Smt. M.V.Seshamma

1

IN THE COURT OF THE 1st ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM- 1st

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM.

Present : Smt.M.Venkata Seshamma, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, -cum- 3rd Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Special Mobile Court, FAC/ 1st Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, -cum- 1st Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

Thursday, this the 27th day of September, 2018.

C.C.NO. 601 of 2016

Between: State represented by the Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram. …Complainant.

And :

A.1 Pradhan Satyanarayana @ Satish @ Suresh, S/o Raghunadh, 27 yeas, Panda Brahmin, R/o Door no. 6-594/1, 3rd Ward, Pedagadili, Opposite Polamamba temple, Visakhapatnam City.

A.2 Mahamood Fayes @ Riazz, S/o Usman Ali, 22 years, Muslims (Sunni), Animals skin business, R/o Allipuram, Masizid Veedhi, Visakhaptam, N/o Periamadu, Masieed Street, Chennai-24.

A.3 Chukka Tirumalarao @ Tirumala, S/o Krishna @ Agori Krishna, 28 years, K.Velama, Chinabogili village, Seethanagaram mandal, Vizianagaram District.

(Case against A.1 and A.2 separated and registered CC No. 527/2017 and C.CNO.887/2017 as per docket orders dt. 6.6.2016 and 11.7.2016 respectively) … Accused.

This case is coming on 25.09.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant-State and of Sri S.Jagannadhamnaidu,

Legal Aid Counsel for accused No.3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, I town Police Station, Vizianagaram filed charge sheet against the accused NO.3 in Crime No. 349/2013 for the offences under Sections 392 or 411 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:

On 17.10.2013 at about 3.00 p.m., while (L.W.)2 Varanasi Lakshmikantham was alone in their house situated at cantonment, Vizianagaram, A.1 to A.3 came to her, introduced themselves as City Cable operators and told her that they came to cut cable connection in the upstairs building of their house since the inmates did not pay amount for the last some months. Though she denied allowing them in to the house, accused forcibly 2 entered into the house through back gate, went to the upstairs building, got down one after other, entered into the house on pretext of repairing cable line and put on TV by raising loud sound. One of the accused i.e., A.3 gauged her mouth and covered her face by tying her with bed sheet and cloths and A.2 restrained her by catch holding her legs and forcibly took two rows gold chain from her neck and Sai Baba gold ring from her ears by threatening to kill her if she raises cries. In the mean time, A.1 broke open almyrah kept in the bed room with an iron rod carried by him and robbed away gold ring wg. about ¼ tula, gold necklace wg. about 2 tulas, gold ear studs wg. about ½ tulas, gold step chain wg. about ¼ tula, gold chain studded with Venkataramana locket wg. about two tula, gold ring studded with Vinayaka idol, Sai Baba gold ring, Laxmi devi gold ring, gold ring containing ‘T’

English letter, all these gold rings wg about 1 ¼ tula, gold locket having Omkar Mark, wg.

About ¼ tula, Silver waist thread, silver anklets wg. About 12 tulas and cash of Rs.25,000/- and decamped with booty. Basing on the report of L.W.1 Varanasi Ramakrishna, above crime was registered. During the course of investigation, on 16.11.2013, on information at about 2- 15 p.m., L.w.17 Station House Officer, I Town Police station, Vizianagaram, arrested A.3 near Chinabogili Railway station of Chinabogili village of Seethanagaram Mandal under suspicious circumstances and seized part of the stolen property ie., Saibaba gold ring, gold ring containing Vinayaka idol and one ear stud. On 13.11.2013 at 4-00 p.m. L.W.18

Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Town P.S. arrested A.1 and A.2 at Gold market road,

Anakapalli Town in their Cr.No.378/13 u.sec.384 r/w 511 IPC of Anakapalli P.S. and L.w.17

CH.S.N.Raju, Head constable 1046 seized the stolen property, ie., Gold necklace, one gold ear stud, one gold step chain, two small size silver caskets, one silver bowl, cash Rs.2,400/- from the possession of A.1 and one silver waist thread, one silver bowl, one silver casket, one small silver bowl, one silver gandam ginne, one pair of silver toes and one rold gold bangle from the possession of A.2 concerned in crime No.349/13 u/sec.392 IPC of I Town

P.S. Vizianagaram and they were produced in the Court on PT warrants by L.W.19

K.Ramarao, Inspector of Police and after completion of investigation laid charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence under sections 392 or 411 IPC against the accused No.3.

3

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

5.A.3 was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for offence u/sec. 392 or 411 IPC, having understood the same, he denied the offence. After hearing both sides,

Charges U/s. 392 or 411 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 9 and Exs.P.1 to 12 marked on its behalf and MOs 1 to 14

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, A.3 was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C by explaining incriminating evidence appeared against him, for which he denied the same and he reported no defence on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the points for consideration in this case are,

1. Whether A.3 committed theft of MOs 1 to 14 from iron almyra in the house of PW1 by voluntarily causing hurt to PW2 and the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 392 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. Whether accused No.3 was found in possession of M.Os 1 to 14 having knowledge that the same pertains to stolen property and not accounted for their possession and that thereby committed an offence punishable under section 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

3.Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of accused for the offence u/sec. 392 and 411 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT No.[I & 2] :

10.The learned APP contended that the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 proves about the robbery by committing theft of gold and silver articles in the house of Pw1 and when the theft property MOs 1 to 14 were recovered from the possession of accused, A.1 is liable for the punishment for the offences under section 392 of IPC in view of presumption under section 114[a] of I.E.Act.

4

11.The learned counsel for the accused contended that PW 1 is not direct eye witness and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused was the person who committed theft, hence prayed to acquit the accused.

12. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution had examined P.ws.1 to 9, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and also marked MOs 1 to 14.

13.P.W.1 testified that on 17.10.2013, at 3:30 pm, when he was present in the market purchasing items for his shop, three persons came to his house when her mother (Varanasi Lakshmi kantham-LW.2) was alone present at his house and the said 3 persons stated that they wanted to check the cable wire, even though no one is present in the upstairs, when his mother refused to open the gate, the said three persons threatened that they will remove the gate and come inside and on that his mother opened the gate and when his mother stated that cable wire in their house was in proper condition, the said 3 persons did not heed to her words and they further came inside and put the TV volume high, tied the hands of his mother with chunny, placed some cloth in the mouth of his mother, pushed her to the ground and caught hold of her legs and one of the those persons sat on chest of his mother and by showing a knife, he threatened her with dire consequences if she raise cries and the other 2 persons went into the kitchen, brought a grinding stone, opened the Almira with the help of the grinding stone and committed theft of 9 ¼ tulas of gold ornaments i.e. 2 tulas of gold neck-lace, one gold chain consisting of 2 rows belonging to his mother, two gold rings containing the impression of Saibaba, one

Vinayaka ring, one Lakshmi Devi ring, one ring containing the letter “ST” letters, gold chain with locket weighing about 2 tulas, pair of Ethu golusulu, one pair of gold ear studs, and one gold ear stud (single piece belonging to his mother which was pulled by one of the those persons) and the accused further committed theft of silver items i.e. Silver bowl (uggu ginni), Barina, Big silver bowls-2 Nos., and Rs.25,000/- cash, and ran away with the booty.

Immediately, and he gave report. After 20 days, police informed him that they caught the culprits and that his gold and silver items were recovered, he have identified his items in

Vizianagaram as well as at Anakapalli and out of 9 ¼ tulas, only 5 tulas were recovered and given to him. He admitted that he have given evidence in this Court pertaining to this case 5 and he did not mention in his report that the offenders have come into his house forcibly by opening the gate and deposed that in his report he did not mention that the offenders have sat on his mother catching hold of a knife in their hands and threatened her and deposed that he did not mention in Ex.P.1 report that the offenders have broken open the almira with the help of grinding stone and that at the time of giving report, he did not hand over to the police, the bills or receipts pertaining to our stolen articles and he did not mention in Ex.P.1 that the offenders have gone to the upstairs of their house and after some time they got down and he gave report at 7:00 pm. P.w.1 denied the suggestion that no theft occurred at our house and that he is deposing falsehood and he did not identify Mos 1 to 14 at Vizianagaram or Anakapalli.

14. P.W.2: the mother of the testified that four years back while she was sleeping in the veranda of their house due to her illness and at that time three persons came to their house and asked her to open their gate for going upstairs for cutting the cable wire and on that she asked them to go to upstairs from the rear side gate and she opened the rear side gate and said 3 persons went to upstairs and the said person came inside and bet her on her right cheek by catching hold of her face and pushed her on the ground and the the said person called the other 2 persons and said persons closed her doors inside and one of those persons caught hold of her neck and pressed it while the other person broke the doors of her Almira and the said person sat on her pressed her neck and forcibly took herewith gold ear studs and gold chain, Saibaba ring, rolled gold bangle from her and the accused covered her face with cloth and took away some articles from their Almira. They went away and after that she regained conscious and she took away the rope tied to her hands and she came outside by open the doors and raised cries, their neighbourers called her son and other relatives. Later on, police came to their house she identified the accused, who is present before this court was one of those persons who came to their house on the date of incident. P.w.2 he deposed that he did not state before police that 3 persons came to her house and asked her to open gate to going upstairs and that she asked them to go to upstairs from the rear side gate and even though she was injured by the offenders, and she did not take any treatment in hospital. P.w.2 denied the suggestion that she did not state before the police that she can identify the offenders if shown to her and also denied 6 that the accused is not one of the persons who committed theft at her house and that she is identifying him as the police have shown him to her in this Court.

15.P.W.3: retired Branch Manager, in Manapuram Finance company, deposed that on 4.11.2013, LW.5 Chukka Thrinadh came to his company and pledged one gold chain weighing 22.4 grams for Rs.27,900/- and on 11.11.2013, he gain borrowed an amount of

Rs.43,500/- from their company and on 16.11.2013, I Town Police, Vizianagaram came to their company and questioned him about the said gold ornament and further stated that it is a stolen item and further they have seized the said gold chain (MO.2) from him and he had handed over MO.2 to the police after informing his higher authorities. P .W.3. he he did not hand over any records to the police to show that he was working as Branch Manager of Manapuram Finance Company and deposed that before taking any article on pledge, the said articles will be appraised to know its quality in their company there is no separate appraiser, their staff members will appraise the articles pledged to their company and they did not file any case against the said Chukka Thrinadha for pledging a stolen article in our company and he did not receive any summons in this case, but, police gave telephone call to him. Police did not issue any notice before coming to their office for verifying MO.2.

P.w.3 denied the suggestion that (LW.5) Thrinadha did not pledge any gold chain in their office and that police did not seize MO.2 from their office. P.w.3 admitted that he brought a small paper containing the details of this case.

16.P.W.4: deposed that he know the accused and the accused is his son by courtesy and on 11.11.2013, the accused approached him and asked him to secure some amount by pledging his gold chain stating that he does not have any ID Card and that his mother is sick and accordingly, he approached the Manapuram Gold Company and gave

Rs.43,000/- to the accused by pledging his gold chain and after 5 days, police caught the accused and brought him to him and later he came to know that the gold chain pledged by the accused was stolen one and Police recovered said gold chain from Manapuram Gold in his presence.

17.P.w.4 admitted that the accused does not have financial capacity to have a gold chain and he did not make any enquiries about the ill health of the parents of the accused by questioning any villager and that he did not execute any documents or receipts to 7 show that the accused gave gold chain to him and he did not state before police about the exact design, weight or description of the said gold chain. Police did not issue any notice to him before they seized the gold chain from Manapuram Gold in his presence and he have handed over the receipts given by the Manapuram Gold Company to him while pledging the gold chain and he do nor remember whether he stated the above fact before police or not and even though the Manapuram Gold Company demanded him to pack back the said amount of Rs.43,000/-, they did not file any case to that effect against him and deposed that except the fact that police examined him at the said Manapuram Gold Company, he do not know anything about this case and he did not file any cases against the accused for recovering the said amount of Rs.43,000/-. P.w.4 denied the suggestion that the accused did not pledge any gold chain to him and that he does not have financial capacity to do the same.

18. P.W.5: testified that on 17.10.2013, at 5:30 pm, while he was present near the house of PW.1 who is his friend as some theft was committed at his house, I Town

Police called him and another as mediators for scene observation. Police observed the scene of offense situated at the house of Pw.1 and prepared scene observation report and he along with another persons singed on it as mediators. P.w.5 admitted he have given evidence in the same case about 1 ½ year back, Police did not issue any notice to him requesting him to act as mediator. PW.1 is his friend and he belongs to the same area. Police did not ask him to draft the scene observation report and he does not know the contents of the scene observation report. P.w.5 denied the suggestion that police did not observe the scene of offence in his presence.

19.P.W.6: testified that on 16.11.2013, he along with LW.10-A.Vishnu Murthy and Pw.1 accompanied with some constables to Parvathipuram at 6 to 07-00 pm and police went to Manapuram Gold and came back after some time, they came out and obtained their signatures to the effect that they have seized a stolen chain which was pledged by one

Tirumala Rao who committed theft of the said chain earlier and the said Tirumala Rao was also present in the said Jeep and the accused who is present before this Court was the said

Tirumala Rao who was present along with them. He was declared hostile by the 8 prosecution and cross-examined at length, but nothing was elicited from his cross- examination by learned APP.

