M Venkateswarlu

Page 1 of 12 C.C.601 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

(CRIMINAL COURT FOR AGENCY AREAS)

Thursday, this the 1st day of August, 2024. Present: M.Venkateswarlu,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.601 of 2022

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhadrachalam Town. ……Complainant

And

A-1. Kodi Shekar Jampanna S/o Sreenu, Age:20 Years, Occ:Auto driver, R/o.Lambada colony Bhadrachalam.

A-2.Pujari Surya Prakash @ Pandu S/o.Sambashiva Rao, Age:20 Yeas, Occ: Coolie, r/o.Dummudugem Village and Mandal.

A-3.Vasam Manohar @ Manu, S/o.Kannaiah, Age:20 Years, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Buttaiyigudem Village of Yettapaka Mandal.

A-4.Soyam Naveen, S/o.Bhadraiah, Age:24 Years, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Thumalacheruvu village of Yetapaka Mandal. …… Accused * * *

This case is coming before me on 26.07.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri S.Sathish Kumar, Learned counsel for Accused No.1 to 4, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The Accused No.1 to 4 are facing charges U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal

Code.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.06.2022 at 1200 hrs the complainant lodged a complaint in PS Bhadrachalam in which he stated that, on 22.06.2022 afternoon around 1200 hours he along with his family members left from their house and went to attend their prayers in Naguru Dharga in Tamil Nadu

Page 2 of 12 C.C.601 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2023 state and while returning, on 27.06.2022 morning around 0700 hours their neighbour MD.Kaja, his friend Md.Narendera chary has phoned to him and informed that their house doors were broke opened by some unknown offenders, upon which in the morning around 1000 hours they reached their house and the west side door was burnt and opened. On that when they went inside their house, and found the Almirah broke opened in the Bed room in which gold ear studs 4- pairs weighing 6 grams. A chain-04 grams, golden ornaments weighing 10 grams worth Rs.20.000/-, silver Anklets weighing 1200 grams (one pair 200 grams), silver vessels-3 weighing 300 grams total 1 1.2 kg of silver worth Rs.45,000/-, net cash of Rs.30,000/-, Kids kiddy bank containing Rs.20,000/-, one Apple phone worth

Rs.40,000/- and their TVS Star city Plus motor cycle bearing No TS04EH0919 worth

Rs.30,000/- were missing and the same were committed theft by some unknown offenders all booty worth Rs.1,85,000/- As they returned from another village, they delayed to lodge early petition in the PS Thus, he requested to take necessary action against the accused.

3.On the complaint, LW.11 P.Shiva Rama Krishna, Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S Bhadrachalam Town has registered a case against the accused no.1 to 4 in

Cr.No.169/2022 U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal Code and investigated into.

4.During the course of investigation, LW.11 had examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, Later LW-11 informed the same to Finger print unit

Bhadradri Kothagudem by requesting to visit the scene of offence and collect the finger prints of the offenders and rushed to the scene of offence. Accordingly the finger print unit visited the scene of offence and collected available chance prints from scene of offence. Later flashed the same to the all police stations about the incident and sent teams to apprehend the offenders. Later the Lw-11 secured the

Page 3 of 12 C.C.601 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2023 witness i.e.,. Lws-2 to 5 and recorded their detailed statements in part-11 CDs.

After secured two mediators as Lw-6 and 7 in whose presence he held scene of offence Panchanama and drafted rough sketch of the scene and incorporated the same in Crime Detail Form.

Then the Lws-2 and 3 stated that they received theft information from the

Lws-4 and 5 and the Lws-1 to 3 were came to their house seen the almarah and without verification the Lw-1 went to police station and put a case. Actually not thefted gold ear studs 4-pairs weighing 6-grams, gold chain-04 grams, golden ornaments weighing 10 grams, silver Anklets weighing 1200 grams (one pair 200 grams), silver vessels-3 weighing 300 grams total 1 1.2 KGs of silver, the Lw-2 put the said ornaments in box and kept below the rice box, which was at kitchen room, without intimation to giving Lw-1 at the time of they went to tour and the

Lw-3 broken kiddy bank and taken kiddy bank amount Rs.20,000/-and said money put in a hundi. Actually Net Cash Rs. 30,000/-, one Apple I phone and TVS Star city

Plus motor cycle was stolen.

On 01.08.2022 at 1500 hours the Lw-10 arrested the Accused No.1 to 4 in

Cr.No:205/2022, U/sec 457, 380 IPC. During the course interrogation the accused

No.1 to 4 confessed in this case in Cr.No:205/2012 U/sec.457, 380 IPC. During the course of interrogation the accused No.1 to 4 also confessed in this case.

5.On report of the police, this court has taken cognizance against the accused no.1 to 4 for the offence U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the accused no.1 to 4.

Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 were produced from District Jail, Khammam and on the appearance of all the accused no.1 to 4 they were furnished with copies of documents as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Later, accused no.1 to 4 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C by explaining the charges leveled against them and

Page 4 of 12 C.C.601 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2023 upon hearing on both sides, charges were framed U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal

Code which was readover and explained to the accused no.1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution to prove its case examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P5 and MO.1 and MO.2. After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, the accused no.1 to 4 are examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against them for which the accused no.1 to 4 denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is :

"Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/Sec.457, 380 of I.P.C beyond reasonable doubt?.

9.P O I N T :

The Learned A.P.P.O claimed a conviction on the evidence of PW.1 to 4. He further submitted that the evidence of PW.2 is corroborate with PW.1 evidence and Ex.P.1 and P.2 clearly stated Accused No.1 to 4 are committed this offence and stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused, the evidence of PW.1, 2 and 4 is corroborate with each other, confession and recovery panchanama of Accused No.1 to 4. Therefore based on the evidence of PW.1 to 4 and Ex.P.1 to P.5, convict the accused persons.

On the other hand the Learned counsel for the accused no.1 to 4 contended that police forcefully involved his clients in this case, no names of accused no.1 to 4 mentioned in Complaint and First Information Report. PW.2 is Stock witness he

Page 5 of 12 C.C.601 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2023 used to go to police station, PW.2 did not stated Accused No.1 to 4 committed theft in the house of PW.1. PW.4/Investigation Officer without going to the scene, conducted table investigation and filed false case. Accused No.1 to 4 are innocent persons they never committed any offence, Police persons threatened the

Accused No.1 to 4 to admit the case, eye witness also not mentioned as Accused

No.1 to 4 committed theft. Hence prayed the court to acquit the Accused No.1 to 4.

The prosecution in order to prove the offence U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian

Penal Code, examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and MOs.1 and 2.

PW.1 is the complainant, PW.2 is the Panch witness for confession-cum-recovery panchanama, PW.3 is the panch witness for Crime Detail Form, PW.4 is the

Investigation Officer. With reference to Exhibits; Ex.P.1 is the report

dt:27.06.2022, Ex.P2 Attested copy of relevant portion of confession-cum-seizure

panchanama, Ex.P.3 is Crime Detail Form, Ex.P.4 Attested copy of Confession- cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P.5 is the First Information Report and MO.1 is Apple

I-Phone (A15-29 Series), MO.2 is Motorcycle TVS Stencity plus Bearing

No.TS04EH0919.

The defacto complainant is examined as PW.1. He deposed that on 22.06.2022 he along-with his family locked the doors of the house and went to

Nagur Darga. On 27.06.2022 at 7.A.M. their neighbors LW4 and 5 have informed over phone that his house doors were break open and as such he came back home at 10-00 A.M. He observed that door were set ablazed and iron almara brake open and some unkonown offenders have committed theft of four pairs of

Gold earstuds (6 grms) and one Gold chain (4 grms) and Silver anklets 6 pairs (1200 grms) and silver vessels (300 grms) and cash of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- kiddy bank amount, one I Phone, One Motorcycle TVS Star City Plus bearing TS-04-

Page 6 of 12 C.C.601 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2023

EH-0919 total worth of Rs.1,85,000/- were found missing. He visited the police station on the same day and lodged a report/Ex.P1 is the report lodged by him.

He further deposed that he received I-Phone as well as motorcycle for interim custody from the court. M.O. 1 is the Apple I Phone (A15 29 series), Μ.Ο. 2 is the

Motorcycle i.e., TVS Star City Plus bearing No.TS-04-EH-0919. M.O. 1 and 2 are returned to the witness after marking.

The Panch for the confession-cum-seizure panchanama is examined as

PW.2 and he deposed that on 01.08.2022 at about 03.00 p.m the Bhadrachalam

Town police have called him and LW.6 to Forest Check Post Bhadrachalam. Police have stated with them to enquire the four persons who were present with the police along with one motorcycle and on enquiry those four persons revealed their names as Kodi Sheker and P. Suryaprakash, Manohar, Naveen, and they Stated

before them that they addicted to bad vices and as such they were in a habit of

committing theft and using the booty amount towards his lavish expenditure. They further confessed that they committed thefts at Kothagudem, Palvancha and

Bhadrachalam and was in jail for some period. They further confessed that on 26.06.2022 at Gandhi Nagar, Bhadrachalam they have break open the lock of one house and further break opened almarah and committed theft one apple I phone and one motorcycle TVS star City plus. The apple I phone was retained by shekar and the bike was taken by suryaprakash. Police have recovered apple I phone from Accused No.1 and seized motorcycle from Accused No.2 later PW2 have affixed his signature on confession cum seizure panchanama. Through this witness

Ex.P2 attested copy relevant portion of confession cum seizure panchanama is marked. Witness identified the accused persons who were present in the court hall. In the cross-examination he denied the formal suggestion put to him by learned counsel for the accused no.1 to 4.

