Muzeeb Pasala Syed FAC AJCJ

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PENUKONDA

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda (FAC).

Friday, the 3rd day of November, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.376 of 2022

Between :

State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Gorantla Police Station. (Cr.No.57/2021 and Cr.No.271/2021). … Complainant -Versus-

Bheemineni Amarnath Naidu, age 36 years, S/o B.Sreeramulu, R/o Uppunisinapalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal. … Accused

This case is presented before me on 31st day of November, 2023 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.Lakshminarayana, Legal Aid Counsel for accused and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) The Inspector of Police, Gorantla Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.57/2021 for the offences U/ss.454 and 380 of

Indian Penal Code (In short IPC) and Cr.No.271/2021 for the offences U/ss.454 and 380 of IPC.

2) (a) As glean from the charge sheet, it is the case of the prosecution that on 01.02.2021 between 10-00 A.M. to 3-00 P.M. wherein the accused gained entry into the house of P.W.1/M.Narasamma by break opening the main door lock and committed theft of one gold long chain of Wg.1.5 grams, ear studs of Wg.0.2 grams and gold ring of Wg.0.5 grams total of Wg.20 2 grams and cash of Rs.15,000/- from the iron almarah and that the P.W.1 gave report in the Police Station in regard to the same on 08.02.2021 at 2-00 P.M.

b) That on 08.07.2021 in between 7-00 A.M. to 2-00 P.M. in respect of crime No.271/2021 of Gorantla Police Station the accused gained entrance into the house of P.W.2/Kamasala Karthikeya Chari by breaking open the main door lock and committed theft of one pair of ear studs with stones, one plain ring and two Thalibottuginnelu of total weighing about 10 grams worth of Rs.30,000/- from the iron almarah and that the accused escaped with the gold ornaments and that in regard of the same P.W.2 lodged report in the

Gorantla Police Station on 09.07.2021 at 3-00 P.M.

c) Adverting to the above basing on the reports of P.Ws.1 and 2 the

Gorantla Police registered F.I.Rs as cases in Cr.Nos.57/2021 and 271/2021 respectively and took up investigation.

d) That on 15.10.2021 at 9-30 A.M. P.W.7/K.M.Linganna, Sub –

Inspector of Police, arrested the accused at Gantla Maremma Temple,

Dharmavaram – Gorantla road, Puttaparthy Mandal in the presence of mediators P.W.4/B.Naresh, Village Revenue Officer and L.W.11/T.Sai Prasad and that the accused said to have confessed the commission of offences herein and that the P.W.7 had seized the gold ornaments obtaining to the present case two crimes and handed over them to P.W.9/J.Jaya Naik,

Inspector of Police. That the P.W.1 and P.W.2 said to have identified their properties in the property identification parade conducted by

P.W.8/P.Ravikanth Reddy, Village Revenue Officer. That the P.W.7 produced the accused before the Court for Judicial custody and that P.W.9 produced the accused before this Court for Judicial custody on P.T.Warrant. That the 3 accused is habitual offender and that he involved in several property offences in the jurisdiction in various police stations of Ananthapuramu

District. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet.

3) Cognizance of the offence U/ss. 454 and 380 IPC alternatively Sec.

411 IPC against accused was taken and proceeded.

4) The accused was served with copies of case documents as contemplated under section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.).

5) The accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the accusation leveled against him, for which he denied the same. On that charges U/ss.

454, 380 IPC alternatively 411 of IPC against him have been framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 9, marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and M.Os.1 to 3. The learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor (in short A.P.P.) has given up the evidence of

L.W.3/M.Narasimhappa,L.W.4/K.Ramadevi,L.W.5/V.Sujatha,

L.W.6/C.Gangadhar, L.W.8/Shaik Riyaz, L.W.9/Neeruganti Gangadri and

L.W.11/Talari Sai Prasad.

7) After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances against the accused was read over and explained to him. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8) Heard arguments. Perused the material available on record.

4

9) The point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the

guilt of the accused for the offences U/ss. 454 and 380

of IPC alternatively Sec.411 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

10) This court has perused the material available on record and gave thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by Learned A.P.P. and

Learned Counsel for accused. For the sake of brevity the arguments adduced will be dealt in the discussion part.

11) To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10and M.Os.1 to 3.

12) The defacto complainant in Cr.No.57/2021 examined as P.W.1. She deposed in evidence in chief that about one year ago theft was committed in her house when she went to hospital at Somandepalli and that she returned at 1-00 P.M., she noticed that the main door locks and almarah locks were broke open and one long chain, ear studs, gold ring and cash of Rs.15,000/- were committed theft from the almarah and that she do not know who committed theft from her house and that after one week she had lodged report in the Gorantla Police Station as she was ill health. Through her Ex.P1 and M.O.1 are received in evidence. The Legal Aid Counsel for the accused reported no cross examination.

13) The defacto complainant in Cr.No.271/2021 Kamasala Karthikeya

Chari is examined as P.W.2. He deposed in his evidence in chief that about one year ago while he was on duty he received phone call from his grandmother stating that when she returned to their house from their fields at 3-00 P.M. she found that main door locks and almarah locks were broke 5 open and that theft was committed and that he went to their house and noticed that Mangalasuthra without thread, one pair of stone ear studs and gold ring were committed theft from almarah and that he do not know who committed theft from his house and that he lodged report in Gorantla Police

Station. Through him Ex.P2 and M.Os.2 and 3 are received in evidence. The

Legal Aid Counsel for the accused reported no cross examination.

14) The K.Eswaramma witness in Cr.No.27/2021 examined as P.W.3.

She deposed in her evidence in chief that about one year ago she went to her fields in the morning and that P.W.2 went to his duty and that about 3-00

P.M. she returned to her house and found that main door locks and almarah locks were broke open and Mangalasutra without thread, one pair of stone ear studs and gold ring were committed theft from the almarah and that she made a phone call to P.W.2 and informed him about the theft and that he came to the house and noticed that the above said gold ornaments were committed theft from the almarah and that she do not know who committed theft from her house and that P.W.2 lodged report in the Gorantla Police

Station on the same day. The Legal Aid Counsel for the accused reported no cross examination.

15) The B.Naresh, V.R.O. who acted as mediator to the arrest and confession mahazarnama and to the seizure mahazarnama is examined as

P.W.4. He deposed in his evidence in chief as to the role played by him as a mediator to the Exs.P3 and P4 and that the accused confessing about the committed theft by him and that recovery of 11 covers consisting gold and silver ornaments and cash of Rs.15,000/- and P.W.7 arrested the accused under Ex.P3. In the cross examination P.W.4 deposed that the Police had not 6 issued warrant summons to him to request to act as mediator. P.W.4 admitted that Bathalapalli village, Gajarajupalli village and Gantlamaremma temple comes within the limits of Puttaparthi Mandal but not Gorantla

Mandal. P.W.4 deposed that they did come near to the temple and that they were 1 km away from the temple. P.W.4 denied to the suggestion that he sign regularly at the Kothecheruvu Police Station. P.W.4 denied to the suggestion that he did not go to the scene of offence and that the Police obtained his signature at Police Station.

16) The Investigating Officer G.Sajjappa is examined as P.W.5. He deposed in his evidence in chief as to the investigation done by him of registering F.I.R. basing on Ex.P1 as a Cr.No.57/2021, submitting original copy of F.I.R. to this Court and its copies to all the concerned officers, visiting to the scene of offence along with P.W.1 and recording Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.

statements of P.W.1, L.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6 viz., M.Narasimhappa, K.Ramadevi,

V.Sujatha and C.Gangadhar preparing rough sketch of the scene of offence and handed over case file to P.W.9 for further investigation. In the cross examination P.W.5 deposed that he visited to the scene of offence after registering F.I.R. and recorded Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.1. P.W.5 deposed that as per F.I.R. and Ex.P1 the date of occurrence of affairs is mentioned as 01.02.2021. P.W.5 deposed that he had registered F.I.R. on 08.02.2021. P.W.5 deposed that between 01.02.2021 and 08.02.2021 none of the family members relatives and friends of P.W.1 came to their Police

Station informing about the incident. Through him Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 are received in evidence. P.W.5 denied to the suggestion that he had not done any investigation in this case.