20. P.W.8 Head constable testified that on 16.11.2013, on credible information he along with his staff and two mediators viz., PW.6 and Pw.7 proceeded to Chinabhogili

Railway Gate, Sitanagaram mandal on their Jeep, and they could catch only one person and on questioning, the said person revealed his name and they found a paper packet in his pant pocket in which there were two finger rings containing Saibaba and Vinayaka impression, one gold ear ring (single) and when they questioned A3 about the other items he stated that towards his share, he got the above items and one chain and Rs.8,000/- cash and that he had pledged the above said Chain in Manapuram Gold, Parvathipuram through his relative and he further confessed that accused had spent the cash and on that he seized the above said items from his possession under the cover of mediators report and his further confessed that his relative by name Chukka Thrinadh who pledged his gold chain and the said

Thrinadh was also questioned as he stood there while A.3 started running away and he had taken gold chain from A.3 for pledging the same before Manapuram Gold, Parvathipuram and that he contains a receipt to that effect issued by Manapuram gold and the said

Thrinadh had shown the said receipt to them, and from there they went to Parvathipuram to the Manapuram gold company along with A3 and Chukka Thrinadh and after showing the receipt , he seized the said gold chain from the Manager by name P.Suryanarayana (PW.3) under the cover of mediators report.

21. P.w.8 deposed he did not issue any notices to the mediators requesting them to act as mediators and that in the mediators report, except the signatures of the mediators, no other details of the mediators were mentioned and he did not examine any persons from the Chinabhogili Railway gate in this case and that the signature of the A.3 is not affixed anywhere except on the last page margin in Ex.P.5. P.W.8 admitted that in

Ex.P.5 there is correction in the time “14-00” and Ex.P.5 was not drafted by any of the mediators and that there is no mention about the details of the staff members who accompanied him in Ex.P.5 and that he did not prepare any separate seizure list in this case and he did not check the nature of the ornaments seized from A.3 by calling any gold appraiser and that there is no signature of Chukka Thrinadha on Ex.P.5. Even though 9

Chukka Thrinadha stated before him that A3 gave this gold chain stating that his mother is sick and he did not make any inquiries about his mother by going his village and he did not seize any documents showing the Identity proof of Chukka Thrinadha and in Ex.P.6 there are no signatures of any official of Manapuram Gold Company or of Chukka

Thrinadha and that there is no mention in their Records that a gold chain weighing 22.42 grams was missing from the defacto complainant and he have not filed any documents to show that he have seized Ex.P.7 from Manapuram Gold Company.

22. P.W.9: Sri K.Rama Rao, Inspector of Police, East Sub division, visakhapatnam city, deposed that on 17.10.2013 he took up investigation in Cr.No. 349/13 u/s. 392 IPC from Lw.16-S.Dhanunjaya Rao, SI of police, I town Ps who registered the crime on 17.10.2013 at 5:00 pm basing on the report of PW.1 and after taking up investigation he had examined PW.1 in police station and recorded his statement and on the same day he proceeded to the scene of offence situated at the house of PW.1 at Cantonment near Pipal tree, observed the same in the presence of mediators i.e. PW.5 and LW.8-Feroz Khan and drew rough sketch and thereafter he contacted the Clues Team who visited the scene of offence and took chance prints and he had examined PW.2, Lw.3-Varanasi Jaya Lakshmi,

Lw.4-A.Hymavathi and recorded their statements and on 13.11.13 he received phone message from Anakapalli police station about the arrest of the A1 and A2 in Cr.No. 378/13 of their police station and also about seizure of the part of the property pertaining to this case and

PW.8 arrested A.3 and on 30.12.2013 he had got conducted Identification parade of seized property before Lw.13-B.Suri Babu and Lw.14-T.Muralidhara Rao and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

23. P.w.9 deposed that he have given evidence in this case against A1 and admitted that he do not know whether the said case against A1 ended with an acquittal or not and that PW.1 and Pw.2 did not state before him that they can identify the culprits if shown to him and that he have not examined any neighbourers who were shown in rough sketch and that he did not issue any notice to the mediators asking them to conduct identification parade of the seized property and that in the mediators report there is no mention about the details of the mediators and that there is no mention in the scene 10 observation report that the Clues Team came to the scene of offence and that there is no mention in the scene observation report that photographs were taken at the scene of offence.

24.In order to prove the offence u/sec 392 IPC, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Pws.1 and 2. Whereas, the defendant draw the attention of this court to the admissions of PWs1 and 2. The admissions made by Pw1 in his evidence shows that the Ex.P1 report suffer from material omissions such offenders came to house in force, and he did not mention the offenders have sat on her mother catching hold of a knife in their hands also did not mention that offenders broke open the almyrah with the help of grinding stone. In this case it is not the evidence of PW2 that the accused are known persons and in such circumstance, the prosecution shall conduct test identification parade of the accused, but failed to do so. The date of offence is 17.10.2013 and date of evidence in respect of this accused is 12.09.2017 and PW2 is aged 63 years.

In such circumstance the identification of accused by PW2 in feared manner ater lapse of 4 years creates doubt. The contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and 2 and material omissions in the evidence, and in view of not conducting test identification parade of the accused, and there is no other circumstantial evidence such as treatment of PW1 for her injuries at Hospital, this court is reluctant to accept the version of prosecution on this aspect. In this case through the evidence of PWs1 to Pw4, the prosecution proved theft of MO1 to 14 from the house of Pws.1 and 2. So, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence u/sec. 392 IPC.

25With regard to recovery of MO1 to 14 from the possession of accused in order to attribute the offence, the prosecution relied ;upon the evidence of

PWs6 and PW7. PWs6 and PW7 the independent mediators for the arrest of accused, seizure of property, turned hostile, they did not support the case of prosecution and PWs6 and PW7 only signed on reports, but they did not support the alleged seizure. So, the evidence of PW.9 Investigation though deposed about arrest of accused and seizure of MOs1 to 14 from the possession of accused in pursuance of confession, when the same is not supported by any one, it can be safely held that the confession of accused hit by section 25, 26 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and there is no proper compliance of section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. The seizure of chain from Pws 3 and 4 was not seized under any mediators reports in the presence of mediators, hence, that recovery was not supported with any independent witness. So, in this case the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of Mos1 to 14 from the possession of accused.

11

26.So, in this case though the prosecution proved the theft of Mos1 to 14 from the house of PWs1 and pW2, but failed to prove the alleged recovery from the possession of accused. So, the points 1 and 2 are answered in favour of defence against the prosecution.

27.In the result, the accused No.3 is found not guilty for the charges under sections 392 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, A3 is acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. Accused No.3 is ordered to be released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other cases. The case against 2nd accused is pending vide CC.No.887/2017, whereas case against 1st accused was disposed off vide CC.No.527/2014, dated: 03.11.2016, wherein the property order with respect to MOs1 to 14 is passed in Judgment of CC.No.527/2014. Accused

No.3 is directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) under section 437-A Cr.P.C to appear before the appellate court, if any appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of September,2018.

Sd/-M.Venkata Seshamma,

Judicial. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, FAC/ Addl. Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:- For Defence:- None. P.W.1: Varanasi Ramakrishna

P.W.2: Varanasi Laxmikantam

P.W.3: Pattika Suryanarayana

P.W.4: Chukka Trinadham.

P.W.5: Joga Hari Krishna.

P.W.6: Tompala Rambabu.

P.W.7: A.Vishnu Murty

P.W.8:Chinthalapati Suryanarayaanraju

P.W.9: K.Ramarao

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.6 on the Certified copy of mediators report,dt.16.11.2013

Ex.P.2: Certified copy of mediators report dt.16.11.2013.

Ex.P.3: Signature of P.w.7 on the certified copy of mediators report, dt.16.11.2013 at 2.15 p.m

Ex.P.4: Signature of P.w.7 on the certified copy of mediators report, dt.16.11.2013 at 5.00 p.m

Ex.P.5: Mediators report dt.16.11.2013 at 2.15 p.m 12

Ex.P.6: Mediators report dt.16.11.2013 at 5.00 p.m

Ex.P.7: Receipt dt.11.11.2013 loan No.0122720700004178 issued by Manapuram Finance Limited.

Ex.P.8 Certified copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.349/2013

Ex.P.9: Certified copy of Scene observation report in Cr.No.349/2013.

Ex.P.10: Certified copy of rough sketch.

Ex.P.11: Certified copy of identification parade dt.30.12.2013.

Ex.P.12: Certified copy of mediators report dt.27.11.2013.

For Defence:- N I L –

M.Os.Marked MO1: Gold ring containing Saibaba Idol MO2: Gold ring containing Vinayaka idol MO3: One gold ear stud MO4: Two rows gold chain MO5: Gold necklace MO6: One gold long ear stud MO7: One ethugolusu MO8: One silver bowl MO9: Silver gandapu ginne MO10: 3 silver kumkum barinis MO11: One silver molathadu MO12: Two silver muvvalu MO13: One artificial bangle MO14: Cash of Rs. 2,400/-.

Sd/-M.Venkata Seshamma,

Judicial. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, FAC/ Addl. Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram.

13

Calendar and Judgment Calendar cases tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence: 17.10.2013 Date of report or complaint: 26.10.2017 Date of apprehension of accused: 19.11.2013 (on execution of PT Warrant) Date of release, if any on bail: In jail Date of commencement of trial: 05.09.2017 Date of close of trial: 20.09.2018 Date of sentence or order : 27.09.2018 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for delay and remarks:- The prosecution did not produce its witnesses from time to time, and hence the delay in disposal of the case. Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 601/2011 on the file of the Addl., Judicial

Magistrate of I the Class, Vizianagaram.

Complainant:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, I town Police Station, Vizianagaram in Cr.Nos.349/2013. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Age Father’s Name A.1 Pradhan Satyanarayana @ Satish @ Suresh 27 years Raghunadh

A.2 Mahamood Fayes @ Riazz

A.3 Chukka Tirumalarao @ Tirumala, S/o Krishna @ Agori Krishna, 28 years, K.Velama, Chinabogili village, Seethanagaram mandal, Vizianagaram District. (Case against A.1 and A.2 separated and registered CC No. 527/2017 and C.CNO.887/2017 as per docket orders dt. 6.6.2016 and 11.7.2016 respectively) officence: Punishment for robbery u/sec.392 IPC Dishonestly receiving stolen property u/sec. 411 IPC

Finding:- Not guilty for offence u/S.392 or 411 IPC.

Sentence:- The accused No.3 is found not guilty for the charges under sections 392 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, A3 is acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. Accused No.3 is ordered to be released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other cases. The case against 2nd accused is pending vide CC.No.887/2017, whereas case against 1st accused was disposed off vide CC.No.527/2014,

dated: 03.11.2016, wherein the property order with respect to MOs1

to 14 is passed in Judgment of CC.No.527/2014. Accused No.3 is directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) under section 437-A Cr.P.C to appear before the appellate court, if any appeal is preferred.

Sd/-M.Venkata Seshamma,

Judicial. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, FAC/ Addl. Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE)

VIZIANAGARAM.

Present: Smt M.Venkata Seshamma, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile)­cum­ II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

Monday, the 8th day of July, 2019.

C.C. No.885/2017

Between: 

State Represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station, Vizianagaram. ...…Complainant

And: Amballa Polayya, S/o. late Jogayya, aged 44 years, Hindu, Gopalapuram village, Palakonda Mandal, Srikakulam District. ....… Accused

This case coming on 04.07.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of Complainant/ State represented by the police and of Sri G. Mannu, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station,

Vizianagaram filed charge sheet in Crime No.260/2017 against sole accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304­A of Indian Penal

Code.

02.The case of the Prosecution in brief, is that:

On 4.9.2017 at about 10.45 PM, Marri Raj Shekar (Deceased), LW1 to 3 i.e., Marri Rajesh, Kiottapalli Mosha, Belagapu

Chakri, Marri Raju and some others attended the Ganesh idol

Nimmarshan procession and the procession was proceeding from

Stadium colony to Dharmapuri road side and when it reached near ice factory junction, ring road, Vizianagaram and when Marri Raj Shekar 2 (Deceased) was crossing the road with a view to purchase water packet at the pan shop, the accused driver of APSRTC hire Bus bearing No. AP 35X 8034 coming from Balaji junction side in a rash and negligent manner, high speed and without blowing horn dashed Raj Sekhar’s head and caused severe bleeding head injury as a result, the deceased fell on the road and the back tire of the bus partially ran over on his head and caused severe crush head injury to that effect. LW1­Marri Rajesh who is the brother of the deceased shifted the deceased to Tirumala Hospital,

Vizianagaram where the doctors declared that he was brought dead. LW2 and 3 (Kottapalli Mosha and Belagapu Chakri) witnessed the occurrence, on hearing the big sound, LW4­Eagala Suresh rushed to the spot, LW5­

Marri Raju who came to know the occurrence, rushed to the spot, LW6­

Nathalla Kavili was present at the time of inquest held over the dead body of the deceased, LW7­Kagana Polinaidu is the owner of the crime vehicle,

LW8­Polipilli Srinivasa Rao is the photographer who took photographs to the dead body of the deceased, LW9 and 10 (Mamidisetti Somaraju and

Yerramsetti Pydi Raju are panchayatdars. LW11 and 12 (Rampam

Nageswara Rao and Addanki Srinu) are the mediators for scene observation. Basing on the report of LW1­Marri Rajesh, the SI of Traffic

Police Station, Vizianagaram registered the case and during the course of investigation, he examined witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and observation report, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at

Government Hospital, Vizianagaram and on 6.9.2017 he served 41(1)(a)

Cr.P.C., notice upon the accused and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet.

3

03. After perusal of the record, the case was taken on file for the offence under Sections 304­A IPC against the accused.