Page 7 of 12 C.C.601 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2023

The Panch for the scene of offence is examined as PW.3, through this witness the prosecution got marked Ex.P. which is the Crime Detail Form. In the cross-examination he denied the formal suggestion put to him by learned counsel

for the accused no.1 to 4.

It is the evidence of the Investigating Officer who is examined as PW.4 that,

PW.1 lodged a report and LW.11/Shivaramakrishna has registered a case in

Cr.No.169/2022 for the offence U/Sec.457, 380 I.P.C and recorded the statements of LW.2 to 5 and conducted CDF Panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e.,

PW.3 and LW.7 at the scene of offence. Later, PW.4 conducted the confession- cum-seizure panchanama/Ex.P4 in presence of mediators PW2 and LW8. Arrested the accused no.1 to 4 and recovered the stolen property. After completion of investigation filed chargesheet against the accused no.1 to 4. Which is main original copy of confession cum seizure panchanama is filed in CC No.607/2022 in crime No.205/2022.

During the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused he admitted that he arrested the accused no.1 to 4 at forest check post and there is all are their department persons. He also admitted that at the forest check post stopped the vehicles coming which are in suspicious manner. He also admitted that in Ex.P.1 and FIR the accused no.1 to 4 names are not mentioned and it is mentioned as committed by unknown persons. Further he denied the formal suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for the accused no.1 to 4.

Although, the confession of the accused no.1 to 4 in the presence of the police officer is inadmissible in evidence but it is the evidence of PW.2 that PW.4 has recovered MOs.1 and 2 from the possession of Accused No.1 to 4 under cover of confession-cum-recovery panchanama in the presence of PW.2 and LW.6. On

Page 8 of 12 C.C.601 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2023 observation of the cross-examination of PW.3 and PW.4 nothing substantial could be elicited by the defence to disbelieve the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4.

Moreover PW.4 is the Investigating Officer and there are no hostile terms between PW.4 and the accused so as to implicate the accused in the present case by planting MOs.1 and 2. The evidence of PW.1, 3 and 4 are materially corroborated with each other.

Their appears no reason for not believing the evidence of PW.4 supported with the evidence of PW.2. A suggestion was given to these witness by the counsel

for the accused no.1 to 4 that the accused are falsely implicated in the present

case. The suggestion was denied by the witness. PW.4 being a public servant and there is no enmity between PW.4 and the accused no.1 to 4 so as to implicate them in the present case. The suggestion has no weight in the light of evidence of

PW.2 who is an independent witness. The evidence of PW.2 and PW.4 is reliable to the extent of recovery of MOs.1 and 2 from the possession of all the accused.

The prosecution is relying upon the confession of the accused no.1 to 4 in order to believe the case that the Accused No.1 to 4 have gained entry into the house of PW.1 for committing theft of MO.1 and 2.

13.However, the evidence of PW.1 inspire the confidence of this court and it is materially corroborated with the evidence of PW.4. Therefore the prosecution is successful in proving that Mo.1 and 2 are recovered from the possession of the

Accused but it is for the accused No.1 to 4 to explain as to their possession of cash of Rs.2,40,000/-. In the examination of the accused no.1 to 4 U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C he has denied the prosecution evidence as being false, but the accused no.1 to 4 failed to give any explanation for their possession of MO.1 and 2. Therefore this court is required to raise presumption U/Sec.114 illustration(a) of Indian Evidence

Act that "A man who is in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft is

Page 9 of 12 C.C.601 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2023 either the thief or received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession". Since the prosecution has proved the ownership of

MO.1 and 2 with the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.P.1 report, prosecution also proved that MO.1 and 2 were stolen on from the house of PW.1 and prosecution also proved that MO.1 and 2 are found in the recent possession of the accused no.1 to 4. The mere fact of recent possession of the stolen property is supporting the case of the prosecution and since the Accused No.1 to 4 had failed to give account for the possession of MO.1 and 2. , this court would raise presumption

U/Sec.114 illustration(a) of Indian Evidence Act by presuming that Accused No.1 to 4 are the thieves as contended by the prosecution.

14.With the discussion as made above it needs to be concluded that the prosecution was successful in proving the charge against the accused No.1 to 4

U/Sec.457, 380 of I.P.C.

IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found guilty for the offence

U/sec.457 of I.P.C and accordingly they are convicted U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Accused No.1 to 4 are found guilty for the offence U/sec.380 of I.P.C and accordingly they are convicted U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of August, 2024.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

PLEA OF ACCUSED ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

15.When the accused no.1 to 4 are questioned with regard to

the sentence to be imposed against them, Accused No.1 reported

his mother is in ill-health. Accused No.2 prayed as he is in ill-health

and he is the sole bread winner to his family, Accused No.3 stated

Page 10 of 12 C.C.601 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2023

that his mother health is not good, no one is there to look his

mother, Accused No.4 is having two children and they are unable

to live themselves if he went to jail, hence prayed to take a lenient

view.

16.The mitigating circumstances submitted by the accused

no.1 to 4 is in need of sympathy of the court. But, the offence

charged and proved against the accused is U/Sec.457, 380 I.P.C

for which the punishment is imprisonment of either description for

a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both. The

offence U/Sec.457 I.P.C shall be punishable with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to five years, and

shall also be liable to fine, and, if the offence intended to be

committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended

to fourteen years. The offence U/Sec.380 I.P.C shall be punishable

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may

extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

17. Keeping in view of the facts of the case, this court is not

inclined to invoke the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act. But

considering the circumstances submitted by the accused no.1 to 4

this court is inclined to take a moderate view in sentencing the

accused no.1 to 4. Therefore, Accused No.1 to 4 are sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (18) months each for

the offence U/Sec.457 of I.P.C and the Accused no.1 to 4 are

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (18)

months each for the offence U/Sec.380 of I.P.C. Both the sentences

shall run concurrently and the sentence against the Accused No.1

and 2 in this CC and sentence in CC.No.598/2022 and the sentence

against Accused No.1 and 2 in CC.No.602/2022 shall run

concurrently. The accused no.1 to 4 also to pay a fine of Rs.100/-

(Rupees One Hundred only) each in each offence in default of

payment of fine the accused no.1 to 4 are directed to undergo

Page 11 of 12 C.C.601 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2023

simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The remand period

under gone by the Accused No.1 from 02.08.2022 to 21.102023

and 19.07.2024 to 01.08.2024 (15) months (10) days i.e., 460 days

and the remand period undergone by the Accused No.2 from

02.08.2022 to 18.08.2022 (17) days shall be set-off Under Sec.428

Cr.P.C. The remand period undergone by the Accused No.3 from

02.08.2022 to 18.08.2022 and 19.07.2024 to 01.08.2024 (31) days

shall be set-off Under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. The remand period undergone

by the Accused No.4 from 02.08.2022 to 18.08.2022 (17) days shall

be set-off Under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

18. The case property i.e., MOs.1 and 2 which were already

given to PW.1 for interim custody vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.335 of

2022, dt:26.09.2022 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal

time.

19. The accused are appraised of their right to prefer

appeal against the judgment and sentence passed by this court.

Accused reported means to engage the counsel to prefer the

appeal against the judgment and sentence passed by this court.

Office is directed to furnish true copy of judgment to the

accused forthwith, free of costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of August, 2024.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

: WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE

PROSECUTION :

PW.1: Sk. Shafi Complainant

PW.2:Sk.HussainPanch witness for confession-

cum-seizure panchanama

Page 12 of 12 C.C.601 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2023

PW.3: R.Durga Rao Panch witness for Crime Detail

Form

PW.4:P.NagarajuInvestigating Officer.

:WITNESS EXAMINED OF BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE :

NIL

:EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report dated 27.06.2022.

Ex.P2:Attested copy relevant portion of Confession-cum-

seizure panchanama.

Ex.P3:Crime Detail Form.

Ex.P4:Attested copy of Confession-cum-seizure

panchanama.

Ex.P5:First Information Report.

: EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE :

-NIL-

:MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSEUCTION:

MO.1: Apple I-Phone (A15 29 series),

MO.2: Motorcycle TVS Star City Plus Bearing

No.TS04EH 0919.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

Corrections carried out by me:

Page 1 of 11 C.C.No.95 of 2013 Dt:28.12.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

(CRIMINAL COURT FOR AGENCY AREAS)

Thursday, this the 28th day of December, 2023.

Present: M.Venkateswarlu, FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.95 of 2013

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Dummugudem. ……Complainant

And

A1. Kunja Bhadraiah, S/o.Parwathaiah, Age:33 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Latchhigudem Village of Dummugudem Mandal. A2. Musam Kondababu, S/o.Thirapathaiah, Age:30 Years, R/o.Repaka Gommu Village, Rudramkota Mandal, Khammam District. A3. Karam Nageswarao, S/o.Narsaiah, Age:28 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Kannaigutta Village Velerupadu Mandal. A4. Kovvasi Raju, S/o.Bairagi, Age: 29 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Yedavally Village, Velerupadu Mandal. …… Accused * * *

This case is coming before me on 26.12.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Miss K.Prakash Rao, Learned Counsel for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a case arising out of Cr.No.67/2012 of P.S Dummugudem registered against the Accused No.1 to 4 for the offence U/sec.353, 382 R/w.34 I.P.C basing on the report dt:17.11.2012 lodged by complainant Vallala Thirumala Rao, Forest

Range Officer.