7

17) The Investigating Officer G.R.Prabavathi who conducted part of investigation in Cr.No.271/2021 is examined as P.W.6. She deposed in her evidence in chief as to the investigation done by her regarding receiving report from P.W.2, registering F.I.R., submitting original F.I.R. to this Court and its copies to all the concerned officers, regarding Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statements of P.W.2, P.W.3, L.W.8/Shaik Riyaz and L.W.9/Neeruganti

Gangadri, visiting to the scene of offence, preparing rough sketch of the scene of offence and handing over the case file to P.W.9 for further investigation. Through her Exs.P7 and P8 are received in evidence. In the cross examination P.W.6 deposed that as per F.I.R. and Ex.P2 the date of occurrence of offence is mentioned as 08-07-2021. P.W.6 denied to the suggestion that she had not done any investigation in this case.

18) The Investigating Officer K.M.Linganna is examined as P.W.7. He deposed in his evidence in chief as to apprehending the accused in the presence of P.W.4 and L.W.11/Talari Sai Prasad at Gantla Maremma Temple,

Puttaparthi Mandal, examining the accused, recording confession of the accused in the presence of mediators, seizure of theft materials pertaining to 12 crimes from the accused in the presence of mediators, arresting the accused, preparing Exs.P3 and P4 in the presence of mediators, producing the accused before the Magistrate of Puttaparthi for Judicial custody and handing over the seized property pertaining to the present case, crimes to

P.W.9. In the cross examination P.W.7 admitted that as per his investigation the age of the accused is 36 years by 2021. P.W.7 admitted that he had not shown the previous crimes which are registered against the accused in Ex.P3.

P.W.7 denied that the accused had not committed any offence and that he 8 had falsely implicated the accused as the real offenders could not be traced and at the instructions of his higher authorities so as to close the investigation.

19) The Village Revenue Officer/P.Ravikanth Reddy who conducted property identification parade is examined as P.W.8. He deposed in his evidence in chief as to the property identification parade conducted by him with P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the present two crimes and preparing of Exs.P.9 and

P.10 mahazarnamas. Through him Exs.P9 and P10 are received in evidence.

In the cross examination P.W.8 deposed that he do not know the name of

Police Constable who brought the case property, P.W.1 and P.W.2 to him.

P.W.8 deposed that the Police did not issue any written summons to him to conduct property identification parade.

20) The Investigating Officer J.Jaya Naik who conducted the other part of investigation in the two crimes of present case is examined as P.W.9. He deposed in his evidence in chief that on 22.10.2021 he received case files pertaining to Cr.No.57/2021 and Cr.No.271/2021 for the present case from

P.W.5 and P.W.6 and that he verified the investigation done by P.W.5 and

P.W.6 and that sending the case property along with P.W.1 and P.W.2 to

P.W.8 for conducting property identification parades and receiving Exs.P9 and P10 from P.W.8 and producing the accused before this Court for Judicial custody on P.T. Warrant and filing of charge sheet. The Legal Aid Counsel for the accused reported no cross examination.

21) In this case, the case of the prosecution is edificed on mahazarnamas marked under Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. They consists of the minute details of various crimes including two crimes pertaining to this case, the 9

Court need to look into tranche of mahazarnamas so as to see the accusation against the accused for the charged offences. In such an endeavor when the case of the prosecution is appreciatedit is found that it has garnered the support of pivotal witnesses namely panchayatdar examined as P.W.4 and the panchayathdar to the property identification parades marked Ex.P9 and

Ex.P10 examined as P.W.8. Their evidence is clear and cogent. The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.8 had not exaggerated the facts, they could withstand the rigor of cross examination. The material pieces of evidence that shows the incriminating aspects are such that they cannot be twisted or readin any other perspective than that of the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.380 of IPC. Not only the evidence of Panchayatdaras, the evidence of Investigating Officers who are examined as P.W.5 to P.W.7 and

P.W.9 namely G.Sajjappa, G.R.Prabhavathi, K.M.Linganna and J.Jaya Naik unravel the role of the accused in perfecting the offence punishable

U/Sec.380 of IPC.

22) The evidence in chief of four Investigating Officers could not be taken in the cross examination. The legal Aid counsel for the accused argued that there is a delay in lodging of report by P.W.1 in the police station stating that the alleged incident said to have occurred on 01.02.2021 and she lodged report on 08.02.2021 which creates suspicion in the case of prosecution. It has come on record from the evidence of P.W.1 that as she was ill health for one week she had lodged report after one week in the Gorantla Police

Station. It is not that the P.W.1 without any reason did not lodge report about the theft in the concerned police station immediately after the incident. The

P.W.1 was ill health for a week and added to this she would have been in 10 grief about the loss of gold ornaments and cash. It is not expected for a lady who is aged about 61 years at the time of incident with ill health to go to police station and lodge report. The delay in lodging report by P.W.1 in the

Gorantla police station is acceptable and explainable. Merely because there is a delay of one week in lodging report by P.W.1 when it is explainable the

Court cannot come to conclusion that the case of the prosecution is suspicious. The learned Legal Aid counsel for the accused submitted that

P.W.4 deposed that Police had not issued written summons to him requesting to act as mediator. Only because the Police did not issue summons to P.W.4 to act as mediator the case of the prosecution cannot be brushed away when the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused in commission of offences.

23) Thus from the evidence available on record both oral and documentary evidence adduced as P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 to P.W.9 coupled with

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, Ex.P7, Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 and M.Os.1 to 3 the Court is of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 380 of IPC. The prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.380 of IPC as such the alternative charge U/Sec.411 of IPC is put to rest.

24) The confession made by the accused though in the presence of

Police is hit by Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act as it lead to discovery the some of the material objects and cash which were committed theft in the two crimes involved in this case. The accused in this case while confessing detailed from which places he had committed theft of material objects and 11 cash. In as much as the panchayatdar who is examined as P.W.4 supported the case of the prosecution and as the material objects and cash are discovered/recovered and seized from the accused under Ex.P4, the confession made by the accused is admissible and taken into consideration to establish the guilt of the accused in view of Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

25) However a perusal of record goes to show that the evidence available on record perse is not sufficient to proceed against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 454 of IPC as the prosecution failed to prove all the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 454 of IPC. Hence it is held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.454 of IPC.

26) In as much as, this Court found that the accused guilt of the accused punishable U/Sec.380 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and thereby this Court convicts the accused.

RESULT:-

27) IN THE RESULT, accused is found guilty for offence punishable under section 380 of IPC and thereby he is convicted under section 248 (2)

Cr.P.C. Accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under section 454 of IPC and he is accordingly acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

Partly dictated and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, Corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 3rd day of November, 2023.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Penukonda (FAC).

28) The accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him, the accused stated that his mother is old aged 12 and that she is depending upon him and that he is the only person to look after the welfare of his mother and that if he is sent to Jail there will be no one to look after his aged mother. The accused further submitted that he is only the bread winner of his family.Accused pleaded mercy of this court and requested to take lenient view.

29) Keeping in view of the nature of the offence and the manner it is committed, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for applying the provisions of Sec.360 of Cr.P.C., or the provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958.

30) IN THE RESULT, accused is found guilty for offence punishable under section 380 of IPC and thereby he is convicted under section 248 (2)

Cr.P.C. Accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under section 454 of IPC and he is accordingly acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 (Two) years and 6 (Six) months for the offence punishable under section 380 of IPC and he is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine amount he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) month. The accused is entitled for the set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The remand period of accused from 29.10.2021 to till date i.e., 03.11.2023 is set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. The accused is appraised of his right of appeal and also the availability of free legal aid for the purpose of appeal.

DISPOSAL OF CASE PROPERTY :

The M.O.1 i.e., Gold Long chain which was given in interim custody to

P.W.1/M.Narasamma W/o Narasimhappa, D.No.2-56, Palasamudram Village, 13

Ananthapuramu District in Cr.No.57/2021 as per orders of this Court dated 04.04.2022 under receipt dated 06.05.2022 shall made absolute after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 i.e., Gold Mangalasutra without thread and M.O.3 i.e.,

One pair of Gold stone ear studs which were given in interim custody to

P.W.2/K.Karthikeyachari S/o Sathyanarayanachari, D.No.2/25-A, Mallapalli

Village, Gorantla Mandal, Ananthapuramu District in Cr.No.271/2021 as per orders of this Court dated 04.04.2022 under receipt dated 08.04.2022 shall made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Partly dictated and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, Corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 3rd day of November, 2023.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Penukonda (FAC).

Appendix of evidence.

Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution :- For Defence :- PW.1 :M.Narasamma - None - PW.2 :K.Karthikeyachari PW.3 :K.Eswaramma PW.4 :B.Naresh PW.5 :G.Sajjappa PW.6 :G.R.Pravhavathi PW.7 :K.M.Linganna PW.8 :P.Ravikanth Reddy PW.9 :J.Jaya Naik

Exhibits marked.

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P1Report of P.W.1 dt.08.02.2021. Ex.P2Report of P.W.2 dt. 09.07.2021. Ex.P3Certified copy of arrest and confession mahazarnama Dt.15.10.2021. Ex.P4Certified copy of seizure mahazarnama Dt.15.10.2021. Ex.P5F.I.R. in Cr.No.57/2021. Ex.P6Rough sketch of the scene of offence in Cr.No.57/2021. Ex.P7F.I.R. in Cr.No.271/2021. Ex.P8Rough sketch of the scene of offence in Cr.No.271/2021. Ex.P9Property identification parade mahazarnama dt. 22.10.2021. Ex.P10 Property identification parade mahazarnama dt. 22.10.2021.

14

For Defence :- -NIL-

Material objects :

M.O.1Gold long chain in Cr.No.57/2021. M.O.2Gold Mangalasutra in Cr.No.271/2021. M.O.3One pair of Gold stone ear studs in Cr.No.271/2021.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Penukonda (FAC).

15

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANATHAPURAM

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

PENUKONDA

Date ofDate of reportAppre-Date ofDate ofDate ofDate of offenceor complainthension ofreleasedcommeclose ofsentence accusedon bailncemetrial of order nt of trial 1234567

1) Cr.No.57/20211) Cr.No.57/2021On 29.10.2021Accused is05.01.2331.10.2303.11.23 on 01.02.2021 inon 08.02.2021on execution ofin Dist-Jail, between10.00P.T. WarrantsAnanthapur A.M. to 2-00 P.M.inamu from Cr.No.57/202129.10.2021 &to till date.

2) Cr.No.271/2021

2) Cr.No.271/2021Cr.No.271/2021 on 09.07.2021 on 08.07.2021 in between 7-00 A.M. to 2-00 P.M.

Explanation of delay and remarksNIL.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NUMBER 376/2022 IN CRIME NUMBER 57/2021 and CRIME NUMBER 271/2021 OF GORANTLA P.S. ON THE FILE OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT PENUKONDA.

COMPLAINANTInspector of Police, Gorantla P.S. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Father’s Religion Sex /Age Calling Village Mandal accused name ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bheemineni Amarnath Naidu, age 36 years, S/o B.Sreeramulu, R/o Uppunisinapalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCESU/ss.454, 380 alternatively 411 of IPC. FINDINGAccused found guilty. IN THE RESULT, accused is found guilty for offence punishable under section 380 of IPC and thereby he is convicted under

SENTENCE

section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. Accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under section 454 of IPC and he is accordingly acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 (Two) years and 6 (Six) months for the offence punishable under section 380 of IPC and he is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine amount he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) month. The accused is entitled for the set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The remand period of accused from 29.10.2021 to till date i.e., 03.11.2023 is set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. The accused is appraised of his right of appeal and also the availability of free legal aid for the purpose of appeal.

16

DISPOSAL OF CASE PROPERTY : The M.O.1 i.e., Gold Long chain which was given in interim custody to P.W.1/M.Narasamma W/o Narasimhappa, D.No.2-56, Palasamudram Village, Ananthapuramu District in Cr.No.57/2021 as per orders of this Court dated 04.04.2022 under receipt dated 06.05.2022 shall made absolute after expiry of appeal time. M.O.2 i.e., Gold Mangalasutra without thread and M.O.3 i.e., One pair of Gold stone ear studs which were given in interim custody to P.W.2/K.Karthikeyachari S/o Sathyanarayanachari, D.No.2/25- A, Mallapalli Village, Gorantla Mandal, Ananthapuramu District in Cr.No.271/2021 as per orders of this Court dated 04.04.2022 under receipt dated 08.04.2022 shall made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

SEAL: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda (FAC). Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur.

CALENDAR CASE NUMBER376/2022 DATE OF JUDGMENT 03-11-2023 DATE OF DISPATCH OF CALENDAR 03-11-2023

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PENUKONDA

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda (FAC)

Monday, the 6th day of November, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.235 of 2016

Between: State, represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gorantla Police Station (Cr.No.42 of 2016). … Complainant -Versus.

1)Chakali Gangadhar, aged 32 years, S/o Late Pedda Venkataramappa, Palasamudramu Village, Gorantla Mandal.

2)Chakali Thippanna, aged 38 years, S/o Late Pedda Venkataramappa, Palasamudramu Village, Gorantla Mandal.

3)Chakali Venkata Lakshmamma, aged 60 years, W/o Late Pedda Venkataramappa, Palasamudramu Village, Gorantla Mandal.

4) Chakali Gangamma, aged 37 years, W/o Sankarappa, Palasamudramu Village, Gorantla Mandal.

5)Chakali Ratnamma, aged 35 years, W/o Narayanappa, Ahamad Nagar, Hindupur Town.

6)Chakali Arunamma, aged 34 years, W/o Adinarayanappa, Yelavanka, Bangalore.

7)Chakali Sakamma, aged 28 years, W/o Venkataramana, Singireddypalli Village, Hindupur Mandal.

8)Chakali Narayanappa, aged 64 years, S/o Late Venkataramappa, Singireddypalli village, Hindupur Mandal.

9)C.Gangamma, aged 35 years, W/o Thippanna, Hindupur.

10)C.Kavitha, aged 25 years, W/o Gangadhar, Palasamudramu Village, Gorantla Mandal.

… Accused

This case is coming before me on 2nd day of November, 2023 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.Malli Reddy, Advocate for accused and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, this court delivered the following:- 2

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gorantla Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.42 of 2016 for the offences under sections 448, 323, 427 of Indian Penal Code (In short IPC).

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:-

a) This is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1/Chennappagari

Thippamma had a vacant house site infront of his house and that the complainant party has constructed a cattle shed in the said vacant site and that there is hut of Accused No.1 to the western side of said shed and that the Accused No.1 demolished the said hut and laid foundation in that place and he encroached into the vacant site of complainant party. In that regard

P.W.1 approached the Court for justice and while matter is pending before this Court on 14.03.2016 at 9-15 A.M. while Accused Nos.1 to 10 were constructing walls on the foundation by damaging the pillars of cattle shed the complainant party i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3 questioned them about their acts and they went into their house and thereafter Accused Nos.1 to 10 trespassed into the house of P.W.1, picked up quarrel, abused P.W.1 to P.W.3 in filthy language and assaulted P.W.1 leading to injuries to her. Adverting to the above, basing on the report of the defacto complainant dated 14.02.2016, a case in Cr.No.142 of 2016 for the offences under sections 448, 323, 427 was registered at Gorantla Police Station and investigated into.

b) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer/P.W.5-

B.Venkateswarlu, recorded sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1 to 4, visited to the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, 3 prepared police proceedings of scene observation, served Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C.

notices to the accused and filed charge sheet.

3. Cognizance of the offences under sections 448, 323, 427 of IPC was taken by my learned predecessor against the A1 to A10 and issued summons.

4. On appearance of A1 to A10 before the Court, Copies of documents as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to them.

5. The accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusation for the offences U/ss448, 323, 427 of IPC are read over and explained to them in Telugu language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. The evidence of L.W.5/Doctor G.Prathap is closed consequent to not knowing whereabouts.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances against the accused was read over and explained to them. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments. Perused the material available on record and gave thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by Learned A.P.P. and

Learned Counsel for accused.