04.On appearance of the accused before this Court, copies of case documents have been furnished to the accused under Section 207

Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., and the sum and substance of charge sheet contents are read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

05. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Ex.P­1 to P­8. The accused is examined under section 313 CrPC and he denied the incriminating material against him in prosecution evidence and stated that he never drove RTC bus in rash and negligent manner. On the date of accident as the immersion procession of Lord Vinayaka idol was going on and there was huge crowed of people were moving at the scene of offence, there is no possibility for me to drive the bus in rash and negligent manner. But when the deceased came from the crown in hurried manner and while he was crossing the road for water packet, accident occurred. Only to claim insurance to the family members of the deceased, this false case is filed against me as I am RTC Bus driver and reported no witnesses to be examined for his defence, hence defence evidence is closed and matter is posted for arguments. 

06. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

07.The argument of Learned APP is that the accused drove the crime vehicle APSRTC hire Bus bearing No. AP 35X 8034 in rash and 4 negligent manner and responsible for the death of deceased and accordingly the witnesses clinchingly and categorically proved the genesis of occurrence of accident and PW1 to 3 identified the accused as the driver of the auto on that day and PW4 who is the owner of the crime vehicle deposed in his evidence that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of alleged accident and he surrendered the accused

before the police for the alleged accident. The Learned APP further argued

that all the independent eye­witnesses categorically support the case of prosecution case coupled with medical and other evidence also categorically support the version of prosecution that accused drove the vehicle with a rash and negligent manner and responsible for the death of the deceased. To substantiate the contention of the prosecution case the medical evidence as well as MVI report clearly established the guilt of the accused to prove that accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and responsible to the death of the deceased, hence to punish the accused under sections 304­A IPC.

08The Learned Counsel for the defence argued that the present case is foisted against the accused for insurance benefit of the deceased family though there is no rash and negligent manner by the accused, and scene of offence is at Ice Factory Junction, Ring Road, Vizianagaram where huge crowd of people were moving at the scene of offence in view of immersion procession of Lord Ganesh idol, hence there is no chance of driving the vehicle with speed at that time as such there is no scope for any rash and negligent driving by the accused and as the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against this accused, hence to acquit the accused.

09. Now, the points for determination are: ­ 5

1)Whether the accused was driver of APSRTC hire Bus bearing No. AP 35X 8034 at the time of alleged accident on 04.09.2017?

2) Whether the accused drove APSRTC hire Bus bearing No. AP 35X 8034 in rash and negligent manner and caused death of deceased/Marri Rajasekhar in the accident occurred on 04.09.2017?

3)Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304­A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

4)To what relief ?

10.Point No. 1 :­ 

This Court has perused the entire evidence and other material available on record. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8.

11. To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Sec.304­A the prosecution has to prove that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle APSRTC hire Bus bearing No. AP 35X 8034 on 04.09.2017 and that he drove it in rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased/Marri Raja Sekhar in the alleged accident on that day near by Ice Factory Junction, Vizianagaram.

12.As per the evidence of PW4/owner of the crime vehicle, the accused in this case was surrendered by PW4 before the police and the SI of Traffic PS, Vizianagaram served notice u/sec.41(A) Cr.P.C. on the accused and released him. Further the accused did not deny that he was driver of the alleged APSRTC hire Bus bearing No. AP 35X 8034 on 04.09.2017 at the time of alleged accident. As such, the factum that accused is driver of said crime vehicle on the date of alleged accident on 04.09.2017 was established. Accordingly point No.1 is decided in favour of prosecution.

6

13.Points No.2 and 3 : 

P.W.1 is defacto complainant and brother of the deceased/Marri Rajasekhar. His evidence is that on 4.9.2017 at about 8.00 pm he along with his two brothers including the deceased and with some of our villagers participated in vinayaka immersion procession from

Stadium colony and when they reached Ice­factory junction by 10.45 pm, then his deceased brother Rajasekhar while trying to cross the road for having some water packets, then one RTC Hired bus bearing No is AP 35

X 8034 coming from Balaji junction towards Dasannapeta hit his brother

Rajasekhar from front side, then he was dragged inwards to the bus and his body came out side from back tires and immediately they shifted into

Tirumala Hospital, Vizianagaram and doctors there declared him as already died. He witnessed the alleged bus accident which is due to negligent act of driver of the said bus as he drove the bus even without blowing any horn inspite of huge procession just beside the road. He identified the accused sitting in the Court hall as the driver of the said

RTC bus bearing No AP 35 X 8034 on the alleged date of accident.

Thereafter, he gave report to Police. He being brother of deceased also attended inquest of the dead body of the deceased along with other relatives and some of our villagers which was held at Vizianagaram

District Government Hospital. The evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 who participated in the immersion procession is in total corroboration with that of PW.1

PW1 admitted that the immersion procession is with about 70 members of their Stadium colony and the scene of offence I.e., Ice­ factory junction is busy locality.

7

14.PW2 deposed in his evidence that the deceased/Marri

Rajasekhar is resident of their street only. he also knew P.W.1 who is brother of deceased. On 4.9.2017 at about 8.00 pm he along with some other residents of their locality participated in Vinayaka Immersion procession from Stadium colony and when they reached Ice­factory junction by 10.45 pm, then the deceased­Rajasekhar was trying to cross the road for having some water packets, then one RTC Hired bus No is

AP 35 X 8034 from Balaji junction towards Ryotbazar hit deceased

Rajasekhar from front side, then he was dragged inwards to the bus and his body came out side from back tires and some of them immediately rushed to him and P.W.1 and they shifted the deceased/Rajasekhar to

Tirumala Hospital, Vizianagaram and doctors there declared him as already died. He witnessed the alleged bus accident which is due to negligent act of driver of the said bus as he drove the bus with speed though it is four road junction and he identified the accused sitting in the

Court hall as the driver of the said RTC bus bearing No AP 35 X 8034 on the alleged date of accident. Thereafter his brother/P.W.1 gave report to

Police in this case. He attended inquest over the dead body of the deceased along with his other relatives and some of their villagers at

Vizianagaram District Government Hospital. 

PW2 admitted that at that time, the gathering is about 100 members. He admitted that the scene of offence ie., Ice­factory junction is busy locality. Police examined him at District Government Hospital,

Vizianagaram.

15.PW3 deposed that the deceased/Marri Rajasekhar is resident of our street only. On 4.9.2017 at about 8.00 pm he along with some other residents of their locality participated in Vinayaka immersion 8 procession from Stadium colony and when they reached Ice­factory junction by 10.45 pm, then the deceased Rajasekhar was trying to cross the road to go to a pan shop, then one RTC bus No is AP 35 X 8034 from

Vizianagaram to Palakonda proceeding from RTC Complex towards

Dasannapeta hit deceased Rajasekhar from front side, then he was dragged inwards to the bus and his body came out side from back tires and some of them immediately rushed to him and P.W.1 and they shifted the deceased/Rajasekhar to Tirumala Hospital, Vizianagaram and doctors there declared him as already died. He witnessed the alleged bus accident which is due to negligent act of driver of the said bus as he drove the bus with high speed. He identified the accused sitting in the Court hall as the driver of the said RTC bus bearing No AP 35 X 8034 on the alleged date of accident. He attended inquest of his dead body along with his other relatives and some of our villagers and the said inquest was held at Vizianagaram District Government Hospital.

PW3 admitted that at that time, the gathering is about 50 to 60 members. He did not state to Police that bus is from Vizianagaram to

Palakonda. He stated to Police that the driver of said RTC Bus was skid away from that place.

16.PW4 who is the owner of the crime vehicle deposed that he is the owner of the Bus bearing No AP 35 X 8034, and his bus hired to

Palakonda APSRTC Depot, Srikakulam District and the said bus met with an accident at about one year ago at Dharmapuri Junction, Vizianagaram and accused is the driver of the said RTC Bus at the time of alleged accident and he surrendered the accused before the Police for the alleged accident and he furnished the relevant documents of the said bus to the

Police when they requested him. He admitted in cross­examination that 9 he does not know any facts as to alleged accident of the bus, but he denied the suggestion that he is deposing false.

17.PW5 deposed that on 04.09.2017 at about 11.00 pm the procession of Lord Vinayaka was going on in connection with

Vinayakachaviti and that at that time he is closing his Venkateswara Pan shop as he attended it on that date, in absence of his uncle/Duvvi

Satyanarayana and one person was hit by a RTC Bus bearing No AP 35 X 8034 coming from Balaji junction towards Dasannapeta and he sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head and he was shifted to Hospital by his brother P.W.1. He identified the accused who is sitting in the Court hall as the driver of said RTC Bus at the time of accident near by his pan shop. The alleged accident took place due to speed driving and without blowing any horn and on the next day, he came to know that the said injured died.

PW5 admitted that there are huge number of people as

Gajapathi procession was going on at the time of alleged accident on the occasion of Vanayaka Chaviti. Two police persons came to his pan shop and examined him on the next day at about 10.30 am I.e., on 5.9.2017.

He stated to Police that on the date of alleged accident, he was at his uncle’s pan shop. He admitted that I has not seen the accused at scene of accident, but he had seen him for the first time at Court hall.

18.All PW 1 to 3 and 5 identified the accused who was present in the Court hall was the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of the accident and categorically stated that due to the rash and negligent driving of accused, the accident was occurred and the deceased­Marri

Rajasekhar died on that day.

10

19.PW6 deposed that he knew deceased/Marri Rajasekhar as he is resident of their street only and he died in a road accident on 4.9.2017 at Ring Road, Vizianagaram and he was present at the time inquest over the deceased dead body at Government Hospital, Vizianagaram along with his blood relatives and it was resolved that the deceased died due to injuries in a RTC Bus Accident and Police drafted inquest report/Ex.P2.]

PW6 admitted that inquest over dead body was held at

Maharaja Hospital, Vizianagaram in presence of about 20 persons. Police obtained signatures of about four or five persons on inquest report. 

20.PW7 deposed that he is petty vendor of selling coconuts at

Ice­factory, Dharmapuri Road Junction, Vizianagaram. At about one year and three months ago, in early hours on one day, he observed some bleeding marks at divider of the road at Amaravathi Food Court, at Ice­ factory junction . At about 9.00 am, on the same day, police visited scene of offence and observed scene of offence in his presence and at that time,

L.W.12/Addanki Srinu who also do same business at the same place also present. Thereafter scene observation report/Ex.P.3 was drafted by the

Police on which his signature and as well as the signature of said Addanki

Srinu/L.W.12 was obtained. The police took photographs of the scene of offence in their presence.

He admitted that he is present, as he is doing business nearby the place. He does not know who scribed the scene observation report/Ex.P.3. 

21.PW8/M.V. Inspector deposed that On 6.9.2017 he inspected

RTC Hired Bus bearing No.AP 35 X 8034 and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the said vehicle.

11

22.PW9 deposed that on 05.09.2017 he conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased/Marri Rajasekhar in Mortuary at

Government Hospital, Vizianagaram and found head shows crush injury from side to side (laterally) with left eye empothalmic and right eye ball extruded out with optic nerve, multiple regular fractures of all skull bones with crushed brain parevenchyma and diffuse bleed in epi and sub­dural spaces, right clavicle fractures and multiple rib fractures from 3rd to 7th at outer 1/3rd, fracture of right femur at middle 1/3rd with diffuse swelling of thigh and two abrasions 8 x 4cm and 3 x 2 cm over left knee medium size. He opined that the approximate of death with in 8­24 hours prior to postmortem examination and probable cause of death to the best of my knowledge that the above deceased due to cordio respiratory arrest secondary to crush injury of vital organ brain due to head injury.

Accordingly I issued postmortem certificate/Ex.P5.

23.PW10 the Investigating Officer deposed that on 05.09.2017 at 1.00 am, P.W.1 presented written report to him and basing on the report of P.W.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.260/2017 U/Sec.304­A and on the same day at about 7.00 am, he visited the scene of offence and observed the same in the presence of mediators P.W.7 and L.W.12 and got drafted scene observation report./Ex.P.3 and also rough sketch of scene of offence/Ex.P.7. Thereafter he proceeded to Government Hospital,

Vizianagaram and proceeded with inquest of deceased dead body in the presence of P.W.6 and L.W.10/Pydiraju and in the presence of blood relatives of deceased and inquest/Ex.P.4 was prepared and obtained their signatures. After inquest at hospital, he examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and recorded their detailed statements. They got photographed the deceased dead body through which filed along with charge sheet. On 6.9.2017 he 12 served served Notice U/Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C. on accused and after receiving postmortem certificate/Ex.P.5 and MVI Report/Ex.P.4, and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused in this case.

PW10 admitted that on receiving report of P.W 1 only, he started the investigation in this case by proceeding the scene of offence.

He did not immediately proceed to scene of offence as it was already midnight by 1.00 am and due to not having proper lightings at scene of offence. As per report/ExP.1, the dead body was already shifted to MR

Hospital, Vizianagaram. The crime vehicle was not at scene of offence, when they visited there. He admitted that already RTC Department persons moved the crime vehicle ie., RTC Bus to Police Station due to tensions situated at scene of offence. The same was not mentioned in charge sheet. He admitted that RTC people cannot move the crime vehicle i.e., RTC bus to Police Station from scene of offence.

24.As per the contention of the prosecution case, accused is the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP 35X 8034, he drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and responsible for the death of deceased and accordingly the witnesses clinchingly and categorically proved the genesis of occurrence of accident at Ice Factory junction, Vizianagaram who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and responsible for the death of the deceased and PW1 to 5 and 5 identified the accused as the driver of the RTC Bus on that day drove but in negligent manner and hit the deceased at scene of offence. The Learned APP further argued that all independent eye­witnesses categorically supported the case of prosecution case coupled with medical and other evidence also categorically support the version of prosecution that accused drove the 13 vehicle with a rash and negligent manner and responsible for the death of the deceased. All evidence categorically and clinchingly proved that the accused is the responsible for the death of the deceased. To substantiate the contention of the prosecution case all medical evidence as well as MVI report clearly established the guilt of the accused to prove that accused drove the vehicle with a rash and negligent manner and responsible to the death of the deceased, hence to punish the accused under section 304­A IPC.

