the court as such he identified the accused and he denied for the suggestion that no panchanama was conducted and no gold property was seized in his presence.
5
14. PW.6 who is the SI of police deposed that on 02.11.2013 at 12.00 noon
PW.1 came to the police station and lodged a complaint, on that he registered a case and issued Ex.P.5 FIR. Later, he visited the scene of offence and recorded the statement of PW.4 and secured the presence of mediators
PWs.2 & 3 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drawn a rough sketch. He stated that on 04.11.2013 while he was conducting vehicle checking at Nandipad Cross Roads, he found A.1 to A.4 on motorcycles and the accused were using motorcycles which were committed theft during
March, 2013. Then he took the accused into custody, brought them to the police station and on interrogation by him, A.1 and A.2 confessed the offence that they had snatched away gold chain from a lady and he recorded the confessional statements and recovered the gold chain.
15. During the course of cross examination, PW.6 deposed that he registered another case against the accused in Cr.No.56/2013 regarding the theft of motor bike bearing No.AP-24/S-3600 and he denied for the suggestion that no confession statement was recorded by him and no gold chain was seized by him. He also stated that he got weighed the seized item through one Saida Rao, he is also cited as a witness in this case. He stated that he seized the gold chain pertaining to the Cr.No.250/2013 in this case from the back pocket of A.1. He denied for the suggestion that he forcibly recorded the statements of the accused and the accused never confessed.
16. PW.7 is the Inspector of Police who verified the investigation done by
PW.6 and filed the charge sheet and only a suggestion was given to him that he is not properly verified the genuineness of the investigation done by PW.6 and filed charge sheet mechanically.
17. Looking to the evidence as brought on record. PW.4 is the victim and mother-in-law of PW.1, they both stated about committing of theft by some unknown offenders and also stated that they cannot identity the accused. As stated by PW.2, the panchanama was conducted on 01.11.2013 at the scene of offence, both Exs.P.2 and P.3 are conducted only on 02.11.2013. As per
PW.5 he did not stated any date when the confessional panchanama was conducted and he stated that the recovered gold ornament is a necklace, but as per PW.6 it is a gold chain recovered from the pocket of A.1 and it was also marked as MO.1. As per the charge sheet MO.1 is the gold chain only, but not the necklace.
6
18. Looking to the evidence of PW.6, the accused were coming on the motor bikes which were committed theft by them and admitted that they snatched away the gold chain from a lady and the same was reduced by SI of Police into writing which is Ex.P.4 panchanama. Caught holding the accused by PW.6 is true as per the evidence of PW.5 he stated police recorded the confessional statements of all the accused, but PW.5 did not state whose confession was recorded by PW.6. He merely stated that all the accused statements were recorded. As per PW.6 there are four accused, but the confessional statements of A.1 and A.2 are only recorded and other A.3 and A.4 statements were not recorded. PW.5 did not give a clarity that whose statements were recorded by the SI of police and moreover the other panch witness who acted for the confession and recovery is closed by this court.
19. Basing on the panch witness evidence PW. 5 and recovery of the gold chain from A.1 and A.2 shows that the A.1 and A.2 had committed theft of gold chain belongs of PW.4. Basing on the investigating officer only evidence without supporting by the panch witness nor any other independent witness evidence this court cannot come to a conclusion the A.1 and A.2 committed over the gold chain. Hence the case against A.1 to A.4 is not proved. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused. In those circumstances a benefit of doubt is given to the accused and they are not found guilty for the offence under Sec.379 R/w 411 IPC.
20. In the result, accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charge under Sec.379 IPC and alternatively under Sec.411 IPC and they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of (6) months in view of provisions of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. MO.1 returned to PW.4 ordered to be retained with her till expiry of appeal period.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this 29th day of June, 2017.
Sd/-
ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
MIRYALGUDA
7
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW-1Cherukupally ChandramouliComplainant PW-2Namireddy Narsimha Reddy Panch for scene of offence PW-3Kumbham Srinivasa Reddy Panch for scene of offence PW-4Sunki Yellamma Victim & mother-in-law of PW.1 PW-5Kondeti Venkateshwarlu Panch for confession & recovery PW-6Efthekhar Ahmed I.O. & arrested accused PW-7B. Prakash I.O. & filed charge sheet
ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: :: NONE : :
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P-1Complaint filed by PW.1 Ex.P-2Signature of PW.2 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-3Signature of PW.2 on sketch Ex.P-4Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P-5First information report
FOR ACCUSED
NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO.1: Gold chain
Sd/-
ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
MIRYALAGUDA
// TRUE COPY //
ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
MIRYALAGUDA