2.The accusation made against the accused is that, on 11.11.2012 at 1930 hours while the defacto-complainant came to P.S Dummugudem and lodged a

Page 2 of 11 C.C.No.95 of 2013 Dt:28.12.2023

Telugu written petition stating that he along with his posse by name

Md.Muzaruddin, Giridhar Gopal and NGO K.Ramaswami came to Bhadrachalam on 10.11.2012 on reliable information as a part of their legitimate duties. They got a deal with Kunja Bhadraiah, Musam Konda to purchase Tiger skin for Rs.3,50,000/-.

As it is late night they advised to come on 11.11.2012. Accordingly they came to

Bhadrachalam on 11.11.2012, taken them to Thunikicheruvu Forest Area. They have gone to the place on their Jeep Bearing No.AP 20 AK 1312. At the road they kept Mazaruddin, Gopal and Masam Kondababu at the Jeep itself, Kunja

Bhadraiah/Accused No.1 had taken him an Ramaswami into the forest. After going 100 meters the Accused No.1 told to stay there itself and went inside the forest. As he has not return for sometime, after 10 minutes he along with Ramaswami returned to Jeep, when they came to the Jeep both found that the Accused No.1 and 2 and (05) other beating Mazaruddin and Gopal with sticks. Immediately both raised hues and tried to rescue them, but they thrown them and beat Mazaruddin and Gopal with sticks and caused bleeding injuries, stolen away the black colour suit case having one pair clothes Rs.8,000/- net cash, some documents, bank pass book along with cheque book etc., and fled away from there in an Auto Bearing

No.AP 20 9936. Immediately they shifted Mazaruddin and Gopal to Hospital got admitted them for treatment.

3.On receipt of the report from LW.1 as per the contents of the petition the

Sub-Inspector of Police Bhadrachalam Police Station had registered a case in

Cr.No.85/2012, U/Sec.353, 382 R/w.34 IPC and tookup the investigation. After invetigation the CD file transfer to Dummugudem P.S on the point of jurisdiction accordingly the SHO, Dummugudem re-registered a case in Cr.No.67/2012,

U/Sec.353, 382 R/w.34 I.P.C and took up the investigation.

Page 3 of 11 C.C.No.95 of 2013 Dt:28.12.2023

During the course of investigation the S.H.O Bhadrachalam P.S have examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 5, visited the scene of offence.

On reliable information on 12.12.2012 at 1000 hours he arrested the accused No.3 and 4 and on interrogation they admitted their guilt of offence. On 21.11.2012 the Accused No.1 and 2 surrendered before the Hon’ble JFCM Court,

Bhadrachalam.

4.Based on the report of the police, cognizance was taken against the

Accused No.1 to 4 for the offence U/Sec.353, 382 R/w.34 I.P.C and issued summons to the accused. On appearance of the Accused No.1 to 4, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Later, the Accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and charge U/Sec.353, 382 R/w.34 of I.P.C were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 documents. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material that appeared against him in prosecution evidence, accused denied prosecution evidence as being false and reported no-defence evidence.

6.Heard the Learned A.P.P and Learned Counsel for the accused. Perused the material on record.

7.Now the point for determination is :

"Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 4 for the offence U/Sec.353, 382 R/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt or not”?.

Page 4 of 11 C.C.No.95 of 2013 Dt:28.12.2023

8.P O I N T :

The allegation of prosecution is that LW.5 is the complainant, he along with his posse/LW.6 and NGO K.Ramaswami came to Bhadrachalam on 10.11.2012 on reliable information, as part of their legitimate duties they got a deal with Kunja Bhadraiah and Masam Konda Babu for Rs.3,50,000/- to purchase Tiger Skin as it is late in the night, they advised to come on 11.11.2012. According to their deal today on 11.11.2012, Accused No.1 and 2 came to Bhadrachalam taken them to Thunikicheruvu Forest Area. They have gone to the place on their Jeep bearing No.AP 20 AK 1312. At the road they kept PW.6, Gopal and Accused No.2 at the Jeep itself, Accused No.1 had taken him and Ramaswami into the forest. After going 100 meters

Accused No.1 told to stay there itself and went inside the forest. As he has not return for sometime after (10) minutes he along with Ramaswami returned to Jeep. When they came to the Jeep, both found that Accused

No.1 and 2 and (05) others beating PW.6 with sticks and caused bleeding injuries, stolen away the black colour suit case having one pair cloths,

Rs.8,000/- net cash, some documents, bank pass book along with cheque book etc., and fled away from the place in an auto bearing No.AP 20 9936.

Sec.353 of I.P.C deals with an offence of assault or criminal force to

deter a public servant from discharge of his official duty, which reads as

follows:

"Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with

Page 5 of 11 C.C.No.95 of 2013 Dt:28.12.2023 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

9.A reading of the above provision would make it clear that in order to attract the offence, the prosecution is required to establish that there was assault or use of criminal force and such assault or use of criminal force was made on a public servant while he was acting in the execution of his duty or with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by him in the discharge of duty. There is no doubt that P.W.6 and 7 are public servants, but the crucial question is whether accused assaulted them or used any criminal force with an intent to prevent or deter P.W.6 and PW.7 from deterring their official duties.

10.In order to attract the offence U/Sec.353 of I.P.C, the prosecution has to prove that the accused had used criminal force with the intention to cause injury, fear or annoyance to the public servant.

The Eye-witnesses are examined as PW.1 and 2. They testified that they do not know anything about this case. The accused never obstructed any public

Servants from discharging his lawful duties nor snatched any suit case from anybody in their presence. They turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. During their cross-examination by the Learned A.P.P. nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution.

The panch witnesses for Crime Detail Form are examined as PW.3 and 4.

They testified that at about (07) years on one day Dummugudem Police obtained their signatures on a written paper under Ex.P3 and P4, but they do not know the contents therein. They turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

During their cross-examination by the Learned A.P.P. nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution.

Page 6 of 11 C.C.No.95 of 2013 Dt:28.12.2023

The Defacto-Complainant is examined as PW.5, he testified that on 10.11.2012, he along with LW.2 and 3 visited Bhadrachalam on receiving the reliable information about the Tiger Skin and offered to sell Tiger Skin for Rs.3.5

Lakhs and requested them to visit them on the next day as it was already dark.

Accordingly, on the next day Accused NO.1 and Accused No.2 lead them to

Tunikicheruvu village at about 05.20 P.M along with one Ramaswamy who is also

Wild life Activist. At Tunikicheruvu Forest Area, Accused asked his staff to stay at

Tunikicheruvu Forest Area in entrance and lead him and one Ramaswamy upto 100 meters distance into Forest Area at Tunikicheruvu and asked them to stay for sometime and they entered into Forest Area. They waited there for 10 to 15 minutes then on suspicion they came out from the Forest Area and visited his staff where they were asked to wait and they reached there and found that Accused

No.1 and 2 along with (05) other persons were beating LW.2 and LW.3 and also were attempting to forcibly take the briefcase from the possession of LW.2 and

LW.3 and assaulted the LW.2 and LW.3 with sticks, then on hues and cries of LW.2 and LW.3 and on seeing himself and the said Ramaswamy the Accused escaped along with briefcase in one Auto bearing No.AP20 9936 as the accused felt that

Rs.3,50,000/- were kept in the briefcase but in the said said briefcase Rs.8,000/- and one pair of clothes, Bank pass book, Check book and some documents then they shifted the LW.2 and LW.3 to Government Hospital, Bhadrachalam for treatment. They he lodged Ex.P5 report before the SHO PS Bhadrachalam Rural.

During the cross-examination by the Learned counsel for the accused he stated that on credible information about presence of Tiger Skin in Bhadrachalam

Area they visited Tunikicheruvu and one Ramaswamy introduced Accused No.1.

The scene of of offence is situated in reserve forest area. He denied the suggestions put by the Learned counsel for the accused.

Page 7 of 11 C.C.No.95 of 2013 Dt:28.12.2023

The eye-witness and injured are examined as P.w.6 he testified that on 10.11.2012 he received information that Tiger Skin is being sold and as such as a member of anti pouching squad the along with PW.5 and LW.3 came to

Bhadrachalam. On the next day one Ramaswami whi is a NGO and from whom reliable inforamtion was received, accompanied them and they all proceeded to

Thuniki Cheruvu village in the evening hours. Later, PW.5 and Ramaswami went in to the plantation area and he along with PW.7 were waiting near their vehicle and meanwhile 8 persons formed into a mob started attacking them with a plantation stick.

All the persons bet him and Gopal due to which he fell unconscious for about 2 minutes and when he gained consciousness he found that all the persons were beating Gopal. Meanwhile on hearing their hues and cries PW.5 and Ramaswami came to them shouting at the mob and tried to rescue them but in vain. Meanwhile

Ramaswami went to village for seeking help from the villagers. He along with PW.5 and PW.7 tried to escape from the scene and went to their vehicle but all the persons attacked and again started attacking and tried to take away the briefcase of Thirumala

Rao and tried to commit theft of cash and all the persons took heal from the scene of offence. Later they informed the matter to the police and went to hospital for treatment.

He received swelling injury on his forehead. He identified the Accused No.1 to 3 as the persons who attacked on him.