9. The point for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offences under Sections 448, 323 and 427 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. The defacto complainant/Injured C.Thippamma is examined as

P.W.1. She deposed in her evidence in chief that about three years ago on 4 one day at about 9-00 A.M. while she and her husband were in her house all the accused trespassed into their house and beat her husband with hands and legs and the reason for the quarrel/galata is that earlier they made an objection for accused constructing adjacent to her house site and that in the said quarrel/galata she sustained injury to her head and that on the same day she went to Gorantla Police Station and lodged Ex.P1. Through her Ex.P1 is received in evidence. In the cross examination P.W.1 deposed that they purchased the disputed site from Chinna Venkataramappa who is the relative of accused. P.W.1 admitted that Chinna Venkataramappa was senior paternal uncle of Accused No.1. P.W.1 admitted that they purchased the site which fell to the share of Chinna Venkataramappa. P.W.1 admitted that nobody came to her house at the time of quarrel/galata by the accused. P.W.1 deposed that nobody came to their house to rescue them from the hands of accused. P.W.1 deposed that the accused beat her on her head and face and caused bleeding injuries, but her clothes did not stained with blood. P.W.1 deposed that P.W.2 scribed Ex.P1. P.W.1 deposed that among 10 members of accused she can say and few of the accused and she do not know some of the accused names.

11. The another injured who is also husband of P.W.1 examined as

P.W.2/Bayapa Reddy. He deposed in his evidence in chief in tune with evidence in chief of P.W.1 as to the quarrel/galata and reason for the said quarrel/galata and that he stated that accused beat him and P.W.1 with hands, legs and bricks and that he did not sustained any injury. In the cross examination P.W.2 deposed that he purchased the disputed site from

Gowramma. P.W.2 admitted that there is site of accused adjacent to the disputed site. P.W.2 deposed that about 15 members had gathered at the 5 time of galata/quarrel. P.W.2 deposed that he cannot say who scribed Ex.P1 report. P.W.2 deposed that his son and his son-in-law has also accompanied them to the police station.

12. The son of P.W.1 is examined as P.W.3/C.Sreenivas Reddy. He deposed in his evidence in chief that on 14.03.2016 at about 9-30 A.M. all the accused trespassed into their house and beat P.W.1 and caused injuries and that the accused also damaged their cement pillars even though the matter was in the Court with regard to the house site. In the cross examination

P.W.3 deposed that the vendor of the disputed house site is the relative of the accused.

13. The Munisankar Reddy who is relative of P.Ws.1 to 3 is examined as

P.W.4. He deposed in his evidence in chief that on 14.03.2016 at about 9-00

A.M. or 9-30 A.M. all the accused trespassed into the house of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 and beat P.W.1 and caused injuries and that the accused also damaged cement pillars of P.W.1 and P.W.2 even though the matter was in Court with regard to the house site. In the cross examination P.W.4 deposed that the vendor of the disputed house site is the relative of the accused.

14. The Investigating Officer B.Venkateswarlu is examined as P.W.5.

He deposed that in his evidence in chief as to the investigation done by him as to receiving of report/Ex.P1, registering FIR as a case in Cr.No.42/2016, recording Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.1 to P.W.4, visiting to the scene of offence, preparing police proceedings and rough sketch of the scene of offence, serving Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notices, obtaining wound certificate of

P.W.1 from L.W.5/Doctor G.Prathap and filing of charge sheet. Through him

Exs.P2 to P5 are received in evidence. In the cross examination P.W.5 admitted that there are houses adjacent to the scene of offence. P.W.5 6 deposed that the house of Accused No.1 is located towards the western side of scene of offence. P.W.5 deposed that he did not seize any blood stained clothes of P.W.1. P.W.5 deposed that P.W.1 and P.W.2 only came to the police station to submit Ex.P1. P.W.5 deposed that he did not tried to secure the Panchayath Secretary or Surpanch of Palasamudram Village.

15. The defacto complainant lodged report against the accused stating that the accused trespassed into her house and beat her and caused injuries to her and abused her. The main reason which lead P.W.1 to register F.I.R.

against the accused is Civil dispute. The complainant party said to have purchased the disputed land from the relative of accused and that in regard to the said land, dispute arose between the complainant party and accused party. The civil dispute also lead to the pendency of civil suit in the Court of

Law. After filing of Civil suit the present FIR was lodged. The accused said to have trespassed into the house of defacto complainant in the morning time of about 9-00 A.M. and that they said to have beat P.W.1 and her husband who is examined as P.W.2 with hands and kicks.

16. As per the evidence of P.W.1 she had sustained head injury and that the accused have beat her on her head and face and thereby caused bleeding injuries and that nobody gathered at the time of quarrel/galata and that herself P.W.2 went to the police station to lodge report and that P.W.2 had scribed Ex.P1. There are certain material contradictions to the evidence of P.W.1 with that of the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. It is come on record from the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused beat him and P.W.1 with hands, legs and bricks. As per the evidence of P.W.1 he is not the person who scribed Ex.P1 report as it has come on record from the evidence of P.W.2 that he cannot say who scribed the Ex.P1 report. As per the 7 evidence of P.W.2 about 50 members gathered during the time of quarrel/galata surprisingly as has stated above the P.W.1 deposed that none gathered at the time of quarrel/galata. It is not the case that the prosecution took place between the complainant party and accused party in the wee hours of night or that there are no neighbours near to the house of complainant party. It has come on record from the evidence of

P.W.5/Investigation Officer that there are houses adjacent to the scene of offence. If at all there had been quarrel/galata between the parties the villagers would have definitely gathered at the spot. The Investigating Officer did not examine any independent witnesses.

17. The prosecution witnesses P.W.3 is the son of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and

P.W.4 is the relative of P.W.1 to P.W.3. This Court did not undermine the evidence of prosecution on the score that they are relatives to the defacto complainant. Their evidence is not cogent and convincing. They could not properly project to the case of prosecution. The P.W.3 and P.W.4 merely deposed that all the accused trespassed into the house of P.W.1 and beat

P.W.1 and caused injuries. Their evidence is no clear as to who among the accused entered into the house of defacto complainant and that who beat

P.W.1 and the manner of beating by the accused. P.W.3 and P.W.4 did not depose that the accused had also beat P.W.2. The P.W.1 on one hand deposed that she and P.W.2 went to the police station and the P.W.2 on the other hand deposed that his son and son in law had also accompanied them to the police station.

18. Further the prosecution did not examine the Doctor who treated

P.W.1 so as to know the causation of injury to P.W.1. A perusal of wound certificate creates doubt in the case of prosecution. The P.W.1 deposed that 8 she had sustained injury to her head and face. The wound certificate of

P.W.1 shows that the injury sustained by her is to her left biceps area. This itself shows the falsity in the case of the prosecution. If the P.W.1 had sustained injury to her head and face this Court could not understand how the medical certificate was issued stating that the P.W.1 sustained contusion to her left bicep area. The P.W.2 deposed that the accused had also used bricks to beat them. The investigating officer failed to seize the said brick.

19. The police proceedings prepared by the investigating officer is not supported by any independent witnesses. As seen from the police proceedings the investigating officer said to have visited to the scene of offence at 3-00 P.M. on 14.03.2016 to observe the scene. It is not the case that the Investigating Officer visited to the scene of offence at the odd hours of day to say that none were available. The investigating officer had possible to secure the government officials, but he did not do so for the reasons best known to him. In the police proceedings the investigating officer mentioned that village elders were not available during the police proceedings but in his evidence he deposed that he tried to secure the presence of neighbour of the scene of offence but none came forward to depose except P.W.3 and P.W.4.

It is not that no one were present at the scene of offence. The police proceedings is not supported by any independent evidence as such it cannot be taken into consideration.

20. Therefore on conglomeration of the above discussion the case of the prosecution is riddled with doubts and that the said doubts are unexplainable. The very contents of Ex.P1 is at doubt as P.W.1 deposed that

P.W.2 scribed Ex.P1/Report and P.W.2 deposed that he cannot say who scribed Ex.P1/report. There is no tangible evidence as to who scribed 9

Ex.P1/Report. When neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 are not the person who scribed

Ex.P1 the contents of Ex.P1/Report cannot be believable. The evidence of the prosecution is inconsistent and unbelievable as such the benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused.

RESULT:-

21. In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.1 to 10 are not guilty for the offences under sections 448, 323 and 427 IPC and thereby they are acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this

Judgment as per provisions of Sec. 437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 6th day of November, 2023.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Penukonda (FAC).

Appendix of evidence.

Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution :- For Defence :-

PW.1 : C.Thippamma PW.2 : Bayapa Reddy- None - PW.3 : C.Sreenivas Reddy PW.4 : Munisankar Reddy PW.5 : B.Venkateswarlu

Exhibits marked.

For Prosecution :- Ex.P1: Report of P.W.1. Ex.P2: FIR. Ex.P3: Police proceedings. Ex.P4: Rough sketch. Ex.P5: Wound certificate.

For Defence :- Nil. Material objects : Nil

J.M.F.C., PKD (FAC)

10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANATHAPURAM

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

PENUKONDA

Date ofDate ofAppre-Date ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport orhensionreleasedcommenceclose ofsentence complainofon bailment oftrial or order taccusedtrial 1234567 14.03.1614.03.1641-A Cr.P.C. Notice07.05.1902.11.2306.11.23

Explanation of Cognizance of the offence is taken on 29.07.2016 and delay and remarksthat there was no regular Presiding Officer and that Police served summons and accused appeared on 21.06.2018 and that on 13.08.2018 accused examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offences U/ss.448, 323 and 427 IPC and trial was started on 17.04.2019 and that Presiding Officer went to training for a period of six months and thereafter there was Covid-19 for more than two years and thereafter there was no regular Presiding Officer and that on 25.04.2022 the present Presiding Officer i.e., Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda joined the office and also taken Full Additional Charge of the post of Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Penukonda

and thereafter this matter has been called regularly and concluded on 02.11.2023. Hence the delay.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NUMBER 235/2016 IN CRIME NUMBER 42/2016 OF GORANTLA P.S. ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS COURT AT PENUKONDA.

COMPLAINANTS.I. of Gorantla P.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Father’s Religion Sex /Age Calling Village Mandal accused name -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)Chakali Gangadhar, aged 32 years, S/o Late Pedda Venkataramappa, Palasamudramu Village, Gorantla Mandal.

2)Chakali Thippanna, aged 38 years, S/o Late Pedda Venkataramappa, Palasamudramu Village, Gorantla Mandal.

3)Chakali Venkata Lakshmamma, aged 60 years, W/o Late Pedda Venkataramappa, Palasamudramu Village, Gorantla Mandal.

4) Chakali Gangamma, aged 37 years, W/o Sankarappa, Palasamudramu Village, Gorantla Mandal.

5)Chakali Ratnamma, aged 35 years, W/o Narayanappa, Ahamad Nagar, Hindupur Town.

6)Chakali Arunamma, aged 34 years, W/o Adinarayanappa, Yelavanka, Bangalore.

11

7)Chakali Sakamma, aged 28 years, W/o Venkataramana, Singireddypalli Village, Hindupur Mandal.

8)Chakali Narayanappa, aged 64 years, S/o Late Venkataramappa, Singireddypalli village, Hindupur Mandal.

9)C.Gangamma, aged 35 years, W/o Thippanna, Hindupur.

10)C.Kavitha, aged 25 years, W/o Gangadhar, Palasamudramu Village, Gorantla Mandal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFENCESU/ss. 448, 323 and 427 IPC

FINDINGAccused found not guilty

In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.1 to 10 are not guilty for the offences under sections 448, 323 and 427 IPC

SENTENCE

and thereby they are acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as per provisions of Sec. 437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

SEAL: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda (FAC). Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur.

CALENDAR CASE NUMBER235/2016 DATE OF JUDGMENT 06-11-2023 DATE OF DISPATCH OF CALENDAR 06-11-2023

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PENUKONDA

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda,

FAC/Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda,

Thursday, the 23rd day of March, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.234 of 2021

Between : State Inspector of Police, KIA Police Station. (Cr.No.140/2020) …. Complainant -Versus- LEE SEA KYUNG, aged 62 years, S/o LEE YOUNG DUK, Native of Korea Country, now residing at D.No.1/234-23, Vajralapeta, Penukonda Town. …. Accused

This case is presented before me on 20-03-2023 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri D.V.Siva Reddy and Sri V.Dharmendra Reddy, Advocates for the accused and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, KIA Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.140/2020 for the offence U/Sec. 34 (I) (II) r/w 34 of A.P Excise

Act, 1968.

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

a) It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.08.2020 at 5-00 P.M.

P.W.2/K.Venkataramana received information about illegal possession of liquor bottles in Korean National at Moojoojigae guest house which belongs to accused and that immediately P.W.2 informed the same to Sub Divisional Police Officer,

Penukonda and received search proceedings vide C.No.233/Gen/SDPO-PKD/2020 dt.08.08.2020 and also collected two mediators i.e., L.W.1/M.Basheer and

P.W.1/P.Ramesh and also language translator L.W.3/M.Nagabhushanam and 2 raided the hotel called Moojigae guest house and that P.W.2 with the assistance of his staff caught hold of the accused and questioned him. On interrogation, the accused revealed that the gunny bags contains liquor bottles. P.W.2 verified the said gunny bags in the presence of mediators and found 67 liquor bottles of King

Fisher ultra lager beer of 500 ml each and 17 bottles of JINRO Chamisul Fresh imported of 360 ml each without labels and printed as for sale in Karnataka State only. On questioning, the accused confessed that he purchased said bottles from shops at Karnataka State to sell the same at higher rates. P.W.2 seized liquor bottles from the possession of accused and arrested the accused and also took each one bottle among them for the chemical analysis, duly sealed and labelled under the cover of mahazarnama dated 08.08.2020 drafted on the spot. Adverting to the above, basing on the mahazarnama dated 08.08.2020, a case in Crime

Number 140 of 2020 was registered and investigated into.

b) P.W.2 arrested the accused and seized the passport with number M 58142496 in the presence of P.W.5 under police proceedings dt.09.08.2020. Later

P.W.2 handed over the case file to P.W.4/V.Sri Hari for further investigation and that P.W.2 produced the accused before the Court for Judicial custody. During the course of investigation P.W.4 sent the samples to RFSL, Chittoor for chemical analysis and that the he received chemical analysis report. After completion of investigation P.W.4 filed charge sheet before this Court.

3. Cognizance taken against accused U/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 was taken and proceeded.

4. The accused was served with copies of case documents as contemplated under section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred as

Cr.P.C.).

5. The accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the accusation leveled against him, for which he denied the same. On that charge under section 34

(a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against him have been framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6. In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 5, marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and M.Os.1 and 2. The learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor (in short A.P.P.) has given up the evidence of L.W.1/M.Basheer,

L.W.5/K.Ramadevi. The learned A.P.P. filed memo stating that whereabouts of

L.W.3/M.Nagabhushanam not known. Hence his evidence is closed.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances against the accused was read over and explained to her. She denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments. Perused the material available on record.

9. The point for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence under Section 34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise

Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

ARGUMENTS

10. The learned A.P.P. argued before this court that the evidence of prosecution witness coupled with exhibits P.1 to P4 and P.6 and M.Os.1 and 2 in this case clearly establish that the accused committed the offence and hence she is liable for conviction.

11) The learned counsel for the defence argued that the accused is innocent, falsely implicated in this case and no such incident was happened as stated by the prosecution. He further argued that the evidence available is only the evidence of the Police Officials who are interested witnesses. He further argued that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 cannot be believable as there are material contradictions in their evidence and the alleged panchayatdars P.W.5 did not support the case. He further argued that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Finally, prays to acquit the accused.

EVIDENCE:-

12) To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined totally five witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and

M.Os.1 and 2. I have gone through the evidence.

4

13) P.W.1/P.Ramesh, Village Revenue Officer is said to be mediator to the alleged incident deposed as per contents of the Mahazarnama. Through him

Ex.P1/Mahazarnama is received in evidence. In his cross examination he deposed that his official duty hours is 10-00 A.M. to 5-00 P.M. and as they are executive department he work even after 5-00 P.M. till the mid night if necessary. P.W.1 deposed that he went to Yerramanchi village for to note down the crop details from farmers on 08.08.2020 and at 4-40 P.M. he was noting down the crop details from farmers at Yerramanchi village. P.W.1 deposed that he do not know the names of farmers from whom he had collected the crop details. P.W.1 deposed that he do not have prior acquaintance with L.W.3/M.Nagabhushanam and that he know him when he saw at the scene of offence. P.W.1 deposed that he did not go to Police

Station. P.W.1 deposed that he went to the scene of offence from Yerramanchi village. P.W.1 deposed that he started at 4-40 P.M. and reached to the scene of offence at 5-00 P.M. P.W.1 denied the suggestions that he foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

14) P.W.2/K.Venkataramana, is the Sub-Inspector of Police, KIA Industrial

Area P.S. who is the investigating officer in this case, he tried to depose as per the records prepared by him as to registering of F.I.R against accused, arresting the accused and producing him before this Court for Judicial custody, sending of sample to Chemical Analysis and handing over the case property and accused to

L.W.7/V.Srihari for further investigation, through him Exs.P.2, P.3 and P6 and

M.Os.1 and 2 are received in evidence. In his cross examination he deposed that there was Covid-19 as on 08.08.2020. P.W.2 deposed that he had not examined the owners of MOOJIGAE restaurant. P.W.2 deposed that he had not filed any document before this Court to show that accused is running MOOJIGAE restaurant.

P.W.2 deposed that he had secured L.W.1/M.Basheer and P.W.1 to their police station and took them to the MOOJIGAE restaurant. P.W.2 deposed that he had secured L.W.1/M.Basheer and P.W.1 at about 5-00 P.M. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that he foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

5

15) P.W.3/P.Nagendra Prasad is the Constable, KIA Industrial Area P.S. and he gave his evidence as per the orders of this Court in Crl.M.P.No.08/2023 dated 09.03.2023. He deposed as per contents of the Mahazarnama. In his cross examination he deposed that there was Covid-19 as on 08.08.2020. P.W.3 deposed that he had not noticed the number of Koreans present in the said restaurant. P.W.3 admitted that they have not examined the owners of MOOJIGAE restaurant. P.W.3 deposed that they have not filed any document before this Court to show that accused is running MOOJIGAE restaurant. P.W.3 denied the suggestions that she foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

16) P.W.4/V.Sri Hari, is the Inspector of Police, Penukonda Circle who is the investigating officer in this case, he tried to depose as per the records prepared by

P.W.2 as to examining the L.W.4/G.Ashok Reddy, Manager of Moojigae restaurant, sending and receiving of Chemical Analysis report and filing of charge sheet before this Court, through him Exs.P3 and Ex.P4 are received in evidence. In his cross examination he denied the suggestions that he foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

17) P.W.5/G.Ashok Reddy is said to be panchayatdar to the alleged incident did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile by deposing that he do not know anything about this case and that about two years ago on one day one

Police constable obtained his signature on some written paper and he do not know the contents of the said written paper. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared this witness as hostile and cross examined the witness with the permission of the Court, but failed to elicit any useful information in favour of the prosecution. Through him Ex.P5 is received in evidence.

18) To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined totally five witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.5. A careful perusal of evidence, P.W.5 who is said to be panchayatdar to the alleged incident did not support the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile. This is a great set back to the case of the prosecution. Further a careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 it shows that 6 their evidence is not consistent and corroborating with each other and with regard to the material particulars of the case. The evidence of P.W.1/P.Ramesh/Village

Revenue Officer is inconsistent to the case of the prosecution. In Ex.P1 is is mentioned that the Police personnel and the mediators together went to the alleged scene of offence. Whereas it has come on record from the evidence of mediator/P.W.1 that he did not go to Police Station and that he went to the scene of offence at 5-00 P.M. The P.W.1 deposed that he reached to the scene of offence at 5-00 P.m. and by that time the Police, translator and another mediator were present at the scene of offence. Whereas it is mentioned in Ex.P1 that they reached to the scene of offence at 5-30 P.M. There is inconsistency in the evidence of mediator.

The mediator could not project the case of the prosecution properly. The evidence of the mediator is devoid of material particulars of this case. Therefore the evidence of mediator cannot be believable.

19) As seen from the evidence, the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality. It is the duty of the Investigation Officer to collect the independent witnesses from the surroundings of scene of offence evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As seen from the evidence the

Investigating Officer failed to examine any one of the independent witnesses at the scene of offence. The prosecution has examined P.W.5 who is said to be panchayatdar but he did not support the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile. There is no explanation from the prosecution or from the Investigating

Officer during the course of evidence.

20) P.Ws.2 to 4 are the Police officials and interested witnesses in the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 is also not supported by any other independent evidence. In these circumstances it creates a doubt in the mind of the court whether really the Police officials seized the contraband from the possession of the accused and arrested under cover of confession, arrest cum seizure mahazarnama as stated by the prosecution. There is no report from any person that the accused is selling the liquor. Merely because the analyst opined that the samples are Beer it cannot be presumed that the same were recorded from the 7 possession of the accused. In view of the above evidence, it is not safe to base conviction basing on the interested testimony of P.Ws.2 to 4 who are Police officials.

21) On conglomeration of the above evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the prosecution is filled up with unexplained doubts which are reasonable in nature. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and the benefit of doubt is given to him.

RESULT:-

22) In the result, this Court found the accused is not guilty for the offence under U/Sec.34 (a) (1) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 and thereby he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of Six months from the date of this Judgment as per provisions of Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

DISPOSAL OF THE CASE PROPERTY:-

The case property i.e., M.O.1 sample BOTTLE OF King Fisher Ultra larger beer of 500 ml and M.O.2 sample bottle of JINRO Chamisul fresh imported of 360 ml are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, Corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23rd day of March, 2023.

FAC/Addl. Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass, Penukonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- For Defence :- P.W.1: P.Ramesh - NONE – P.W.2: K.Venkataramana P.W.3: P.Nagendra Prasad P.W.4: V.Sri Hari P.W.5: G.Ashok Reddy 8

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :- For Defence :- Ex.P1: Mahazarnama dt.08.08.2020. Ex.P2: F.I.R. - NIL - Ex.P3: Chemical Analysis Report. Ex.P4: Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P5: Signature of P.W.5 in Police proceedings dt.09.08.2020. Ex.P6: Police proceedings.

Material objects :- - M.O.1 : Sample bottle of Kind Fisher Ultra large beer of 500 ml. M.O.2 : Sample bottle of JINRO Chamisul fresh imported of 360 ml

FAC/Addl. Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass, Penukonda.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANATHAPURAM

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT PENUKONDA

Date ofDate ofAppre-Date ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport orhension ofreleasedcommencemclose ofsentence complaintaccusedon bailent of trialtrialor order 1234567 08.08.2008.08.2009.08.20 11.08.2003.08.2220.03.23 23.03.23 Explanation of delay and remarksNIL. JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NUMBER 234/2021 IN CRIME NUMBER 140/2020 OF KIA INDUSTRIAL AREA P.S. ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT PENUKONDA.

COMPLAINANTSub-Inspector of Police, KIA Industrial Area P.S. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Father’s Sex /Age Calling Village Mandal accused name ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEE SEA KYUNG, aged 62 years, S/o LEE YOUNG DUK, Native of Korea Country, now residing at D.No.1/234-23, Vajralapeta, Penukonda Town. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCEU/Sec. 34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. FINDINGAccused found not guilty. SENTENCE In the result, this Court found the accused is not guilty for the offence under U/Sec.34 (a) (1) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 and thereby he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of Six months from the date of this Judgment as per provisions of Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., M.O.1 sample BOTTLE OF King Fisher Ultra larger beer of 500 ml and M.O.2 sample bottle of JINRO Chamisul fresh imported of 360 ml are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

SEAL: FAC/Addl. Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass, Penukonda Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur. CALENDAR CASE NUMBER234/2021 DATE OF JUDGMENT 23-03-2023 DATE OF DISPATCH OF CALENDAR 23-03-2023

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PENUKONDA

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda (FAC),

Thursday, the 18th day of April, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No.327 of 2017

Between: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Penukonda P.S. (Cr.No.53/2017). ….Complainant.

And

K.Narasimha Rao, aged 41 years, S/o Seshagiri Rao, No.502, S.S.Apartments, Ramnagar, Ananthapuramu Town, Driver of Car bearing reg. No.AP02-P-7914.

…..Accused.

This case is presented before me on 16.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V.Srinivasulu, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub – Inspector of Police, Penukonda P.S. laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.53/2017 for the offence U/Sec.304-A of Indian Penal Code (In short IPC).

2. (a) As glean from the charge sheet, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased/M.Venkataramudu aged about 55 years is the brother of P.W.1/M.Gopal and that the said M.Venkataramudu is living by doing cultivation and and he is working in the 2 estate of Bangalore people which is situated by the side of Gollapalli reservior and that on 18.04.2017 at about 7-30 P.M. the said M.Venkataramudu left the estate and proceeded towards Guttur on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP04-AB-2999 and at about 8-00 P.M. while he was crossing the road on the N.H.44, near Ammavaripalli

Village the accused who is the driver of car bearing registration No.AP02-P-7914 who was proceeding towards Ananthapuramu drove the said car at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over it and dashed to the motorcycle of

M.Venkataramudu, as a result of which the said M.Venkataramudu fell down on the ground along with his motorcycle and received injuries on the back side of his head and on nose and thereby fell into unconscious state and immediately P.Ws.1, 2, L.Ws.3 and 4 viz., M.Muneppa and M.Varadhamma came to the spot and shifted M.Venkataramudu to Government hospital, Penukonda for treatment and that at 10-00 P.M. the said

M.Venkataramudu succumbed to the injuries. Adverting to the above, basing on the complaint of P.W.1, L.W.12/K.M.Linganna, S.I. of Police, registered FIR as a case in

Cr.No.53 of 2017 for the offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC was registered at Penukonda

Police Station and investigated into the matter.

(b) During the course of investigation, L.W.12/K.M.Linganna examined and recorded Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.5, L.Ws.3 and 4 and visited to the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, seized the car bearing registration No.AP02-P-7914 at the scene of offence and later handed over the case file to L.W.13/K.Janardhan, S.I. of Police for further investigation.

L.W.13/K.Janardhan during the course of his investigation arrested the accused and 3 released him on bail, obtained Motor Vehicle Inspection report, Postmortem certificate of deceased/M.Venkataramudu and after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet

before the Court.

3. Cognizance of the offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC was taken by my learned predecessor against the accused and issued summons.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, Copies of documents as contemplated under section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) were furnished to him.

5. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusation for the offences U/Sec.304-A of IPC and ss.181 and 196 of Motor Vehicle Act (In short M.V. Act) was read over and explained to him in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. The learned A.P.P. givenup the evidence of

L.W.3/M.Muneppa,L.W.4/M.Varadhamma,L.W.9/R.HanumanthaReddy,

L.W.10/A.V.Ramana Reddy, L.W.11/Doctor M.Sukanya, L.W.12/K.M.Linganna and

L.W.13/K.Janardhan.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances against the accused was read over and explained to him. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments. Perused the material available on record.

4

9. The point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the

offences U/Sec.304-A of IPC and ss.181 and 196 of M.V. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT :

(a) The defacto complainant/M.Gopal is examined as P.W.1. He did not support the case of the prosecution by deposing that he do not know the manner of the accident and who is responsible for the accident and that while he was at the spot one Police

Constable of Penukonda P.S. obtained his signature on a written paper and that he do not know the contents of written paper so also the contents of report dated 18.04.2017.

Through him Exs.P1 and P2 are received in evidence.

(b) The Radhamma who is the wife of deceased/M.Venkataramudu is examined as P.W.2. She did not support the case of the prosecution by deposing that she do not the manner of the accident and who is responsible for the accident. Through her Ex.P3 is received in evidence.

(c) The S.Babu Sab and P.Rama Chandra who are the eye witnesses to the accident are examined as P.Ws.3 and 5 respectively. They too did not support the case of the prosecution by deposing that they do not know anything about this case and that they have not witnessed any incident. Through them Exs.P4 and P6 respectively are received in evidence.

(d) The inquest panchayathdar/M.Suryanarayana is examined as P.W.4. He deposed in his evidence in chief that about seven years ago on one day he came to know about the death of M.Venkataramudu and immediately he went to the Government 5 hospital, Penukonda to pay his last visit and at that time police conducted inquest on the dead body of M.Venkataramudu in the presence of him, L.Ws.7 and 9 viz., B.Sreeramulu and R.Hanumantha Reddy and prepared inquest report and that he know the contents of inquest report. Through him Ex.P5 is received in evidence. In the cross examination

P.W.4 denied that the Police never conducted inquest on the dead body of

M.Venkataramudu in his presence and that they have not prepared any inquest report in his presence.

(e) This is a case of accident allegedly of a rash and negligent manner. The prosecution examined as much as five witnesses to prove its case. Unfortunately to the prosecution all the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. The brother and wife of deceased/M.Venkataramudu did not support the case of the prosecution by deposing that they do not know the manner of the accused and who is responsible for the accident and that the P.W.1 deposed that on the date of the accident while he was at spot one of the Police Constable’s of Penukonda P.S. obtained his signature on a written paper. He do not know the contents of said written paper and that he further deposed that he do not know the contents of report dt.18.04.2017. The alleged eye witnesses who are examined as P.Ws.3 and 5 also did not support the case of the prosecution by deposing that they do not know anything about this case and that they have not witnessed any incident. This is a great set back to the case of the prosecution.

(f) The inquest panchayathdar/M.Suryanarayana is examined as P.W.4. His evidence is not clear and convincing. The panchaythdar barely deposed that he was 6 present at the time of inquest but he did not depose the injuries found on the dead body as to when the inquest was conducted. The P.W.5 could not depose the contents of inquest report. The inquest panchayathdar did not evidence the details of crime vehicle, the manner of the accident and the person who was responsible for the accident. There is also no evidence on record to show that the accused was driving crime vehicle without having valid driving license and insurance.

11) When the material witnesses who are pivotal to the case of the prosecution turned hostile without deposing any incriminating material against the accused then the case of the prosecution can no longer edifice. In this way of the matter, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. Hence he is acquitted for the offence alleged against him.

12) In the result, this Court found the accused is not guilty for the offences

U/Sec.304-A of IPC and ss.181 and 196 of M.V. Act and thereby he is acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of Six months from the date of this Judgment as per provisions of Section 437(A) of

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18th day of April, 2024.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Penukonda (FAC).

7

Appendix of evidence. Witnesses examined. For Prosecution :- For Defence :-

PW.1: M.Gopal - None - PW.2: M.Radhamma PW.3: S.Babu Sab PW.4: M.Suryanarayana PW.5: P.Ramachandra

Exhibits marked. For Prosecution :- Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on the report dt.18.04.2017. Ex.P2 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P5 : Inquest report dt. 19.04.2017. Ex.P6 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5.

For Defence :- Nil. Material objects : Nil

A.J.M.F.C., PKD (FAC)

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANATHAPURAM

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT PENUKONDA

Date ofDate ofAppre-Date ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport orhension ofreleased oncommencclose ofsentence complaintaccusedbailement oftrial or order trial 1234567 18.04.1718.04.17Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice02.04.2416.04.2418.04.24

Explanation of Cognizance of the offence is taken and the Police served delay and remarkssummons and accused appeared on 17.09.2019 and then the Presiding Officer went to training for a period of three months and there was also Covid-19 for more than two years as such this case was not taken up regularly and that on 05.05.2022 the present Presiding Officer i.e., Judicial

Magistrate of First Class joined the office as Full Additional

Charge and thereafter this matter has been called regularly and that on 13.10.2022 the accused examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offences U/Sec.304-A of IPC and ss.181 and 196 of M.V. Act and that trial was concluded on 18.04.2024. Hence the delay.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NUMBER 327/2017 IN CRIME NUMBER 53/2017 OF PENUKONDA P.S. ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT PENUKONDA.

COMPLAINANTSub – Inspector of Police, Penukonda P.S. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Father’s Religion Sex /Age Calling Village Mandal accused name ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.Narasimha Rao, aged 41 years, S/o Seshagiri Rao, No.502, S.S.Apartments, Ramnagar, Ananthapuramu Town, Driver of Car bearing reg. No.AP02-P-7914. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCESU/Sec.304-A of IPC and ss.181 and 196 of M.V. Act FINDINGAccused found not guilty. In the result, this Court found the accused is not guilty for the offences U/Sec.304-A of IPC and ss.181 and 196 of M.V. Act and

SENTENCE

thereby he is acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail 9 bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of Six months from the date of this Judgment as per provisions of Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

SEAL: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass, Penukonda (FAC).

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur. CALENDAR CASE NUMBER327 of 2017 DATE OF JUDGMENT 18-04-2024 DATE OF DISPATCH OF CALENDAR 18-04-2024

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: PENUKONDA

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda,

Wednesday, the 25th day of January, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.116 of 2021

Between :

State SEB Sub - Inspector, SEB Station. Penukonda (Cr.No.252/2019) …. Complainant -Versus-

Ediga Venkata Ramudu, age 61 years, S/o Late E.Venkatappa, R/o S.Nadimpalli Village, Somandepalli Mandal. …. Accused

This case is presented before me on 24-01-2023 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri L.Vikranth Naik, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) The SEB Sub-Inspector, SEB Station, Penukonda laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.252 of 2019 for the offence under section

U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968.

2) The brief contents of the charge sheet are as follows:-

a) On 27.12.2019 upon receiving credible information

P.W.4/P.Jabeeulla along with his staff members were conducting raids to detect

Excise and Prohibition offences and they reached to the Railway gate, Nadimpalli village and there they found accused was standing with polythene bag and that upon seeing them the accused tried to skulk away. P.W.4 with the assistance of his staff caught hold of the accused and questioned him. On interrogation, the accused revealed that the plastic bag contains liquor packets. P.W.4 verified the bag and found 16 dips of Original choice whiskey of 90 ml tetra packets each 2 without labels and printed as for sale in Karnataka State only. On questioning, the accused confessed that he purchased said tetra packets from shops at Karnataka

State to sell the same at higher rates. P.W.4 seized liquor packets from the possession of accused and arrested the accused and also took one packet among them for the chemical analysis, duly sealed and labelled under the cover of panchanama dated 27.12.2019 drafted on the spot. Adverting to the above, basing on the Panchanama dated 27.12.2019, a case in Crime Number 252 of 2019 was registered and investigated into.

b) During the course of investigation on the same day P.W.4 issued

Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused. Further the sample was sent by P.W.4 to the

Chemical Examiner, Chittor for analysis, who in turn analysed and issued report that the sample is “Indian made liquor”. After completion of investigation

L.W.10/M.Farook Azam has been laid charge sheet against the accused.

3. Cognizance of the offence under section U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise

Act against accused was taken and proceeded.

4) On appearance of the accused before the Court, Copies of documents as contemplated under section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.) were furnished to him.

5) The accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the accusation levelled against him, for which he denied the same. On that charge U/Sec.34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act have been framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined totally four witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 4, marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 and M.O.1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

L.W.4/K.Chandana,L.W.5/S.Pushpalatha,L.W.6/V.ChowdaiahBabu,

L.W.7/M.Prasad, L.W.8/M.Venkatesh and L.W.10/M.Farooq Azam.

3

7) After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances against the accused is read over and explained to the accused. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8) Heard arguments. Perused the material available on record.

9) The point for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence under Section U/Sec.34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act

beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

ARGUMENTS

10) The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued before the court that the evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with exhibits marked in this case would clearly establish that the accused committed the offence levelled against him and hence he is liable for conviction.

11) The learned counsel for the defence argued that the accused is innocent, falsely implicated in this case and no such incident was happened as stated by the prosecution. He further argued that the evidence available is only the evidence of the Excise Officials who are interested witnesses. He further argued that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 cannot be believable as there are material contradictions in their evidence and the alleged panchayatdars did not support the case. He further argued that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Finally, prays to acquit the accused.

EVIDENCE:-

12) To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined totally four witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and

M.O.1. I have gone through the evidence.

13) P.W.1/E.Thippanna and P.W.2/E.Anjineyulu are said to be panchayatdars to the alleged incident did not support the case of the prosecution and turned 4 hostile by deposing that they do not know anything about this case and that on one day one Excise constable of SEB Station, Penukonda obtained their signatures on some written paper and they do not know the contents of the said written paper. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared this witness as hostile and cross examined the witnesses with the permission of the Court, but failed to elicit any useful information in favour of the prosecution. Through them Exs.P1 and P2 are received in evidence.

14) P.W.3/B.Suma is the SEB, Constable, Penukonda. She deposed as per contents of the Panchanama. P.W.3 denied the suggestion that he foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose. Through him Ex.P3 is received in evidence.

15) P.W.4/P.Jabeeulla, is the SEB Sub-Inspector, Penukonda who is the investigating officer in this case, he tried to depose as per the records prepared by him as to registering of F.I.R against accused, arresting the accused and serving Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused, sending of sample to Chemical Analysis and handing over the case property and accused to L.W.10/M.Farooq Azam for further investigation, through him Exs.P.4 and Ex.P.5 and M.O.1 are received in evidence. In his cross examination P.W.4 deposed that manufacturing date of

M.O.1 is 04.03.2020. P.W.4 denied the suggestion that he foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

16) To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined totally four witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.4. A careful perusal of evidence,

P.Ws.1 and 2 who are said to be panchayatdars to the alleged incident did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. This is a great set back to the case of the prosecution.

5

17) Further a careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 it shows that their evidence is not consistant and corroborating with each other and with regard to the material particulars of the case.

18) As scene from the evidence, the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality. It is the duty of the Investigation Officer to collect the evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As scene from the evidence the Investigating Officer failed to examine any one of the independent witnesses at the scene of offence. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 who said to be panchayatdars but they did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. The Investigating Officer also failed to secure any independent panchayatdars to the arrest and seizure of the contraband from the possession of accused, though there is possibility to secure them. There is no explanation from the prosecution or from the Investigating Officer during the course of evidence.

19) P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the Excise officials and interested witnesses in the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 is also not supported by any other independent evidence. In these circumstances it creates a doubt in the mind of the court whether really the Excise officials seized the contraband from the possession of the accused and arrested under cover of Panchanama as stated by the prosecution. There is no report from any person that the accused is selling the liquor. Merely because the analyst opined that the sample is “Indian made liquor” it cannot be presumed that the same were recorded from the possession of the accused. In view of the above evidence, it is not safe to base conviction basing on the interested testimony of P.W.3 and P.W.4 who are Excise officials.

20) On conglomeration of the above evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the prosecution is filled up with unexplained doubts which are reasonable in nature. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused 6 beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and the benefit of doubt is given to him.

RESULT:-

21) In the result, this Court found the accused is not guilty for the offence under U/Sec.34 (a) (1) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 and thereby he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of Six months from the date of this Judgment as per provisions of Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

DISPOSAL OF THE CASE PROPERTY:-

The case property i.e., M.O.1 sample packet of Original choice deluxe whiskey is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

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

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25th day of January, 2023.

Sd/- Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass,

Penukonda (FAC).

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- For Defence :- P.W.1:E.Thippanna - NONE – P.W.2: E.Anjineyulu P.W.3: B.Suma P.W.4: P.Jabeeulla

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :- For Defence :-

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 in Panchanama Dt.27.12.2019. - NIL - Ex.P2: Signature of P.W.2 in Panchanama Dt. 27.12.2019. Ex.P3: Panchanama Dt. 27.12.2019. Ex.P4: F.I.R. Ex.P5: Chemical Analysis Report. Material objects :- - M.O.1 sample packet of Original choice deluxe whiskey.

Sd/- Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass,

// True copy // Penukonda (FAC).

JMFC/PKD 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANATHAPURAM

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

PENUKONDA

Date ofDate ofAppre-Date ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport orhension ofreleased oncommenceclose ofsentence complaintaccusedbailment oftrial or order trial 1234567 27.12.1927.12.19Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notice28.06.2224.01.2325.01.23

Explanation of delay and remarksNIL.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NUMBER 116/2021 IN CRIME NUMBER 252/2019 OF SEB, STATION PENUKONDA ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS AT PENUKONDA.

COMPLAINANTSEB Sub - Inspector, Penukonda.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Father’s Religion Sex /Age Calling Village Mandal accused name ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ediga Venkata Ramudu, age 61 years, S/o Late E.Venkatappa, R/o S.Nadimpalli Village, Somandepalli Mandal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCESU/Sec.34 (a) (1) of A.P Excise Act, 1968

FINDINGAccused found not guilty.

SENTENCEIn the result, this Court found the accused is not guilty for the offence under U/Sec.34 (a) (1) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 and thereby he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of Six months from the date of this Judgment as per provisions of Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., M.O.1 sample packet of Original choice deluxe whiskey is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

Sd/- Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

SEAL:Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass, Penukonda (FAC). Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur.

CALENDAR CASE NUMBER116/2021 DATE OF JUDGMENT 25-01-2023 DATE OF DISPATCH OF CALENDAR 25-01-2023 // True copy //

JMFC/PKD