25.The Learned Counsel for the defence argued that the present case is foisted against the accused for insurance benefit of the deceased family, though there is no rash and negligent manner by the accused, and procession of Lord Vinayaka Idol was going on at that time and lot of crowed was there at the scene of offence as such there is no scope for any rash and negligent driving of RTC Bus by the accused, and that even the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased admitted in cross­examination that he cannot say whether the deceased was drunk when he was died and this case is filed falsely against accused for getting insurance though the accied did not commit any offence nor drove bus in rash and negligent manner and as the prosecution could not prove their case beyond reasonable doubt against this accused, hence to acquit the accused. 

26.As per the contention of the defence the scene of offence is admittedly covered by huge crowed as immersion process of Vinayaka Idol was going on, hence question of rash and negligent act or driving by the accused being driver of the RTC Bus does not arise. But the Investigating

Officer/PW.10 denied suggestion that there is no chance for accused being driver of RTC vehicle to drive the bus in rash and negligent manner, 14 as there will be huge crowd in the Ganesh procession on the occasion of

Vinayaka Chaviti at the scene of offence. Further when the entire prosecution is in total corroboration of prosecution case, then even if there is huge crowed it cannot be concludes that the driver did not drove the bus in rash and negligent manner resulting into death, because speed is not the sole criteria for alleged accident. Hence this argument of defence is not sustainable in the present facts and circumstances and in view of direct prosecution evidence of PW.1 to 3 and 5.

27. It is well settled principle of law that when material eye­ witnesses are supported the version of prosecution case and not scattered by defence with regard to genesis of occurrence. In such circumstances, mere defective investigation is not a ground to discard the entire case of prosecution in toto, If it is otherwise admissible. The court must see whether prosecution evidence is supported by prosecution case with cogent manner to be considered and in this case evidence of PW1 to 3 and 5, who participated in procession of Ganapathi Idol, is very much supporting the version of prosecution case about rash and negligent driving of accused resulting into death of deceased. 

28.In this case, prosecution evidence who are PW1 to 7 categorically supported the prosecution case about genesis of occurrence i.e alleged accident on 04.09.2017 at 10.45 p.m. near near Ice Factory

Junction, Vizianagaram coupled with medical evidence of postmortem certificate of the deceased supporting the case of prosecution that deceased died due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to crush injury of vital organ brain due to head injury mentioned in their PM certificate/Ex.P5. 

15

29. As per settled principles of law in 304­A IPC cases, the fact of genesis speaks the truth to show that accused is the driver of crime vehicle i.e., RTC Bus and he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and responsible for the death of the deceased. In this case also, all documentary evidence coupled with PWs.1 to 3 and 5 who are the eye­ witnesses in this case who categorically supported the version of prosecution case that accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and responsible for the death of deceased and all of them identified the accused as the driver to the crime vehicle at the time of accident on that particular day. Therefore, the evidence of prosecution positively and clinchingly proved that accused drove the crime vehicle i.e.,

APSRTC hire Bus bearing No. AP 35X 8034 with a rash and dashed against the deceased and responsible for the death of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly the points 2 and 3 are answered in favour of the prosecution.

30.POINT NO.4 : “To what relief?'

In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence u/s 304­

A of IPC and accordingly, he is convicted u/s 255 (2) Cr.P.C., for the said offence.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected, signed

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8th day of July, 2019.

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE), 

 ­CUM­II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

VIZIANAGARAM. 

31.Heard the learned APP and counsel for accused with regard to quantum of sentence for proved offence under sections 304­A of IPC.

16

The learned APP submitted that due to rash and negligence of accused, death to the deceased­Marri Raja Sekhar occurred, hence to punish him to the total extent of the punishment provided by law for the said offence and accordingly he is convicted u/sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. and also for fine and compensation to victim. When questioned about quantum of sentence, the accused submitted that whenever he goes for driving duty, then only my family members will eak their livelihood and further submitted that he is having wife who is suffering from sever ailment and he is also having children who are prosecuting their studies and pleaded mercy of this court by reducing the imprisonment. Hence to consider his position while imposing the sentence and fine, the counsel for accused also submitted same as above and to consider him and impose sentence against him by taking lineant view. In view of nature of offence and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to invoke Provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, Considering the poor financial condition of accused as submitted during hearing on quantum of sentence, this court deems it proper to impose fine as permitted by law as per relevant section for which he is convicted and out of the fine amount for payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased­

Marri Rajasekhar. 

32.Hence the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay fine of Rs.6,000/­ (Rupees six thousand only) in default of fine payment to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable u/sec.304­A IPC. Out of fine amount of Rs.6,000/­, Rs.5,500/­ (Rupees five thousand and five hundred) is to be paid to the legal heirs of deceased­Marri Rajasekhar. The remand period of accused from 18.12.2017 to 09.01.2018 i.e., 23 days shall be given set off under section 17 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. Conviction recorded in open Court. The accused is appraised of his right to appeal. Free copy of Judgment is furnished forthwith.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected, signed

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8th day of July, 2019.

Sd/­ M. Venkata Seshamma

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE) ­ CUM­ II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIZIANAGARAM. 

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence P.W.1 :­ Marri Rajesh­ None ­ P.W.2:­ Kothapalli Mosha P.W.3 :­ Belagapu Siva Chakri P.W.4:­ Kagana Poli Naidu P.W.5:­ Eegala Suresh P.W.6:­ M. Soma Raju. P.W.7:­ R. Nageswwara Rao P.W.8:­ M. Suresh Kumar, MV Inspector P.W.9:­ Dr. N. Ratna Kumari, CAS. P.W.10:­B. Sagara Babu, Sub­Inspector of Police.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1:­ Report of P.W.1 dated 05.09.2017 Ex.P.2:­ Inquest report dated 05.09.2017 Ex.P.3:­ Scene observation report dated 5.9.2017 Ex.P.4:­ M.V.Inspector’s report dated 06.09.2017 Ex.P.5:­ Postmortem certificate dt.5.9.2017. Ex.P.6: FIR in Cr.No.260/2017 Dt.5.9.2017 Ex.P.7:­ Rough sketch of scene of offence dt.5.9.2017 Ex.P.8: Five photographs along with CD For Defence : ­Nil­ Material Objects Marked ­ Nil – 

Sd/­ M. Venkata Seshamma

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE), 

­CUM­II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

VIZIANAGARAM.

1

 IN THE COURT OF THE 1st ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS­CUM­

1st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM.

Present : Smt.M.Venkata Seshamma, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, ­cum­ 3rd Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Special Mobile Court, FAC/ 1st Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, ­cum­ 1st Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

 Wednesday, this the 26th day of September, 2018.

C.C.NO. 68 of 2017

Between:

The State represented by Sub­inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Vizianagaram.… Complainant.

And:

Korada Surya Prakash, s/o. Mohan Rao, aged about 40 years, Native of Kinthali village, Pondhuru mandal, Srikakulam district, Residence at Irrigation colony, Jaipur, Odessa State. … Accused.

This case is coming on 25.09.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant, and of Sri

S.Jagannadham Naidu, Legal Aid counsel, and having perused the material on record, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following :­

J U D G M E N T 

01. The Sub­inspector of Police, Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.160/2016 of Rural Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 382,356 or 411 of Indian Penal Code.

02. The case of the Prosecution is that: on 17.10.2016 morning Kadagala

Bharathi went to her elder paternal uncle’s house situated at Reddi Veedhi, VT

Agraharam on her personal work, after completion of her work returning to her house on foot, when she reached near Bellana Bujji’s pan shop between 12.30 to 1.00 p.m., one unknown culprit worn blue T­shirt Jean pant and black helmet came from behind on a black colour Pulsar Motor cycle caught Kadagala Bharathi’s gold sting 2 along with pustulu, snatched forcibly and ran away with booty. Kadagala Bharathi raised alarm and ran behind the motor cycle, but not traced. Basing on the report of

Kadagala Bharathi, G.Arjun, HC 1170 registered cases in crime no. 160/2016 for the offence under sections 382, 356 IPC on 17.10.2016 at 4.30 p.m. During the course of investigation he visited the scene of offence, preapared rough sketch, secured witnesses viz.,Kadagala Barathi, Kodagala Sateesh, Bellan Bujji and Reddi

Prakash and recorded their statements. On 30.12.2016 R.Vasudev, Sub­Inspector of

Police, Gantyada police station arrested the accused in crime no.164/16 of Denkada

Police Station , besides in Cr.No.215/2016 under section 356 and 382 of IPC of

Viznagaram I Town Police Station,. Cr.No.149/2016 under section 382 of IPC of

Parvathipuram Town Police Station and sent him for judicial remand. On 04.01.2017 S.Shanmukharao, Sub­inspector of Police produced before this court on execution of PT Warrant and sent him for remand, during police custody from 10.30 a.m., to 5.00 p.m., on 17.1.2017, on interrogation accused confessed the commission of offence relating to this case and recovered the stolen property I.e,. gold sting along with pustulu from the possession of accused. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

03. After perusal of the record, the case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sections 382, 356 and 411 of Indian Penal Code against Accused. 

04.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. 

05. The Accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under Sections 382, 356 and 411 of Indian Penal Code against Accused is framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

06.To prove the guilt of the Accused the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got exhibited Ex.P­1 to P.7 and M.O.1 Gold pusthelathadu. On behalf of defence reported no defence evidence.

07. After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence against himand reported no defence evidence. 

08. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the Accused. 

09. The learned APP submitted that prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.9 and Ex.P1 to P.7 and all the prosecution witnesses supported the case of prosecution and proved the guilt of accused for the alleged offence under Sections 382, 356 and 411 IPC, hence to punish the accused as per law.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Accused contended that there is no corroborative prosecution evidence, there is no substantive evidence except evidence of Investigation Officer, and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence to acquit the accused .

11.Now, the points for determination are: ­

1) Whether the accused committed theft of pustulathadu of M.O.1 of P.W.1, after preparation made for causing fear to her, in order to the effecting of accused escape after the committing of such theft on 17th day of October 2016 between 12.30 to 1.00 p.m., near Bellana Bujji’s pan shop situated at Ganesh Nagar, VT Agraharam, Viziangaram ?

2) Whether the accused committed theft of pustulathadu of M.O.1 of P.W.1 from her neck which that P.W.1wearing ?

3) Whether on 17.01. 2017 during police custody, dishonestly retained the stolen property i.e., gold sting along with gold pustulu, knowing the same to be stolen property from the accused?

4) To what relief?

12.P.W.1 testified that on 17.10.2016 she went to the house of her senior paternal uncle for paying chit amount and while she was returning to her house 4 somebody have cut her gold pusthela thadu from her back side of her neck, the said

Gold Pusthela thadu is weighing about 2 tulas and she noticed a black colour pulser motor cycle, and a person wearing blue T shirt and jean pant with helmet on it and he was carrying a black bag with him and she tried to follow the said person, but, in vain. Immediately she informed her husband by name Satish (LW.2) about the incident and gave report(Ex.P.1) to Rural Police Station, Vizianagaram and after 10 days from the date of giving report, police informed her that they have recovered my gold pusthela thadu. Police handed over the gold pusthela thadu to her (MO.1).

PW1 admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality with many residential houses and pan shops surrounding it and also deposed that in her report she have mentioned that the offender has cut and taken away the gold pusthela tahdu from her neck and the said gold pusthela thadu stolen from her neck was used one and she was married 9 years back and also admitted that MO.1 appears to be new one and there are no marks to show that it was cut at any point of time and she deposed that she have not given the description of the gold pusthela thadu in their report or in her statement, her brother Sekhar drafted Ex.P.1 report on her dictation and police examined her and her husband 10 days after giving report and after 3 or 4 months from date of giving report, police informed them that they recovered her gold pusthela thadu and Police did not issue any notice to her requesting her to come to the police station for identification, she identified MO.1 in the police station and she denied the suggestion that no theft was committed of their gold property and that is the reason, they did not submit any receipts or bills pertaining to their property to police and that they filed false case against the accused. 

13.P.W.2 corroborated the evidence of Pw1 in all material aspects and immediately he went to the scene of offence and searched for the offenders, but, in vain and then they gave report to Rural PS, Vizianagaram and that after 2 or 3 5 months from the date of giving report, police informed him that they have recovered their gold pusthela thadu . P.W.2 admitted that they did not hand over any receipts or bills to the police pertaining to MO.1 and they have not mentioned the number of the said motor cycle on which the offender came and also deposed that he have not given the description of the gold pusthela thadu in their report or in his statement.