During his cross-examination he stated that at the time of offence he working at

Hyderabad as Wild Life Assistant. PW.5 had made GD entry with regard to their task at

Bhadachalam. He don not know any ID of as to Thuniki cheruvu false under which range. He also admitted that he did not inform the local range officer or the DFO about their team work at Bhadrachalam since they have authority. He do not stated before

Page 8 of 11 C.C.No.95 of 2013 Dt:28.12.2023 the police that Nageswar Rao also accompanied them to Thuniki cheruvu village. He also stated that he do not know whether Ramaswami has insisted all the accused for tiger skin by stating that he newly constructed house at Hyderabad and he is in necessity of Tiger skin for the purpose of decoration at his house and lured the accused for Rs.50,000/-. He denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

PW.7/U.Giridhar Gopal another eye-witness deposed before the court that in the year 2012 he worked as wild life assistant in AP Forestry and on 1.11.2012 he along with PW.5 and PW.6 ame to Bhadrachalam as PW.5 received information that

Tiger skin is being sold and as such as a member of Anti pouching squad he along with PW.5 and PW.7 came to Bhadrachalam. On the next day one Ramaswami who is a NGO and from whom reliable information was received, accompanied them and they all proceeded to Thiniki Cheruvu village in the evening hours. Later PW.5 and

Ramaswami went into the plantation area and he along with PW.6 were waiting near their vehicle and meanwhile 4 to 5 persons formed into a mob started attacking then with a plantation stick and also bet them with stones. All the persons bet him and

Mazaruddin. Meanwhile on hearing their hues and cries PW.5 and Ramaswami came to them shouted at the mob and tried to rescue them but in vain. PW.5 and

Ramaswami were also attacked by the mob. They tried to escape from the scene and they went to their vehicle but all the persons attacked unused again started attacking and tried to take away the cash in the briefcase of Thirumala Rao and all the persons took heal from the scene of offence. Later they informed the matter to the police and went to hospital for treatment. He received injury on his head and also on all over the

Page 9 of 11 C.C.No.95 of 2013 Dt:28.12.2023 body. The hospital authorities took scanning of his head treated them. He identified the

Accused No.1 to 3 as the persons who attacked on him.

During the cross-examination he stated that he don not know whether PW.5 had made a GD entry with regard to their task at Bhadrachalam He do not have any idea as to Thuniki Cheruvu falls under which range office and also don ot know whether

PW.5 informed the local range officer are the DFO about their team work at

Bhadrachalam since they have authority. He also stated that he do not know whether

Ramaswami has insisted all the accused for tiger skin by stating that he newly constructed house at Hyderabad and he is in necessity of Tiger skin for the purpose of decoration at his house and lured the accused for Rs.50,000/-. He denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

PW.8/G.V.R Bhadram, Investigating Officer deposed that on 17.11.2012 at 1300 hours he received CD file from Bhadrachalam Rural Police Station, on the point of jurisdiction he re-registered FIR in Cr.No.67/2012, U/Sec.353, 382 R/w.34 IPC.

Thereafter, he verified the statements of LW.1 to 3, on reliable information he arrested

Accused No.3 and 4 on 12.12.2012 later he handedover the CD file to LW.11.

During his cross-examination he stated that he did not receive any material objects along with CD file. He also admitted that in column No.9 of FIR it is mentioned as ear studs weighing about 1½ kasu worth of Rs.30,000/- and he also admitted that he did not visit the scene of offence.

11.None of the prosecution witnesses testified that the accused has used any criminal force against PW.6 and PW.7. Moreover the eye-witnesses i.e., PW.1 and 2 did not state anything about the commission of criminal force by the accused.

Page 10 of 11 C.C.No.95 of 2013 Dt:28.12.2023

Moreover, the panch witnesses for Crime Detail Form i.e., PW.3 and 4 are also did not state anything in favour of the prosecution.

12.The Learned counsel for the accused submitted that there is no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as to the manner of the incident and since it is a concocted story,the witnesses have gave a different narration as to the incident and the evidence is not trustworthy as there are material contradictions.

13.To attract the ingredients U/Sec.353 of I.P.C, one of the main ingredient is that assault or criminal force should be to deter the public servant who were discharging his official duty. It cannot be said that PW.5 and PW.6 were in lawful discharge of their duties as a public servants at the time of alleged incident. The prosecution has no case to say that the accused had used criminal force which led to prevention of discharge of duty by PW.5 and PW.6.

14. Since the prosecution failed to prove the primary charge U/Sec.353 I.P.C., the consecutive charges U/Sec.382 R/w.34 IPC also fails. Therefore, in view of the above made discussion, since prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, point answered in favour of Accused No.1 to 4 and against the prosecution.

15. IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences

U/sec.353, 382 R/w.34 I.P.C and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of Accused No.1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court, on this the 28th day of December, 2023.

FAC: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

Page 11 of 11 C.C.No.95 of 2013 Dt:28.12.2023

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined.

For prosecution PW.1. Komaram Muthaiah PW.2. Korsa Rajesh PW.3. Thati Laxminarayana PW.4. Komaram Balakrishna PW.5. Vallala Thirumala Rao PW.6. M.Maxaruddin PW.7. U.Giridhar Gopal PW.8. G.V.R Bhadram

For defence: -None-

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution Ex.P1. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.1 Ex.P2. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.2 Ex.P3. Signature of PW.3 on Crime Detail Form. Ex.P4. Signature of PW.4 on Crime Detail Form. Ex.P5. Report Ex.P6. First Information Report.

For defence: -Nil-

Material Objects Marked NIL

FAC: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

Corrections carried out by me:

Page 1 of 11 C.C.589 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

(CRIMINAL COURT FOR AGENCY AREAS)

Thursday, this the 1st day of August, 2024.

Present: M.Venkateswarlu,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.589 of 2022

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhadrachalam Town. ……Complainant

And

A-1.Kodi Shekar & Jampanna s/o Sreenu, 20yrs, Koya, Auto driver, r/o Lambada colony Bhadrachalam.

A-2 Pujari Surya Prakash @ Pandu s/o Sambashiva Rao, 20yrs, Nayakapodu, Coolie, r/o Dummugudem village & Mandal …… Accused No.1 and 2 * * *

This case is coming before me on 26.07.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri S.Sathish Kumar, Learned counsel for Accused No.1 and 2, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The Accused No.1 and 2 are facing charges U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal

Code.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.04.2022 at 1900 hours the complainant lodged a complaint in PS Bhadrachalam in which she stated that, on 24.04.2022 she locked her house in Goldsmith colony and went to village on her work. After that in her absence at her house, some unknown offenders gained entry into their house by jumping the compound wall, managed to broke open the

Page 2 of 11 C.C.589 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2024 door lock with Crow bars also broke opened the Almirah lock, scattered the articles in the Almirah and committed theft of one gold chain-22 grams worth

Rs.44,000/-. The same was witnessed by their neighbor Gariga Rambabu who went on walking and informed the same through phone. Immediately she left from their village, came to her house and found house doors lock broke opened. When she entered in to her house, she found the Almirah broke opened in which the sarees were scattered and found gold chain missing. Immediately she informed the same to Police by making a phone call to police station. Thus, the complainant requested to take necessary action.

2.On the complaint, LW.9 P.Shiva Rama Krishna, Sub-Inspector of Police

Bhadrachalam Town has registered a case against the accused no.1 and 2 in

Cr.No.89/2022 U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal Code and investigated into.

During the course of investigation LW.9 visited the scene of offence and secured the witness i.e. Lws-2 and 3 and recorded their detailed statements in part-II CDs. After secured two mediators as Lw-4 and 5 in whose presence he held scene of offence Panchanama and drafted rough sketch of the scene and incorporated the same in Crime Detail Form.

3.On 01.08.2022 at 1500 hours the Lw-8/P.Nagaraju Inspector of Police, P.S

Bhadrachalam Town arrested the Accused No.1 and 2 in Cr.No:205/2022

U/sec.457, 380 IPC. During the course interrogation the Accused No.1 and 2 confessed in this case and they also confessed in Cr.No.205/2022, U/sec.457, 380

IPC.

4.On report of the police, this court has taken cognizance against the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the accused no.1 and 2.

Page 3 of 11 C.C.589 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2024

On appearance of the accused no.1 and 2 they were furnished with copies of documents as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Later, accused no.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C by explaining the charges leveled against them and upon hearing on both sides, charges were framed U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal

Code which was readover and explained to the accused no.1 and 2 for which accused no.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution to prove its case examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P5 and MO.1. After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, the accused no.1 and 2 are examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against them for which the accused no.1 and 2 denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record.

7.Now the point that arises for determination is :

"Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.457, 380 of I.P.C beyond reasonable doubt?.

8.P O I N T :

The Learned A.P.P.O claimed a conviction on the evidence of PW.1 to 4. He further submitted that the evidence of PW.2 is corroborate with PW.1 evidence and Ex.P.1 and P.2 clearly stated Accused No.1 and 2 are committed this offence and stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused, the evidence of PW.1, 2 and 4 is corroborate with each other, confession and recovery panchanama of Accused No.1 and 2. Therefore based on evidence of PW.1 to 4 and Ex.P.1 to P.5, convict the accused persons.

Page 4 of 11 C.C.589 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2024

9.On the other hand the Learned counsel for the accused contended that police forcefully involved his clients in this case, no names of accused no.1 and 2 mentioned in Complaint and First Information Report. PW.2 is Stock witness he used to go to police station, PW.2 did not stated Accused No.1 and 2 committed theft in the house of PW.1. PW.4/Investigation Officer without going to the scene, conducted table investigation and filed false case. Accused No.1 and 2 are innocent persons they never committed any offence, Police persons threatened the Accused No.1 and 2 to admit the case, eye witness also not mentioned as

Accused No.1 and 2 committed theft. Hence prayed the court to acquit the

Accused No.1 and 2.

10. The prosecution in order to prove the offence U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal

Code, examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and MO.1. P.W.1 is

Complainant, PW.2 is the Panch witness for Confession and Seizure panchanama of Accused No.1 and 2, PW.3 is the Panch witness for Crime Detail Form and PW.4 is the Investigation Officer and arrested the accused no.1 and 2 and recovered stolen property. With regard to Exhibits; Ex.P.1 is the report, Ex.P.2 is the relevant portion of confession and seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is the Crime Detail Form,

Ex.P.4 is attested copy of confession and seizure panchanama and Ex.P.5 is the

First Information Report.

The defacto complainant is examined as PW.1. She deposed that on 24.04.2022 she went to village on her personal work by locking the house. On 28.04.2022 her neighbors called her over phone and informed that her house lock was break open and she returned back home and found that the almarah lock was break open and the Gold chain weighing 20 gms worth of Rs.44,000/- was found missing. As such she lodged a report before the police that some unknown

Page 5 of 11 C.C.589 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2024 offenders have committed theft of her Gold Chain. Through this witness prosecution got marked Ex.P.1 report and MO.1 which was received by PW.1 towards interim custody through the court.

PW.2 is the Panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama who deposed that on 01.08.2022 at about 03.00 p.m the Bhadrachalam Town police have called him and Shareef to Forest Check Post Bhadrachalam. Police have stated them to enquire two persons who were present with the police alongwith one motorcycle and on enquiry those two persons revealed their names as Kodi

Sheker and P.Suryaprakash. They Stated before him that they addicted to bad vices and as such there were in a habit of committing theft and using the booty amount towards their lavish expenditure. They further confessed that they have committed thefts at Kothagudem, Palvancha and Bhadrachalam and they were in jail for some period. They further confessed that on 27.04.2022 at Gold smith colony, Bhadrachalam they have break open the lock of one house with the help of crow bar and break open the almirah and committed theft of one gold chain. And the police have seized the said gold chain in his presence and in the presence of

Shareef. PW.2 identified the Accused No.1 and 2. through this witness prosecution got marked Ex.P2, relevant portion of Confession cum seizure panchanama.

During the cross-examination by the Learned counsel for the accused no.1 and 2 he admitted that he is resident of Gollabazar and on the instructions he went to forest Check Post. He also admitted that he do not have prior acquaintance with Accused No.1 and 2. Further he denied the suggestions put by the Learned counsel for the Accused No.1 and 2.

The Panch for Crime Detail Form is examined as PW.3, he deposed that on 29.04.2022 at 08.00 AM when SI Called him and LW.5 to the house of PW.1 and conducted panchanama and drawn rough sketch and obtained his signatures.

Page 6 of 11 C.C.589 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2024

Through this witness the prosecution got marked Ex.P.3 which is the Crime Detail

Form. In the cross-examination he denied the formal suggestions put to him by learned counsel for the Accused No.1 and 2.

11.It is the evidence of the Investigating Officer who is examined as PW.4 that, on 28.04.2022 at 1900 hours PW1 came to police station and lodged a report, LW9 received complaint from the PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.89/2022 for the offence punishable U/Sec.457, 380 IPC and recorded the statements of LW2 and 3 and conducted the CDF panchanama in presence mediators i.e., PW3 and LW5 at the scene of offence. Later PW.4 conducted the confession-cum-seizure panchanama in presence of mediators i.e., PW2 and LW6 and arrested the accused No.1 and 2 and recovered the stolen property. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2. Through this witness prosecution got marked Ex.P4/Attested Copy of Confession Cum

Seizure Panchanama and Ex.P5 First Information Report.

During the cross examination by the Counsel for Accused he admitted that he arrested the accused at forest check post and they all are their departments persons. He also admitted that forest check post stopped the vehicles coming in suspicious manners, he also admitted that near forest check post tea shop and fruit shop, Cargo transport office is there. Though the counsel for the accused cross-examined at length but nothing was elicited in favour of the accused no.1 and 2.

12.Although, the confession of the accused in the presence of the police officer is inadmissible in evidence but it is the evidence of PW.2 that PW.4 has recovered

MO.1 from the possession of Accused No.1 and 2 under cover of confession-cum- recovery panchanama in the presence of PW.2 and LW.7. On observation of the cross-examination of PW.2 and PW.4 nothing substantial could be elicited by the

Page 7 of 11 C.C.589 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2024 defence to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2 and PW.4. Moreover PW.4 is the

Investigating Officer and there are no hostile terms between PW.4 and the accused so as to implicate the accused in the present case by planting MO.1. The evidence of PW.1, 2 and 4 are materially corroborated with each other.

Their appears no reason for not believing the evidence of PW.4 supported with the evidence of PW.2. A suggestion was given to these witness by the counsel

for the accused that the accused are falsely implicated in the present case. The

suggestion was denied by the witnesses. PW.4 being a public servant and there is no enmity between PW.4 and the accused so as to implicate them in the present case. The suggestion has no weight in the light of evidence of PW.2 who is an independent witness. The evidence of PW.2 and PW.4 is reliable to the extent of recovery of MO.1 from the possession of accused no.1 and 2 as in Ex.P2.

13.The prosecution is relying upon the confession of the accused in order to believe the case that the accused have gained entry into the house of PW.1 for committing theft of MO.1.

14.However, the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 inspire the confidence of this court and it is materially corroborated with the evidence of PW.4. Therefore the prosecution is successful in proving that MO.1 is recovered from the possession of the accused no.1 and 2 but it is for the accused to explain as to their possession of

MO.1. In the examination of the accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C they have denied the prosecution evidence as being false, but the accused failed to give any explanation for their possession of MO.1. Therefore this court is required to raise presumption U/Sec.114 illustration(a) of Indian Evidence Act that "A man who is in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession".

Since the prosecution has proved the ownership of MO.1 with the evidence of

Page 8 of 11 C.C.589 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2024

PW.1 coupled with Ex.P.1 report, prosecution also proved that MO.1 is stolen between 27.04.2022 at 11.00 hours to 28.04.20244 at 8.30 hours from the house of PW.1 and prosecution also proved that MO.1 is found in the recent possession of the accused i.e., on 01.08.2022. The mere fact of recent possession of the stolen property is supporting the case of the prosecution and since the accused had failed to give account for the possession of MO.1. This court would raise presumption U/Sec.114 illustration(a) of Indian Evidence Act by presuming that

Accused No.1 and 2 are the thieves as contended by the prosecution.

15.With the discussion as made above it needs to be concluded that the prosecution was successful in proving the charge against the Accused No.1 and 2

U/Sec.457, 380 of I.P.C.

IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence

U/sec.457 of I.P.C and accordingly they are convicted U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Accused No.1 and 2 ae found guilty for the offence U/sec.380 of I.P.C and accordingly they are convicted U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of August, 2024.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

PLEA OF ACCUSED ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

16.When the accused no.1 and 2 are questioned with regard

to the sentence to be imposed against them, they submitted that

Accused No.1 reported his mother is in ill-health. Accused No.2

prayed as he is in ill-health and he is the sole bread winner to his

family.

Page 9 of 11 C.C.589 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2024

their family members are dependent upon them and they have to

look after their welfare and prayed to take a lenient view, as they

are dependent on them, hence prayed to take a lenient view.

17. The mitigating circumstances submitted by the accused No.1

and 2 is in need of sympathy of the court. But, the offence charged

and proved against the Accused No.1 and 2 is U/Sec.457, 380

I.P.C. The offence U/Sec.457 I.P.C shall be punishable with

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to

five years, and shall also be liable to fine, and, if the offence

intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment

may be extended to fourteen years. The offence U/Sec.380 I.P.C

shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a

term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to

fine.

18. Keeping in view of the facts of the case, this court is not

inclined to invoke the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act. But

considering the circumstances submitted by the accused this court

is inclined to take a moderate view in sentencing the accused.

Therefore, Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of (18 months) each for the offence

U/Sec.457 of I.P.C and the Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (18 months) each for

the offence U/Sec.380 of I.P.C. Both the sentences shall run

concurrently and the sentence against Accused No.1 and 2 in this

CC and the sentence against Accused No.1 and 2 in CC.No.601/2022

and the sentence against Accused No.1 and 2 in CC.No.602/2022

shall run concurrently. The accused no.1 and 2 also to pay a fine of

Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred only) each in each offence in default

of payment of fine the accused is directed to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one month. The remand period under

Page 10 of 11 C.C.589 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2024

gone by the Accused No.1 from 02.08.2022 to 21.10.2023 and

19.07.2024 to 01.08.2024 (15) months (10) days i.e., 460 days and

the remand period undergone by the Accused No.2 from 02.08.2022

to 18.08.2022 (17) days shall be set-off Under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

19. The case property i.e., MO.1/Gold Chain weighing

21.300gms which was already given to PW.3 for interim custody

vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.313 of 2022, dt:17.08.2022 shall be made

absolute after expiry of appeal time.

20. The accused No.1 and 2 appraised of their right to prefer

appeal against the judgment and sentence passed by this court.

Accused No.1 and 2 reported means to engage the counsel to

prefer the appeal against the judgment and sentence passed by

this court.

Office is directed to furnish true copy of judgment to the

accused no.1 and 2 forthwith, free of costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of August, 2024.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

: WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE

PROSECUTION :

PW.1:K.Lalitha Complainant

PW.2:Sk.HussainPanch witness for Confession

cum Seizure panchanama

PW.3: T.Anand Panch witness for Crime Detail

Form.

PW.4:P.NagarajuInvestigating Officer.

:WITNESS EXAMINED OF BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE :

NIL

Page 11 of 11 C.C.589 of 2022 Dt:01.08.2024

:EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report dated 24.04.2022.

Ex.P2:Relevant portion marked in the attested copy of

confession-cum-seizure panchanama.

Ex.P3:Crime Detail Form.

Ex.P4:Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama.

Ex.P5:First Information Report.

: EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE :

-NIL-

:MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSEUCTION:

MO.1: One Gold Chain weighing 21.300gms.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

Corrections carried out by me:

Page 1 of 12 C.C.No.720 of 2014 Dt:08.01.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

(CRIMINAL COURT FOR AGENCY AREAS)

Monday, this the 8th day of January, 2024.

Present: M.Venkateswarlu, FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.720 of 2014

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhadrachalam Town. ……Complainant

And

A.1 Chanda Mohan Rao, S/o.Lakshmi Narayana, Age:44 Years, Occ:Medical Officer, Anesthesia Department, 6th Floor, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. A2. Gudiboina Vijaya Shanthi, D/oG.P. Krishna, Age:25 Yeas, ANM Trainee, C/o.Dr.Mohan Rao Anesthesia Department, 6th Floor, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. …… Accused * * *

This case is coming before me on 02.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri R.Jaya Raju, Learned counsel for Accused No.1 and 2, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Bhadrachalam Town has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.226/2009 for the offence U/Sec.498(A), 494, 294(b), 506 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that: On the receipt of the complaint filed by the Chanda Veera Lakshmi, W/o.Mohan Rao on

Page 2 of 12 C.C.No.720 of 2014 Dt:08.01.2024 09.12.2009 at 1030 hours, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhadrachalam Town

P.S registered a case in Cr.No.226/2009 U/Sec.498(A), 494, 294(b), 506 I.P.C

During the course of investigation, the S.I of Police, summoned the witnesses i.e., LWs.1 to 7 examined and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, drawn rough sketch of the crime scene before the mediators i.e., LWs.8 and 9.

The accused was arrested on 19.03.2010 and the Accused No.2 was arrested on 11.05.2010 respectively and they were produced in the court for judicial remand.

4.On the report of the police this court took cognizance of the offence

Under Sec.498(A), 494, 294(b), 506 of I.P.C., and issued summons to the accused No.1 and U/Sec.494 I.P.C to the accused No.2.

5. On appearance of the accused they were furnished with copies as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Later, the accused was examined U/Sec.239 of

Cr.P.C and on hearing both sides, charges U/Sec.498(A), 494, 294(b), 506

I.P.C. against Accused No.1 and U/Sec.494 I.P.C against Accused No.2, were framed, readover and explained to the accused, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

The defacto-complainant/victim appeared before the court and submitted that she has compromised the matter with Accused No.1 her husband and for the last one year they have been living together without any disputes and further submitted that if Accused No.1 remanded to Judicial custody she would loose her husband and their would be spoiled and requested to permit her to compromise the offence U/Sec.498(A), 494 and

Page 3 of 12 C.C.No.720 of 2014 Dt:08.01.2024

Sec.506 IPC against Accused No.1, while permitting her to proceed against

Accused No.2. The Learned APP considered the marital life of the defacto complainant, given up the offence U/Sec.294(b) I.P.C. and the offences against the Accused No.1 U/Sec.494, 498-A and 506 IPC are compoundable by the defacto complainant. Hence, the case against Accused No.2 is order to be split up against Accused No.2. So far, the case against Accused No.1 is closed.

6.In order to prove the guilt of the Accused No.2, prosecution examined

PWs-1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 documents. After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, Accused No.2 was examined U/Sec.313 of

Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material that appeared against her in the prosecution evidence. Accused No.2 denied prosecution evidence as being false and reported no-defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

8.Now the point for determination is :

"Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the Accused No.2 for the offence U/sec.494 I.P.C beyond reasonable doubt"?

9.P O I N T :

The case of prosecution is that complainant’s marriage performed with the accused no.1 on 05.08.1990 and they lead marital life, blessed with two children i.e., one female child namely Snigdha aged about (17) years and male child named as Siddardha aged about (15) years. The accused no.1 is worked as Government Doctor at Rampachodavaram of East Godavari District and transferred to Area Hospital, Bhadrachalam in the year 2004. Since then the accused no.1 addicted to all bad habits, developed illegal intimacy with other

Page 4 of 12 C.C.No.720 of 2014 Dt:08.01.2024 woman and used to harass the complainant physically and mentally used to torture the complainant with a demand to bring money as dowry from the parents of the complainant, with an intention that if she failed to bring the demanded amount, he will marry another. Some quarrels happened in this regard and on 06.01.2006 the complainant filed a report against Accused No.1

before the then S.H.O Bhadrachalam Town, on which a case in Cr.No.8/2006

was registered. After thorough investigation, the accused was arrested, remanded to judicial custody. Later, both the complainant and Accused No.1

before the then SHO Bhadrachalam Town, on which a case in Cr.No.8/2006

was registered. After thorough investigation, the accused was arrested remanded to judicial custody. Later, both the complainant and Accused No.1 compromised before the Hon’ble JFCM Bhadrachalam in Lok-Adalath vide

CC.No.1031/2006. At the time of compromise the accused no.1 made believe

the complainant that he would not torture in future and will not try to maintain any illegal contacts with other ladies and promised to maintain hormonal relations with the complainant and their children. As believing the words of the accused no.1 the complainant compromised and withdrawn the case against the accused no.1 in Lok-Adalath on 14.07.2014.

A part from the harassment on the complainant saying that the complainant brought him into the court and increased harassment on the complainant, developed illegal contacts with on Gudiboina Vijaya Shanthi who is residing at Bhadrachalam and working as a private nurse and accused no.1 kept her at Hyderabad and used to visit her house by saying that he had duty at Hyderabad. On knowing about the immoral marital life of the accused no.1 with the accused no.2, the complainant questioned but the accused not

Page 5 of 12 C.C.No.720 of 2014 Dt:08.01.2024 answered properly and got married with the accused no.2 on 23.04.2007 at

Kusuma Haranada Baba Temple in Bhadrachalam and brought her to the house of complainant, demanded her to accept the accused no.2 as his second wife and Accused No.1 challenged the complainant, abused her in filthy language, threatened her with dire consequences that he will do as per his will and on the other hand he harassed the complainant physically and mentally, beat her with hands and legs. As such Accused No.1 committed an offence liable for punishment under Sec.498(A), 494, 294(b), 506 I.P.C, The accused no.2 committed an offence U/Sec.494 I.P.C.

The defacto-complainant/victim has compromised the matter with

Accused No.1 for the offences U/Sec.498(A), 494 and Sec.506 I.P.C against

Accused No.1, while permitting her to proceed against Accused No.2. The

Learned APP given up the offence U/Sec.294(b) I.P.C. and the offences against the Accused No.1 U/Sec.494, 498-A and 506 IPC are compoundable by the defacto-complaint. Hence, the case against Accused No.1 is closed and against Accused No.2 is split up.

10. To prove its case, though the prosecution has cited 10 witnesses in all, but out of them PW.1 to 8 were examined. PW.1 is the defacto complainant,

PW.2 and 3 are the children of PW.1/victim and eye-witnesses, PW.4, PW.5 and

PW.7 are the circumstantial witnesses, PW.6 is the panch witness for Crime

Detail Form, PW.8 is the Investigation Officer.

To prove its case, Victim/Chanda Veeralaxmi is examined as P.w.1, she deposed that Accused No.1 is harassed her by developed illicit intimacy with

Accused No.2. Previously Accused No.1 used to work at Rampachodavaram,

Page 6 of 12 C.C.No.720 of 2014 Dt:08.01.2024 later he was transferred to Bhadrachalam Area Hospital and opened a clinic i.e., Sai Clinic. After Accused No.2 joined the clinic the Accused No.1 started disputing with her. She lodged a report before the police and also made a complaint before this court under Ex.P1 against the accused no.1 for the offence under Sec.494 IPC and other sections. During the pendency of the trial of the case, her husband promised her to look after the welfare of herself and also her children, believing the version she compromised the case against her husband. The Accused No.2 is not allowed her children to meet her husband and assaulted her son with a knife. Her marriage was performed with Accused

No.1 in 1990 as per Hindu rites and customs and during subsistence of her marriage with accused no.1, accused no.2 married accused no.1.

During her cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused she deposed that she admitted that on 09.12.2009 she lodged a report against the Accused No.1. and on 14.03.2009 she lodged a report against her husband/Accused No.1 as he promised her to look after her welfare by leaving the company of Accused No.2. She also admitted that after joining of Accused

No.2 in the hospital Accused No.1 only, the disputes arose between herself and her husband/Accused No.1.She compromised with Accused.1. She denied the suggestion of Learned counsel for the Accused No.2.

PW.2/Chanda Snigdha, daughter of PW.1 and eye-witness deposed that previously they resided at Bhadrachalam with their father and who is working as a Doctor at Bhadrachalam and he also opened a clinic at Bhadrachalam in the meantime, Accused No.2 joined as a Receptionist in the clinic of her father and she developed illicit intimacy with her father and since then her father started harassing her mother/PW.1, when PW.1 asked about the activities of

Page 7 of 12 C.C.No.720 of 2014 Dt:08.01.2024

Accused No.2, Accused No.2 assaulted PW.1 and at about (07) years ago her father was transferred to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad and started residing in

Hyderabad and her father informed them that he was going to Chennai for (05) months training and left their company. Later they came to know that he was residing in Karimnagar and they came to know that Accused No.2 was residing in Lakshettipet and herself, her mother and brother went to

Lakshettipet and questioned the Accused NO.2 about the illicit intimacy with her father on that Accused No.2 assaulted her brother with a knife and her brother sustained a scratch injury on his chest. Accused No.2 also given an undertake that she would not interfere in their family affairs and taken Rs.5

Lacks from them. Later also she continued her relationship with her father and she came to know that her father married Accused No.2.

During her cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused she deposed that a case was filed against her father and Accused No.2 and she do not know that her mother compounded the case against her father.

PW.3/Chanda Siddartha, Son of PW.1 deposed that in the year 2011 or 2012 they came to know that his father was residing along with Accused No.2 at Luxettipet of Adilabad District and they visited Luxettipet where the

Accused No.2 attempted to assault him with a knife. Then they approached

Sub-Inspector of Police, Luxettipet. Later, they came to know his father was residing at Mancherial along with Accused No.2, then he, PW.1 and 2 visited

Mancherial and they came to know that the Accused No.2 was maintaining relationship with one other person by name Bunny and on received the said information his father questioned Accused No.2 on that Accused No.2 and bunny assaulted his father.

Page 8 of 12 C.C.No.720 of 2014 Dt:08.01.2024

During the cross-examination he deposed that he do not state before the police about things happened at Mancherial and Luxettipet as the incidents were occurred after registration of this case. He admitted that his mother compounded the case against his father but continued proceeding against Accused No.2 only.

PW.4/Solem Ramana, nearest relative of PW.1 deposed that at about more than 20 years ago the marriage of PW.1 was performed with Accused.

After the marriage PW.1 joined the company of Accused No.1 at Vijayawada.

They stayed there for 10 years. After (05) years of marriage of they shifted their family to Bhadrachalam and the Accused No.1 used to work at

Government Hospital Bhadrachalam and he opened a clinic at his residence at

Bhadrachalam and Accused No.2 joined as a nurse in the clinic of Accused

No.1 at Bhadrachalam. Later Accused No.1 developed illicit intimacy with

Accused No.2 and due to which disputes arose between Accused No.1 and

PW.1 and Accused No.1 used to beat PW.1 and later Accused No.1 shifted

PW.1 to 3 to Hyderabad and left them at Hyderabad and went to Mancherial where Accused No.1 and 2 started living together and when PW.1 to 3 visited

Mancherial both the accused assaulted PW.1 to 3 at the abatement of Accused

No.2. Then PW.1 lodged a report.

During the cross-examination she admitted that Accused No.1 purchased a house for PW.1 at Hyderabad. Accused No.1 is Government

Doctor. She admitted that she is not an eye witness to the harassment of

Accused No.1 against PW.1.

PW.5/Ponnaganti Venkanna, Circumstantial Witness deposed that in the 2013 he used to reside at Lambada Colony of Bhadrachalam and on one day,

Page 9 of 12 C.C.No.720 of 2014 Dt:08.01.2024 when he went to Kusuma Harinadh Temple of Bhadrachalam, he noticed

Accused No.1 i.e., Mohan Rao at the temple and he wished him and except that she do not know anything about the case. She do not know about the second marriage of the Accused No.1 with Accused No.2.

She turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. During the cross-examination he admitted that he came to know that there are disputes between Accused No.1 and PW.1 and on that a complaint was lodged by PW.1 before police and later on one day he came to know that Accused

No.1 married Accused No.2 without knowledge of PW.1 who is wife of Accused

No.1 and he informed the same to PW.1 and he stated the same before police as in Ex.P5.

PW.6/Jampala Narasimha Rao, Panch witness for Crime Detail Form deposed that at about 10 years ago on one day police Bhadrachalam obtained his signature on a written paper under Ex.P6 but he do not know the contents therein. Police did not conduct any panchanama nor prepared any CDF in my presence. He turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

During the cross-examination by the Learned A.P.P he denied the suggestions put by the Learned A.P.P.

PW.7/S.Laxmibai, Panch Witness for Crime Detail Form deposed that she do not know any facts of this case. Police did not examine her nor recorded her statement. She turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

During the cross-examination by the Learned A.P.P she denied the suggestions put by the Learned A.P.P.

Page 10 of 12 C.C.No.720 of 2014 Dt:08.01.2024

PW.8/R.Sathish Kumar, Investigation Officer deposed as to the line of investigation.

During the cross-examination by the Learned counsel for the accused he denied the suggestions.

11.Now coming to the charge U/Sec.494 I.P.C there must be performance of marriage by either spouse during the substance of marriage. Where as in the case on hand the prosecution failed to prove that the husband of PW.1 had married Accused No.2. None of the prosecution witnesses stated that husband of PW.1 had married Accused No.2 but they stated that he had illicit intimacy with Accused No.2. Moreover the Investigating Officer failed to collect any document to show that there was a marriage between husband of PW.1 and

Accused No.2 or that they are having illicit relationship with each other. It is settled law that in order to sustain a charge under Sec.494 I.P.C, the prosecution must prove the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt but, no Iota of evidence is placed before this court with respect to charge Under Sec.494

I.P.C. Therefore this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the fact that PW.1’s husband had married Accused No.2 during the subsistence of marriage between him and PW.1 and hence this court is of considered opinion that Accused No.2 is liable to be acquitted for the offence

U/Sec.494 of I.P.C. Therefore, in view of above discussion, since the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused, point is answered in favour of the accused no.2 and against the prosecution.

Page 11 of 12 C.C.No.720 of 2014 Dt:08.01.2024

IN THE RESULT,Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.494 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly she is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bonds and bail bonds of Accused No.2 shall be in force for a period of (06) months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open court, on this the 8th day of January, 2024.

FAC: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined. For prosecution PW.1. Chanda Veeralaxmi PW.2. Chanda Snigdha PW.3. Chanda Siddartha PW.4. Solem Ramana PW.5. Ponnaganti Venkanna PW.6. Jampala Narasimha Rao PW.7. S.Laxmibai PW.8. R.Sathish Kumar

For defence: -None-

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution

Ex.P1. Report of PW-1. Ex.P2. L.I.C Bond. Ex.P3. Aadhar Card of Accused No.2. Ex.P4. Settlement deed Dt:23.06.2011. Ex.P5. 161 Statement of PW.5. Ex.P6. Signature of PW.6 on CDF. Ex.P7. 161 Statement of PW.7.

Page 12 of 12 C.C.No.720 of 2014 Dt:08.01.2024

For defence:

-Nil- Material Objects Marked -Nil-

FAC: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

Corrections carried out by me:

Page 1 of 9 CC.No.449 of 2023 Date:17.10.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, BHADRACHALAM.

(CRIMINAL COURT FOR AGENCY AREAS)

Thursday, this the 17th day of October, 2024.

Present: M.Venkateswarlu,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam. Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.449 of 2023

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise, Bhadrachalam.

...Complainant

//And//

Guguloth Manga, S/o.Veeranna, Age:50 Years, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Mayday Colony, Saapaka Village. …Accused

This case is coming before me on 16.10.2024 for hearing in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri M.Ramachandraiah, Learned counsel for Accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1. Accused stand charge sheeted by the Sub-Inspector, Proh. & Excise,

Bhadrachalam in C.O.R.No.210/2022 for the offence punishable Under Section 7-A r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

2.In brief, it is the case of the prosecution, that on 02.09.2022 at 11.30 A.M on credible information, LW.3 along with staff conducted raids for Proh., &

Excise offences and reached the place of offence, i.e., accused house at

Page 2 of 9 CC.No.449 of 2023 Date:17.10.2024

Mayday Colony, Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal while they conducting searches, the accused holding one plastic bag and found in a suspicious manner, on observing the same, the raid party stopped the accused and searched, opened her bag and found (05) Ltrs of ID Liquor in (05) Polythene

Covers each cover contains (01)Liter of ID Liquor. On enquiry the accused revealed her identity admitted that she used to sale the I.D Liquour at their place for profit to make a living. L.w.3/PW.3 tested the contraband and identified confirmed it as I.D Liquor. The accused confessed his guilt. In pursuance of confession of accused, LW.3 seized the case property and arrested the accused, after explaining the reasons of arrest, under cover of special report scribed by LW.3 and returned to police station and LW.3/PW.3 registered the special report as a case in C.O.R.No.210/2022, Dt:02.09.2022,

U/Sec.7-a r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and sent the samples to chemical expert and LW.3 filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act against accused.

4. After appearance of accused, copies of the documents were furnished to her as required Under Section.207 Criminal Procedure Code 1973.

5. Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C explaining the accusation made against her. She denied the same. Charge under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P Proh. Act was framed against accused, readover and explained to her in Telugu language, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page 3 of 9 CC.No.449 of 2023 Date:17.10.2024

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Prosecution side evidence closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appeared against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which she denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments of the Learned Asst.Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused. Perused the material on record.

9. Now the points for determination are :-

1.Whether the accused was in possession of ID Arrack which is punishable under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995?

2.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT No.1:-

10. In this case PW.1 to 3 were examined. PW.1 and 2 are the panch witnesses and PW.3 is Excise Official.

PW.1 – Kesari Kishore, deposed that he does not know anything about this case. Nothing was happened in his presence. At about two years ago,

Bhadrachalam Excise Officials called him and obtained his signature on some written papers. Witness identified the signature on the confession-cum-seizure panchanama, Dt:02.09.2022 marked as Ex.P1. He also deposed that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and nobody confessed in his presence and nothing was seized in his presence.

PW.2 – Yedlapalli Ramesh, deposed thathe does not know anything about this case. Nothing was happened in his presence. At about two years ago on one day, Bhadrachalam Excise Officials called him and obtained his signature on some written papers. He also deposed that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and nobody confessed in his presence and nothing

Page 4 of 9 CC.No.449 of 2023 Date:17.10.2024 was seized in his presence. Witness identified the signature on the confession- cum-seizure panchanama, dt.02.09.2022 marked as Ex.P.2.

PW-3/D.Murali Krishna,the Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector,

Bhadrachalam deposed that on 02.09.2022 at about 11.30 a.m while he along with his staff on reliable information, were conducting raids for detection of prohibition and excise offences and reached place of offence i.e., accused house and found (05) liters of ID liquor in five plastic covers in a bag and he seized the same from the possession of accused under a cover of Ex.P.3 panchanama in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2. He brought the accused along with case property and Ex.P-3 panchanama to Proh.& Excise Station,

Bhadrachalam and basing on Ex.P.3/panchanama she registered a case in

C.O.R.No.210/2022, dated:02.09.2022 i.e., Ex.P.4 under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

APP Act, thereafter he has arrested the accused. Later, he sent the samples to the Chemical Examiner, Warangal for analysis. After receipt of analysis report i.e., Ex.P.5. Accordingly, through Ex.P.6 he destroyed the remaining contraband by conducting destruction panchanama under Ex.P.7 and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

11. Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, it is the main contention of the learned defence counsel that as PW1 and 2 are the independent witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution, PW.3 is official witness, his evidence shall be discarded. But, it is settled law that when only the police personnel supported the case, his/her evidence is not liable to be discarded, but it should be weighed with utmost care and caution. He admitted that the seized sample were not produced before this court. In such situation, it is also the duty of court to see whether there is a possible opportunity for the police officer to secure the mediators and whether the arresting police officials made any effort to secure mediators. However, when there is possible

Page 5 of 9 CC.No.449 of 2023 Date:17.10.2024 opportunity for the police officer to secure the mediators and if he fails to do so, it can be considered as a lapse on the part of the investigating agency.

12.In BABU SAHEB ALIAS BABU V/S STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP. The Hon’ble High Court observed

in Para No.17 that:

“Of course it cannot be said the evidence of a witness who accompanied the police, cannot be always believed nor it can be discarded only on the ground that the accompanied the excise of police officials. But where, in a case, the excise officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any effort to take such mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case, admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of the local mediators.

13. in the similiar circumstances it was observed in MUDAVATH MOTHIA

V/S STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 437 AP.

The Hon’ble High Court observed in Para No.5 that: “Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the A. P. Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. When once they become police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. Moreover, ex. P-5 panchanama is hit by Sections 25, 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of Cr. P. C. The benefit if any arises due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the accused and once the Ex.P-5 is hit by sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence act, and Section 161 of Cr. P. C. and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non- examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Secs. 25 and 27 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 and Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. W hen it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt. Both the courts have not looked into the evidence from proper angle. The conviction and sentence awarded is, therefore, liable to be set aside due to the illegality of the proceedings drafted. Moreover, only one sample of sachet was produced

before the court and not all the sachets seized and it is for the prosecution to

establish that all the samples of sachets seized contain I. D Liquor and it is not proved”.

14. In such facts and circumstances of the case, when the excise officials failed to secure independent persons as mediators, though they have a

Page 6 of 9 CC.No.449 of 2023 Date:17.10.2024 possible opportunity and thus failed to follow the procedure for seizure, the court is of view that in absence of any independent evidence, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of PW.3 for convicting the accused.

In case no.1198 of 2004 dated.2-8-2004 the Hon'ble High court of A.P.

observed in similar circumstances that the prosecution has failed to follow procedure while taking sample as per law and confirmed the acquittal recorded by lower court by observing below.

Apart from this aspect of the matter, the learned Judge also had specifically recorded that Rule 24-A of the A.P. Excise (Arrack and ToddyLicences GeneralConditions) Rules, 1969 had not been followed. Rule 24 of the said Rules reads as hereunder :

"24. Drawal of Samples :--

Any Excise Officer, not below the rank of the Sub Inspector of Excise or Food Inspector appointed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, shall be competent, any time to take samples of arrack or toddy, in the possession of the licensee or any other person storing arrack or toddy, for the purpose of analysis. Such officer shall take three samples in the presence of the licensee or his agent or other person in charge of the licensed premises or who is found selling toddy in the said premises, after conducting a Panchanama. The samples shall be sent to the Court with a requisition to send, one of the samples expeditiously to the Chemical Examiner of the Excise of Department having jurisdiction in the region, in which licensed premises are situated, for chemical examination. If the sample sent to the Chemical Examiner is damaged, in transit or otherwise

before the completion of the analysis, the Court may be requested by the

concerned Officer to send a second sample to the Chemical Examiner. If the licensee desires that the sample should be sent for analysis to an independent laboratory, he may apply to the Excise Superintendent within three days of the drawal of the sample. In cases where the licensee or one of his Nowkaranama holders was not present at the time of taking of sample, the licensee should apply within 7 days. The application should be accompanied by a demand draft for an amount sufficient to cover the analysis charges. If no such application is filed within the requisite time limit, the licensee shall not be entitled to seek analysis by an independent laboratory thereafter. On receipt of the application within time and with requisite demand draft, the concerned officer shall request the Court to send a sample to the independent Laboratory chosen by the licensee."

Page 7 of 9 CC.No.449 of 2023 Date:17.10.2024

Rule 24-A of the said Rules reads as here-under :

"24-A. Manner of Packing, Sealing, Labelling and Addressing the Samples:--

All samples of arrack or toddy taken under Rule 24 shall be packed, fastened and sealed in the following manner, namely :--

(a) The stopper shall first be securely fastened so as to prevent relevant leakage of the contents in transit.

(b) The bottle, jar or other container shall then be completely wrapped in fairly strong thick paper. The ends of the paper shall be neatly folded in and affixed by means of gum or other adhesive.

(c) A proper slip of the size that goes round completely from the bottom to top of the container bearing the signature and code of the Inspecting Officer, shall be pasted on the wrapper, the signature or the thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken being affixed in such a manner that the paper slip and the wrapper both carry a part of the signature or thumb- impression;

Provided that in case, the person from whom the samples have been taken refuse to affix his signature or thumb-impression, the signature or thumb- impression of the witnesses, shall be taken in the same manner;

(d) The paper cover shall be further secured by means of strong twine or thread both above and across the bottle, jar or other container, and the twine or thread shall then be fastened on the paper cover by means of sealing wax on which there shall be atleast four distinct and clear impressions of the seal of the sender, of which one shall be at the top of the packet, one at the bottom and the other two on the body of packet. The knots of the twine or thread shall be covered by means of sealing wax bearing the impression of the seal of the sender."

In this case also the prosecution has failed to prove that the investigating officer followed the procedure as contemplated under law. Hence, I am of the opinion that benefit of doubt can be extended to accused.

15. For the foregoing reasons and in the light of principles of ratio laid down by Hon’ble High Court in above cases I am of the opinion that there is no convincing and satisfactory evidence to prove that accused was found in

Page 8 of 9 CC.No.449 of 2023 Date:17.10.2024 possession of liquor as alleged, Ex.P.3 could not be relied upon. Though Ex.P.5 discloses that it contained the illicitly distilled liquor, as there is no convincing evidence to prove that the contents of panchanama were drawn from seized liquor bottles said to be found from the possession of accused and it could not be relied upon. Thus, the court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused for offence punishable U/Sec.7-A r/w.8(e) of A.P

Prohibition Act,1995 beyond reasonable doubt and thus accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

POINT No.2 :-

16.In the light of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995, hence, the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

17. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of the T.S Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as envisaged U/s.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Gr-III Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 17th day of October, 2024.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

Page 9 of 9 CC.No.449 of 2023 Date:17.10.2024

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For prosecution

PW.1. Kesari Kishore

PW.2. Yedlapalli Ramesh

PW.3. P.Shailaja

For defence -None- Exhibits Marked

For prosecution

Ex.P1. Signature of PW.1 on the Confession-cum-seizure panchanama.

Ex.P2. Signature of PW.2 on the Confession-cum-seizure panchanama.

Ex.P3. Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama, Dated.02.09.2022.

Ex.P4. Crime Occurrence Report, dt.02.09.2022.

Ex.P5. Attested Copy of Analysis Report, dt.27.10.2022.

Ex.P6. Attested Copy of Confiscation and Destruction proceedings,

Dt.11.04.2023.

Ex.P7. Attested copy of Destruction panchanama, dated.27.04.2023.

For defence -Nil-

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam. Corrections carried out by me: