Sri Marpu Sreedhar

- 1 -

Calendar and Judgment

In the Court of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate :: Bheemunipatnam

Calendar Case No.720/2014

Date of offenceCr.No.450/2012–14-11-2012 to 15-11-2012 Cr.No.313/2014-29-05-2014 to 05-06-2014 Date of report or complaintCr.No.450/2012–15-11-2012 Cr.No.313/2014-07-06-2014 Date of apprehension of the 12-08-2014 accused or appearance of the accused in the Court Date of commencement of trial30-12-2014 Date of close of trial01-04-2015 Date of sentence on order11-05-2015 Explanation of delay or remarksAccused is in judicial custody since 13-08- 2014. Name of the ComplainantState represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,P.M.PalemPoliceStation, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the accused Pilaka Srinu @ Deepali @ Raju, S/o Late Rama Suri, 24 yrs, Reddy, R/o Sairamcolony, Kommadhi, Visakhapatnam. OffencesU/Sec.380 of I.P.C. Finding Found not guilty SentenceIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 380 of I.P.C. and he is acquitted of the said charge Under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. The property i.e. MO.1-black bead chain and MO.2-two pairs of ear studs in item No.2/2015 which were given to PW.1 Y.Mohana Rao, S/o Late Ramulu vide orders in Crl.M.P.2457/2014, dt.27-10-2014 and MO.3-one pair of ear studs and MO.4-one ring in item No.1/2015 which were given to PW.2 P.Venkata Rao, S/o Late VenkataRatnamvideordersin

Crl.M.P.34/2015, dt.05-01-2015 by way of

interim custody, the said orders are made absolute after time time is over. The accused is ordered to be released if his detention is not required in any other cases.

Sd/- M.SREEDHAR

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

- 2 -

IN THE COURT OF IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :: BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

PRESENT: SRI MARPU SREEDHAR,

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2015

Calendar Case No.720/2014

Between :

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

...Complainant.

And :

Pilaka Srinu @ Deepali @ Raju, S/o Late Rama Suri, 24 yrs, Reddy, R/o Sairam colony, Kommadhi, Visakhapatnam.

...Accused.

This case coming on 07-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.M.Palem P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused, Under Section 457, 380 of I.P.C. in Crime Nos.450/2012 and 313/2014.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused committed theft of two gold chains, locket, gold black beads chain, gold rings, ear studs, silver bowl, panneru buddi, silver class, silver plate, silver uggi bowl, silver key chain, two wrist watches from the house of Y.Mohan Rao during the night on 14-11-2012. Based on his report a case in Cr.No.450/2012 was registered. Likewise, the accused also committed theft of gold ear studs two pairs, gold ring of P.Venkata Rao between 29- 05-2014 to 05-06-2014. Based on his report a case in Cr.No.313/2014 was registered. During the investigation the accused along with two other accused were found in possession of stolen articles in this case along with some other cases and they were arrested in the presence of mediators in pursuance of mediator's report and based on their confession part of the property was recovered from - 3 -

K.Satyanarayana. After completion of investigation this charge sheet was laid against accused U/Sec.380 of IPC.

3.This charge sheet was taken on to file Under Section 380 of I.P.C. against the accused. On the appearance of the accused, copies of the charge sheet and other relevant documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated Under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

The accusations of the charge sheet were read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu. He denied the offence. Charge Under Section 380 of I.P.C. against the accused was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The accused has faced the trial as an under trial prisoner.

5.During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 witnesses and Exs.P1 to P18 documents and MOs.1 to MO.4 were admitted on behalf of the prosecution.

6.Ex.P1 is report given by Y.Mohana Rao (PW.1). Ex.P2 is report, dt.07-06- 2014 given by P.Venkata Rao (PW.2). Ex.P3 is signature of the mediator in the copy of the report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m.(PW.3). Ex.P4 is signature of the mediator in the copy of the report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m.(PW.3). Ex.P5 is the signature of the witness in identification parade, dt.14-08-2014 at 1.30p.m.(PW.3).

Ex.P6 is the signature of the witness in identification parade mediators report, dt.14-08-2014 at 9a.m.(PW.3). Ex.P7 is signature of the witness in the copy of the mediators report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m.(PW.4). Ex.P8 is signature of the witness in the copy of the mediators report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m.(PW.4). Ex.P9 is the signature of the witness in the copy of mediators report, dt.14-08-2014 at 9a.m.

(identification of property)(PW.4). Ex.P10 is the signature of the witness in the copy of mediators report, dt.18-08-2014 at 7.30p.m. (identification of property) (PW.4). Ex.P11 is original FIR in Cr.No.450/2012. Ex.P12 is rough sketch in

Cr.No.450/2012. Ex.P13 is copy of mediator's report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m.

Ex.P14 is copy of the mediator's report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m. Ex.P15 is - 4 - identification of property report, dt.14-08-2014 at 1.30p.m. Ex.P16 is identification parade in Cr.No.450/2012 in the presence of mediator under cover of report, dt.14- 08-2014 at 9a.m. Ex.P17 is original FIR in Cr.No.313/2014. Ex.P18 is rough sketch in Cr.No.313/2014. MO.1 is black bead chain. MO.2 is two pairs of ear studs.

MO.3 is one pair of ear studs. MO.4 is one ring.

7.The evidence of LW.2 A.Gopala Krishna Murthy, LW.4 P.Koteswari and LW.6

Ch.Bharat Kumar was given up by the prosecution as not necessary.

8.PW.1 who submitted the report deposes about the theft of gold and silver articles and submission of report to the police and so also he deposed about the conduction of identification parade of articles and he identified MOs.1 and 2 belongs to him. PW.2 another complainant in this case deposes about the theft of gold articles and submission of the report to the police and he also identified MOs.3 and 4 belongs to him. PW.3 deposes about the arrest of the accused and recovery of the property under the cover of mediator's report. PW.4 who is another mediator turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.5 who registered the crime based on the report given by Mohan Rao deposes about the registration of the crime, examination of the witnesses and scene of offence. PW.6 deposes about the purchase of the property from the accused and identification of the accused. PW.7 who conducted best portion of the investigation deposes about the arrest of the accused, recovery of the property under the cover of mediator's report. PW.8 deposes about registration of the crime and investigation conducted by him.

9.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating evidence adduced against him by the prosecution. He stated that he has no evidence to adduce in his defence.

10.Heard.

11.The learned APP contends that the evidence of prosecution witnesses very clearly establishes that the accused have committed offence in the house of complainants and as such he is liable for punishment for the offence U/Sec.380 of - 5 -

IPC. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused contends that absolutely there is no evidence to say that accused have committed offence in the house of the complainant. Moreover, the mediators gave different version with regard to the arrest of the accused, preparation of the report and recovery of the property. Furthermore, the mediators who were examined as PWs.3 and 4 are not independent persons to act as mediators and as such their evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. It is further contended by the accused that the evidence of the investigation officer is not up to the mark to believe their version about the arrest of the accused and recovery of the property and as such they have set up the receiver of the property to fix the liability of the accused and to strengthen their case and as such viewed from any angle absolutely there is no evidence to say that accused has committed offence. Hence, prayed for acquittal.

12.Now, the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 380 of I.P.C. against accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

13.P O I N T :

To prove the case U/Sec.380 of IPC, the prosecution shall establish their case that the accused committed theft of articles in the dwelling house of the complainant.

14.In order to prove the case of the prosecution about the commission of theft of articles from the house of complainants, they have examined PWs.1 and 2. PW.1 categorically stated that on 14-11-2012 he went to Srikakulam and on the next day morning his neighbourer informed him about the theft in his house, then they reached their house at 10a.m. and found missing of gold chain, locket, black beads chain, two small rings, two pairs of ear studs, one silver bowl, silver plate, two silver glasses, silver panner bottle, uggi bowl, silver key chain and two wrist watches, then he gave a report to the police and subsequently they received information about the recovery of the property and he identified his articles and MO.1 is black bead chain and MO.2 is two pairs of ear studs belongs to him. From his evidence it - 6 - is elicited that he has not mentioned full description of the articles in the report and so also he has not submitted any bills to the police. The investigation officer also admitted that no bills were submitted by the complainant to them. But, it is itself not a ground to disbelieve his version. Furthermore, the investigation officer who registered the crime based on his report was examined as PW.5 and deposed about the registration of the crime, examination of the witnesses and visiting of scene of offence. From their evidence nothing was elicited to disbelieve their version.

Furthermore, the investigation officer also conducted test identification parade of gold articles and to that effect one report was also filed in Ex.P15. But, PW.1 admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of identification of the property,

Sub-Inspector of Police and Constables were also present. Moreover, the mediators have not fully supported the version of the prosecution about the identification of the property by the complainant in a consistent and coherent manner. However, there is no dispute about the ownership of the property by PW.1 and commission of theft of articles from his possession and as such the prosecution established their case to that extent that MOs.1 and 2 belongs to complainant and same was subjected to theft.

15.Likewise, PW.2 who is another complainant in this case categorically stated that in the year 2014 he went to Sheelanagar and in the month of June, he came to his house and found missing of two pairs of gold ear studs, gold ring and gold buttalu, then, he gave a report to the police and he identified his articles and MO.3 is one pair of ear studs and MO.4 is one ring belongs to him. From his evidence it is elicited that he has not mentioned full description of the articles in the report and so also he has not submitted any bills to the police. The investigation officer also admitted that no bills were submitted by the complainant to them. But, it is itself not a ground to disbelieve his version. Furthermore, the investigation officer who registered the crime based on his report was examined as PW.8 and deposed about the registration of the crime, examination of the witnesses and visiting of scene of offence. From their evidence nothing was elicited to disbelieve their version.

Furthermore, the investigation officer also conducted test identification parade of gold articles and to that effect one report was also filed in Ex.P14. But, PW.1 - 7 - admitted in his cross-examination that police conducted identification parade in one room at YSR stadium and he cannot say the particulars of the room. Moreover, the mediators have not fully supported the version of the prosecution about the identification of the property by the complainant in a consistent and coherent manner. However, there is no dispute about the ownership of the property by PW.2 and commission of theft of articles from his possession and as such the prosecution established their case to that extent that MOs.3 and 4 belongs to complainant and same was subjected to theft.

16.In order to prove the recovery of the property from the accused, the prosecution stated that all the accused were arrested near stadium under the cover of mediator's report in the presence of mediators and so also based on their confession they have approached Satyanarayana who is resident of Akkayyapalem and recovered part of stolen property from his possession. In order to prove the case of the prosecution they examined mediators one Mahesh as PW.3 and Radha

Krishna Rao as PW.4. PW.4 Radha Krishna Rao turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that the police requested him to put his signature on the report by informing about the theft and stated that he went to stadium and police requested him to put his signature on the report by informing about the theft and some gold articles seized from their possession. Then, the learned APP cross- examined and elicited that all the accused confessed about the commission of offence and the police drafted the mediator's report and police seized the gold articles from the possession of accused and he also admitted about his presence at the time of drafting of report at Akkayyapalem. But, in his cross-examination conducted by the accused he admitted that on 12-08-2014 he went to police station along with Venkatarao in connection with theft committed in the house of

Venkatarao and the police prepared the reports at police station and obtained his signatures. He went to an extent to admit that he has not visited Akkayyapalem and he came to know about the names of the accused through police only and as such he changed his version from chief examination to cross-examination and he has not at all stick on his version and as such his evidence cannot be believable and acceptable to say that in his presence everything was happened. But, PW.3 - 8 - categorically stated that himself, C.I. of police and staff proceeded to YSR stadium,

P.M.Palem and they observed three persons at a distance of 30 to 40 feet to the stadium in suspicious circumstances, then the C.I. of police caught hold and recovered one bag with sarees and also found Rs.4,000/- and they confessed about the commission of theft and based on their confession they proceeded to

Akkayyapalem to the house of Satyanarayana and he stated before them that gold articles were pledged with him and so also he has stated about the confession of the accused. But, in the cross-examination he admitted that he know PW.2

Ramamohana Rao since ten years and he went along with PW.2 Ramamohana Rao to police station to receive the gold articles and he subscribed his signature after preparation of the report by the police at police station and investigation officer also admitted that no identification slips attached to the articles seized. Furthermore, in the chief examination of PW.3 Mahesh itself shows that he do not know the contents in the mediator's report and as such the learned APP got marked his signatures only. But, the prosecution examined the investigation officer as PW.7 he deposed

before this Court about the arrest of the accused in the presence of mediators,

recording of confession, recovery of part of stolen property from Satyanarayana and so also all the documents are marked though him. But, he himself admitted in his cross-examination that he has not issued any summons to the mediators and no identification slips attached to the said articles and he has not mentioned the measurements of the gold articles also. So also he admitted that he has not obtained any signatures of the inmates of the shop in the mediators report and not prepared any rough sketch of the house of Satyanarayana. He further admits that they have not registered any case against Satyanarayana as receiver of the stolen property. Based on said admission, the learned legal aid counsel for the accused contends that Satyanarayana is planted witness, it at all the police recovered such a huge property as stated in their charge-sheet they might have registered the case against him U/Sec.411 of IPC. But, admittedly the prosecution examined PW.6

Satyanarayana and he stated that the accused and others came to him and sold away the gold articles and he purchased the same from them and subsequently he received information that it is stolen property. But, in the cross-examination he - 9 - admitted that he cannot say the details of accused and he never saw the accused after purchase of the property. He further went to an extent that the police shown the accused to him that they are the accused in this case and as such his evidence is also not trustworthy to say that accused sold away the property to him.

Furthermore, there is no whisper in the evidence of PW.7 who conducted investigation about the exact confession made by the accused and his evidence is also not up to the mark to say that the accused confessed about the commission of theft in this case. Moreover, when the prosecution relied upon the confession of the accused which is weakest type of evidence of prosecution, the evidence about the recovery must be very much convincing and trustworthy. But, here in this case, the mediators who are friends to the complainants also not supported the case of the prosecution about the recovery of the property from the accused and as such their presence at the time of preparation of the mediator's report and recovery of the property itself doubtful. Moreover, the evidence of investigation officer is not up to the mark to believe that they have recovered the property from the accused under the cover of mediator's report and as such the prosecution miserably failed in establishing their case of recovery of the property.

17.In the light of above discussion, the prosecution established their case of theft of MOs.1 and 2 from the possession of PW.1 and MOs.3 and 4 from the possession of PW.2 but fails to establish that the said property recovered from the accused to find the guilt of the accused U/Sec.380 of IPC or any other offence.

Hence, the accused is found not guilty for the charge levelled against him.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under

Section 380 of I.P.C. and he is acquitted of the said charge Under Section 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. The property i.e. MO.1-black bead chain and MO.2-two pairs of ear studs in item No.2/2015 which were given to PW.1 Y.Mohana Rao, S/o Late Ramulu vide orders in Crl.M.P.2457/2014, dt.27-10-2014 and MO.3-one pair of ear studs and

MO.4-one ring in item No.1/2015 which were given to PW.2 P.Venkata Rao, S/o

Late Venkata Ratnam vide orders in Crl.M.P.34/2015, dt.05-01-2015 by way of - 10 - interim custody, the said orders are made absolute after time time is over. The accused is ordered to be released if his detention is not required in any other cases.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court, this the 11th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- M.SREEDHAR

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Appendix of Evidence

No. of witnesses examined for

Prosecution :Defence : PW.1/05-01-2015Y.Mohana RaoNone PW.2/05-01-2015P.Venkata Rao PW.3/08-01-2015A.Mahesh PW.4/28-01-2015M.Radha Krishna Rao PW.5/25-02-2015G.Divakar Yadav PW.6/25-02-2015K.Satyanarayana PW.7/23-03-2015Ch.Tirupathi Rao PW.8/26-03-2015D.Subba Rao

No. of exhibits marked for

Prosecution: Ex.P1/05-01-2015Report given by Y.Mohana Rao (PW.1). Ex.P2/05-01-2015Report, dt.07-06-2014 given by P.Venkata Rao (PW.2). Ex.P3/08-01-2015Signature of the mediator in the copy of the report, dt.12- 08-2014 at 4p.m.(PW.3). Ex.P4/08-01-2015Signature of the mediator in the copy of the report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m.(PW.3). Ex.P5/08-01-2015Signature of the witness in identification parade, dt.14-08-2014 at 1.30p.m.(PW.3). Ex.P6/08-01-2015Signature of the witness in identification parade mediators report, dt.14-08-2014 at 9a.m.(PW.3). Ex.P7/28-01-2015Signature of the witness in the copy of the mediators report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m.(PW.4). Ex.P8/28-01-2015Signature of the witness in the copy of the mediators report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m.(PW.4). Ex.P9/28-01-2015Signature of the witness in the copy of mediators report, dt.14-08-2014 at 9a.m.(identification of property)(PW.4). Ex.P10/28-01-2015 Signature of the witness in the copy of mediators report, dt.14-08-2014 at 1.30p.m. (identification of property) (PW.4).

- 11 -

Ex.P11/25-02-2015Original FIR in Cr.No.450/2012. Ex.P12/25-02-2015Rough sketch in Cr.No.450/2012. Ex.P13/23-03-2015Copy of mediator' report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m. Ex.P14/23-03-2015Copy of the mediator's report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m. Ex.P15/23-03-2015Identification of property report, dt.14-08-2014 at 1.30p.m. Ex.P16/23-03-2015Identification parade in Cr.No.450/2012 in the presence of mediator under cover of report, dt.14-08-2014 at 9a.m. Ex.P17/26-03-2015Original FIR in Cr.No.313/2014. Ex.P18/26-03-2015Rough sketch in Cr.No.313/2014.

Defence : NIL

No. of material objects marked for

Prosecution : MO.1/05-01-2015Black bead chain. MO.2/05-01-2015Two pairs of ear studs. MO.3/05-01-2015One pair of ear studs. MO.4/05-01-2015One ring.

Defence :NIL

Sd/- M.SREEDHAR

IV M.M./BML

- 1 -

Calendar and Judgment

In the Court of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate :: Bheemunipatnam

Calendar Case No.497/2014 Date of offenceCr.No.181/2014-23-05-2014 Cr.No.182/2014-23-05-2014 Cr.No.183/2014-23-05-2014 Date of report or complaintCr.No.181/2014-23-05-2014 Cr.No.182/2014-23-05-2014 Cr.No.183/2014-23-05-2014 Date of apprehension of the 12-08-2014 accused or appearance of the accused in the Court Date of commencement of trial01-10-2014 Date of close of trial01-04-2015 Date of sentence on order11-05-2015 Explanation of delay or remarksAccused is in judicial custody since 26-08- 2014. Name of the ComplainantState represented by the Inspector of Police, BheemunipatnamPoliceStation, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the accused 1. Kosanu Siva Ganesh, S/o Narasinga Rao, 25 yrs, Reddika by caste, R/o Door No.8-32-69, V.T.Agraharam, Gandhi Nagar of Vizianagaram.

2. Pilaka Srinu @ Deepali @ Raju, S/o Late Rama Suri, 24 years, Reddy by caste, R/o Sairam Colony, Kommadhi of Visakhapatnam City. OffencesU/Sec.380 of I.P.C. Finding Found not guilty SentenceIn the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 380 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted of the said charge Under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. The property i.e. MO.1-pusthela thadu in item No.115/2014 which was given to PW.1 Ch.Pydisetti, S/o LateRamuluvideordersin

Crl.M.P.2597/2014,dt.19-11-2014,the

property i.e.MO.2-gold pusthela thadu, MO.3- gold chain three tulas, MO.4-gold chain 1 ½ tula in item No.115/2014 which were given to PW.2 S.Venkata Ramana, S/o Late Appalanarayanavideordersin

Crl.M.P.2598/2014, dt.19-11-2014 and the

property i.e. MO.5-two satamanams in item No.115/2014 which was given to PW.3 E.Srinivasa Rao, S/o Appanna vide orders in

Crl.M.P.2596/2014, dt.19-11-2014 by way of

interim custody, the said orders are made absolute after time time is over. The accused are ordered to be released if their detention is not required in any other cases.

Sd/- M.SREEDHAR

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

- 2 -

IN THE COURT OF IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :: BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

PRESENT: SRI MARPU SREEDHAR,

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2015

Calendar Case No.497/2014

Between : State represented by the Inspector of Police, Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

...Complainant.

And :

1. Kosanu Siva Ganesh, S/o Narasinga Rao, 25 yrs, Reddika by caste, R/o Door No.8-32-69, V.T.Agraharam, Gandhi Nagar of Vizianagaram.

2. Pilaka Srinu @ Deepali @ Raju, S/o Late Rama Suri, 24 years, Reddy by caste, R/o Sairam Colony, Kommadhi of Visakhapatnam City.

...Accused.

This case coming on 07-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Bheemunipatnam P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused, Under Section 457, 382 of I.P.C. in Crime No.181/2014 and Under

Section 457, 380 of I.P.C. in Crime Nos.182/2014 and 183/2014.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the complainant by name Ch.Pydi Setti slept on their upstairs of their house during the night of 22-05-2014 and in the midnight some unknown culprits entered into middle room by removing inside latch and committed theft of two tulas gold chain. Based on his report a case in

Cr.No.181/2014 was registered. It is also further case of the prosecution is that during the night of 22-05-2014 Ch.Nagamma slept on the upstairs of their house and some unknown culprits snatched away gold pusthula thadu and also committed theft of three tulas gold pusthula thadu, three tulas gold chain, 1 ½ tulas gold chain, three pairs of gold studs each one ½ tula in total 1 ½ tulas, ½ thula two kadialu, ½ tula, ½ tula, ¼ tula gold ingots in total 1 ¾ tulas gold, all total weighing about 11 ½ tulas gold from his house. Based on the report of one S.Venkata

Ramana a case in Cr.No.182/2014 was registered. It is further case of the prosecution is that one Srinivasa Rao along with mother slept outside of their house - 3 - and his father slept in cattle shed by not locking the doors of the house and on 23- 05-2014 at 6.15a.m woke up and found missing of ½ tula gold sathamanalu, ¼

Lord Venkatesh locket, ¼ gold chain and titan wrist watch. Based on his report a case in Cr.No.183/2014 was registered. During the investigation, Inspector of

Police, P.M.Palem P.S. arrested accused and recorded their confession and recovered part of stolen property in this case and some other cases of P.M.Palem and other stations and subsequently, the Inspector of Police, Bheemunipatnam P.S.

produced accused before this Court by obtaining P.T.Warrant. After completion of investigation this charge sheet was laid against accused.

3.This charge sheet was taken on to file Under Section 380 of I.P.C. against the accused. On the appearance of the accused, copies of the charge sheet and other relevant documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated Under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

The accusations of the charge sheet were read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu. They denied the offence. Charge Under Section 380 of I.P.C. against the accused was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The accused have faced the trial as an under trial prisoners.

5.During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 witnesses and Exs.P1 to P16 documents and MOs.1 to MO.5 were admitted on behalf of the prosecution.

6.Ex.P1 is report, dt.23-05-2014 given by Ch.Pydisetty. Ex.P2 is report, dt.23- 05-2014 given by S.Venkata Ramana. Ex.P3 is report, dt.23-05-2014 given by

E.Srinivasa Rao. Ex.P4 is signature of the mediator in the copy of the report, dt.12- 08-2014 at 4p.m.(PW.5). Ex.P5 is signature of the mediator in the copy of the report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m.(PW.5). Ex.P6 is the signature of the witness in the copy of mediators report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m.(PW.6). Ex.P7 is signature of the witness in the copy of mediators report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m.(PW.6). Ex.P8 is copy of mediator's report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m. Ex.P9 is copy of mediator's - 4 - report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m. Ex.P10 is rough sketch in Cr.No.181/2014. Ex.P11 is original FIR in Cr.No.181/2014. Ex.P12 is original FIR in Cr.No.183/2014. Ex.P13 is rough sketch in Cr.No.183/2014. Ex.P14 is original FIR in Cr.No.182/2014.

Ex.P15 is rough sketch in Cr.No.182/72014. Ex.P16 is scene observation report, dt.23-05-2014. MO.1 is gold pusthela thadu. MO.2 is gold pusthela thadu. MO.3 is gold chain three tulas. MO.4 is gold chain of 1 ½ tula. MO.5 is two satamanams along with gottam.

7.The evidence of LW.3 Ch.Ramesh, LW.4 Ch.Mahesh, LW.6 S.Appala

Narasamma, LW.7 S.Satyavamma, LW.9 E.Ramulamma, LW.10 E.Appanna, LW.11

N.Ramanamma and LW.16 S.Appala Naidu was given up by the prosecution as not necessary.

8.PWs.1 to 4 deposes about the theft of gold articles, submission of the report to the police and identification of MOs.1 to 5 belongs to them. PW.5 deposed about the arrest of the accused under the cover of mediator's report by P.M.Palem Police and recovery of property. PW.6 another mediator turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.7 investigation officer deposes about the arrest of the accused confession made by the accused and recovery of the property from the accused and receiver of stolen property. PW.8 deposes about the receipt of the report, examination of the scene of offence and witnesses and filing of charge sheet.

9.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they denied the incriminating evidence adduced against them by the prosecution. They stated that they have no evidence to adduce in their defence.

10.Heard.

11.The learned APP contends that the evidence of prosecution witnesses very clearly establishes that the accused have committed offence in the house of complainants and as such he is liable for punishment for the offence U/Sec.380 of

IPC. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused contends that absolutely there is no evidence to say that accused have committed offence in the - 5 - house of the complainant. Moreover, the mediators gave different version with regard to the arrest of the accused, preparation of the report and recovery of the property. Furthermore, the mediators who were examined as PWs.5 and 6 are not independent persons to act as mediators and as such their evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. It is further contended by the accused that the evidence of the investigation officer is not up to the mark to believe their version about the arrest of the accused and recovery of the property and as such they have set up the receiver of the property to fix the liability of the accused and to strengthen their case and as such viewed from any angle absolutely there is no evidence to say that accused has committed offence. Hence, prayed for acquittal.

12.Now, the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 380 of I.P.C. against accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

13.P O I N T :

To prove the case U/Sec.380 of IPC, the prosecution shall establish their case that the accused committed theft of articles in the dwelling house of the complainant.

14.PW.1 deposes that on 22-05-2014 some unknown culprits committed theft of gold pusthela thadu from the neck of his wife and he submitted the report to the police and he identified MO.1 gold pusthela thadu belongs to his wife. From his evidence, it is elicited that the distance between Tatituru and Bheemili Police Station is 3km. and he has not mentioned in the report about the reason for delay in giving the report. The prosecution examined the investigation officer who registered the crime as PW.8 and he deposed that he received the report from PW.1 and the same was registered as a case and he visited the scene of offence. Nothing was elicited from his evidence to disbelieve his version about the delay in submission of the report. Furthermore, the prosecution examined PW.4 to prove the theft of pusthela thadu. Nothing was elected from her evidence to disbelieve her version. In a theft - 6 - case it is not at all fatal and as such we can safely come to conclusion that MO.1 pusthela thadu subject to theft from the possession of the PW.1.

15.Likewise, PW.2 another complainant in this also deposed that on 22-05-2014 some unknown culprits committed theft of gold chain and gold pusthela thadu, 1 ½ tulas of gold chain and gold pieces (4 in number), three pairs of ear studs, one pair of gold kadiyam, then he submitted report to the police and he identified MOs.2 to 4 belongs to them. From his evidence, it is elicited that he has not mentioned the description of the gold articles in the report, more particularly whether the said articles are new or old one. He further admits that MOs.1 to 4 appears to be new one and he further admits that he has not mentioned the reason for delay in giving the report and no identification parade was conducted by the police. But, the investigation officer who registered the crime was examined as PW.8 and he stated about the registration of the crime by the Inspector of Police and examination of the witnesses. From his evidence nothing was elicited to disbelieve his version.

Moreover, it is not the case of the accused that the property belongs to them and ownership was also not disputed by the accused and as such there is no inch of doubt to say MOs.2 to 4 subject to theft from the possession of PW.2.

16.In order to prove the case of the prosecution about the commission of theft of articles from the house of PW.3, they have examined the complainant as PW.3 and he stated that some unknown culprits committed theft of ½ tula satamanam, ¼ tula chain and ¼ tula of Venkateswara Swamy idol, Titan watch, then he has submitted the report to the police and he identified MO.5 two satamanams along with gottam belongs to them. But, he admitted in his cross-examination that he has not mentioned description of the gold articles in his report and not handed over the bills to the police and so also he has not mentioned the reason for delay in giving the report. But, the prosecution examined the investigation officer as PW.8 and he categorically deposed about the registration of the crime by the Inspector of Police, examination of the witnesses and scene of offence. From his evidence, nothing was elicited to disbelieve their version. Furthermore, there is no dispute with regard to the theft committed in the house of PW.3 Srinivasa Rao. Hence, the prosecution - 7 - very much established their case that MO.5 two satamanams with gottam subject to theft from the possession of PW.3.

17.In order to prove the recovery of the property from the accused, the prosecution stated that all the accused were arrested near stadium under the cover of mediator's report in the presence of mediators and so also based on their confession they have approached Satyanarayana who is resident of Akkayyapalem and recovered part of stolen property from his possession. In order to prove the case of the prosecution they examined mediators one Mahesh as PW.5 and Radha

Krishna Rao as PW.6. PW.6 Radha Krishna Rao turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that the police requested him to put his signature on the report by informing about the theft and stated that he went to stadium and police requested him to put his signature on the report by informing about the theft and some gold articles seized from their possession. Then, the learned APP cross- examined and elicited that all the accused confessed about the commission of offence and the police drafted the mediator's report and police seized the gold articles from the possession of accused and he also admitted about his presence at the time of drafting of report at Akkayyapalem. But, in his cross-examination conducted by the accused he admitted that on 12-08-2014 he went to police station along with Venkatarao in connection with theft committed in the house of

Venkatarao and the police prepared the reports at police station and obtained his signatures. He went to an extent to admit that he has not visited Akkayyapalem and he came to know about the names of the accused through police only and as such he changed his version from chief examination to cross-examination and he has not at all stick on his version and as such his evidence cannot be believable and acceptable to say that in his presence everything was happened. But, PW.3 categorically stated that himself, C.I. of police and staff proceeded to YSR stadium,

P.M.Palem and they observed three persons at a distance of 30 to 40 feet to the stadium in suspicious circumstances, then the C.I. of police caught hold and recovered one bag with sarees and also found Rs.4,000/- and they confessed about the commission of theft and based on their confession they proceeded to

Akkayyapalem to the house of Satyanarayana and he stated before them that gold - 8 - articles were pledged with him and so also he has stated about the confession of the accused. But, in the cross-examination he admitted that he know PW.2

Ramamohana Rao since ten years and he went along with PW.2 Ramamohana Rao to police station to receive the gold articles and he subscribed his signature after preparation of the report by the police at police station and investigation officer also admitted that no identification slips attached to the articles seized. Furthermore, in the chief examination of PW.5 Mahesh itself shows that he do not know the contents in the mediator's report and as such the learned APP got marked his signatures only. But, the prosecution examined the investigation officer as PW.7 he deposed

before this Court about the arrest of the accused in the presence of mediators,

recording of confession, recovery of part of stolen property from Satyanarayana and so also all the documents are marked though him. But, he himself admitted in his cross-examination that he has not issued any summons to the mediators and no identification slips attached to the said articles and he has not mentioned the measurements of the gold articles also. So also he admitted that he has not obtained any signatures of the inmates of the shop in the mediators report and not prepared any rough sketch of the house of Satyanarayana. He further admits that they have not registered any case against Satyanarayana as receiver of the stolen property. Based on said admission, the learned legal aid counsel for the accused contends that Satyanarayana is planted witness, it at all the police recovered such a huge property as stated in their charge-sheet they might have registered the case against him U/Sec.411 of IPC. Furthermore, there is no whisper in the evidence of

PW.7 who conducted investigation about the exact confession made by the accused and his evidence is also not up to the mark to say that the accused confessed about the commission of theft in this case. Moreover, when the prosecution relied upon the confession of the accused which is weakest type of evidence of prosecution, the evidence about the recovery must be very much convincing and trustworthy. But, here in this case, the mediators who are friends to the complainants also not supported the case of the prosecution about the recovery of the property from the accused and as such their presence at the time of preparation of the mediator's report and recovery of the property itself doubtful. Moreover, the evidence of - 9 - investigation officer is not up to the mark to believe that they have recovered the property from the accused under the cover of mediator's report and as such the prosecution miserably failed in establishing their case of recovery of the property.

18.In the light of above discussion, the prosecution established their case of theft of MO.1 from the possession of PW.1, but fails to establish that the said property recovered from the accused to find the guilt of the accused U/Sec.380 of

IPC or any other offence. Hence, the accused are found not guilty for the charge levelled against them.

19.In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable

Under Section 380 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted of the said charge Under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. The property i.e. MO.1-pusthela thadu in item No.115/2014 which was given to PW.1 Ch.Pydisetti, S/o Late Ramulu vide orders in

Crl.M.P.2597/2014, dt.19-11-2014, the property i.e.MO.2-gold pusthela thadu,

MO.3-gold chain three tulas, MO.4-gold chain 1 ½ tula in item No.115/2014 which were given to PW.2 S.Venkata Ramana, S/o Late Appalanarayana vide orders in

Crl.M.P.2598/2014, dt.19-11-2014 and the property i.e. MO.5-two satamanams in

item No.115/2014 which was given to PW.3 E.Srinivasa Rao, S/o Appanna vide orders in Crl.M.P.2596/2014, dt.19-11-2014 by way of interim custody, the said orders are made absolute after time time is over. The accused are ordered to be released if their detention is not required in any other cases.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court, this the 11th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- M.SREEDHAR

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Appendix of Evidence

No. of witnesses examined for Prosecution :Defence : PW.1/19-11-2014Ch.PydisettyNone PW.2/19-11-2014S.Venkata Ramana PW.3/19-11-2014E.Srinivasa Rao PW.4/11-12-2014Ch.Nagamma - 10 -

PW.5/08-01-2015A.Mahesh PW.6/28-01-2015M.Radha Krishna Rao PW.7/23-03-2015Ch.Tirupathi Rao PW.8/26-03-2015M.Srinivasa Rao

No. of exhibits marked for Prosecution: Ex.P1/19-11-2014Report, dt.23-05-2014 given by Ch.Pydisetty. Ex.P2/19-11-2014Report, dt.23-05-2014 given by S.Venkata Ramana. Ex.P3/19-11-2014Report, dt.23-05-2014 given by E.Srinivasa Rao. Ex.P4/19-11-2014Signature of the mediator in the copy of the report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m.(PW.5). Ex.P5/19-11-2014Signature of the mediator in the copy of the report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m.(PW.5). Ex.P6/28-01-2015Signature of the witness in the copy of mediators report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m.(PW.6). Ex.P7/28-01-2015Signature of the witness in the copy of mediators report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m.(PW.6). Ex.P8/23-03-2015Copy of mediator's report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m. Ex.P9/23-03-2015Copy of mediator's report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m. Ex.P10/26-03-2015Rough sketch in Cr.No.181/2014. Ex.P11/26-03-2015Original FIR in Cr.No.181/2014. Ex.P12/26-03-2015Original FIR in Cr.No.183/2014. Ex.P13/26-03-2015Rough sketch in Cr.No.183/2014. Ex.P14/26-03-2015Original FIR in Cr.No.182/2014. Ex.P15/26-03-2015Rough sketch in Cr.No.182/72014. Ex.P16/26-03-2015Scene observation report, dt.23-05-2014. Defence : NIL No. of material objects marked for Prosecution : MO.1/19-11-2014Gold pusthela thadu. MO.2/19-11-2014Gold pusthela thadu. MO.3/19-11-2014Gold chain three tulas. MO.4/19-11-2014Gold chain of 1 ½ tula. MO.5/19-11-2014Two satamanams along with gottam. Defence :NIL

Sd/- M.SREEDHAR

IV M.M./BML

- 1 -

Calendar and Judgment

In the Court of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate :: Bheemunipatnam

Calendar Case No.543/2014

Date of offence04-05-2014 Date of report or complaint04-05-2014 Date of apprehension of the 12-08-2014 accused or appearance of the accused in the Court Date of commencement of trial13-10-2014 Date of close of trial01-04-2015 Date of sentence on order11-05-2015 Explanation of delay or remarksAccused is in judicial custody since 26-08- 2014. Name of the ComplainantState represented by the Inspector of Police, Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the accused 1. Kosanu Siva Ganesh, S/o Narasinga Rao, 25 yrs, Reddika by caste, R/o Door No.8-32-69, V.T.Agraharam, Gandhi Nagar of Vizianagaram.

2. Pilaka Srinu @ Deepali @ Raju, S/o Late Rama Suri, 24 years, Reddy by caste, SairamColony,Kommadiof Visakhapatnam City. OffencesU/Sec.380 of I.P.C. Finding Found not guilty SentenceIn the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 380 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted of the said charge Under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. The property i.e. MO.1-pair of ear studs with hangings, MO.2-chain, MO.3-two rings with Saibaba image, MO-4 Anjaneya Swamy billa, MO.5- Sathamanam, MO.6-Laxmidevi kasu, MO.7 vothulu in item No.111/2014 which were given to PW.1 P.Bangaramma, W/o Pydithalli vide orders in Crl.M.P.2439/2014, dt.10-11-2014 by way of interim custody, the said orders are made absolute after time time is over. The accused are ordered to be released if their detention is not required in any other cases.

Sd/- M.SREEDHAR

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

- 2 -

IN THE COURT OF IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :: BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

PRESENT: SRI MARPU SREEDHAR,

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2015

Calendar Case No.543/2014

Between : State represented by the Inspector of Police, Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

...Complainant.

And :

3. Kosanu Siva Ganesh, S/o Narasinga Rao, 25 yrs, Reddika by caste, R/o Door No.8-32-69, V.T.Agraharam, Gandhi Nagar of Vizianagaram.

4. Pilaka Srinu @ Deepali @ Raju, S/o Late Rama Suri, 24 years, Reddy by caste, Sairam Colony, Kommadi of Visakhapatnam City.

...Accused.

This case coming on 07-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Anandapuram P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused, Under Section 457, 380 of I.P.C. in Crime No.110/2014.

2.The case of the prosecution is that during night of 03-05-2014 the accused gained entrance into the house of the complainant and committed theft of gold ear studs one tula, gold chain one tula, Saibaba image gold ring ¼ tula, Saibaba image gold ring six annas, Anjaneyaswamy billa ¼ tula, Laxmidevi kasu one anna, vottulu ½ tula, sathamanalu ¼ tula, silver anklets eight tulas, silver waist thread two tulas and silver bowl five tulas. Based on the report given by the complainant a case in

Cr.No.110/2014 was registered. During the investigation Inspector of Police,

P.M.Palem P.S. arrested accused on 12-08-2014 at 4p.m. at YSR stadium and he recorded the confession of the accused and recovered part of stolen property in this case and some other cases of P.M.Palem and other stations after recording confession and subsequently, the Inspector of Police, Anandapuram P.S. produced accused before this Court by obtaining P.T.Warrant. After completion of investigation this charge sheet was laid against accused.

- 3 -

3.This charge sheet was taken on to file Under Section 380 of I.P.C. against the accused. On the appearance of the accused, copies of the charge sheet and other relevant documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated Under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

The accusations of the charge sheet were read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu. They denied the offence. Charge Under Section 380 of I.P.C. against the accused was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The accused have faced the trial as an under trial prisoners.

5.During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 witnesses and Exs.P1 to P10 documents and MOs.1 to MO.7 were admitted on behalf of the prosecution.

6.Ex.P1 is report. Ex.P2 is scene observation report, dt.04-05-2014. Ex.P3 is signature of the mediator in the copy of the report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m.(PW.3).

Ex.P4 is signature of the mediator in the copy of the report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m.

(PW.3). Ex.P5 is the signature of the witness in the copy of mediators report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m.(PW.4). Ex.P6 is signature of the witness in the copy of mediators report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m.(PW.4). Ex.P7 is copy of mediator's report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m. Ex.P8 is copy of mediator's report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m. Ex.P9 is original FIR. Ex.P10 is rough sketch. MO.1 is pair of ear studs with hangings. MO.2 is chain. MO.3 is two rings with Saibaba image. MO.4 is

Ananjaneya Swamy billa. MO.5 is sathamanam. MO.6 is Laxmidevi Kasu. MO.7 is vothulu.

7.The evidence of LW.2 P.Pydithalli, LW.3 P.Satyam Naidu, LW.4 B.Pothanna,

LW.5 B.Bangaru Naidu and LW.7 B.Nagaraju was given up by the prosecution as not necessary.

8.PW.1 deposes about the theft of gold articles, submission of the report to the police and she identified MOs.1 to 7 belongs to her. PW.2 who was present at the time of preparation of scene observation report deposes about the preparation of - 4 - scene observation report and material observed by him at the scene of offence.

PW.3 deposed about the arrest of the accused under the cover of mediator's report by P.M.Palem Police and recovery of property. PW.4 another mediator turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.5 investigation officer deposes about the arrest of the accused confession made by the accused and recovery of the property from the accused and receiver of stolen property. PW.6 deposes about the receipt of the report, examination of the scene of offence and witnesses and filing of charge sheet.

9.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they denied the incriminating evidence adduced against them by the prosecution. They stated that they have no evidence to adduce in their defence.

10.Heard.

11.The learned APP contends that the evidence of prosecution witnesses very clearly establishes that the accused have committed offence in the house of complainants and as such he is liable for punishment for the offence U/Sec.380 of

IPC. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused contends that absolutely there is no evidence to say that accused have committed offence in the house of the complainant. Moreover, the mediators gave different version with regard to the arrest of the accused, preparation of the report and recovery of the property. Furthermore, the mediators who were examined as PWs.3 and 4 are not independent persons to act as mediators and as such their evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. It is further contended by the accused that the evidence of the investigation officer is not up to the mark to believe their version about the arrest of the accused and recovery of the property and as such they have set up the receiver of the property to fix the liability of the accused and to strengthen their case and as such viewed from any angle absolutely there is no evidence to say that accused has committed offence. Hence, prayed for acquittal.

12.Now, the point for consideration is :

- 5 -

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 380 of I.P.C. against accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

13.P O I N T :

To prove the case U/Sec.380 of IPC, the prosecution shall establish their case that the accused committed theft of articles in the dwelling house of the complainant.

14.In order to prove the case of the prosecution about the commission of theft of gold articles from the house of complainant, they have examined the complainant as PW.1 and she categorically deposed that on 03-05-2014 some unknown culprits committed theft of gold ear studs, gold chain, mattelu, Saibaba gold ring, Saibaba gold ring (big), Anjaneya billa, sathamanam, Laxmidevi kasu, silver waist thread, silver anklets and silver bowl and submitted the report to the police. She also identified MOs.1 to 7 belongs to her. From her evidence, it is elicited that she cannot say the name of the scribe of the report and also not submitted the bills either to police or before this Court. She further admits that MOs.1 to 7 appears to be new one and same fact was not mentioned in the report. The investigation officer who registered the report was examined as PW.6 and testifies that he received report from Bangaramma and prepared scene observation report in the presence of mediators and also examined the witnesses and scene of offence. From his evidence, it is elicited that no bills or receipts submitted by the complainant.

Except that nothing was elicited from his evidence. Furthermore, the mediators who present at the time of preparation of scene observation report was also examined as PW.2 and stated that on 04-05-2014 at 1p.m. the police prepared scene observation report at the house of PW.1 Bangaramma and he clearly describes the scene of offence. From his evidence, it is elicited that no summons were issued to him to act as mediator and he was present outside of the house by the time when police conducted proceedings inside of the house. Except that nothing was elicited to disbelieve his version, moreover, this property was also not claimed by the accused and also not disputed the ownership of the complainant over - 6 - the property and as such the evidence let in the by the prosecution clearly establishes that MOs.1 to 7 belongs to PW.1 Bangaramma were subject to theft.

15.In order to prove the recovery of the property from the accused, the prosecution stated that all the accused were arrested near stadium under the cover of mediator's report in the presence of mediators and so also based on their confession they have approached Satyanarayana who is resident of Akkayyapalem and recovered part of stolen property from his possession. In order to prove the case of the prosecution they examined mediators one Mahesh as PW.3 and Radha

Krishna Rao as PW.4. PW.4 Radha Krishna Rao turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that the police requested him to put his signature on the report by informing about the theft and stated that he went to stadium and police requested him to put his signature on the report by informing about the theft and some gold articles seized from their possession. Then, the learned APP cross- examined and elicited that all the accused confessed about the commission of offence and the police drafted the mediator's report and police seized the gold articles from the possession of accused and he also admitted about his presence at the time of drafting of report at Akkayyapalem. But, in his cross-examination conducted by the accused he admitted that on 12-08-2014 he went to police station along with Venkatarao in connection with theft committed in the house of

Venkatarao and the police prepared the reports at police station and obtained his signatures. He went to an extent to admit that he has not visited Akkayyapalem and he came to know about the names of the accused through police only and as such he changed his version from chief examination to cross-examination and he has not at all stick on his version and as such his evidence cannot be believable and acceptable to say that in his presence everything was happened. But, PW.3 categorically stated that himself, C.I. of police and staff proceeded to YSR stadium,

P.M.Palem and they observed three persons at a distance of 30 to 40 feet to the stadium in suspicious circumstances, then the C.I. of police caught hold and recovered one bag with sarees and also found Rs.4,000/- and they confessed about the commission of theft and based on their confession they proceeded to

Akkayyapalem to the house of Satyanarayana and he stated before them that gold - 7 - articles were pledged with him and so also he has stated about the confession of the accused. But, in the cross-examination he admitted that he know PW.2

Ramamohana Rao since ten years and he went along with PW.2 Ramamohana Rao to police station to receive the gold articles and he subscribed his signature after preparation of the report by the police at police station and investigation officer also admitted that no identification slips attached to the articles seized. Furthermore, in the chief examination of PW.3 Mahesh itself shows that he do not know the contents in the mediator's report and as such the learned APP got marked his signatures only. But, the prosecution examined the investigation officer as PW.7 he deposed

before this Court about the arrest of the accused in the presence of mediators,

recording of confession, recovery of part of stolen property from Satyanarayana and so also all the documents are marked though him. But, he himself admitted in his cross-examination that he has not issued any summons to the mediators and no identification slips attached to the said articles and he has not mentioned the measurements of the gold articles also. So also he admitted that he has not obtained any signatures of the inmates of the shop in the mediators report and not prepared any rough sketch of the house of Satyanarayana. He further admits that they have not registered any case against Satyanarayana as receiver of the stolen property. Based on said admission, the learned legal aid counsel for the accused contends that Satyanarayana is planted witness, it at all the police recovered such a huge property as stated in their charge-sheet they might have registered the case against him U/Sec.411 of IPC. Furthermore, there is no whisper in the evidence of

PW.5 who conducted investigation about the exact confession made by the accused and his evidence is also not up to the mark to say that the accused confessed about the commission of theft in this case. Moreover, when the prosecution relied upon the confession of the accused which is weakest type of evidence of prosecution, their evidence about the recovery must be very much convincing and trustworthy.

But, here in this case, the mediators who are friends to the complainants also not supported the case of the prosecution about the recovery of the property from the accused and as such their presence at the time of preparation of the mediator's report and recovery of the property itself doubtful. Moreover, the evidence of - 8 - investigation officer is not up to the mark to believe that they have recovered the property from the accused under the cover of mediator's report and as such the prosecution miserably failed in establishing their case of recovery of the property.

16.In the light of above discussion, the prosecution established their case of theft of MOs.1 to 7 from the possession of PW.1, but fails to establish that the said property recovered from the accused to find the guilt of the accused U/Sec.380 of

IPC or any other offence. Hence, the accused are found not guilty for the charge levelled against them.

17.In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable

Under Section 380 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted of the said charge Under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. The property i.e. MO.1-pair of ear studs with hangings, MO.2- chain, MO.3-two rings with Saibaba image, MO-4 Anjaneya Swamy billa, MO.5-

Sathamanam, MO.6-Laxmidevi kasu, MO.7 vothulu in item No.111/2014 which were given to PW.1 P.Bangaramma, W/o Pydithalli vide orders in Crl.M.P.2439/2014, dt.10-11-2014 by way of interim custody, the said orders are made absolute after time time is over. The accused are ordered to be released if their detention is not required in any other cases.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court, this the 11th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- M.SREEDHAR

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Appendix of Evidence

No. of witnesses examined for

Prosecution :Defence : PW.1/10-11-2014P.BangarammaNone PW.2/17-11-2014P.Venkata Rao PW.3/08-01-2015A.Mahesh PW.4/28-01-2015M.Radha Krishna Rao PW.5/23-03-2015Ch.Tirupathi Rao PW.6/26-03-2015M.Srinivasa Rao - 9 -

No. of exhibits marked for

Prosecution: Ex.P1/10-11-2014Report. Ex.P2/17-11-2014Scene observation report, dt.04-05-2014. Ex.P3/08-01-2015Signature of the mediator in the copy of the report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m.(PW.3). Ex.P4/08-01-2015Signature of the mediator in the copy of the report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m.(PW.3).

Ex.P5/08-01-2015Signature of the witness in the copy of mediators report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m.(PW.4). Ex.P6/08-01-2015Signature of the witness in the copy of mediators report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m.(PW.4). Ex.P7/23-03-2015Copy of mediator's report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m. Ex.P8/23-03-2015Copy of mediator's report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m. Ex.P9/26-03-2015Original FIR. Ex.P10/26-03-2015Rough sketch. Defence : NIL

No. of material objects marked for

Prosecution : MO.1/10-11-2014Pair of ear studs with hangings. MO.2/10-11-2014Chain. MO.3/10-11-2014Two rings with Saibaba image. MO.4/10-11-2014Ananjaneya Swamy billa. MO.5/10-11-2014Sathamanam. MO.6/10-11-2014Laxmidevi Kasu. MO.7/10-11-2014Vothulu. Defence :NIL

Sd/- M.SREEDHAR

IV M.M./BML

- 1 -

Calendar and Judgment

In the Court of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate :: Bheemunipatnam

Calendar Case No.576/2014

Date of offencePrior to 18-07-2014 Date of report or complaint18-07-2014 Date of apprehension of the 12-08-2014 accused or appearance of the accused in the Court Date of commencement of trial12-11-2014 Date of close of trial29-04-2015 Date of sentence on order11-05-2015 Explanation of delay or remarksAccused is in judicial custody since 26-08- 2014. Name of the ComplainantState represented by the Inspector of Police, Padmanabham Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the accused 1. Kosanu Siva Ganesh, S/o Narasinga Rao, 25 yrs, Reddika by caste, R/o Door No.8-32-69,V.T.Agraharam, Ghandhinagaram, Vizianagaram.

2. Thamarapu Raju, S/o Thaviti Naidu, 24 years, Kapu by caste, Sairam colony, Kommadi,Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

3. Pilaka Srinu @ Deepali @ Raju, S/o Rama Suri, 24 years, Reddy by caste, SairamColony,Kommadi, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam. OffencesU/Sec.380 of I.P.C. Finding Found not guilty SentenceIn the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 380 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted of the said charge Under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. The property i.e. MO.1 ten sarees and unmarked property i.e. cash of Rs.4,000/- in item No.119/2014 shall be given to Polisetti Radha Rani, W/o Late Srinivasa Rao, Kurapalli Relli Colony, PandrangiPanchayatonproper acknowledgement and identification after appeal time is over. The property MO.2- Stone(sanni rayi) in item No.119/2014 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The accused are ordered to be released if their detention is not required in any other cases.

Sd/- M.SREEDHAR

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

- 2 -

IN THE COURT OF IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :: BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

PRESENT: SRI MARPU SREEDHAR,

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2015

Calendar Case No.576/2014

Between :

State represented by the Inspector of Police, Padmanabham Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

...Complainant.

And :

1. Kosanu Siva Ganesh, S/o Narasinga Rao, 25 yrs, Reddika by caste, R/o Door No.8-32-69, V.T.Agraharam, Ghandhinagaram, Vizianagaram.

2. Thamarapu Raju, S/o Thaviti Naidu, 24 years, Kapu by caste, Sairam colony, Kommadi, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

3. Pilaka Srinu @ Deepali @ Raju, S/o Rama Suri, 24 years, Reddy by caste, Sairam Colony, Kommadi, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

...Accused.

This case coming on 07-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Legal Aid

Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Padmanabham P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused, Under Section 451, 380 of I.P.C. in Crime No.58/2014.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused committed theft of 10 sarees, cash of Rs.20,000/- on 18-07-2014 in her absence. Based on the report given by the complainant a case in Cr.No.58/2014 was registered. During the investigation

Inspector of Police, P.M.Palem P.S. arrested accused on 12-08-2014 at 4p.m. at

YSR stadium and he recorded the confession of the accused and recovered part of stolen property in this case and some other cases of P.M.Palem and other stations.

After completion of investigation this charge sheet was laid against accused.

3.This charge sheet was taken on to file Under Section 380 of I.P.C. against the accused. On the appearance of the accused, copies of the charge sheet and - 3 - other relevant documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated Under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

The accusations of the charge sheet were read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu. They denied the offence. Charge Under Section 380 of I.P.C. against the accused was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The accused have faced the trial as an under trial prisoners.

5.During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 witnesses and Exs.P1 to P9 documents and MOs.1 and MO.2 were admitted on behalf of the prosecution.

6.Ex.P1 is report, dt.18-07-2014. Ex.P2 is scene observation report, dt.18-07- 2014 at 1p.m. Ex.P3 is signature of the mediator in the copy of the report, dt.12- 08-2014 at 4p.m.(PW.3). Ex.P4 is signature of the mediator in the copy of the report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m.(PW.3). Ex.P5 is the signature of the witness in the copy of mediators report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m.(PW.4). Ex.P6 is signature of the witness in the copy of mediators report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m.(PW.4). Ex.P7 is copy of mediator's report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m. Ex.P9 is original FIR. Ex.P10 is rough sketch. MO.1 is ten sarees. MO.2 is stone (sanni rayi).

7.The evidence of LW.2 P.Ramaniyyasetti @ Ramesh, LW.3 P.Venkata Neethen,

LW.4 P.Nagaratnam, LW.5 P.V.V.Viswanadham, LW.6 S.Satyanandam, LW.7

K.Appala Raju and LW.9 M.Satyanarayana was given up by the prosecution as not necessary.

8.PW.1 who is complainant herein deposed about the theft of cash, camera, i- phone, silver articles and sarees and submission of the report and she identified

MO.1 ten sarees. PW.2 deposes about the preparation of the report and seizure of

MO.2. PW.3 deposes about the arrest of the accused and recovery of the property.

PW.4 another mediator turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.5 deposes about the arrest of the accused and recovery of the property under the cover of mediator's report. PW.6 deposes about the registration of the crime by Inspector of - 4 -

Police, examination of the witnesses, conduction of investigation. PW.7 deposes about the registration of the crime, securance of presence of accused through

P.T.Warrant and filing of charge-sheet.

9.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they denied the incriminating evidence adduced against them by the prosecution. They stated that they have no evidence to adduce in their defence.

10.Heard.

11.The learned APP contends that the evidence of prosecution witnesses very clearly establishes that the accused have committed offence in the house of complainants and as such he is liable for punishment for the offence U/Sec.380 of

IPC. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused contends that absolutely there is no evidence to say that accused have committed offence in the house of the complainant. Moreover, the mediators gave different version with regard to the arrest of the accused, preparation of the report and recovery of the property. Furthermore, the mediators who were examined as PWs.3 and 4 are not independent persons to act as mediators and as such their evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. It is further contended by the accused that the evidence of the investigation officer is not up to the mark to believe their version about the arrest of the accused and recovery of the property and as such they have set up the receiver of the property to fix the liability of the accused and to strengthen their case and as such viewed from any angle absolutely there is no evidence to say that accused has committed offence. Hence, prayed for acquittal.

12.Now, the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 380 of I.P.C. against accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

13.P O I N T :

- 5 -

To prove the case U/Sec.380 of IPC, the prosecution shall establish their case that the accused committed theft of articles in the dwelling house of the complainant.

14.In order to prove the case of the prosecution about the commission of theft of sarees and other articles from the house of complainant, she herself was examined

PW.1 and stated that on 11-07-2014 she wen to Kasi and returned to their village on 18-07-2014 and found missing of Rs.20,000/- cash, camera, i-phone and silver articles and sarees in the cupboard, then she submitted the report and she received information about the recovery of property. Likewise, the evidence of PW.2 also supported the version of the prosecution about the theft committed in the house of

PW.1. From the evidence of PW.1, it is elicited that she cannot say whether the police obtained photographs of the scene of offence or not and she has not mentioned in her report about the details of the property and has not submitted the bills of the articles to the police. Admittedly, the investigation officer was examined as PWs.6 and 7 have categorically stated about the receipt of the report, visiting of scene of offence and so also examination of the scene of offence and witnesses.

From the evidence of PW.7, it is elicited that no bills or receipts handed over by the complainant. Except that nothing was elicited, admittedly, no person used to keep the bills of sarees and other articles and as such it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution to disbelieve their version about the commission of theft of articles from the house of PW.1.

15.In order to prove the recovery of the property from the accused, the prosecution stated that all the accused were arrested near stadium under the cover of mediator's report in the presence of mediators and so also based on their confession they have approached Satyanarayana who is resident of Akkayyapalem and recovered part of stolen property from his possession. In order to prove the case of the prosecution they examined mediators one Mahesh as PW.3 and Radha

Krishna Rao as PW.4. PW.4 Radha Krishna Rao turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that the police requested him to put his signature on the report by informing about the theft and stated that he went to stadium and police - 6 - requested him to put his signature on the report by informing about the theft and some gold articles seized from their possession. Then, the learned APP cross- examined and elicited that all the accused confessed about the commission of offence and the police drafted the mediator's report and police seized the gold articles from the possession of accused and he also admitted about his presence at the time of drafting of report at Akkayyapalem. But, in his cross-examination conducted by the accused he admitted that on 12-08-2014 he went to police station along with Venkatarao in connection with theft committed in the house of

Venkatarao and the police prepared the reports at police station and obtained his signatures. He went to an extent to admit that he has not visited Akkayyapalem and he came to know about the names of the accused through police only and as such he changed his version from chief examination to cross-examination and he has not at all stick on his version and as such his evidence cannot be believable and acceptable to say that in his presence everything was happened. But, PW.3 categorically stated that himself, C.I. of police and staff proceeded to YSR stadium,

P.M.Palem and they observed three persons at a distance of 30 to 40 feet to the stadium in suspicious circumstances, then the C.I. of police caught hold and recovered one bag with sarees and also found Rs.4,000/- and they confessed about the commission of theft and based on their confession they proceeded to

Akkayyapalem to the house of Satyanarayana and he stated before them that gold articles were pledged with him and so also he has stated about the confession of the accused. But, in the cross-examination he admitted that he know PW.2

Ramamohana Rao since ten years and he went along with PW.2 Ramamohana Rao to police station to receive the gold articles and he subscribed his signature after preparation of the report by the police at police station and investigation officer also admitted that no identification slips attached to the articles seized. Furthermore, in the chief examination of PW.3 Mahesh itself shows that he do not know the contents in the mediator's report and as such the learned APP got marked his signatures only. But, the prosecution examined the investigation officer as PW.5 he deposed

before this Court about the arrest of the accused in the presence of mediators,

recording of confession, recovery of part of stolen property from Satyanarayana and - 7 - so also all the documents are marked though him. But, he himself admitted in his cross-examination that he has not issued any summons to the mediators and no identification slips attached to the said articles and he has not mentioned the measurements of the gold articles also. So also he admitted that he has not obtained any signatures of the inmates of the shop in the mediators report and not prepared any rough sketch of the house of Satyanarayana. He further admits that they have not registered any case against Satyanarayana as receiver of the stolen property. Based on said admission, the learned legal aid counsel for the accused contends that Satyanarayana is planted witness, it at all the police recovered such a huge property as stated in their charge-sheet they might have registered the case against him U/Sec.411 of IPC. Furthermore, there is no whisper in the evidence of

PW.5 who conducted investigation about the exact confession made by the accused and his evidence is also not up to the mark to say that the accused confessed about the commission of theft in this case. Moreover, when the prosecution relied upon the confession of the accused which is weakest type of evidence of prosecution, the evidence about the recovery must be very much convincing and trustworthy. But, here in this case, the mediators who are friends to the complainants also not supported the case of the prosecution about the recovery of the property from the accused and as such their presence at the time of preparation of the mediator's report and recovery of the property itself doubtful. Moreover, their evidence of investigation officer is not up to the mark to believe that they have recovered the property from the accused under the cover of mediator's report and as such the prosecution miserably failed in establishing their case of recovery of the property.

16.In the light of above discussion, the prosecution established their case of theft of MO.1 from the possession of PW.1, but fails to establish that the said property recovered from the accused to find the guilt of the accused U/Sec.380 of

IPC or any other offence. Hence, the accused are found not guilty for the charge levelled against them. There is no specific evidence to say that cash of Rs.4,000/- belongs to the complainant herein, but the accused have not claimed the said amounts. Moreover, in view of my finding as to theft committed in the house of - 8 - complainant there is no inch of doubt to say that cash property belongs to the complainant herein and as such, she is entitled for the return of the property.

17.In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable

Under Section 380 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted of the said charge Under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. The property i.e. MO.1 ten sarees and unmarked property i.e.

cash of Rs.4,000/- in item No.119/2014 shall be given to Polisetti Radha Rani, W/o

Late Srinivasa Rao, Kurapalli Relli Colony, Pandrangi Panchayat on proper acknowledgement and identification after appeal time is over. The property MO.2-

Stone(sanni rayi) in item No.119/2014 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

The accused are ordered to be released if their detention is not required in any other cases.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court, this the 11th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- M.SREEDHAR

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Appendix of Evidence

No. of witnesses examined for

Prosecution :Defence : PW.1/23-12-2014P.Radha RaniNone PW.2/31-12-2014P.S.R.K.S.N.M.Patnaik PW.3/08-01-2015A.Mahesh PW.4/28-01-2015M.Radha Krishna Rao PW.5/23-03-2015Ch.Tirupathi Rao PW.6/13-04-2015A.Prasad Rao PW.7/27-04-2015R.Neelayya No. of exhibits marked for

Prosecution: Ex.P1/23-12-2014Report, dt.18-07-2014. Ex.P2/31-12-2014Scene observation report, dt.18-07-2014 at 1p.m. Ex.P3/08-01-2015Signature of the mediator in the copy of the report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m.(PW.3). Ex.P4/08-01-2015Signature of the mediator in the copy of the report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m.(PW.3).

- 9 -

Ex.P5/08-01-2015Signature of the witness in the copy of mediators report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m.(PW.4). Ex.P6/08-01-2015Signature of the witness in the copy of mediators report, dt.12-08-2014 at 8p.m.(PW.4). Ex.P7/23-03-2015Copy of mediator's report, dt.12-08-2014 at 4p.m. Ex.P9/13-04-2015Original FIR. Ex.P10/13-04-2015Rough sketch. Defence : NIL

No. of material objects marked for

Prosecution : MO.1/23-12-2014Ten sarees. MO.2/05-01-2014Stone (sanni rayi). Defence :NIL

Sd/- M.SREEDHAR

IV M.M./BML

- 1 -

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM

C.C.214/2015

Date of offence18-02-2015 Date of report or complaint19-02-2015 Date of apprehension of the 11-05-2015 accused or appearance of the accused in the Court Date of commencement of 11-05-2015 trial Date of close of trial11-05-2015 Date of sentence on order11-05-2015 Explanation of delay or Accused admitted the offence and paid the fine remarksamount. Name of the ComplainantState represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bheemili Traffic Police Station,Visakhapatnam City. Name of the accused Boni Sreenu, S/o Sanyasi Naidu, 20 yrs, Nagavamsam, R/o Dr.No.5-53-56, Bangalametta, Thagarapuvalasa, Bheemili Mandal. OffencesUnder Section 338, 337 of IPC and U/Sec.181 & 190 (2), 196 (A) of M.V.Act. SentenceIn the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.181, 190 (2) and 196(A) of MV Act and he is convicted U/Sec.252 of Cr.P.C. Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) IDSI for 15 days, for the offence U/Sec.181 of MV Act and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for the offence U/Sec.190 of MV Act and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence U/Sec.196 of MV Act.

Sd/- M.SREEDHAR

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

- 2 -

IN THE COURT OF THE IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :: BHEEMUNIPATNAM

PRESENT : SRI MARPU SREEDHAR,

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2015.

Calendar Case No.214/2015

Between :

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bheemili Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

….Complainant

And :

Boni Sreenu, S/o Sanyasi Naidu, 20 yrs, Nagavamsam, R/o Dr.No.5-53-56, Bangalametta, Thagarapuvalasa, Bheemili Mandal.

…Accused

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Asst., Public Prosecutor for the State and the accused in person and this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bheemili Traffic P.S., laid a charge sheet against the accused herein in Crime No.37/2015 for the offence punishable Under Section 338, 337 of IPC and U/Sec.181 & 190 (2), 196 (A) of M.V.Act.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :

On 18-02-2015 at 15.30hrs. on BT road, near petrol bunk, Kitinpeta,

Bheemili the accused herein being the driver of auto bearing registration No.AP 31 31 TU 7468 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 35 C 2151, as a result LW.1

G.Hari Prasad received grievous injuries and LW.2 G.Lakshmi and their daughter

Meenakshi received simple injuries. On the report given by LW.1 G.Hari Prasad, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bheemili Traffic P.S., registered the same as a case in

Crime No.37/2015, Under Section 338, 337 of IPC and investigated into and attributed Sec.181, 190(2), 196 (a) of MV Act due to lack of driving license, pollution and insurance. After completion of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of - 3 -

Police, Bheemili Traffic P.S. filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable Under Section 338, 337 of IPC and U/Sec.181 & 190 (2), 196 (A) of

M.V.Act.

3.This case was taken on to file Under Section 338, 337 of IPC and U/Sec.181 & 190 (2), 196 (A) of M.V.Act against the accused herein.

4.Subsequently both complainant/injured and accused entered into compromise before Lok Adalat. The accused is acquitted for the offence punishable

U/Sec.338, 337 of IPC, in view of said compromise. Then, the matter referred to regular Court to try the offence punishable U/Sec.181 & 190 (2), 196 (A) of M.V.Act as it is non-compoundable.

5.On the appearance of the accused, the copies of the charge sheet were furnished to the accused in strict compliance of the section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and the accusations of the charge sheet were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu and he having understood the same, voluntarily admitted the offence, pleaded guilty and claimed not to be tried. When the Court enquired the accused as to whether there is any force or coercion on him to admit the offence, he stated that he is admitting the offence voluntarily and there is no force from anyone. Therefore, the plea of guilt made by the accused appears to be voluntary, out of free will and volition and the same can be accepted. The accused further stated that he is the only bread winner of his family and the entire family is depending on him and thereby prayed for taking lenient view.

6.Therefore, taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the offence, I am of the considered view that imposing a fine instead of sentencing him to imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.

7.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.181, 190 (2) and 196(A) of MV Act and he is convicted U/Sec.252 of Cr.P.C.

Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) IDSI for - 4 - 15 days, for the offence U/Sec.181 of MV Act and he is sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for the offence U/Sec.190 of MV Act and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence

U/Sec.196 of MV Act.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- M.SREEDHAR

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.