14.P.W.3 testified that about one year back, at 12:00 noon, while she was cooking at her house she heard some cries from PW.1 and immediately she came out from her house and noticed PW.1 lying on the ground along with her daughter and thereafter, many persons gathered there and on questioning PW.1, she came to know that somebody has stolen the gold pusthela thadu of PW.1 from her neck while she was coming back towards her house after going to somebody’s house for paying the chit amount. P.W.3 admitted that she did not witness the incident personally and deposed that she does not know the incident occurred and that she came to know about the incident through her neighborers and also deposed that PW.1 accompanied to this Court today

 15.P:W.4 deposed that on 30.12.2016, Denkada Police called him and

LW.7­Bammidi Venkata Ramana to the Police Station they proceeded to

Nathavalasa junction and on seeing the police, one person tried to run away, but the said person confessed the offence, the police seized said gold pusthela thadu from the pant pocket of the accused under the cover of mediators report in his presence and in the presence of LW.7­Bammidi Venkata Ramana and obtained their signatures on it and he identified the accused, who was arrested by the police in his presence. P.W.4 admitted that the Denkada police did not issue any notice to him requesting him to act as mediator and also deposed that he cannot say at which place, the accused was running towards at the said junction by the time of his arrest and he have given evidence in 4 or 5 cases as a VRO and also deposed that he cannot 6 say the description of the seized gold property and P.W.4 denied that he have seen the accused prior to coming into the court hall today and also denied that the

Denkada police did not arrest accused or seize any property from his possession in his presence and the he is a stock mediator of the police.

16. P.W.5 testified that on 17.01.2017, the Rural Police called him and

M.Kanna Rao who is the VRO of VT Agraharam, to the Rural P.S., Vizianagaram and in their presence, police have interrogated the accused and the accused confessed that accused had committed theft of Gold pusthelathadu, Pusthelu and

Sathamanam from a lady near VT Agraharam, Vizianagaram. Police have seized the said Pusthelathadau, Pusthelu and Sethamanam from the possession of the accused under the cover of mediators report and obtained their signatures on reports and deposed that the said incident took place at about 3:00 pm. 

17. P.w.6 who is working as Head constable deposed that on 17.10.2016 at 4:30 pm, while he was in­charge of P.S., PW.1 & PW.2 came to the P.S. and PW.1 presented a report, basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.160/2016 u/s. 356, 382 IPC and issued FIR(Ex.P5) and he have examined PW.1 and PW.2 in the P.S.

and recorded their statements and thereafter he proceeded to scene of offence situated at the road, Ganesh Nagar, V.T.Agraharam, Vizianagaram, observed the same and drew rough sketch.and at the scene of offence he have examined PW.3 and

LW.4­Reddi Prakash and recorded their statements. P.W.6 admitted that as per the

FIR, the alleged theft took place between 12:30 – 1:00 pm and the report was given at about 4:30 pm by PW.1 and it takes only 10 to 15 minutes to reach the Police

Station from the scene of offence and deposed that in Ex.P.1 it has been mentioned that nobody was available at the scene of offence by the time of offence and deposed that even though PW.1 had mentioned that she has chased the motor cycle, she did not mention the number of the motor cycle in Ex.P.1 and he did not find any injuries 7 on PW.1 while receiving report and he did not obtain the signature of PW.1 on the

FIR and deposed that all the witnesses and he had examined belong to same caste.

P.W.6 denied the suggestion that the scene of offence is a busy locality and that there are many pan shops and residential houses near scene of offence and he did not collect any receipts pertaining to the missing property as PW.1 reported that she did not have any receipts with her. P.W.6 admitted that PW.1 did not mention about the description or any specific identification marks of her gold pusthelathadu and he have not filled up Column No.9 of FIR. P.W.6 denied the suggestion that he did not proceed to the scene of offence or examined any witnesses and that he did not conduct proper investigation and that he conducted table investigation only

18. P.W.7 who is the investigating officer deposed that on 30.12.2016 at about 13.30 hours on receipt of credible information he secured mediators P.W.4­

Tirumala Raju Appala Narasimha Raju and L.W.7­Bommidi Venkata Ramana and along with his staff ,he proceeded to Nathavalasa junction and caught the accused and the accused confessed about committed theft in this case and they have recovered stolen property ie., Pustulathadu along with two sathamanams from the pant pocket of accused and he also confessed that he had committed various places like Parvathipuram and Sai Ganesh Apartments in Vizianagaram and he seized

M.O.1­Pusthela thadu under the cover of mediators report and he arrested the accused and on 03.01.2017 at 5.00 pm he had conducted identification parade of

M.O.1 in the premises of Elementary school, Pinathadivada village through P.W.4­

Tirumala Raju Appala Narasimha Raju and L.W.7­Bommidi Venkata Ramana.

19.P.W.7 admitted that he did not issue any written notices to P.W.4 and

L.W.7 while taking them to Nathavalasa Junction, he did not find any major difference in the gap between sentences in the 1st paragraphs and other paragraphs on the mediators report. P.W.7 admitted that his staff did not sign on the mediators 8 report and deposed that there are many routes near Nathavalasa junction and that no local persons of Natavalasa Junction were called as mediators at the time of arrest of the accused under Ex.P.7. They caught hold the accused when he was running towards highway road, but the same was not mentioned in the mediators report and deposed that that the signatures of the accused obtained in the margins in the 1st and 2nd pages. P,.W.7 denied the suggestion that 3rd page of the mediators, the signature of the accused was obtained only in order to adjust the matter. P.W.7 deposed that there is no specific mention in the mediators report that the contents were read over and explained to the accused and that none of the SHOs have accompanied him at the time of arrest of the accused and he did not remember whether any seizure slips which were affixed to seized property in CC 167/2017 and 168/2017 before this Court were filed in those respective cases or not and that except mediators report he did not prepare any seizure report. P.W.7 denied that he have conducted table investigation only and falsely implicated the accused in this case for statistical purpose and accused did not confess anything about the offence. 

20.P.W.8 who is one of the investigating officers in this case deposed that while he was in charge of Vizianagaram Rural Police Station on 17.01.2017 the accused confessed in the presence of mediators ie., P.W.5 ­K.Appala Raju and L.w.9/

Maddila Rangayya and accused confessed about theft in their presence and they along with mediators and accused proceeded to the house of Pothina Ramana at

Vikalangula colony, Madhuravada, Visakhapatnam and in that house M.O.1

Pustulathadu with Sathamanams was recovered and thereafter he produced before this court for remand to Judicial Custody. PW8 admitted that Ex.P.2 was not scribed by any of the mediators, though they requested them, but they told him that to draft by them only. They did not secure any independent mediators. Witness adds that the mediators are Village Revenue Officers in this case and that the 9 names and other details of mediators were not mentioned either in preamble and entire statement, except end of Ex.P.2 proceedings and they did not secure any other local persons as mediators at Visakhapatnam , where the recovery proceedings/Ex.P.4 was drafted. They proceeded with recovery of property as per

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1. No Test Identification Parade for said seized property by P.W.1 was conducted when he investigated this case. P.W.8 denied the suggestion that he neither recorded confession statement of accused in presence of mediations nor he went to Visakhapatnam for recording confession statement nor recovery of any property much less MO.1 in this case in the presence of mediators at the house of L.W.5, but for statistical purpose only, this false case was filed against the accused and also denied that as per Ex.P.4/recovery proceedings, no signature of said Pothina Ramana was not obtained. 

21.P.W.9: who is also another Investigating Officer deposed that on 04.01.2017 he filed memo before this Court for PT warrant against the accused in this case and he verified the investigation material done by P.W.6 to P.W.8 and found it correct lines and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused on 23.01.2017/ PW.9 denied the suggestion that without proper verification of investigation done by P.W.6 to P.W.8, he filed charge sheet against the accused, for statistical purpose only, though he did not commit any offence. 

22.In this case through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the prosecution proved that MO1 was snatched away from the neck of PW1, the same facts corroborated by PW1 in her Ex.P1 report. PW1 identified the MO1 in the test identification parade as well as in the court hall and PW5 the mediator for the test identification parade of property also corroborated the evidence of PW1. So, in this case the prosecution proved that MO1 belongs to 10

PW1 and it was subjected to theft. But in this case there is no evidence that the culprit who committed the offence was the accused, since there is no identification particulars of culprit mentioned in Ex.P1, nor deposed by

PW1 and PW2 and on the other hand PW1 deposed that the culprit worn the helmet. So the identification of culprit is in question. In those circumstances, the prosecution shall conduct test identification parade of accused. But the prosecution failed to conduct, which is fatal to the prosecution case. PW3 the independent witness only rushed to the spot after PW1 lying on the ground. So he also not witnessed the incident.

23.The defence counsel drawn the attention of the court to the admission of PW1 that she identified the gold pustela thadu and MO1 does not have any cut, and it seems to be new, and not mentioning the number of motor vehicle in the Ex.P1. It is no doubt true when there are no other parties claiming the MO1 including the accused and when PW1 identified the same in the open court also the question of identification have no affect in this case.

With regard to not having cut in the MO1, it can be safely held that when

MO1 was cut, it might be at thread place, in those circumstances, the question of cut in chain place does not arise. With regard to mentioning the number of vehicle in Ex.P.1, in generally nobody in that mood to observe the number of vehicle and that too when such type of incidents have been occurred, all the persons in a mood to save the victim and that too when the culprit made this type of offences, made every effort to escape in high speed, so non mentioning the number in the Ex.P1 is not fatal. When the identity of accused not proved as culprit the assault under section 356 of IPC also not proved. So, in this case the prosecution failed to prove the offence u/sec. 356 and 382 of

Indian Penal Code. When the identify 11

24.In order to prove the offence under section 411 of Indian Penal

Code, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW4 the alleged independent mediator for the arrest of accused and seizure of property,who supported in his chief­examination with regard to arrest of accused and recovery of property in other crime. But he admitted in his cross­examination that Rural police

Vizianagaram did not issue any notice to him requesting him to act as mediator and he cannot say at which place the accused was running towards at the said junction by the time of his arrest and he have given evidence in 4 or 5 cases as a VRO and he cannot say the description of the seized gold property and Nathalavasa is a busy locality having many shops and houses and police did not examine any local inhabitants near Nathavalasa junction and he cannot say who drafted the mediators report. The categoric admissions of PW4 creates doubt with regard to his presence at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of property. PW5 the mediator for the arrest of accused and seizure of property turned hostile did not support the case. The evidence of PW5 is quite contrary to the mediators report dt:17.01.2017 and he denied that police did not take him to anywhere and did not recover anything. So, the confession leads to recovery was not supported. Perused the Perused Ex.P7 mediators report­cum­confession report which shows the 1st para of the report appears to be adjusted in con­justed manner and there is difference from line to line. The alleged signatures of accused were obtained on the side of Ex.P7 report. It is no doubt true as per section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act, the confession

before the police officer is inadmissible unless it is recorded before the

independent mediators. The confession leas to recovery portion is alone admissible in evidence. But in this case the prosecution got marked the entire confession as Ex.P.7.

12

25.In this case the investigating officers did not issue notices to mediators Pws.4 and PW5 that too they did not examine any local inhabitant of that locality though there is every chance to secure and that too the categoric admission of PW6 shows that he is stock witness to the prosecution case. In such circumstances, the prosecution should offer plausible explanation for not complying the provision under section 100(4) Cr.P.C. at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of property. PW6 deposed that none of the witnesses have stated before him that they can identify the offender if shown to them. PW6 admitted that he did not issue any notice to PW5,that their staff did not sign on

Ex.P7 mediators report. PW6 deposed that he affixed identification slips on the seized property. But no such identification slips found place on that property.

26.So, in this case the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of MO1 from the possession of accused in the presence of PW5 mediator in pursuance to the confession made by the accused and the prosecution failed to prove the confession leads to recovery u/sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act and failed to comply section 100(4) Cr.P.C in securing independent mediators at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of property. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the offence u/sec. 411 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the point No.1 to 3 answered in favour of the accused.

 27. Point No. 4 :­ In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges under Sections 382, 356 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. Accused is ordered to be released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other cases. The interim custody of M.O.1 to P.W.1 as per orders of this court vide Crl.MP No.6135/2017

dated: 19.09.2018, holds good after expiry of appeal time. Accused is directed to

13 execute bond for Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees give thousand only) each under section 437­A

Cr.P.C. to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

 Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26th day of September, 2018.

Sd/­Smt.M.Venkata Seshamma, Judicial. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, FAC/ Addl. Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE: None.

P.w.1: K.Bharathi. P.W.2: K.Satish. P.W.3: Bellana Bujji P.W.4: Tirumala Raju Appala Narasimha Raju. P.W.5: A.Appala Raju. P.W.6: G.Arjun. Head Constable P.w.7: S.Dhanunjaya Rao, S.I of Police. P.W.8: R.Vasudev. P.W.9: S.Shanmukha Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1 / Report given by P.W.1 to Police. Ex.P.2/ Admissible portion of the mediators report dt.17.01.2017 Ex.P.3/ Signature of the P.W.5 on the mediators report dt.17.01.2017 Ex.P.4/ Mediators report dt.17.01.2017. Ex.P.5/ Original F.I.R in Cr.No.160/2016. Ex.P.6/ Rough sketch. Ex.P.7/Certified copy of identification report. 

FOR DEFENCE :

Material objects marked M.O.1: Gold Pusthela thadu along with Sathamanam.

Sd/­Smt.M.Venkata Seshamma, Judicial. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, FAC/ Addl. Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram.

14

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar cases tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence: 17.10.2016 Date of report or complaint: 17.10.2016 Date of apprehension of accused : 04.01.2017 Produced on P.T.Warrant. Date of release, if any on bail: Jail Date of commencement of trial: 19--09-2017 Date of close of trial: 07-09-2018 Date of sentence or order : 26-09-2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for delay and remarks:- The prosecution did not produce its witnesses from time to time, and hence the delay in disposal of the case.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.68/2017 on the file of the Addl.,

Judicial Magistrate of I the Class, Vizianagaram.

Complainant:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram I town Police Station in Cr.No.160/2016. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Age Father’s Name ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Korada Surya Prakash, 40 years Mohan Rao ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calling Religion Residence Mandal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- – Hindu Jaipur Jaipur ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence :- Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of theft u/S. 382 IPC

Assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person u/sec.356 IPC

Dishonestly receiving stolen property u/S. 411 IPC.

Finding:- Not guilty for the offences u/Sec. 382, 356 or 411 IPC

Sentence:- the accused is found not guilty for the charges under Sections 382, 356 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. Accused is ordered to be released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other cases. The interim custody of M.O.1 to P.W.1 as per orders of this court vide Crl.MP No.6135/2017 dated: 19.09.2018, holds good after expiry of appeal time. Accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees give thousand only) each under section 437­A Cr.P.C. to appear

before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Sd/=Smt.M.Venkata Seshamma, Judicial. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, FAC/ Addl. Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram.

1

 IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS CUM­ 1st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM.

Present : Smt.M.Venkata Seshamma, 

Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, ­cum­ II Addl.Junior Civil Judge,

Special Mobile Court, FAC/ 1st Addl. Judl.,Magistrate of The First Class, ­cum­ 1st Addl. Junior Civil

Judge,Vizianagaram.

 Wednesday, this the 26th day of September, 2018.

C.C.NO. 168 of 2017

Between: The State represented by Sub­inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram. … Complainant. And: Korada Surya Prakash, s/o. Mohan Rao, aged about 40 years, Native of Kinthali village, Pondhuru mandal, Srikakulam district, Residence at Irrigation colony, Jaipur, Odessa State. … Accused.

This case is coming on 25.09.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant, and of Sri

Boddu Satyanarayana and Sri Boddu Karthik Advocates and having perused the material on record, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following :­

J U D G M E N T 

01. The Sub­inspector of Police, Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.215/2016 of I Town Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 356 and 382 of Indian Penal Code.

02. The case of the Prosecution is that: on 10.8.2016 at 11.30 p.m., while

Dasari Kalavathi was climbing steps towards her house from the street, one unknown male person came her clandestinely from behind and forcibly snatched away gold black beads chain wg. About 2 tulas from her neck and fled away. Basing on the report of Dasari Kalavathi, P.W.7 registered a case in crime no. 215/2016 u/Sec. 356, 382 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, on 2 30.12.2016 at 2.00 p.m., P.W.6 arrested the accused at Nathavalasa road junction in

CR.No. 164/2016 u/Sec. 382 IPC of Denkada PS, recorded his confessional statement in the presence of Thirumalaraju Appalanarasimharaju and Bammidi Venkata

Ramana. Then P.W.7 produced the accused before this Court on 09.01.2017 execution of PT Warrant and on 18.1.2017 taken the accused into police custody, recorded confessional statement of accused, seized the gold property ie., gold black beads chain from Dachepalli Naveenkumar, which was pledged by the accused. On 19.01.2017 Chippa Venkatarao and Vijjipurapu Venkata Prasad have conducted test identification parade of the seized gold black beads chain with Dasari Kalavathi at

Ambedkar Bhavanam, Balaji junction, Vizianagaram in between 09.00 hours and 10.00 hours, where Dasari Kalavathi has identified seized one is belongs to her under cover of test identification parade report. After completion of investigation

P.W.7 filed charge sheet.

03. After perusal of the record, the case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sections 356, 382 of Indian Penal Code against Accused. 

04.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. 

05. The Accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under Sections 356, 382 and 411 of Indian Penal Code against Accused is framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.To prove the guilt of the Accused the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got exhibited Ex.P­1 to P.7 and M.O.1 Gold black bead chain. On behalf of defence reported no defence evidence.

3

07. After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence against himand reported no defence evidence. 

08. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the Accused. 

09. The learned APP submitted that prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.9 and Ex.P1 to P.7 and all the prosecution witnesses supported the case of prosecution and proved the guilt of accused for the alleged offence under Sections 382, 356 and 411 IPC, hence to punish the accused as per law.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Accused contended that there is no corroborative prosecution evidence, there is no substantive evidence except evidence of Investigation Officer, and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence to acquit the accused.

11.Now, the points for determination are: ­

1) Whether the accused on 10.08.2016 at 11.30 p.m., at Appikonda Vaari Veedhi, Vizianagaram, used criminal force on P.W.2 to snatch away her gold black beads chain wg. about 2 tulas from her neck ?

2) Whether the accused on 10.08.2016 at 11.30 p.m., at Appikonda Vaari Veedhi, Vizianagaram, committed theft of gold black beads chain wg. About 2 tulas from the neck of P.W.2 ?

3) Whether the accused on 18.01.2017 at Laxmi Narayana Jewellery shop, Main Road, Vizianagaram, dishonestly received stolen property i.e., gold black beads chain wg. about 2 tulas and knowing it to be a stolen property ? 

4) To what relief?

12 P.W.1 the defacto complainant testified that he is residing at Sri Sai

Ganesh Apartments, Appikondavari Street, Vizianagaram and he is doing business and on 10.8.2016, at about 9:00 pm, while he returned to his apartment, after closing his shop, he noticed that many persons gathered at his house and on that his wife informed that while she was climbing the stairs, at 9:00 pm, some person had 4 stolen black beads chain from her neck, they searched for the said person in the surroundings , but, in vain and due to his illness he gave report to police after 5 days report (Ex.P.1) given by PW.1 and after 5 months, police informed him that they have recovered his gold property and asked him to identify the same at Ambedkar

Bhavan and accordingly he along with his wife went to Ambedkar Bhavan and identified black beads chain. PW1 admitted that he gave report to police after 5 days of the theft, he gave report in the evening hours at about 5 – 5:30 pm and he did not hand over any receipts or bills pertaining to the said black beads chain to police while giving report and there is a night watchman for their apartment and deposed that he did not mention in Ex.P.1 about the design of the said black beads chain and he cannot say the exact date or time when he identified our gold chain at

Ambedkar Bhavan and Police did not issue any Notice requesting them to come to identify the gold chain and there were mediators at the time of identification, but, he does not know about their details.

13.P.W.2 testified that he is residing at Sri Sai Ganesh Apartments,

Appikondavari Street, Vizianagaram and he is a housewife. On 16.10.2016, at 10:00 pm, while she was climbing stairs of their apartment, one person had committed theft of her black beads chain from her neck. The said offender ran away. The said black beads chain was of 3 tulas, as she was sick, PW.1 gave report to police after 5 days. Police examined her. After 5 months, police informed them to come to

Ambedkar Bhavan. Accordingly, when they went there, they noticed two persons and in their presence, they identified their black beads chain and she can identify the said thief. But, he is not present in the Court Hall today. PW2 admitted that she have stated before police that 3 tulas of black beads chain was snatched away by the offend and that she did not state before police about the exact design of the black beads chain and that MO.1 does not have any cuts. Witness voluntarily says that 5 the cut was joined by them. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that MO.1 will not be above 1 and 1/2 – 2 tulas weight and she does not know the names of persons before whom she have identified her black beads chain and she did not sign on any documents at the time of identification parade. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that she did not identify MO.1 in any Identification Parade and that she deposing falsehood. 

14. P.w.3 testified that in the month of August, 2016 the accused approached him at his shop and pledged one gold black bead chain with him stating that his wife is sick and that he needs money for meeting her medical expenses, accordingly he took the said gold black bead chain and gave Rs.20,000/­ to him, and that on 18.01.2017 the I Town Police came his shop and enquired him about the said gold black bead chain and further informed him that it was a stolen property and he handed over the said black bead chain wg.about 23 grams to police.P.W.3 deposed that he did not obtain any documents regarding the identity of the accused when he allegedly pledged gold black beads chain to him, and he do not have any prior acquaintance with the accused and police did not verify any records from him in respect of the said transaction and police did not show any document regarding any black beads to him when they approached him. P.W.3 deposed that he have the habit of visiting the police. 

15.P.W.4 testified that on 18.01.2017 the I Town Police called him and

B.Venkataprasad to I Town Police Station as gold black beads chain was stolen, and on 19.01.2017 himself, Venkata Prasad have conducted identification parade of said gold black bead chain at Ambedkar Bhavan, Vizianagaram at about 11.30 a.m ­12.00 noon wherein one Prasad identified the said gold black bead chain as his own, he have signed on three reports and the accused present in the police station. PW4 admitted that the Police did not issue any notice to him requesting him to act as 6 mediator in this case, he does not know the exact contents of report on which he signed, he do not say who draft the above said reports. 

16.P.W.5 deposed that he is residing in Baba Metta, Vizianagaram, he is working as VRO, Chinthalavalasa, Cluster­II, Denkada Mandal and on 30.12.2016,

Denkada Police called him and LW.6­Bammidi Venkata Ramana to the Police

Station and on that himself, LW.6­Bammidi Venkata Ramana, the Sub­Inspector of police Denkada PS, the CCS team, Vizianagaram proceeded to Nathavalasa junction at 2:00 pm. On seeing the police, one person tried to run away but the police caught him. On questioning, the said person confessed that his name was

Korada Surya Prakash and that as he was habit of committing thefts, he was running on seeing the police. He confessed that he committed theft of gold pusthela thadu from a woman in the 3rd week of October, 2016 at V.T.Agraharam,

Vizianagaram, and also committed thefts at Palakonda Road, Parvathipuram; Sai

Ganesh Apartments, vizianagaram; Modavalasa village, Denkada mandal further, the police seized said gold pusthela thadu from the pant pocket of the accused under the cover of mediators report in his presence and in the presence of LW.6­Bammidi

Venkata Ramana and obtained their signatures on it and the accused was present

before this court was the same person who was arrested by the police in his

presence. PW5 admitted Denkada police did not issue any notice to him requesting him to act as mediator and that he cannot say at which place, the accused was running towards at the said junction by the time of his arrest, he have given evidence in 4 or 5 cases as a VRO and he cannot say the description of the seized gold property and P.w.5 denied the suggestion he have seen the accused prior to coming into the court hall today and that the Denkada police did not arrest accused or seized any property from his possession in his presence and that he is a stock 7 mediator of the police and P.W.5 admitted that Nathavalasa junction is a busy locality having many shops and houses and Police did not examine any local inhabitants near Nathavalasa junction.

17.P.W.6 who is also one of the mediators testified that on 31.12.2016 while he was in the police station he received credible information about the culprits and he secured mediators I.e,P.W.5 and Bammidi Venkata Ramana and along with his staff, he proceeded to Nathavalasa junction, they recovered stolen property ie.,

Gold pusthela thadu along with two Sathamanams and two gold casulu from the pant pocket of the accused and he confessed that he had committed theft at various places like Parvathipuram town, Sai Ganesh Apartments , Vizianagaram in the 2nd week of August, 2016 in VT Agraharam in the 3rd week of October, 2016, accordingly he seized M.O.1 and he arrested the accused and sent for judicial custody. P.W.6 admitted that he did not issue any notice to PW.5 and LW.6­B.Venkata Ramana while taking them to Nathavalasa junction, he did not find any major difference in the gap between sentences in the 1st paragraphs and other paragraphs on the mediators report and that his staff did not sign on the mediators report and that there are many routes near Nathavalasa junction and they caught the accused when he was running towards highway road, but, the same was not mentioned in the mediators report and that the signatures of the accused obtained in the margins of in the 1st and 2nd pages and deposed that there is no specific mention in the mediators report that the contents were read over and explained to the accused and that none of the S.H.Os. have accompanied him at the time of arrest of the accused and that except mediators report he did not prepare any seizure report and that he did not issue any notices to mediators or PW.1 before conducting identification parade of MO.1. 

8

18.P.W.7 the investigating officer testified that on 17.08.2016 at 1.00 pm while he was present in the police station P.w.1 came to the police station and presented a report, basing on which he registered a case in Cr. No.

215/2016,u/sec.356,382 IPC and issued F.I.R he has examined P.w.1 and recorded her statement, he visited scene of offence, he filed a petition for issuance of

P.T.Warrant, and the same was allowed,and on 18.01.2017 he had interrogated the accused of you in the presence of P.W.4 and V.Venkata Prasad, recorded your confession and you confessed that you had committed theft of gold black beads chain from P.W.1 and the accused pledged the same with Lakshmi Narayana Jewelleries for Rs.20,000/­and on 19.1.2017 he had conducted identification parade of the seized gold property through P.W.4 and V.Venkata Prasad at Ambetkar Bhavan wherein

P.W.1 identified M.O.1 as his own and after completion of investigation he field charge sheet. P.W.7 admitted that there is a delay of 7 days in giving report from the date of incident and that he did not receive any receipts pertaining to MO.1 from

PW.1. The witness voluntarily says that PW.1 did not have any receipts relating to the lost property and that he have not mentioned the above fact anywhere and there was no security guard for the apartment of PW.1 and that all the witnesses whom he have examined, belong to the same community and he did not prepare scene observation report in this case and Denkada Police informed him about the arrest of the accused on the date of arrest itself and he have secured the mediators while issuing letter to the Municipal Commissioner and also deposed that in the mediators report, there is no mention that he have made requisition to the Municipal

Commissioner and secured mediators and that in the mediators report, except the signatures of the mediators, the details of mediators are not mentioned and that there is no mention about the details of the scribe in the mediators report and that he have not obtained the signature of PW.3 on Ex.P.3 mediators report. However, 9 he have examined PW.3 and recorded his statement and that he did not seize any account books from PW.3 to ascertain whether the accused pledged MO.1 with PW.3 or not and that he did not examine any person or neighbourer from the shop of PW.3 and that there is no signature of PW.1 on Ex.p.4 report. P.W.7 denied the suggestion that himself and Denkada Police falsely implicated the accused in their respective crimes. P.w.7 admitted that he did not prepare any separate seizure report/list. P.W.7 denied the suggestion that he did not obtain the signatures of mediators on the identification slips affixed to MO.1 and that he conducted table investigation only. 

