MD.Abdul Javeed Pasha

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS YELLANDU

Monday, the 2 nd day of January, 2012.

Present: Sri Md. Abdul Javeed Pasha, B.Com. LL.M., III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem. FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Yellandu.

C.C.No. 150 / 2007

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Garla Bayyaram. …Complainant.

And

Rasamalla Rama Krishna, S/o. Laxmaiah, Age. 19 yrs., Coolie,

R/o. Gandhampally, Garla Bayyaram. …Accused.

This case coming before me on 29-12-2011 for final hearing in the

presence of APP for the Complainant/State and Sri. N. Srinivas, Advocate

for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing

arguments of 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 is arraigned before this court for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC.

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

The defacto-complainant is maintaining wine shop at Bayyaram

and as usual on 27-03-2006 at 10-30 p.m. he closed his wine shop by locking

the shutters and went to his house. On 28-03-2006 at 9-30 a.m. when he

went to his shop and found that the shutter were raised and found an

amount of Rs.24,500/- was missing. The accused gained into the wine shop

of defacto-complainant by lifting the shutters with iron rod and committed

theft Rs.228 and six MC Bottles.

3. On receipt of complainant Pw6 registered the case in Cr.No.

29/2006, U/Sec. 457 and 380 IPC and issued FIR, started investigation.

During the course of investigation Pw6 visited the scene of offence

examined and recorded the statement of witnesses and drafted Cdf. On 26-

07-2006 accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After

completion of investigation Pw7 filed the charge-sheet against the accused.

4. This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s. 457 and 380 or 411 IPC against the accused.

5. On appearance of the accused, the copies of case documents were supplied to them as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

6. Accused was examined U/s 240 Cr.P.C. A charge has been

framed against accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.457 and 380 or

411 IPC explained to him in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

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

examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6, on its behalf and marked

Ex.D1 on behalf of defence.

8. Accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating

material in the prosecution evidence for which he denied the same and

reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard both sides.

10. Now the point that arises for consideration herein is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the alleged offence punishable U/Sec. 457 and 380 or 411 IPC ?

POINT:

11. Pw1-T.Madhukar Reddy deposed that he is the resident of

Bayyaram village and lived by agriculture. He knew Pw5. About ¾ years

back he went to police station on some personal work, wherein police

obtaining his signature on some scribed papers. Ex.P1 is the signature on

confession panchanama.

12. PW2: Kathi Ilaiah deposed that he was the complainant in this

case and this incident was occurred on27-03-2006 and he was the partner of

the Ganesh wine shop at Bayyaram. He further deposed that on one

occasion his sales man N.Suraiah (PW3) after closing the shop he locked the

shop. On the next day morning when he came to the shop and found shutter

of the wine shop was break open upon entry into the shop he observed the

shop and found that approximately Rs.24,000/- was stolen and 3 to 4 bottles

were broken Ex.P2 is the report to that effect to the police. During the cross

examination he mentioned that out of the four partners he is one of the

partner in the Ganesh Wine shop and N. Suraiah (PW3) closed the shop after

checking the cash of sale. He was present in his house on the date of

incident, but he had not visited the wine shop on the said date. He admitted

that prior to his visit to the wine shop, Ex.P1 report was already scribed and

after ascertaining the contents of Ex.P1 he has put his signature on Ex.P1

report and admitted that as per Ex.P1 he put the lock of his wine shop and

so also entered into the shop and found missing cash of Rs.25,000/- in his

shop.

13. PW3: N.Suraiah deposed that he know the Pw2, who is the

owner of Ganesh wine shop and previously he worked as sales man in his

shop. The incident occurred on 27-03-2006 during the night house. On the

date of incident as ususal he closed the shop by putting lock to the shop

and on the next day morning one paper boy informed him about the break

opening of the shutter of the wine shop, then immediately he went to the

shop and found that the shop shutter was break opened. He further

deposed that he informed the incident to the owner of the shop and lodged

complaint to the police and in the presence of police all have entered into

the shop and found that approximately Rs.20,000/- cash was stolen from the

cash counter, so also found some liquor bottles also stolen. During his

cross examination he mentioned that he put the cash in the cash counter by

duly locking the counter and took away the key of it along with the key of the

main shutter. He admitted that after lodging Ex.P1 he along with police

entered into the shop.

14. Pw4: N.Seethaiah deposed that on 28-03-2006 at about 9-00

a.m. police called him to Ganesh Wine shop, Bayyaram and drawn rough

sketch in his presence. Ex.P3 is the CDF. During the cross examination he

mentioned that he does not know on the date of incident who was holding

the key of the shop and admitted that does not know the contents of the

Ex.P3/CDF and he has put his signature at the instances of the police.

15. Pw5: K.Venkat Reddy deposed that police never called him and

about 5/6 years back when he was present at main road Bayyaram, wherein

police came to him and obtained his signature on some scribed papers.

Ex.P4 is the signature on the confession and seizure panchanama. He

further deposed that he does not know the contents of Ex.P4 confession

cum panchanama.

16. Pw6: Md. Lal Mohammad deposed that on 28-03-2006 at 11-00

a.m. on the presentation of report by PW2 he registered this case in Cr.No.

29/2006, U/Sec. 457 and 380 IPC and issued Fir/Ex.P5. He has examined and

recorded the statement of PW2 i.e. defacto-complainant to the police station.

He further deposed that later he proceeded to the scene of offence and

drawn CDF and after handed over the CD file to his sub-Inspector for further

investigation.

17. PW7: N.Venkateswarlu deposed that on 30-06-2006 he took up

the investigation from Pw6 and verified the investigation doen by him and

found it on correct lines and on 26-06-2006 at about 0800 hours on reliable

information he arrested the accused and conducted confession and

recovery panchanama before mediators and sent the accused to judicial

custody and after completion of investigation he filed charge-sheet against

the accused.

18. Coming to the appriciation of evidence of material on record, in

the instant case Pws 1 and 5 are the panch witness for confession of the

accused who did not support the version of the prosecution and prosecution

declared them as hostile witness. Pws 2 and 3 are the defacto-complainant

and the sales man in the said wine shop as on the date of incident

respectively, though categorically naratted about the incident but did not

whisper anything about the involvement of the accused in the commission

of offence. Though prosecution established the commission of offence

through the evidence of Pws 2 and 3, who failed to establish the involvement

of the accused in the commission of offence. Admittedly there are no eye

witnesses to the commission of offence. Pw4 one of the panch witness for

scene of offecne though in his chief examination deposed that police

summoned him on 28-03-2006 at 8-00 a.m. at Ganesh wine shop and drawn

rough skecth in his presence. During his corss examination he admitted

that he does not know the contents of Ex.P3 CDF and he signed on the

same at the instance of the police. There remains the evidence of Pws 6 and

7 who are none other than the investigation officers, they deposed about the

happening of series of events after commission of offence.

19. In these type of offence, the evidence of panch witness for

confession cum seizure of the property plays vital role. But in the case on

hand police mentioned in the charge-sheet that the accused spent stolen

cash in his own use so there is not seizure with respect to the said offence.

Pws 1 and 5 are the panch witness for confession of the accused did not

support the version of investigating officer.

20. Coming to the facts and circumstances of the case and basing

on the material placed before this court and in view of my above appriciation

of evidence it can be said that it is unsafe to convict the accused basing on

this material. Hence, benefit of doubt can be extend to the accused and

consequently accused is entitled for acquittal.

21. In the result, Aaccused is found not guilty for the offence

punishable U/ss.457 and 380 or 411 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted as

per section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bond of accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2 nd day of January, 2012.

FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of First Class Yellandu.

-Appendix of Evidence-

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

P.W.1: T.Madhukar Reddy -None-

P.W.2: K.Ilaiah PW3 : N.Suraiah PW4; N.Seethaiah Pw5: K.Venkat Reddy PW6: Md. Lal Mohammad, Investigating Officer PW7: N.Venkateswarlu, Investigating Officer.

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1: Siganture of PW1 on panchanama Ex.D1. Marked portion of Sec..

Ex.P2: Complaint 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P3: Crime Details Form Ex.P4: Siganture of PW5 on panchanama Ex.P5: First Information Report. Ex.P6: Panchanama.

Material Objects.

-Nil-

FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of First Class Yellandu.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS YELLANDU

Monday, the 2 nd day of January, 2012.

Present: Sri Md. Abdul Javeed Pasha, B.Com. LL.M., III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem. FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Yellandu.

C.C.No. 150 / 2007

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Garla Bayyaram. …Complainant.

And

Rasamalla Rama Krishna, S/o. Laxmaiah, Age. 19 yrs., Coolie,

R/o. Gandhampally, Garla Bayyaram. …Accused.

This case coming before me on 29-12-2011 for final hearing in the

presence of APP for the Complainant/State and Sri. N. Srinivas, Advocate

for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing

arguments of 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 is arraigned before this court for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC.

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

The defacto-complainant is maintaining wine shop at Bayyaram

and as usual on 27-03-2006 at 10-30 p.m. he closed his wine shop by locking

the shutters and went to his house. On 28-03-2006 at 9-30 a.m. when he

went to his shop and found that the shutter were raised and found an

amount of Rs.24,500/- was missing. The accused gained into the wine shop

of defacto-complainant by lifting the shutters with iron rod and committed

theft Rs.228 and six MC Bottles.

3. On receipt of complainant Pw6 registered the case in Cr.No.

29/2006, U/Sec. 457 and 380 IPC and issued FIR, started investigation.

During the course of investigation Pw6 visited the scene of offence

examined and recorded the statement of witnesses and drafted Cdf. On 26-

07-2006 accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After

completion of investigation Pw7 filed the charge-sheet against the accused.

4. This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s. 457 and 380 or 411 IPC against the accused.

5. On appearance of the accused, the copies of case documents were supplied to them as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

6. Accused was examined U/s 240 Cr.P.C. A charge has been

framed against accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.457 and 380 or

411 IPC explained to him in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

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

examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6, on its behalf and marked

Ex.D1 on behalf of defence.

8. Accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating

material in the prosecution evidence for which he denied the same and

reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard both sides.

10. Now the point that arises for consideration herein is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the alleged offence punishable U/Sec. 457 and 380 or 411 IPC ?

POINT:

11. Pw1-T.Madhukar Reddy deposed that he is the resident of

Bayyaram village and lived by agriculture. He knew Pw5. About ¾ years

back he went to police station on some personal work, wherein police

obtaining his signature on some scribed papers. Ex.P1 is the signature on

confession panchanama.

12. PW2: Kathi Ilaiah deposed that he was the complainant in this

case and this incident was occurred on27-03-2006 and he was the partner of

the Ganesh wine shop at Bayyaram. He further deposed that on one

occasion his sales man N.Suraiah (PW3) after closing the shop he locked the

shop. On the next day morning when he came to the shop and found shutter

of the wine shop was break open upon entry into the shop he observed the

shop and found that approximately Rs.24,000/- was stolen and 3 to 4 bottles

were broken Ex.P2 is the report to that effect to the police. During the cross

examination he mentioned that out of the four partners he is one of the

partner in the Ganesh Wine shop and N. Suraiah (PW3) closed the shop after

checking the cash of sale. He was present in his house on the date of

incident, but he had not visited the wine shop on the said date. He admitted

that prior to his visit to the wine shop, Ex.P1 report was already scribed and

after ascertaining the contents of Ex.P1 he has put his signature on Ex.P1

report and admitted that as per Ex.P1 he put the lock of his wine shop and

so also entered into the shop and found missing cash of Rs.25,000/- in his

shop.

13. PW3: N.Suraiah deposed that he know the Pw2, who is the

owner of Ganesh wine shop and previously he worked as sales man in his

shop. The incident occurred on 27-03-2006 during the night house. On the

date of incident as ususal he closed the shop by putting lock to the shop

and on the next day morning one paper boy informed him about the break

opening of the shutter of the wine shop, then immediately he went to the

shop and found that the shop shutter was break opened. He further

deposed that he informed the incident to the owner of the shop and lodged

complaint to the police and in the presence of police all have entered into

the shop and found that approximately Rs.20,000/- cash was stolen from the

cash counter, so also found some liquor bottles also stolen. During his

cross examination he mentioned that he put the cash in the cash counter by

duly locking the counter and took away the key of it along with the key of the

main shutter. He admitted that after lodging Ex.P1 he along with police

entered into the shop.

14. Pw4: N.Seethaiah deposed that on 28-03-2006 at about 9-00

a.m. police called him to Ganesh Wine shop, Bayyaram and drawn rough

sketch in his presence. Ex.P3 is the CDF. During the cross examination he

mentioned that he does not know on the date of incident who was holding

the key of the shop and admitted that does not know the contents of the

Ex.P3/CDF and he has put his signature at the instances of the police.

15. Pw5: K.Venkat Reddy deposed that police never called him and

about 5/6 years back when he was present at main road Bayyaram, wherein

police came to him and obtained his signature on some scribed papers.

Ex.P4 is the signature on the confession and seizure panchanama. He

further deposed that he does not know the contents of Ex.P4 confession

cum panchanama.

16. Pw6: Md. Lal Mohammad deposed that on 28-03-2006 at 11-00

a.m. on the presentation of report by PW2 he registered this case in Cr.No.

29/2006, U/Sec. 457 and 380 IPC and issued Fir/Ex.P5. He has examined and

recorded the statement of PW2 i.e. defacto-complainant to the police station.

He further deposed that later he proceeded to the scene of offence and

drawn CDF and after handed over the CD file to his sub-Inspector for further

investigation.

17. PW7: N.Venkateswarlu deposed that on 30-06-2006 he took up

the investigation from Pw6 and verified the investigation doen by him and

found it on correct lines and on 26-06-2006 at about 0800 hours on reliable

information he arrested the accused and conducted confession and

recovery panchanama before mediators and sent the accused to judicial

custody and after completion of investigation he filed charge-sheet against

the accused.

18. Coming to the appriciation of evidence of material on record, in

the instant case Pws 1 and 5 are the panch witness for confession of the

accused who did not support the version of the prosecution and prosecution

declared them as hostile witness. Pws 2 and 3 are the defacto-complainant

and the sales man in the said wine shop as on the date of incident

respectively, though categorically naratted about the incident but did not

whisper anything about the involvement of the accused in the commission

of offence. Though prosecution established the commission of offence

through the evidence of Pws 2 and 3, who failed to establish the involvement

of the accused in the commission of offence. Admittedly there are no eye

witnesses to the commission of offence. Pw4 one of the panch witness for

scene of offecne though in his chief examination deposed that police

summoned him on 28-03-2006 at 8-00 a.m. at Ganesh wine shop and drawn

rough skecth in his presence. During his corss examination he admitted

that he does not know the contents of Ex.P3 CDF and he signed on the

same at the instance of the police. There remains the evidence of Pws 6 and

7 who are none other than the investigation officers, they deposed about the

happening of series of events after commission of offence.

19. In these type of offence, the evidence of panch witness for

confession cum seizure of the property plays vital role. But in the case on

hand police mentioned in the charge-sheet that the accused spent stolen

cash in his own use so there is not seizure with respect to the said offence.

Pws 1 and 5 are the panch witness for confession of the accused did not

support the version of investigating officer.

20. Coming to the facts and circumstances of the case and basing

on the material placed before this court and in view of my above appriciation

of evidence it can be said that it is unsafe to convict the accused basing on

this material. Hence, benefit of doubt can be extend to the accused and

consequently accused is entitled for acquittal.

21. In the result, Aaccused is found not guilty for the offence

punishable U/ss.457 and 380 or 411 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted as

per section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bond of accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2 nd day of January, 2012.

FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of First Class Yellandu.

-Appendix of Evidence-

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

P.W.1: T.Madhukar Reddy -None-

P.W.2: K.Ilaiah PW3 : N.Suraiah PW4; N.Seethaiah Pw5: K.Venkat Reddy PW6: Md. Lal Mohammad, Investigating Officer PW7: N.Venkateswarlu, Investigating Officer.

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1: Siganture of PW1 on panchanama Ex.D1. Marked portion of Sec..

Ex.P2: Complaint 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P3: Crime Details Form Ex.P4: Siganture of PW5 on panchanama Ex.P5: First Information Report. Ex.P6: Panchanama.

Material Objects.

-Nil-

FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of First Class Yellandu.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

YELLANDU

Present: Sri.Md.Abdul Javeed Pasha, B.Com., LL.M.,

III Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem.

FAC/Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu .

Monday, the 2 nd day of January, 2012

C.C.No.229/2007

Between:

The State of AP through S.I of Police. P.S. Garla Bayyaram.

. . .. Complainant.

And

Mandanapu Subhash @ Subhash Chandra Bose, S/o. Venkanna, Age. 22 yrs., R/o. Garla Bayyaram.

….. Accused.

This case is coming before me on 29-12-2011 for final hearing in

the presence of Sri. G.Bhadradri, A.P.P.O. for complainant and Sri.

S.Satyanarayana, advocate for accused, upon perusal of material papers on

record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for

consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a case of theft which arose out of Cr.No.15/2007 of P.S.,

Garla Bayyaram registered against sole accused for offence under Section 454

and 380 IPC.

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

On 13-02-2007, at 1400 hours Pw1 came to police station and

lodged Ex.P1 complaint, stating that on 13-02-2007 some unknown offenders

tress passed into the house of Pw1 and committed theft of CD-Player, as such,

lodged Ex.P1 report with police. Police after receipt of Ex.P1 registered a case

in Cr.No.15/2007, U/Sec. 454, 380 IPC issued F.I.R. and started investigation.

On 15-02-2007 at about 1100 hours Pw6 arrested accused and recovered the

stolen property under the cover of panchanama as in Ex.P7 in the presence of

PW 4. After completion of investigation police filed charge-sheet. Hence, it is

the case of prosecution that accused is liable for offences under Section 454,

380 IPC.

3. Cognizance was taken by one of my learned predecessors for offences under Section 458, 380 or 411 IPC.

4. After furnishing copies of relevant documents as required under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Section 240 Cr.P.C. On

hearing both sides charges under Section 458, 380 or 411 IPC is framed, read

over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exs. P1 to P7 were marked on

behalf of prosecution, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of

evidence.

6. Accused is examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. His plea was a total denial .

7. Heard Sri. G.Badradri, learned A.P.P.O. for complainant and

Sri.S.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for accused.

8. The point that arises for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has established guilt of accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section 458

and 380 or 411 IPC ?

9. POINT: In order to prove the guilt of accused, it is necessary

for the prosecution to prove the ingredients of theft. As per the facts, the

case of prosecution falls under Sec. 411 IPC as the basis for proving the guilt

of the accused is recovery of the stolen property from the possession of

accused under the cover of panchanama, which is marked as in Ex.P7.

Prosecution examined Pws 1 to 6 and marked Ex.P1 to P7.

10. PW1: Chindirala Raju deposed that he is resident of

Pethallagadda village and lived by doing carpentry work and he is the

complainant in this case. On 10-07-2007 in the morning hours he attended to

his work and his mother and further also went to Bayyaram on some work. On

the same day he returned to his house at 1-00 p.m. for lunch he found that

some unknown offenders committed theft of his CD Player. Upon enquiry Ch.

Venkateswarlu (LW3) informed him that the said CD player was found in the

hands of accused, later he lodged complaint against the accused. He further

deposed that later he received the property from the Hon’ble court for interim

custody and the same is marked as in MO-1. Police examined him and

recorded his statement.

11. Pw-2: Dupakula Venkanna (PW2) deposed that he is the resident

of Pethallagadda village and lived by coolie work. He know LW5-Merugu

Krishna. About 4 years back police called him to police station and obtained

his signature on some white papers. He can identified his signature on

CDF/Ex.P2.

12. PW3: Chidirala Venkateswarlu (PW3) deposed that he is the

Resident of Pethallagaa village Pw1 is his elder brother. About 4 years back at

about 11-00 a.m. when he was driving auto from Bayyaram to Petahllagadda

village, he found the accused in between Bayyaram and Pethallagadda with a

carry bag. He further deposed that in the evening he went to his house it was

informed that MO-1 was stolen, as such he raised suspicion upon the accused

for having committed theft of MO-1 . Police never examined him nor recorded

his statement.

13. Pw4: Vadra Bhaskar Rao deposed that he is resident of

Gandhampalli village and working as driver. He does not know Biyyani

Ramulu (Lw7). About 3 years back when he went to police station, Garla

Bayyaram on his personal work wherein police have obtained his signature on

some white papers. He can identify his signature on confession cum recovery

panchanama / Ex.P4.

14. PW5: D.Udayabhaskar Rao, Investigating Officer deposed that on

13-02-2007 at 1400 hours Pw1 came to police station Garla Bayyaram and

lodged a report. Basing on report he registered case in Cr.No.15/2007 under

section 454 and 380 IPC and issued FIR/Ex.P5. Later he examined Pw1 in

police station and proceeded to scene of offence situated at Pethallagadda

village at the house of PW1. He examined the witnesses, drawn CDF/Ex.P6.

later he handed over the CD file to PW6.

15. PW6: N.Venkateswarlu, Investigating Officer deposed that on 14-

02-2005 he had taken up the investigation file from PW5 and verified the

investigation done by him and found it on correct lines. On 15-02-2007 on

reliable information he arrested accused and sent him to judicial custody. He

further deposed that after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet

against the accused. During his cross examination he denied the suggestion

that basing on the false report he registered this case against the accused and

he denied that he had not arrested the accused and not recovered the

property MO-1 from the possession of accused under the cover of

panchanama.

16. Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record in the instance

case Pw1 is the defacto complainant. PW2 is the panch witness for CDF and

PW3 is the brother of PW1 and circumstantial witness to the case. PW4 is the

panch witness for confession and recovery of the property. Pws 5 and 6 are

the investigating officers of this case. Admittedly there are no eye witness for

the commission of offence. Pw1 who is the defacto complainant deposed that

upon the enquiry with Pw3 as the CD player was in the hands of accused, he

lodged the report with the police against him. PW3 deposed that as on the

date of incident he found the accused in between the Bayyaram and

pethallagadda village with a carry bag. Hence, he raised suspicioun that the

accused might have having committed theft of MO-1. PW2 who is the figured

as the panch witness for CDF did not support the version of prosecution and

prosecution declared him as hostile witness.

18. In these type of offence, the evidence of panch witnesses for

recovery of the property plays vital role to the case of prosecution, in the

instance case the prosecution examined one of the panch witness for

recovery of the property as PW4, but the said witness did not support the

version of prosecution and prosecution declared them as hostile witness.

19. There remains the evidence of Pws 5 and 6 who is none other

than the investigating officer who deposed about the subsequent events after

the commission of offence. Prosecution given up one of the panch witnesses

of recovery of the property for the best reasons known to the prosecution.

20. Pw6, categorically deposed that he arrested the accused and

recovered the property from the possession of the accused under the cover of

panchanama, but the panch witness who was examined as PW4 did not

suppor the same. The evidence of Pws1 and 3 is not convincing and

trustworthy as PW1 said that upon the information of Pw3 as the CD player as

in the hands of accused he lodged the report against the accused. Whereas

PW3 only upon suspicious of holding the carry bag raised about that accused

had committed theft of MO-1. The evidence of Pws 1 and 3 is giving scope of

suspicious and not believable.

21. Considering the facts of the case and in view of my above

discussion and the material before this court it can be said that the

prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all

reasonable doubt. Only basing on the suspicious conviction of the accused is

not sustainable. Hence, the benefit of doubt can be extend to the accused

consequently he is entitled for acquittal. Point is accordingly answered as

against the prosecution.

22. In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence under Sec.

458 and 380 or 411 IPC. He is acquitted under Section 248(1)Cr.P.C. for the

said offence. Accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in

any other case. The MO-1 (CD Player) which was already given to the interim

custody of Cheedirala Raju (PW1) is made absolute, subject to expiry of

appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 2 nd day of January, 2012

FAC / JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

YELLANDU.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

For prosecution: For defence:

P.W1: Cheedirala Raju PW2: D.Venkanna -None- PW3: Ch.Venkateswarlu Pw4: V.Bhaskar Rao PW5: D.Uday Bhaskar, Investigating officer, Pw6: N.Venkateswarlu, Investigating officer,

Exhibits Marked.

Ex.P1: Complaint of PW1 -Nil- Ex.P2: Signature of Pw2 on CDF Ex.P3: Marked portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW3. Ex.P4: Signature of Pw4 on confession cum recovery panchanama Ex.P5: First Information Report. Ex.P6: Crime Details Form. Ex.P7: Confession-cum-recovery Panchanama .

Material Objects Marked MO-1 CD player

FAC / JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

YELLANDU

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

YELLANDU

Present: Sri.Md.Abdul Javeed Pasha, B.Com., LL.M.,

III Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem.

FAC/Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu .

Monday, the 2 nd day of January, 2012

C.C.No.229/2007

Between:

The State of AP through S.I of Police. P.S. Garla Bayyaram.

. . .. Complainant.

And

Mandanapu Subhash @ Subhash Chandra Bose, S/o. Venkanna, Age. 22 yrs., R/o. Garla Bayyaram.

….. Accused.

This case is coming before me on 29-12-2011 for final hearing in

the presence of Sri. G.Bhadradri, A.P.P.O. for complainant and Sri.

S.Satyanarayana, advocate for accused, upon perusal of material papers on

record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for

consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a case of theft which arose out of Cr.No.15/2007 of P.S.,

Garla Bayyaram registered against sole accused for offence under Section 454

and 380 IPC.

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

On 13-02-2007, at 1400 hours Pw1 came to police station and

lodged Ex.P1 complaint, stating that on 13-02-2007 some unknown offenders

tress passed into the house of Pw1 and committed theft of CD-Player, as such,

lodged Ex.P1 report with police. Police after receipt of Ex.P1 registered a case

in Cr.No.15/2007, U/Sec. 454, 380 IPC issued F.I.R. and started investigation.

On 15-02-2007 at about 1100 hours Pw6 arrested accused and recovered the

stolen property under the cover of panchanama as in Ex.P7 in the presence of

PW 4. After completion of investigation police filed charge-sheet. Hence, it is

the case of prosecution that accused is liable for offences under Section 454,

380 IPC.

3. Cognizance was taken by one of my learned predecessors for offences under Section 458, 380 or 411 IPC.

4. After furnishing copies of relevant documents as required under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Section 240 Cr.P.C. On

hearing both sides charges under Section 458, 380 or 411 IPC is framed, read

over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exs. P1 to P7 were marked on

behalf of prosecution, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of

evidence.

6. Accused is examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. His plea was a total denial .

7. Heard Sri. G.Badradri, learned A.P.P.O. for complainant and

Sri.S.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for accused.

8. The point that arises for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has established guilt of accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section 458

and 380 or 411 IPC ?

9. POINT: In order to prove the guilt of accused, it is necessary

for the prosecution to prove the ingredients of theft. As per the facts, the

case of prosecution falls under Sec. 411 IPC as the basis for proving the guilt

of the accused is recovery of the stolen property from the possession of

accused under the cover of panchanama, which is marked as in Ex.P7.

Prosecution examined Pws 1 to 6 and marked Ex.P1 to P7.

10. PW1: Chindirala Raju deposed that he is resident of

Pethallagadda village and lived by doing carpentry work and he is the

complainant in this case. On 10-07-2007 in the morning hours he attended to

his work and his mother and further also went to Bayyaram on some work. On

the same day he returned to his house at 1-00 p.m. for lunch he found that

some unknown offenders committed theft of his CD Player. Upon enquiry Ch.

Venkateswarlu (LW3) informed him that the said CD player was found in the

hands of accused, later he lodged complaint against the accused. He further

deposed that later he received the property from the Hon’ble court for interim

custody and the same is marked as in MO-1. Police examined him and

recorded his statement.

11. Pw-2: Dupakula Venkanna (PW2) deposed that he is the resident

of Pethallagadda village and lived by coolie work. He know LW5-Merugu

Krishna. About 4 years back police called him to police station and obtained

his signature on some white papers. He can identified his signature on

CDF/Ex.P2.

12. PW3: Chidirala Venkateswarlu (PW3) deposed that he is the

Resident of Pethallagaa village Pw1 is his elder brother. About 4 years back at

about 11-00 a.m. when he was driving auto from Bayyaram to Petahllagadda

village, he found the accused in between Bayyaram and Pethallagadda with a

carry bag. He further deposed that in the evening he went to his house it was

informed that MO-1 was stolen, as such he raised suspicion upon the accused

for having committed theft of MO-1 . Police never examined him nor recorded

his statement.

13. Pw4: Vadra Bhaskar Rao deposed that he is resident of

Gandhampalli village and working as driver. He does not know Biyyani

Ramulu (Lw7). About 3 years back when he went to police station, Garla

Bayyaram on his personal work wherein police have obtained his signature on

some white papers. He can identify his signature on confession cum recovery

panchanama / Ex.P4.

14. PW5: D.Udayabhaskar Rao, Investigating Officer deposed that on

13-02-2007 at 1400 hours Pw1 came to police station Garla Bayyaram and

lodged a report. Basing on report he registered case in Cr.No.15/2007 under

section 454 and 380 IPC and issued FIR/Ex.P5. Later he examined Pw1 in

police station and proceeded to scene of offence situated at Pethallagadda

village at the house of PW1. He examined the witnesses, drawn CDF/Ex.P6.

later he handed over the CD file to PW6.

15. PW6: N.Venkateswarlu, Investigating Officer deposed that on 14-

02-2005 he had taken up the investigation file from PW5 and verified the

investigation done by him and found it on correct lines. On 15-02-2007 on

reliable information he arrested accused and sent him to judicial custody. He

further deposed that after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet

against the accused. During his cross examination he denied the suggestion

that basing on the false report he registered this case against the accused and

he denied that he had not arrested the accused and not recovered the

property MO-1 from the possession of accused under the cover of

panchanama.

16. Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record in the instance

case Pw1 is the defacto complainant. PW2 is the panch witness for CDF and

PW3 is the brother of PW1 and circumstantial witness to the case. PW4 is the

panch witness for confession and recovery of the property. Pws 5 and 6 are

the investigating officers of this case. Admittedly there are no eye witness for

the commission of offence. Pw1 who is the defacto complainant deposed that

upon the enquiry with Pw3 as the CD player was in the hands of accused, he

lodged the report with the police against him. PW3 deposed that as on the

date of incident he found the accused in between the Bayyaram and

pethallagadda village with a carry bag. Hence, he raised suspicioun that the

accused might have having committed theft of MO-1. PW2 who is the figured

as the panch witness for CDF did not support the version of prosecution and

prosecution declared him as hostile witness.

18. In these type of offence, the evidence of panch witnesses for

recovery of the property plays vital role to the case of prosecution, in the

instance case the prosecution examined one of the panch witness for

recovery of the property as PW4, but the said witness did not support the

version of prosecution and prosecution declared them as hostile witness.

19. There remains the evidence of Pws 5 and 6 who is none other

than the investigating officer who deposed about the subsequent events after

the commission of offence. Prosecution given up one of the panch witnesses

of recovery of the property for the best reasons known to the prosecution.

20. Pw6, categorically deposed that he arrested the accused and

recovered the property from the possession of the accused under the cover of

panchanama, but the panch witness who was examined as PW4 did not

suppor the same. The evidence of Pws1 and 3 is not convincing and

trustworthy as PW1 said that upon the information of Pw3 as the CD player as

in the hands of accused he lodged the report against the accused. Whereas

PW3 only upon suspicious of holding the carry bag raised about that accused

had committed theft of MO-1. The evidence of Pws 1 and 3 is giving scope of

suspicious and not believable.

21. Considering the facts of the case and in view of my above

discussion and the material before this court it can be said that the

prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all

reasonable doubt. Only basing on the suspicious conviction of the accused is

not sustainable. Hence, the benefit of doubt can be extend to the accused

consequently he is entitled for acquittal. Point is accordingly answered as

against the prosecution.

22. In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence under Sec.

458 and 380 or 411 IPC. He is acquitted under Section 248(1)Cr.P.C. for the

said offence. Accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in

any other case. The MO-1 (CD Player) which was already given to the interim

custody of Cheedirala Raju (PW1) is made absolute, subject to expiry of

appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 2 nd day of January, 2012

FAC / JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

YELLANDU.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

For prosecution: For defence:

P.W1: Cheedirala Raju PW2: D.Venkanna -None- PW3: Ch.Venkateswarlu Pw4: V.Bhaskar Rao PW5: D.Uday Bhaskar, Investigating officer, Pw6: N.Venkateswarlu, Investigating officer,

Exhibits Marked.

Ex.P1: Complaint of PW1 -Nil- Ex.P2: Signature of Pw2 on CDF Ex.P3: Marked portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW3. Ex.P4: Signature of Pw4 on confession cum recovery panchanama Ex.P5: First Information Report. Ex.P6: Crime Details Form. Ex.P7: Confession-cum-recovery Panchanama .

Material Objects Marked MO-1 CD player

FAC / JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

YELLANDU

TSBK020012522011

Presented on : 26-12-2011 Registered on : 28-12-2011 Decided on : 28-04-2012 Duration : 0 years, 4 months, 2 days

IN THE COURT OF

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class ( Criminal Court for Agency areas), Bhadradri Kothagudem.

AT ,KHAMMAM

(Presided Over by V Siva Naik)

CC/300256/2011

RAAGI KRISHNAVENI

Through Police Station Officer Kothagudem-II Town 149 , 25 YRS, RO. MASON COLONY, RAMAVARAM OF KOTHAGUDEM M,

RAAGI KRISHNAVENI

VERSUS

RAAGI RAJESH

27 YRS, DRIVER, RO. MASON COLONY, RAVARAM. 2:RAAGI SHARADA 3:VODAPALLI LALITHA 4:VODAPALLI BHUMAIAH ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APPO, Advocate for L.STAYANARAYANA. appearing for RAAGI RAJESH Advocate , ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence punishable under : 498-A of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 3AND4 of DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,

ORDER

SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT

Date : 28-04-2012 (V Siva Naik)

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class ( Criminal Court for Agency areas), Bhadradri Kothagudem.