19.In this case through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the prosecution proved that MO1 was snatched away from the neck of PW1, the same facts corroborated by PW1 in her Ex.P1 report. PW1 identified the MO1 in the test identification parade as well as in the court hall and PW4 the mediator for the test identification parade of property also corroborated the evidence of PW1. So, in this case the prosecution proved that MO1 belongs to

PW1 and it was subjected to theft. But in this case there is no evidence that the culprit who committed the offence was the accused, since there is no identification particulars of culprit mentioned in Ex.P1, nor deposed by

PW1 and PW2 and on the other hand PW1 deposed that the culprit worn the helmet. So the identification of culprit is in question. In those circumstances, the prosecution shall conduct test identification parade of accused. But the prosecution failed to conduct, which is fatal to the prosecution case.

20.The defence counsel drawn the attention of the court to the admission of PW1 that she identified the gold black bead chain and MO1 does not have any cut, and it seems to be new, and not mentioning the number of 10 motor vehicle in the Ex.P1. It is no doubt true when there are no other parties claiming the MO1 including the accused and when PW1 identified the same in the open court also the question of identification have no affect in this case.

With regard to not having cut in the MO1, PW1 gave clarification they made the cut joined. With regard to mentioning the number of vehicle in Ex.P1, in generally nobody in that mood to observe the number of vehicle and that too when such type of incidents have been occurred, all the persons in a mood to save the victim and that too when the culprit made this type of offences, made every effort to escape in high speed, so non mentioning the number in the

Ex.P1 is not fatal. When identification of culprit as accused is not proved, the question of assaulting and injury in committing the ofence also not proved. So, in this case the prosecution failed to prove the offence u/sec. 356; and 382 of

Indian Penal Code.

21.In order to prove the offence under section 411 of Indian Penal

Code, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW3 who taken MO1 under pledge, but the prosecution did not produce any record to prove the same.

PW3 admitted that he have the habit of visiting police station whenever police called him. So, he is in touch with the police. So, his evidence without any proof cannot be believed. To prove the recovery the alleged independent mediator for the arrest of accused and seizure of property is PW4, who supported the same in chief­examination, but admitted police did not issue any notice to him and he does not know the exact contents of report on which hesigned, and he did not know who scribed the report and he cannot say the exact design or other particualrs of the black beads chain and PW1 is his Shavukaru. Pw5 supported in his chief­examination but admitted in his cross­examination that police did not issue any notice to him requesting him to act as mediator and he cannot say at 11 which place the accused was running towards at the said junction by the time of his arrest and he have given evidence in 4 or 5 cases as a VRO and he cannot say the description of the seized gold property and Nathalavasa is a busy locality having many shops and houses and police did not examine any local inhabitants near Nathavalasa junction and he cannot say who drafted the mediators report. The categoric admissions of PW5 creates doubt with regard to his presence at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of property. . The evidence of PW5 is quite contary to the mediators report dt:18.01.2017 and he denied that police did not take him to anywhere and did not recover anything.

So, the confession leads to recovery was not supported. Perused the Perused

Ex.P5 mediators report­cum­confession report which shows the 1st para of the report appears to be adjusted in con­justed manner and there is difference from line to line. The alleged signatures of accused were obtained on the side of Ex.P5 report. It is no doubt true as per section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence

Act, the confession before the police officer is inadmissible unless it is recorded

before the independent mediators. The confession leas to recovery portion is

alone admissible in evidence. But in this case the prosecution got marked the entire confession as Ex.P7.

22.In this case the investigating officers did not issue notices to mediators Pws.4 and PW5 that too they did not examine any local inhabitant of that locality though there is every chance to secure and that too the categoric admission of PW5 shows that he is stock witness to the prosecution case. In such circumstances, the prosecution should offer plausible explanation for not complying the provision under section 100(4) Cr.P.C. at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of property. PW5 deposed that none of the witnesses have stated before him that they can identify the offender if shown to them. PW6 12 and PW7 admitted that they did not issue any notice to PW4 and PW5. PW6 deposed that he affixed identification slips on the seized property. But no such identification slips found place on that property.

23.So, in this case the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of MO1 from the possession of accused in the presence of PW4 mediator in pursuance to the confession made by the accused and the prosecution failed to prove the confession leads to recovery u/sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act and failed to comply section 100(4) Cr.P.C in securing independent mediators at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of property. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the offence u/sec. 411 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the point No.1 to 3 answered in favour of the accused.

 24. Point No. 4 :­ In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges under Sections 356, 382 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. Accused is ordered to be released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other cases. The interim custody of M.O.1 to P.W.1 as per the orders of this court vide Crl.MP No.8433/2017

dated: 19.12.2017, holds good after expiry of appeal time. Accused is directed to

execute bond for Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees give thousand only) each under section 437­A

Cr.P.C. to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26th day of September, 2018.

Sd/­ Smt.M.Venkata Seshamma Judicial. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, FAC/ Addl. Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE: None. P.w.1: Dasari Prasada Rao 13

P.W.2: Dasari Kalavathi. P.W.3: Dachepalli Naveen Kumar P.W.4: Chippada Venkatarao. P.W.5: Tirumala Raju Appala Narasimha Raju. P.w.6: S.Dhanunjaya Rao, S.I of Police. P.W.7: G.A.V.Ramana, S.I of police. 

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P.1 / Report given by P.W.1 to Police. Ex.P.2/ Admissible portion of the mediators report. Ex.P.3/ Mediators report, dt.18.01.2017 Ex.P.4/ Identification report dated 19.01.2017. Ex.P.5/ Admissible portion of the certified copy of mediators report 

dt. 30.12.2016.

Ex.P.6/ Original F.I.R Ex.P.7/ Rough Sketch. 

FOR DEFENCE : NIL Material objects marked M.O.1: Gold black beed chain.

Sd/­ Smt.M.Venkata Seshamma Judicial. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, FAC/ Addl. Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram.

14

Calendar and Judgment Calendar cases tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence: 17.08.2016 Date of report or complaint: 10.08.2016 Date of apprehension of accused : 30.12.2016. Date of release, if any on bail: Jail Date of commencement of trial: 20-02-2018 Date of close of trial: 21-06-2018 Date of sentence or order : 26-09-2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for delay and remarks:- The prosecution did not produce its witnesses from time to time, and hence the delay in disposal of the case.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.168/2017 on the file of the Addl.,

Judicial Magistrate of I the Class, Vizianagaram.

Complainant:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram I town Police Station in Cr.No.215/2016. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Age Father’s Name ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Korada Surya Prakash, 40 years Mohan Rao ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calling Religion Residence Mandal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- – Hindu Jaipur Jaipur ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence :- Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of theft u/S. 382 IPC

Assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person u/sec.356 IPC

Dishonestly receiving stolen property u/S. 411 IPC.

Finding:- Not guilty for the offences u/Sec. 382, 356 or 411 IPC

Sentence:- The accused is found not guilty for the charges under Sections 356, 382 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. Accused is ordered to be released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other cases. The interim custody of M.O.1 to P.W.1 as per the orders of this court vide Crl.MP No.8433/2017 dated: 19.12.2017, holds good after expiry of appeal time. Accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees give thousand only) each under section 437­A Cr.P.C. to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Sd/- Smt.M.Venkata Seshamma

Judicial. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, FAC/ Addl. Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE 1st ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS­CUM­

1st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM.

Present : Smt.M.Venkata Seshamma, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, ­cum­ 3rd Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Special Mobile Court, FAC/ 1st Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, ­cum­ 1st Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

 Wednesday, this the 26th day of September, 2018.

C.C.NO 17/2017

Between:

The State represented by Inspector of Police, Denkada Police Station. … Complainant.

And:

Korada Surya Prakash S/oMohanarao, 40 yrs, Native of Konthali village, Ponduru mandal, Srikakulam District, Resident of Irrigation colony, Jaypur of Odissa State.… Accused.

This case is coming on 25.09.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant, and of Sri S.

Jagannadham Naidu, Advocate for accused, and having perused the material on record, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following :­

J U D G M E N T 

01. The Sub Inspector of Police, Denkada P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.164/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 382 of

Indian Penal Code.

02. The case of the Prosecution is that:

On 20.11.2016 at 11.00 hours PW1 along with her daughter

Meena, son­in­law Srinu boarded bus at RTC bus at Salur town and got down bus at 01.30p.m. at Modavalasa junction where they took cool drinks and while proceeding to Lingalavalasa village by walk at about 2.00 p.m. to 2.30 pm. When theyreached after crossing Silpa Medical pharmacy meanwhile one male person worn helmet,came there opposite by motorcycle and snapped away her gold 2 pustuluthadu containing two satamans and two kasulu wg about 2 tulas and fled away towards Vizianagaram side by motorcycle. Basing on the report of PW1, the Sub Inspector of Police­ PW7 registered a case in Cr.no.164/2016 u/sec. 382

IPC of Denkada PS and submitted original FIR along with complainant report to the court and investigated into. During the course of investigation PW7 the

Sub Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence in the presence of PW5 and

Muni Pydayya, examined witnesses, prepared rough sketch. On 30.12.2016 at 13.30 hours PW7 on credible information at Nathavalasa junction area, secured mediators, found the accused, recovered stolen property from his possession i.e. one gold pustulu tradu wg about 2 tula containing 2 numbers satamans duly identified it as crime property of this court under the cover of mediators report

dt:30.12.2016,under cover of confessions report, got conducted test identification

parade4 of property, after completion of investigation laid charge sheet.

03. After perusal of the record, the case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 382 or 411 of Indian Penal Code against accused on the file of the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram. 

04.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Sections 382 or 411 of Indian Penal Code and charge under section 382 or 411 of Indian Penal Code against Accused is framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.To prove the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.O.1 Gold Pustelathadu with two sathamanalu and two gold kasulu.

3

06. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/sec.313

Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence against himand reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence closed.

07. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Accused. 

08. The learned APP submitted that prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.7 and and all the prosecution witnesses supported the case of prosecution and proved the guilt of accused for the alleged offence under Sections 382 or 411, hence to punish the accused as per law.

09. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Accused contended that there is neither corroborative nor independent witnesses, and that this accused did not commit any offence, hence to acquit the accused . 

10.Now, the points for determination are: ­

1) Whether accused on 20.11.2016 at 2.00 ­ 2.30 p.m., at Silpa Medicals Pharmacy to Lingalavalasa BT Road, near Modavalasa junction, com­ mitted theft of gold pustulathadu containing two satamanas and two kasulu wg. About 2 tulas, having made preparation for causing hurt to Hari Chinnammalu, in order to coming of such theft by the accused punishable u/sec. 382 of Indian Penal Code ?

2) Whether on 30.12.2016 at 2.00 p.m.,at Nathavalasa junction area, dishonestly received stolen property i.e., gold one gold pustulathadu wg. About 2 tulas containing 2 nos. kasulu and 2 nos. satamanas and knowing it to be a stolen property from the accused punishable u/sec. 411 of Indian Penal Code.?

3) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 382 or 411 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

4) To what relief?

Point Nos. 1 and 2 :­

11.The prosecution examined PW1 to PW.7 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P. 7. Since both the points are inter related one, In order to avoid repetition of evidence, Points No.1 and 2 are dealt with simultaneously.

12.In order to prove the offence u/sec. 382 of Indian Penal Code the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1, who testified that on 20.11.2016, 4 he along with her daughter, son in law and her mother Konki Lakshmi (LW.4) got down a bus at Modavalasa at about 1:30 pm in order to go to Lingalavalasa and they sat at Modavalasa junction for about one hour and when they reached Shilpa

Medical company by walk a male person aged about 38 – 40 years came on a motor cycle wearing helmet in opposite direction and attacked her by placing his hand on her neck and pushed her and in that course he had taken out her gold pusthela thadu from her neck and decamped with it towards Modavalasa and at that time she was wearing a gold pusthela thadu with 2 sethamanalu and 2 gold kasulu, and thereafter she gave report to police in Denkada P.S. and after 50 days, police informed her that they have caught the culprit and recovered her gold pusthela thadu and Police have shown her gold pusthela thadu in the Police station and she can identify the accused is present before this court and the accused committed theft of her gold pusthela thadu with 2 sethamanalu and 2 gold kasulu. PW1 admitted in her cross­examination that she did not hand over any receipts or bills pertaining to gold property to the police and she did not mention about the description of her gold pusthela thadu in Ex.P.1 and it was drafted by her son­in­ law and she know the contents of Ex.P.1 and she had mentioned in Ex.P.1 that the thief had snatched away (thempukoni velipoyadu) and she admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and she admitted that MO.1 does not have any cut and she does not remember whether in Ex.P.1, she have mentioned the identify particulars of culprit and that she can identify the culprit if shown to her or not and she did not mention in Ex.P.1 and she did not state before police about the number of the motor cycle of the said thief. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that no theft was committed to her gold property and that she is identifying the accused as he is present in the Court hall today and she did not mention in Ex.P.;1 or state

before police that the age of the thief will be around 38 ­ 40 years. 

5

13.PW2 the son­in­law of PW1 corroborated the evidence of PW1 in all material aspects and further testifiedthat after 1 or 2 months, police informed him that they have caught the culprit and recovered the gold property and police have conducted identification parade of gold property in a school in Denkada, wherein, PW.1 identified her gold pusthela thadu and they seen the accused after he was caught by the police. PW2 admitted in his cross­examination that he cannot say the details of the said motor cycle on which the culprit came and Police did not issue any notice requesting them to identify the gold pusthela thadu and after 2 – 3 months after the date of incident, the culprit was caught by the police and then, Police examined him, he did not sign on any identification report and admitted that MO.1 is not having any cut and he does not know the contents of the

Identification report.

14.P.W.3 the owner of the motor bike deposed that he gave his 150

CC black colour motor cycle bearing No.AP 35 D 5903 to PW4 in June,2016 at his request, as he failed to discharge the debt due to him and since then the said bike is with him. He admitted that he is deposing evidence after reading his 161

Cr.P.C. statement. 

15. P.W.4 deposed that P.W.3­ was indebted to him and in order to discharge his debt, he had kept his bike with him, one year back he had given said bike of P.W.3 to P.Ramana for 10 days and after that he took back his bike. He admitted that he does not know about the factsof this case and he was not examined by the police.

16.P.W.5 testified that on 21.11.16 at 9:00 am, the Denkada Police observed the scene of offence situated at road leading to Lingalavalasa village near the fields of Yerninti Suri Babu, Kondayyapalem, Modavalasa panchayath in his presence and in the presence of Muni Pydayya (Lw.10) and prepared scene observation report under Ex.P.2 and obtained their signatures on it. Police 6 did not issue any Notice to him requesting him to act as mediator in this case, that he being an Ex­MPTC he visit police station and talk to the police frequently and that several persons pass through the road near the scene of offence and he had studied up to IX class and he can read Telugu language and he did not draft Ex.P.2.

P.W.5 denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsehood and that he have signed on Ex.P.2 at the instance of police in the police station only.

17.P.W.6 Village Revenue Officer, Chintalavalasa deposed that on 30.12.2016, Denkada Police called him and Bammidi Venkata Ramana to the Police

Station, himself, LW.12­Bammidi Venkata Ramana, the SI of police ­ Denkada PS, the CCS team – Vizianagaram proceeded to Nathavalasa junction at 2:00 pm, and the accused confessed that accused have habit of committing thefts, and the accused confessed that the had committed theft of gold pusthela thadu from a woman in the 3rd week of October, 2016 at V.T.Agraharam, Vizianagaram, and also committed thefts at Palakonda Road, Parvathipuram; Sai Ganesh Apartments, vizianagaram;

Modavalasa village, Denkada mandal. Further, the police seized said gold pusthela thadu from the pant pocket of the accused under the cover of mediators report in his presence and in the presence of LW.12­Bammidi Venkata Ramana and obtained their signatures on it and the accused was present before this court and he was arrested by the police in his presence and he and Lw.12­B.Venkata Ramana conducted identification parade and identification report was prepared and he signed on it. Denkada police did not issue any notice to him requesting him to act as mediator and that he cannot say at which place, the accused was running towards at the said junction by the time of his arrest, he had given evidence in 4 or 5 cases as a VRO, he cannot say the description of the seized gold property. P.W.6 denied the suggestion that he have seen the accused prior to coming into the court hall on the date of his examination and that the Denkada police did not arrest accused or seized any property from his possession in his presence and admitted 7 that Nathavalasa junction is a busy locality having many shops and houses and

Police did not examine any local inhabitants near Nathavalasa junction and he cannot say who drafted the mediators report.

18.P.W.7:who is the investigating officer testified that on 20.11.2016 at 5.30 pm, while he was present in police station P.w.1 came to the police station and presented a report, basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.164/2016, and issued F.I.R, he along with P.w.2 and his staff proceeded to scene of offence and observed the same, examined P.W.2, P.W.3, K.lakshmi, K.Chinna and recorded their statements, on 21.11.2016 again he visited the scene of offence along with mediators, observed the same, drew rough sketch and prepared scene observation report, on 29.12.2016 he verified the CC Camera footages near Fresh Choice,

Modavalasa along with P.w.2 and identified one black colour motorcycle bearing No.

AP 35 AD 5903 and on 30.12.2016 they caught the accused , they have recovered stolen property I.e,Gold Pusthela thadu along with two sathamanams and two gold casulu from the pant pocket of the accused and he confessed that he had committed thefts at various places like Parvathipuram town, Sai Ganesh Apartments, in

Vizianagaram in the 2nd week of August, 2016 in VT Agraharam in the 3rd week of

October,2016 and accordingly he seized M.O.1 under the cover of mediators report and affixed identification slips on the seized property and he sent the accused to

Court for judicial remand, on 03.01.2017 at 5.00 pm he has got conducted identification parade of M.o.1 in the premises of Elementary school, Pinathadivada village and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. He admitted that and that PW.1 did not hand­over any receipt pertaining to her gold pusthela thadu to him and that PW.1 did not state before him or mention in Ex.P1 about the number of the motor cycle. P.W.7 denied the suggestion that the scene of offence is a busy locality as it is situated near National High Way and admitted that PW.1 mentioned in Ex.P.1 and stated before him that the offender had snatched away her 8 gold pusthela thadu. He adds that PW1 mentioned that while the offender was taking out the gold pusthela thadu, it came out without being cut. P.W.7 admitted that he have not mentioned the above fact anywhere. P.W.7 admitted none of the witnesses have stated before him that they can identify the offender if shown to them. and he did not issue any notice to the mediators i.e. PW.5 and LW.10­

M.Pydayya asking them to act as mediators for the scene observation and that there is correction in date in Ex.P.6 and he did not seize any records pertaining to the motor cycle of the offender and he did not issue any notice to PW.6 and LW.12­

B.Venkata Ramana while taking them to Nathavalasa junction and he did not find any major difference in the gap between sentences in the 1st paragraphs and other paragraphs on the mediators report and that his staff did not sign on the mediators report and that there are many routes near Nathavalasa junction, they caught the accused when he was running towards highway road, but, the same was not mentioned in the mediators report. P.W.7 deposed that the signatures of the accused obtained in the margins of in the 1st and 2nd pages P.W.7 deposed that there is no specific mention in the mediators report that the contents were read over and explained to the accused and that none of the Station House Officers have accompanied him at the time of arrest of the accused and that except mediators report he did not prepare any seizure report and that he did not issue any notices to mediators or PW.1 before conducting identification parade of MO.1. P.W.7 denied the suggestion that he have conducted table investigation only. 

19.In this case through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the prosecution proved that MO1 was snatched away from the neck of PW1, the same facts corroborated by PW1 in her Ex.P1 report. PW1 identified the

MO1 in the test identification parade as well as in the court hall and PW6 the mediator for the test identification parade of property also corroborated the evidence of PW1. So, in this case the prosecution proved that MO1 belongs to 9

PW1 and it was subjected to theft. But in this case there is no evidence that the culprit who committed the offence was the accused, since there is no identification particulars of culprit mentioned in Ex.P1, nor deposed by

PW1 and on the other hand PW1 deposed that the culprit worn the helmet.

So the identification of culprit is in question. In those circumstances, the prosecution shall conduct test identification parade of accused. But the prosecution failed to conduct, which is fatal to the prosecution case.

20.The defence counsel drawn the attention of the court to the admission of PW1 that she identified the gold pustela thadu in the police station and MO1 does not have any cut, and not mentioning the number of motor vehicle in the Ex.P1. It is no doubt true when there are no other parties claiming the MO1 including the accused and when PW1 identified the same in the open court also the question of identification have no affect in this case.

With regard to not having cut in the MO1, it can be safely held that when

MO1 was cut, it might be at threat place, in those circumstances, the question of cut in chain place does not arise. With regard to mentioning the number of vehicle in Ex.P1, in generally nobody in that mood to observe the number of vehicle and that too when such type of incidents have been occurred, all the persons in a mood to save the victim and that too when the culprit made this type of offences, made every effort to escape in high speed, so non mentioning the number in the Ex.P1 is not fatal. So, in this case the proscution failed to prove the offence u/sec. 382 of Indian Penal Code.

21.With regard to involvement of vehicle , PW3 the owner of bike testified that he gave the said bike to his friend Botcha Mohan in June, 2016 and the same is kept with him as he failed to discharge the debt due to him.

PW4 the friend of PW4 also deposed in the same lines. But since there is no 10 mentioning the number of the vehicle in any where nor deposed by any one, the evidence of PW3 is of no avail to the prosecution case. 

22.In order to prove the offence under section 411 of Indian Penal

Code, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW6 the alleged independent mediator for the arrest of accused and seizure of property,who supported in his chief­examination with regard to arrest of accused and recovery of property.

But he admitted in his cross­examination that Denkada police did not issue any notice to him requesting him to act as mediator and he cannot say at which place the accused was running towards at the said junction by the time of his arrest and he have given evidence in 4 or 5 cases as a VRO and he cannot say the description of the seized gold property and Nathalavasa is a busy locality having many shops and houses and police did not examine any local inhabitants near Nathavalasa junction and he cannot say who drafted the mediators report. The categoric admissions of PW6 creates doubt with regard to his presence at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of property.

Perused Ex.P3 mediators report­cum­confession report which shows the 1st para of the report appears to be adjusted in con­justed manner and there is difference from line to line. The alleged signatures of accused were obtained on the side of Ex.P3 report. It is no doubt true as per section 25 and 26 of

Indian Evidence Act, the confession before the police officer is admissible unless it is recorded before the independent mediators. The confession leas to recovery portion is alone admissible in evidence. But in this case the prosecution got marked the entire confession as Ex.P3. It is no doubt true mere marking of entire document itself not amounting to proof of contents.

So, this court with its discretionary power not accepting the remaining portion of confession. When the presence of PW6 is doubtful when he cannot say the time and place of finding accused the evidence of PW6 has no trust.

11

23.PW7 the investigating Officer testified that he did not issue any notices to PW6 and that too when PW7 did not examine any local inhabitant of that locality though there is every chance to secure and that too the categoric admission of PW6 shows that he is stock witness to the prosecution case. In such circumstances, the prosecution should offer plausible explanation for not complying the provision under section 100(4) Cr.P.C. at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of property. PW7 admitted that on 20.11.2016 at 5.30 p.m.

PW1 gave report, but he visited scene of offence on 21.11.2016 along with mediators to observe the scene, prepared rough sketch. So the investigating

Officer not visited the scene of offence immediately after the commission of offence to collect the clues. PW1 testified that he identified the property at

Police Station Denkada. Whereas PW7 deposed that he conducted test identification parade of the accused at Thadavada village. PW7 deposed that none of the witnesses have stated before him that they can identify the offender if shown to them. PW7 admitted that he did not issue any notice to

PW6,that their staff did not sign on Ex.P3 mediators report. PW7 deposed that he affixed identification slips on the seized property. But no such identification slips found place on that property.

24.So, in this case the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of MO1 from the possession of accused in the presence of PW6 mediator in pursuance to the confession made by the accused and the prosecution failed to prove the confession leads to recovery u/sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act and failed to comply section 100(4) Cr.P.C in securing independent mediators at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of property. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the offence u/sec. 411 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the point No.1 to 3 answered in favour of the accused.

12

 25. Point No. 4 :­ In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges under Sections 382 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. Accused is ordered to be released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other cases. The interim custody of M.O.1 to P.W.1 as per the orders of this court vide Crl.MP

No.1945/2018 dated: 27.02.2018, holds good after expiry of appeal time. Accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees give thousand only) each under section 437­A Cr.P.C. to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 26th day of September, 2018. Sd/­Special Mobile Court, Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, FAC­ Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:For Defence P.W.1 :­ Hari Chinnammalu­None – P.W.2 :­ Mukunda Srinu P.W.3 :­ Battula Bla Kishore P.W.4 :­Kagitala Satyanarayana P.W.5 :­Kagithala Satyanarayana P.W.5:­Tirumalaraju Appala Narasimha Raju P.W.6:­S.Dhanunjaya Rao Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: NIL Ex.P1Report of PW1 to Police dated: 20.11.2016. 

Ex.P2Scene observation report dated 21.11.2016

Ex.P.3Mediators report dt: 30.11.2016. 

Ex.P4Signature on identification report. 

Ex.P5Original FIR in Cr.No. 164/2016 

Ex.P6Rough sketch of scene of offence dt; 29.12.2016 

Ex.P7Identification report

Material objects marked

MO1 Gold Pusthela thadu with 2 sethamanalu and two gold kasulu. Sd/­Smt.M.Venkata Seshamma, Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, FAC­ Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram.

13

Calendar and Judgment Calendar cases tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence: 20.11.2016 Date of report or complaint: 20.11.2016 Date of apprehension of accused : 30.12.2016. Date of release, if any on bail: Jail Date of commencement of trial: 20-02-2018 Date of close of trial: 21-06-2018 Date of sentence or order : 26-09-2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for delay and remarks:- The prosecution did not produce its witnesses from time to time, and hence the delay in disposal of the case.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.17/2017 on the file of the Addl.,

Judicial Magistrate of I the Class, Vizianagaram.

Complainant:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Denkada Police Station in Cr.No.164/2016 . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Age Father’s Name ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Korada Surya Prakash, 40 years Mohan Rao ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calling Religion Residence Mandal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- – Hindu Jaipur Jaipur ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence :- Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of theft u/S. 382 IPC

Dishonestly receiving stolen property u/S. 411 IPC.

Finding:- Not guilty for the offences u/Sec. 382 and 411 IPC

Sentence:- The accused is found not guilty for the charges under Sections 382 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. Accused is ordered to be released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other cases. The interim custody of M.O.1 to P.W.1 as per the orders of this court vide Crl.MP No.1945/2018 dated: 27.02.2018, holds good after expiry of appeal time. Accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees give thousand only) each under section 437­A Cr.P.C. to appear

before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Sd/-Smt.M.Venkata Seshamma, 

Judicial. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, FAC/ Addl. Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram.