Smt Naseem Sultana

1 Judgment of CC No.14331 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt Naseem Sultana, VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 28 th day of Thursday April, 2022

C.C.NO.14331 OF 2021

Between :

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police PS Saidabad.

...Complainant

//AND//

Syed Khaleeq, S/o. Syed Atiq, Age:23 years, R/o. H.No.16-2-867/A/19/2, Near Moulana Naserruddin House, Jeevan-Yar-Jung Colony, Saidabad,Hyderabad.

...Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Jyothi, APP for the prosecution and Sri. Devender Reddy, Counsel for the accused, and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivers the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

Accused is arraigned before this Court for committing the theft of

VIVOY-55CellPhone,whichbelongstoPW1/Mohd.

Fasi-UI-Rahman/Complainant, punishable U/s.382 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 06.12.2021, PW1 has lodged the complaint by submitting that on 05.12.2021 at 4:00 am, he went to his mother-in-law's house situated at Royal Den Colony, Baker-Q Colony,

Saidabad. After completion of his work on 06.12.2021 at 1:10 am, he left from his mother-in-law's house and while he was going to his house by walk, then he took his mobile phone and while talking over phone, in the meantime, when he reached near VIP School, Zakir Hussain Colony, at about 1:30 am, accused came from his backside on a two wheeler and

VII ACMM

2 Judgment of CC No.14331 of 2021 snatched his VIVO Y-55 mobile phone having SIM No.9849406401 and sped away towards Saidabad X Road. He has further submitted that he has followed the accused and he found the accused at Saidabad X Road, wherein the police personnel were questioning the accused, as such, he fell down from the vehicle. He went near to him identified the accused and mentioned about the theft of his cell phone by the accused to the police personnel present there and the said police personnel checked his pocket and found his mobile phone. Hence, he requested to take necessary action against the accused.

3.Basing on the complaint of PW1/Mohd. Fasi-UI-Rahman/Complainant,

PW4 / Ch. Venkat Reddy, ASI of Police, PS Saidabad, has registered a case in Cr.No.497/2021 for the offence punishable U/s.382 of IPC. Later the case

CD file was handed over to PW5/P. Madhava Rao, SI of Police, PS Saidabad, for further investigation.

4.On 06.12.2021, PW5/P. Madhava Rao/SI of Police, PS Saidabad has received the case CD file from PW4 and verified the investigation done by him and found it to be correct. PW5 has examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at the police station. On the same day, PW5 has visited the scene of offence situated near VIP School, Saidabad, Hyderabad and there, PW5 has conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of the mediators, PW2 and LW3/Ravinder. PW5 has also drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offene. On interrogation of accused, accused has confessed to have committed this offence along with other offences of

PS Santoshnagar. PW5 has recorded the confession cum recovery panchanama of the accused in the presence of the mediators, PW3 and

LW4/G. Venkatesh and PW5 has recovered VIVO phone /MO1 from him with regard to this case. PW5 has also seized one HF Dawn bearing No. AP29 CC- 9543 pertaining to the crime of PS Santoshngar.PW5 has sent the accused to

VII ACMM

3 Judgment of CC No.14331 of 2021 the Osmania General Hospital for treatment. Then after the arrest of accused, PW5 has sent the accused to the court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, PW5 has filed the chargesheet against the accused, for the offence punishable U/s.382 of IPC.

5.This Court took cognizance for the offence U/s.382 of IPC against the accused. Case copies were furnished to him as contemplated under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused is examined U/s. 239 of Cr.P.C. Charges for the offence punishable U/s.382 of IPC are framed, read over and explained to him, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In support of its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and

Exs.P1 to Ex.P6 and MO1 are marked on its behalf. PW1 is the complainant.

PW2 is the panch witness to Crime Detail Form. PW3 is the panch witness to the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused. PW4 assisted

Investigating Officer in apprehension of accused and issued FIR. PW5 is the

Investigating Officer. The evidence of LW3 / V. Ravinder, LW4/G. Venkatesh,

LW7/B. Raghavender/PC and LW8/R. Venkateshwar Rao/PC, is given up by learned APP.

7.After the closure of prosecution's evidence, the accused is examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., to which he denied all the allegations leveled against him and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused, for the offence punishable u/Sec.382 of IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt?

VII ACMM

4 Judgment of CC No.14331 of 2021

Point:

10.The prosecution ought to prove that accused has committed the theft of VIVO Y-55 Cell Phone/MO1 of PW1 so as to retain it, which was committed theft. To prove the same, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P6.

11. Section 382 reads as:

Section 382 IPC reads as:

“Whoever commits theft, after having made preparation for causing death or hurt or of restraint or fear of death or of hurt to any person in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine”.

The ingredients of Section 382 IPC are:

(a) When a person is made to commit a crime any person in fear of either death or of grievous hurt either to that person or to any another person;

12.On careful perusal of the record, it is found that PW1 has categorically deposed that on 06.12.2021 at 1:30 am in the mid-night while PW1 was going by walk to his house at Riyasathnagar from

Saroornagar and on the way when PW1 reached at VIP School, Royalten

Colony near Saidabad PS, PW1 was talking on phone Vivo Y-55 and in the meantime, accused came from backside on a motorcycle and snatched away his cell phone and fled away from the spot. Hence, it is clear from the evidence of PW1 that he has witnessed the accused in sequel of actions that took place between him and accused, as the accused has snatched the cell phone of PW1 while he was going by walk. Then PW1 followed him and again found him at the ACP Office, Saidabad, wherein the accused fell down due to accident. Where police personnel were there and on informing

VII ACMM

5 Judgment of CC No.14331 of 2021 about the committal of theft of his cell phone by the accused, police checked the pocket of the accused and found his cell phone. In such circumstances, there is every chance of having PW1 to witness the accused and also remember him and hence, identified him in the open court hall. Though no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted in this case but there is every reason to believe the version of PW1 that accused was offender who has committed theft of his cell phone as his evidence was trustworthy as he stood the test of cross examination and his evidence was intact.

13.Further,there is nothing on record to show any enmity between the

PW1 and the accused for foisting false case against the accused. In such circumstances, the version of PW1 is trustworthy and inspiring the confidence of the prosecution to prove the charges charged against the accused.

14.PW3 who is one of the mediators while conducing the scene of offence panchanama, has categorically deposed that on 06.12.2021 in the morning hours, police conducted the scene of offence panchanama at VIP

School, Zakir Hussain Colony, by stating that one cell phone was committed theft by snatching. Hence, the versions of PW2 is corroborating with the versions of PW1 who has clearly stated that the theft of his VIVO

Y-55 /MO1 cell phone was committed theft at VIP School, Saidabad. As such, it can be said that the prosecution has proved the scene of offence undisputedly.

15.PW3 who is said to be one of the mediators while conducting the confession cum recovery panchanama has categorically deposed that on 06.12.2021 at 6:00 am, police has conducted the confession cum recovery panchanama of accused in his presence at PS Saidabad, wherein accused confessed to have committed this offence and in pursuance of his

VII ACMM

6 Judgment of CC No.14331 of 2021 confession, police seized one cell phone in his presence by preparing panchanama/Ex.P4. As such, the versions PW3 is supporting the evidence of PW1 which states about the theft of one cell phone/MO1 by the accused and that PW3 has also categorically stated that the said cell phone/MO1 was seized from the accused. Hence, it shows about the commission of theft of MO1/Cell Phone of PW1 by the accused. PW4 and PW6 who are the investigating officers has done the investigation on proper lines as they ought to have done to prove the charges charged against the accused.

16. Hence, in view of the above discussion it can be said that the prosecution could prove the offence U/s.382 of IPC. As such, accused is convicted U/s.248 (2) of Cr.PC.

17.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence U/s.382 IPC and hence, convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to PA, transcribed by him and after its correction, pronounced by me in

open Court on this the 28 th day of April, 2022.

VII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

VII ACMM

7 Judgment of CC No.14331 of 2021

Q: Do you want to say anything about the quantum of sentence?

When the accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, accused stated that he is having old aged parents who depends on his earnings.

He further submitted that he has done the mistake and will change his attitude in future and prayed to take lenient view.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence,

I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to apply benevolent provisions under

Probationer of offenders Act. Hence, I am inclined to convict the accused.

Considering the submissions made by accused, I am inclined to take the lenient view, as such accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 Months and fine of Rs.100/- for the offence punishable u/Sec.382 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.

The remand period which was undergone by the accused from 06.12.2021 to till today i.e., 28-04-2022 shall be set off U/sec.428 Cr.P.C.

The accused is informed about his right to appeal against the judgment of this court before the Hon’ble Sessions Court.

VII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :-

PW1/LW1: Mohd. Fasi-UI-Rahman – Complainant

PW2/LW2: V. Ramu – Panch witness to the CDF

PW3/LW5: K. Nagendra Reddy – Panch witness to the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused

PW4/LW6: Ch. Venkatreddy – ASI

PW5/LW9: P. Madhavarao / SI of Police – Investigating Officer

VII ACMM

8 Judgment of CC No.14331 of 2021

For Defence :- -None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P1: is the complaint, dt.06.12.2021

Ex.P2: is the CDF, dt.06.12.2021

Ex.P3: is the rough sketch of the scene of offence, dt.06.12.2021

Ex.P4 : is the confession cum recovery panchanama of accused, dt.6.12.2021

Ex.P5 : is the photo of MO1

Ex.P6 : is the FIR, dt.06.12.2021

For Defence :- Nil

MOs MARKED:

MO1 is the VIVO Cell Phone

VII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

VII ACMM

9 Judgment of CC No.14331 of 2021

JUDGMENT AND CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

CC.No.14331 of 2021

Complainant:The State of Telangana through Sub- Inspector of police of PS Saidabad. Accused:Syed Khaleeq, S/o. Syed Atiq, Age:23 years, R/o. H.No.16-2-867/A/19/2, Near Moulana Naserruddin House, Jeevan-Yar-Jung Colony, Saidabad,Hyderabad. U/sec. 382 of IPC

Date of offence06.12.2021 Date of Report06.12.2021

Date of commencement of trial 30-03-2022

Date of close of trial25.04.2022 Date of Judgment28.04.2022 Finding:Found not guilty Sentence/OrderIn the result: The accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.382 of IPC. Accordingly the accused acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

To

The Hon’ble I Addl. Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

VII ACMM

1 Judgment of CC No.555 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt Naseem Sultana, VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 19 th day of May, 2022

C.C.NO.555 OF 2022

Between :

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police PS Madannapet.

...Complainant

//AND//

Mohd. Khader Moinuddin Ayub @ Ayub, S/o. Late Mohd. Ibrahim, Age: 26 years, Occ: Sofa Repairer R/o. H.No.18-1-292/6, Shivaji Nagar, Uppuguda, Hyderabad.

...Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Jyothi, APP for the prosecution and Sri. Vijay Kumar, Counsel for the accused, and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivers the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

Accused is arraigned before this Court for the offence punishable

U/s.380 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.05.2021 at 5:00 am, the accused entered into the house of PW3 and committed theft of Electronic

Items ie., Iron Box, one Samsung Cell Phone without sim and one

Electronic Watch. Hence, PW3 has lodged the complaint at PS Madannapet, by requesting to take necessary action against the accused.

3.Basing on the complaint of PW3 / Syed Fareeduddin/Complainant,

PW9 / T. Ravinder Reddy, SI of Police, PS Madannapet, has registered a case in Cr.No.91/2021 for the offence punishable U/s.380 of IPC. PW9 has examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of

VII ACMM

2 Judgment of CC No.555 of 2022 offence situated at Katija Colony, Edibazar, Hyderabad and there PW9 has conducted the scene of offence panchanama, in the presence of the mediators / PW1 and LW2/ Jaffar Hussain. PW9 has also drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence. PW9 has instructed PW8 to collect the CCTV

Footage from the house of PW3 and that PW8 converted the same into

DVD / MO2 and PW8 also issued a certificate to the same effect.

4.PW9 has got the information about the arrest of the accused at

Chatrinaka PS and also about the confession of the accused with regard to this case. PW9 has also collected one Iron Box / MO1 and relevant documents from the Police, Chatrinaka. PW9 has filed a requisition for issuing PT Warrant against the accused. Accordingly, after the orders, PW9 has produced the accused on execution of PT Warrant before the Court with regard to this case on 31.12.2021.

5.On 11.01.2021, PW9 has received the accused in police custody after the orders from the court. On the same day, PW9 has interrogated the accused in the presence of the mediators/PW6 and LW10. G.Sunil, wherein accused confessed to have committed this offence and also confessed that he sold away one phone and one watch and spent the money with regard to this case. Accordingly, PW9 has prepared the confession panchanama.

After completion of investigation, PW9 has filed the chargesheet against the accused, for the offence punishable U/s.380 of IPC.

6.This Court took cognizance for the offence U/s.380 of IPC against the accused. Case copies were furnished to him as contemplated under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused is examined U/s. 239 of Cr.P.C. Charges for the offence punishable U/s.380 of IPC are framed, read over and explained to him, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

VII ACMM

3 Judgment of CC No.555 of 2022

7.In support of its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW9 and

Exs.P1 to Ex.P8 and MO1 and MO2 are marked on its behalf. PW1 is the panch witness to the Crime Detail Form. PW2/PC assisted in apprehending accused. PW3 is the complainant. PW4 is the panch witness to the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused. PW5 is the investigating officer, who arrested the accused in Cr.No.414/2021 of PS Chatrinaka. PW6 is the panch witness to the confession panchanama. PW7 is the panch witness to the confession cum seizure panchanama. PW8 is the police constable, who converted CCTV Footage into CD. PW9 is the investigating officer. The evidence of LW2 / Jaffa Hussain, LW7/ M. Srikanth/PC, LW8/Ch.

Santosh/PC and LW10/G.Sunil, is given up by learned APP.

8.After the closure of prosecution's evidence, the accused is examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., to which he denied all the allegations leveled against him and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused, for the offence punishable u/Sec.380 of IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt?

Point:

11.The prosecution ought to prove that accused has entered into the house of PW1 and committed the theft of Iron Box/MO1, Samsung Cell

Phone and Electronic Watch. To prove the same, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW9 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P.8

12. The ingredients of Section 380 of IPC reads as:

(a) A person commits theft.

(b) The theft is committed in any

(i) building

(ii) tent or,

(iii) vessel

VII ACMM

4 Judgment of CC No.555 of 2022

(c)The building, tent or vessel is:

(i)used as a human dwelling or,

(ii)used for the custody of property

13.On careful perusal of the record, it is found that PW3 who is the defacto complainant and the victim has categorically deposed that on 20.05.2021 in the early morning, while himself and his family members were inside the house and as his son who returned after offering prayers and found that one person was moving on the upstairs. Hence, they have opened the CC Camera Footage and found one person was moving on the upstairs and he was their neighbour, accused. He has also deposed that they have found one Iron Box, one Nokia Cell Phone and some other things were missing from their house. PW3 has further stated that he has lodged the complaint and handed over the CC Camera Footage to the police , as the police visited their house and took the said footage.

14.The version of PW3 is supported by the evidence of PW8, who has clearly stated that he has collected the CC footage from the CC Camera on 20.05.2021 and he has converted the said CC footage into DVD/MO2. PW8 has issued the certificate U/s.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and on playing the said DVD in the open Court hall, it was found that the accused was entering into the house of PW3 from the upstairs. As such, it is clear that the accused has definitely trespassed into the house of PW3.

15.Coming to the evidence of PW7, who is said to be one of the mediators while conducting the confession cum seizure panchanama has categorically deposed that on 20.12.2021 at 10:00 am, police has conducted the confession cum recovery panchanama of the accused in his presence wherein he confessed to have committed this offence and in pursuance of his confession, police seized one Iron Box pertaining to this case. The said Iron Box which is exhibited as MO1 is confronted with him

VII ACMM

5 Judgment of CC No.555 of 2022 and he has admitted it is the same Iron Box which was recovered in his presence from the possession of accused.

16.PW4 who is another mediator while conducting the confession cum recovery panchanama, has also categorically stated that the police sezied one Samsung Cell phone and cash of Rs.1000/- and one Iron Box/MO1. As such, from the evidence of PW4 and PW7 it can be concluded that the Iron

Box/MO1 which was committed theft from the house of PW3, as deposed by PW3 is recovered from the possession of the accused. PW3 has admitted that Iron Box/MO1 which was confronted to him belongs to them with regard to recovery of Samsung Cell Phone and Cash of Rs.1000/-,

PW5, the Inspector of Police has categorically stated that it pertains to the case property of Cr.No.414/2021 of PS Chatrinaka and the Iron Box pertains to this case.

17.PW6 who is one of the mediators while conducting the confession cum recovery panchanama by the police, Madannapet, has stated that the accused confessed to have committed this offence in his presence and that he further confessed that he has sold away the phone and watch which he has committed theft. Though the self incriminating statement/confession is not admissible in law but it can be derived that the phone and the watch which were committed theft by the accused was sold by him, as contended by PW6.

18.Coming to the scene of offence, while conducting the scene of offence panchanama has categorically stated that police has conducted the scene of offence panchanama in his presence at the house of PW3, which is situated opposite to his house and his house is situated at

Edibazar, Hyderabad, as per his deposition. As such, it can be stated that undoubtedly the prosecution could prove the scene of offence. The

VII ACMM

6 Judgment of CC No.555 of 2022

Investigation officers has done the investigation on proper lines as they ought to do it to prove the prosecution case.

19. Hence, in view of the above discussion it can be said that the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/s.380 of IPC.

As such, accused is convicted U/s.248 (2) of Cr.PC.

20.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence U/s.380 IPC and hence, convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to PA, transcribed by him and after its correction, pronounced by me in

open Court on this the 19 th day of May, 2022.

VII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

Q: Do you want to say anything about the quantum of sentence?

When the accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, accused submitted that he is having old aged parents who depends on his earnings. He further submitted that he has done the mistake and will change his attitude in future and prayed to take lenient view.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence,

I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to apply benevolent provisions under

Probationer of offenders Act. Hence, I am inclined to convict the accused.

Considering the submissions made by accused, I am inclined to take the lenient view, as such accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 Months and fine of Rs.100/- for the offence punishable u/Sec.380 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.

The remand period which was undergone by the accused from 31.12.2022 to till today i.e., 19-05-2022 shall be set off U/sec.428 Cr.P.C.

The accused is informed about his right to appeal against the judgment of this court before the Hon’ble Sessions Court.

VII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

VII ACMM

7 Judgment of CC No.555 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :-

PW1/LW3: Mohd. Abdul Ibrahim – Panch witness to the Crime Detail Form

PW2/LW6: M. Sudheer Kumar/PC - Assisted in apprehending the accused

PW3/LW1: Syed Fareeduddin - Complainant

PW4/LW5: M. Ashwin Kumar - Panch witness to the confession cum seizure panchanama PW5/LW9: Syed Abdul Khader Jilani, Inspector - Who arrested the accused in Cr.No.414/2021 of PS Chatrinaka PW6/LW11 : Shaik Dawood - Panch witness to the confession panchanama

PW7/LW4: P. Nagaraj - Panch witness to the confession cum seizure panchanama PW8/LW12 : V. Yadagiri /PC - who converted CCTV Footage into DVD

PW9/LW13 : T. Ravinder Reddy - Investigating Officer

For Defence :- -None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P1: is the Crime Detail Form, dt.20.05.2021

Ex.P2: is the rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P3: is the complaint, dt.20.05.2021

Ex.P4: is the confession cum recovery panchanama

Ex.P5: is the certified copy of the confession cum recovery panchanama

Ex.P6: is the confession panchanama

Ex.P7: is the certificate U/s.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act

Ex.P8: is the FIR, dt.20.05.2021

For Defence :- Nil

MOs MARKED:

MO1 is the Iron Box

MO2 is the DVD

VII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

VII ACMM

8 Judgment of CC No.555 of 2022

JUDGMENT AND CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

CC.No.555 of 2022

Complainant:The State of Telangana through Sub- Inspector of police of PS Madannapet. Accused:Mohd. Khader Moinuddin Ayub @ Ayub, S/o. Late Mohd. Ibrahim, U/sec. 380 of IPC

Date of offence Date of Report

Date of commencement of trial

Date of close of trial Date of Judgment19.05.2022 Finding:Found guilty Sentence/OrderIn the result: The accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.380 of IPC. Accordingly the accused convicted U/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C for the said offence.

VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

To

The Hon’ble I Addl. Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

VII ACMM

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Present: Smt. Naseem Sultana, B.A., L.L.M., VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

DATED THIS THE 19 th DAY OF MAY, 2022

CALENDER CASE No. 720/2016

Between:

The State represented by The Addl-Inspector of police, P.S. Moghalpura, Hyderabad.… Complainant

And

Mohammed Ismail Hussain @ Sajid S/o Mohammed Sadiq Hussain, Age 36 years, Occ: Quack Unani Practitioner, Hussaini Poly Clinic, Near Shama Talkies, Alinagar, Jahanuma, Hyderabad. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the A.P.P for the state and Sri.Mohd Muzafarullah Khan and his associates, counsels for the accused; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Accused is arraigned before this court for committing theft of motorcycle bearing no. AP-11AD-1085 of PW1 punishable u/sec. 379 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 3-11-2015 at about 11:30 PM, PW1 has parked his motorcycle bearing no. AP-11AD-1085 at Akber Chicken Center and on the next day morning at 10:00 AM he found that his motorcycle was missing. Then on 25- 11-2015 he lodged a complaint before the police to take necessary action against the offender.

2

Basing on the complaint lodged by PW1, PW5/ R.Yellappa, Addl-Inspector of Police, P.S. Moghalpura has registered a case in crime no. 195/2015 for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC by issuing FIR and during the course of investigation, PW5 has examined PW1 and recorded his statement, visited to scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators, PW2 and LW3/ Syed Javed. While investigation is in progress, PW5 received information that RGI Airport PS, Cyberabad apprehended the accused who confessed his guilt in this case also along with the offence in crime no.

10/2016 of P.S. Shalibanda and was arrested and sent for judicial remand in that case. Hence PW5 made requisition before Court to issue PT warrant and accordingly as per the orders of the court, on 7-12-2015 accused got regularized in this case and after completion of investigation, PW5 has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under sections 379 of IPC.

3.This case is taken on file for the offence u/sec. 379 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of relevant documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C, charges for the offence under section 379 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW5 are examined and Ex.P1 to P6 are marked. The evidence of LW3/Syed Javed and and LW4/Yasa Vikram Reddy is given up by the learned APP.

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined 3 u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied his culpability and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and perused record.

8.Now the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 379 of

IPC?

9. P O I N T :

The prosecution ought to prove that Accused has committed theft of two wheeler bearing no. AP-11AD-1085 of PW1. To prove the same, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to PW5 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

10.On careful perusal of the case record, it is found that PW1 has categorically deposed that on 3-11-2015 at about 11:30 PM he has parked his motorcycle bearing no. AP-11AD-1085 at Akber Chicken center and on the next day morning at 10:00 AM he has noticed that his motorcycle was missing and then he searched for the same, but could not traced out. He has lodged complaint on 25-11-2015. In his cross examination, on the questions put forth by the learned counsel for the accused, he has stated that he has lodged a complaint after delay of 23 days and that he has also admitted that he has not stated the reasons for the said delay in lodging the complaint. Moreover, PW1 has not stated anything incriminating against the accused as the offender who committed theft of his motorcycle. Hence his evidence is not helpful in proving the charges charged against the accused.

11.PW2 though stated with regard to the conducting of scene of offence 4 panchanama, but it does not incriminate the accused in this case.

12.PW3 is the material witness, who is said to be one of the mediators while conducting the confession cum recovery panchanama has stated that accused confessed to have committed this offence and he also confessed that he has committed theft of one bike in Moghalpura area and changed the number plate of the said two wheeler bike and affixed duplicate number plate vide No.AP-11Q- 2408 by removing the original number plate. Though the confession of the accused which is self incriminating, is not admissible in law, but PW3 has no where stated that what was the original registration number of the said vehicle to which the accused said to have put the duplicate number plate of AP-11Q-2408.

Moreover, he has no where in his chief examination stated about the recovery of the said motorcycle in his presence from the accused. As he has merely stated that after the confession of the accused, police recovered one plastic robe, bed sheet, key, deceased’s driving license, parking slip of bike of Kachiguda railway station.

Moreover, he has no where stated that from where exactly the above said properties were recovered, so as to prove the seizure as per the procedure laid down under Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act and more particularly he has no where stated about the recovery of property pertaining to the present case, i.e., motorcycle of PW1 bearing no. AP-11AD-1085. Hence his evidence is not helpful to incriminate the accused in this case.

13.PW4 who was the inspector of police at RGI, Shamshabad has deposed that on 24-11-2015, he has apprehended the accused and recorded his confession statement in the presence of the mediators, PW3 and LW4/ Yasa Vikram Reddy 5 and seized Hero Honda Passion motorcycle bearing no.AP-11AD-1085 pertaining to crime no. 195/2015 (i.e. in present case) for the offence u/sec. 379 of IPC of

P.S. Molghalpura. He has further stated that on the point of jurisdiction of offence pertaining to crime no. 346/2015 is at Shalibanda. Hence he transferred the case

CD file along with the seized property to P.S. Shalibanda. Though PW3 has stated that the accused has used the duplicate number plate bearing no. AP-11Q-2408, whereas PW4 has stated that he has seized the Hero Honda Passion bearing no.AP-11AD-1085. He has no where stated with regard to using of duplicate number plate by the accused. In his cross examination, PW4 has admitted that he has not collected any document to prove the ownership of the vehicle. Moreover, though he has stated that he has seized the said vehicle which pertains to crime no. 195 of 2015 of P.S. Moghalpura, but they have not handed over the said vehicle to P.S. Moghalpura and he has transferred the said vehicle along with case

CD file to P.S. Shalibanda. Even the investigating officer/ PW5 in this case has not made any efforts to deposit the said case property/ motorcycle bearing no.AP- 11AD-1085 before this court and to get it exhibited as material object (MO) through PW1, to confirm that it was the same vehicle which was being committed theft, to come to proper conclusion of the case.

14.The learned counsel for the accused relied upon a case law of our

Honourable High Court reported in Nedunuri Shravan Kumar Vs. The State of

Telangana in Crl.Appeal.No. 321 of 2020, dt.10th August, 2020, wherein it was held that “From a perusal of the evidence available on record, it is evident that there 6 is no direct evidence to connect the appellant/ A1 to the commission of offence as

PW2-complainant has stated that some unknown persons committed theft of his motor cycle. The entire case based on confession-cum-recovery panchanama, alleged to have been prepared by PW4 in the presnce of PW1 and one J.Vidhya

Sagar, A close scrutiny of the evidence of PW1, it is evident that the police interrogated the appellant/A1 and other accused and seized MO1 and other case property, from their possession, but he did not specifically state the designation of the police officer, who interrogated the accused and seized the property. PW4 the investigating officer, though in his evidence stated that he himself interrogated the accused, PW1-panch witness gave a different version in his cross-examination that the MRO called him to the place of confession panchanama. There is no corroboration to the evidence of PW1 as the prosecution failed to examine the other panch witnesses, to prove the recovery for the reasons best known to them.

The evidence of PW3 and PW4, who are the police officials, cannot be believed without proper corroboration by an independent witness.”

In the present case also there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW3, as the prosecution failed to examine the other panch witness, to prove the recovery.

The evidence of PW4 and PW5, who are the police officials cannot be believed without proper corroboration by an independent witness.

15.Furthermore, PW5 in his cross examination has admitted on the questions put forth by the learned counsel for the accused that he has not verified the chasis number of the said vehicle bearing registration number AP-11AD-1085 mentioned in the complaint with the vehicle seized by the RGI Airport P.S. and he has also 7 admitted that he has not collected any documents to show that who is the owner of the said vehicle. The prosecution in general and PW5 in particular has not made any efforts to connect this case to the accused by producing the above said vehicle

before this court nor PW5 filed any piece of document to prove who is the owner

of the said vehicle and it is also nowhere stated that how they came to conclusion that it was the vehicle having registration number AP-11AD-1085 as, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused was using it with the duplicate number plate i.e., AP-11Q-2408. Neither the chasis number nor the engine number of both the vehicles were either tallied, compared and it was not brought on record. AS such, it states about the lacuna in investigating the matter by the investigating officer.

16.Hence in view of the above discussion, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. Thus there is no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC and hence he is acquitted in terms of section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-II (of VIII ACMM Court), transcribed and typed

by her, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 19th day of May, 2022.

FAC VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1 : Shaik Ateeq Ahmed, Complainant. -Nil- 8

PW2 : M.A. Raheem, panch witness for scene of Offence panchanama. PW3 : Vaddaman Shyam Sunder, panch witness for Confession cum recovery panchanama PW4 : T.Sudhakar, Inspector of Police, P.S. RGI Airport Cyberabad. Apprehended the accused. PW5 : R.Yellappa, Deputy Inspector of Police, investigating officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 – Complaint, dt.25-11-2015 -Nil-

Ex.P2 – Photograph of the vehicle.

Ex.P3 – Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P4 – Rough sketch

Ex.P5 – Relevant portion of C.C. of confession

Cum seizure panchanama of accused.

Ex.P6 – FIR, dt.25-11-2015.

M.Os MARKED

-Nil-

FAC VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Page No. 1 Judgment of CC No.423 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt Naseem Sultana, VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 19 th day of May, 2022

CC.NO.423 OF 2019

Between :

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police PS, Saidabad

...Complainant

//AND//

A1. Mohd. Abdul Majeed, S/o. Mohd. Abdul Hameed, Age:47 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.16-1-14/1/A, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

A2. A. Kumaraiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Age:47 years, Occ: Mason, R/o. H.No.13-6-449/40, Heernagar Colony, Karwan, Hyderabad.

...A1 and A2

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Jyothi, APP for the prosecution and learned Counsels for the A1 and A2, Sri Abdul Muqeet and Syed Muneer and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

A1 and A2 are arraigned before this Court for causing death of the deceased / Shivarathri Komariah, due to their act of negligence as they have not taken any safety precautions while demolishing the house, punishable U/s.304-A of IPC.

VII ACMM

Page No. 2 Judgment of CC No.423 of 2019 2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased / Shivarathir

Komaraiah, used to go for labour work for eking his livelihood. On 29.10.2018, as usual the deceased went for the labour work of demolishing at H.No.16-1-14/1/A, Zakir Hussain Colony, Saidabad, so as to do the demolition work. On the same day, PW1 who is son-in-law of the deceased got a phone call at 2:30 pm, wherein it was informed that while the deceased/Komaraiah was demolishing the pillar at 2nd floor and at that time one pillar fell on him accidentally due to which he fell down on the ground. He was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment, wherein the duty doctor declared brought dead. Hence, PW1 has lodged a complaint at PS Saidabad, by requesting to take necessary action against the accused.

3.Basing on the complaint lodged by PW1 / O. Naveen / Complainant,

PW7 / C. Ramudu, SI of Police, PS Saidabad, Hyderabad, has registered a case in Cr.No.340/2018, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of

IPC, by issuing an FIR. He has examined and recorded the statement of witnesses, visited the scene of offence situated at Zakir Hussain Colony,

Hyderabad and there PW7 has conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of the mediators, PW3 and PW4. PW7 has also drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence.

4.On the same day, PW7 visited the Osmania General Hospital (OGH) and there, PW7 has conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased / Shivarathir Komaraiah, in the presence of the mediators, PW3 and PW4. PW7 referred the dead body to the Medical Officer for conducting

Post Mortem Examination (PME). On 31.10.2018, PW7 has apprehended A1 and A2 and served 41-A of Cr.P.C., Notice on them and then released. After collecting the PME Report issued by the Medical Officer/PW5. After

VII ACMM

Page No. 3 Judgment of CC No.423 of 2019 completion of investigation, PW7 has filed the chargesheet against A1 and

A2, for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of IPC.

5.This Court took cognizance for the offence U/s.304-A of IPC against the A1 and A2, case copies are furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C. A1 and A2 are examined U/s. 251 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of the charge for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In support of its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and got

Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 are marked on its behalf. PW1 is the complainant. PW2 is the wife of the deceased. PW3 and PW4 are panch witnesses to the Crime

Detail Form. PW5 is the Medical Officer, who conducted Post Mortem

Examination. PW6 is the daughter of the deceased. PW7 is the investigating officer. The evidence of LW4/Shivarathri Somakka/ Mother of deceased and LW5/O. Buchamma/Sister of deceased, are given up by learned APP.

7.After the closure of prosecution's evidence, the A1 and A2 are examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., to which they denied all the allegations leveled against them and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the A1 and

A2, for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

The Prosecution ought to prove that A1 was the owner of the house wherein the said accident has occurred and that A2/Mason is the person under whom the deceased / Shivarathri Komaraiah works and that due to negligent act of A1 and A2 such accident was occurred and the deceased

VII ACMM

Page No. 4 Judgment of CC No.423 of 2019 succumbed to injuries. To prove the same, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW7 and Ex.P14 to Ex.P16.

10.On careful perusal of the record, it is found that PW1 has deposed that about 3 years ago, as usual his father-in-law ie., deceased/Shivarathri

Komaraiah to attend the labour work in the morning hours under Mestri/A2.

On that day, the collapsing of the house walls was going on near

Chanchalguda Jail. PW1 do not know who is the owner of the said house.

while doing the labour work one wall collapsed and fell on the deceased/Shivaratri Komaraiah. At that time, PW1 was at his house. One

Venkanna who is his relative has called him and informed him about it.

Hence, himself and his wife / LW3 /Anusha went to the spot and found that the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital (OGH). AS such, they rushed to OGH and found that his father-in-law received injury on his back bone and that he succumbed to the injury. As such, it is clear that

PW1 has clearly stated that he do not know who was the owner of the said house/scene of offence wherein the wall collapse on the deceased due to which, the deceased received injuries and succumbed to injuries. Though he has stated in chief examination that the deceased worked under

Mastry/A2 , whereas in his cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused, he has stated that the deceased never worked under him. As such, PW1 and PW2 are giving two different views with regard to the working of the deceased under A2. As such, his evidence is not worthwhile.

11.PW2 who is the wife of the deceased and PW6 who is the daughter of the deceased also did not stated anything incriminating material against

A1 and A2. As they turned hostile and nothing trustworthy was elicited on their cross examination by the learned APP, to prove the prosecution case against the accused.

VII ACMM

Page No. 5 Judgment of CC No.423 of 2019

12.PW3 and PW4 are said to be the mediators while conducting the inquest panchanama and crime detail form. PW3 has stated with regard to the conducting of the inquest over the dead body of the deceased. But he turned hostile with regard to the preparing the crime detail form in his presence by the police. But it is an admitted fact that there is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased and about the conducting of the inquest panchanama, is proved by the versions of PW3 but it does not prove that due to whose negligence the said Komaraiah/deceased has died.

13.PW5 is the medical officer who conducted Post Mortem Examination (PME) over the dead bod of the deceased/Komaraiah and in his cross examination on a question put-forth by the learned counsel for the accused, he has admitted that there is possibility of receiving injuries as reflecting on the dead body of the deceased, due to road accident also. As such, PW5 could not state exactly the reason for his death, i.e., by falling of a pillar on the deceased, as contended by prosecution. As such, the evidence of PW5 is not helpful to prove the prosecution case against the accused.

14.As such, their remains the sole uncorroborated evidence of PW7 who is the investigating officer. Further, in his cross examination, he has admitted that he has not examined any neighbourers to the said scene of offence, to come to proper conclusion of the case with regard to ownership of the said house/scene of offence. Moreover, PW7 has not filed any piece of documentary evidence to show that A1 owned the scene of offence vide

House bearing No.H.No.16-1-14/1/A, situated at Saidabad. He has also not filed any documentary proof to show that the deceased worked under A2 and he met with an accident and received injuries while working under A2 and then succumbed to injuries.

VII ACMM

Page No. 6 Judgment of CC No.423 of 2019

15.Hence, in view of all the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the A1 and A2, for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.

16.In the result, the A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and hence, acquitted for the same charges under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to PA, transcribed by him and after its correction, pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 19 th of May, 2022.

VII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :-

PW1/LW1: O. Naveen – Complainant

PW2/LW2: Shivarathri Mangamma – Wife of the deceased

PW3/LW6: K. Mahesh – Panch witness to the Crime Detail Form

PW4/LW7: B. Tirupathi - Panch witness to the Crime Detail Form

PW5/LW8: Dr. Abhijit Subehdar - Medical Officer, who conducted PME and issued PME Report

PW6/LW3: O. Anusha - Daughter of the deceased

PW7/LW9: C. Ramudu – Investigating Officer

For Defence :- -None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P1: is the signature of PW1 reflecting on the complaint, dt.30.10.2018

Ex.P2: is the contents of the complaint

Ex.P3: is the 161 of Cr.P.C., statement of PW1

Ex.P4: is the 161 of Cr.P.C., statement of PW2

Ex.P5: is the signature of PW3 on the inquest panchanama

Ex.P6: is the inquest report

VII ACMM

Page No. 7 Judgment of CC No.423 of 2019

Ex.P7: is the signature of PW3 on the CDF

Ex.P8: is the signature of PW3 on the rough sketch

Ex.P9: is the signature of PW4 on the inquest panchanama

Ex.P10: is the signature of PW4 on the CDF

Ex.P11: is the signature of PW4 on the rough sketch

Ex.P12: is the Post Mortem Report

Ex.P13: is the 161 of Cr.P.C., statement of PW6

Ex.P14: is the FIR, dt.30.10.2018

Ex.P15: is the Crime Detail Form, dt.30.10.2018

Ex.P16: is the rough sketch of the scene of offence

For Defence :-Nil

MOs MARKED: Nil

VII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

VII ACMM

Page No. 8 Judgment of CC No.423 of 2019

JUDGMENT AND CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

C.C.No.423 of 2019

Complainant:The State of Telangana through Sub- Inspector of police of PS Saidabad.

Accused:A1. Mohd. Abdul Majeed, S/o. Mohd. Abdul Hameed,

A2. A. Kumaraiah S/o. Mallaiah

U/sec. 304-A of IPC

Date of offence29.10.2018 Date of Report30.10.2018

Date of commencement of trial 12.05.2022

Date of close of trial17.05.2022

Date of Judgment19.05.2021 Finding:Found not guilty Sentence/OrderIn the result: the A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A of IPC. Accordingly the A1 and A2 are acquitted U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.

VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

To

The Hon’ble I Addl. Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

VII ACMM

1 Judgment of CC No.485 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt Naseem Sultana, VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate FAC:VIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 19 th day of May, 2022

C.C.NO.485 OF 2017

Between :

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police PS M Reinbazar.

...Complainant

//AND//

J. Naresh, S/o. J. Narsing Rao, Age: 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.17-3B-644, East Chandra Nagar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad

...Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Kishan, APP for the prosecution and Sri. S.S.Rao, Counsel for the accused, and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

Accused is arraigned before this Court for voluntarily causing simple hurt to PW1 with a deadly weapon / MO1 to PW1 and also threatened him with dire consequences, punishable U/ss.324 and 506 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 03.09.2017 at 10:30 pm, accused has bet on the head of PW1 with a deadly weapon ie., stick and also threatened him with dire consequences. As such, PW1 has lodged a complaint on 04.09.2017 at 4:00 am at PS Reinbazar, by requesting to take necessary action against the accused.

VII ACMM

2 Judgment of CC No.485 of 2017

3.Basing on the complaint of PW1 / G. Giridhar / Complainant and

Victim, PW4 / G. Srinivas Reddy, SI of Police, PS Reinbazar, has registered a case in Cr.No.182 / 2017, for the offence punishable U/ss.324 and 506 of

IPC, by issuing an FIR. PW4 has referred PW1 to the Osmania General

Hospital (OGH), as he was injured. PW4 has examined and recorded the statement of witnesses, visited the scene of offence situated at

Chandranagar, Hyderabad and there conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of the mediators / PW2 and LW6/ Mohd.

Firdous and seized one stick / MO1. PW4 has also drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 04.09.2017, he has served 41-A Cr.P.C., Notice on accused and then released him on his executing personal bond. On 10.10.2017, PW4 after collecting the Medical Certificate issued by LW7/Dr.

V. Dhananjaya, he has filed the chargesheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.324 and 506 of IPC.

4.This Court took cognizance for the offence U/ss.324 and 506 of IPC against the accused. Case copies were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused is examined U/s. 239 of Cr.P.C.

Charges for the offence punishable U/ss.324 and 506 of IPC are framed, read over and explained to him, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and

Exs.P1 to Ex.P6 and MO1 are marked on its behalf. PW1 is the complainant and the victim. PW2 is the panch witness to the scene of offence panchanama. PW3 is the witness. PW4 is the investigating officer, who issued FIR and filed Chargesheet. The SI of Police, PS Reinbazar has filed a report through learned APP by submitting that summons are served on

LW3/G.Venu Prasad and LW4/G. Narsimha, but they have endorsed on

VII ACMM

3 Judgment of CC No.485 of 2017 summons that they cannot attend the Court due to their ill-health and requested to close their evidence. Hence, considering the same, the evidence of LW3 and LW4 is hereby closed. Again the SHO of PS Reinbazar has filed another report through learned APP by submitting that the whereabouts of LW6/Mohd. Firdous and LW7/Dr. V. Dhananjaya is not known. Considering the same, the evidence of LW6 and LW7 is hereby closed.

6.After the closure of prosecution's evidence, the accused is examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., to which he denied all the allegations leveled against him and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused, for the offence punishable U/ss.324 and 506 of IPC,

beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.The prosecution ought to prove that the accused has bet PW1 with deadly weapon stick/MO1 on his head and caused injury and also threatened him with dire consequences. To prove the same, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 and Exs.P1,

Ex.P3 to P6 and MO1.

10.On careful perusal of the record, it is found that, PW1 who is the defacto complainant and the victim has categorically stated that on 04.09.2017, there was a 'Utti' programme on the eve of 'Vinayaka

Chawathi' in the Ganesh Pandal which was situated near to his house and the same was started at 10:00 pm and he went there by 10:30 pm, to watch the said programme, in the meantime, the accused came there and asked him that why he was sitting there and by saying so he bet him with a stick on his head. PW1 has categorically stated that it was witnessed by

VII ACMM

4 Judgment of CC No.485 of 2017

PW3 and other persons.

11.PW3 who is the material eye-witness has deposed that on 03.09.2017 at 10:00 pm, while himself along with his daughter were at the

Ganesh Pandal near their house, in the meantime, PW1 also came there for watching 'Utti' programme and that the accused suddenly came to them and bet PW1 with a stick on his head by stating that why he has come there. As such, it can be seen that PW1 has stated the said incident occurred on 04.09.2017 at 10:30 pm. Whereas PW3 has stated that it occurred on 3.9.2017 at 10:00 pm. Moreover, PW1 has stated that the accused came there and told him that why he was sitting there and by saying so he bet him. Whereas PW3 has stated that the accused came there suddenly and bet PW1 by saying that why he has come there.

12.Moreover, PW1 in his cross examination has stated that there were about 200 persons present at the scene of offence at the time of the said incident. Whereas PW3 has stated that there were about 40 to 50 persons present at the scene of offence at the time of the said incident. As such, the versions of PW1 and PW3 who are the material witnesses is inconsistent and not corroborating with each other. As such, their evidence is not inspiring the confidence of the prosecution to prove the prosecution case against the accused.

13.Further, PW2, who is said to be one of the mediators while conducting the scene of offence panchanama did not supported the prosecution case and nothing trustworthy was elicited by the learned APP, after obtaining permission from the Court. As such PW2, who is the sole independent witness in this case has not supported the version of PW1.

Moreover, both PW1 and PW3 has stated that there were independent witnesses, who has witnessed the said incident. Whereas PW4 who is the investigating officer has not made the efforts to examine them as

VII ACMM

5 Judgment of CC No.485 of 2017 witnesses to come to proper conclusion of the case.

14.Moreover, PW4 has stated that the said incident took place on 31.9.2017 at 10:30 pm. Whereas the complaint was lodged on 04.09.2017 at 4:00 am and further it is admitted by PW4 that the distance from the scene of offence to the PS Reinbazar is about 1 to 2 Kms. In such circumstances, the prosecution in general and PW1 in specific has not stated about the delay of about five hours in lodging the complaint at PS.

15.Though PW1 has stated that he has lodged the complaint after returning from the hospital. whereas PW3 has stated that after the complaint was lodged by PW1, police referred him to the hospital. PW4 who is the investigating officer has stated that after receiving the complaint on 04.09.2017 at 4:00 am, he has referred PW1 to the Osmania

General Hospital (OGH). As such, there are different versions with regard to the lodging of the complaint. Even if for a moment if the version of PW4, investigating officer is believed then the PW1 has lodged the complaint on 04.09.2017 at 4:00 am, definitely there is a delay of about five hours in lodging the complaint and neither prosecution in general nor PW1 in specific has stated the reason for the said delay in lodging the complaint.

whereas as per the decided law if a complaint is lodged with a delay and if no reason is attributed for the same, then the same is fatal to the case.

16. Though it is contended by both PW1 and PW3 that there were two police personnel present at the said programme and they have only took

PW1 to the police station but it is nowhere explained by prosecution that when the said incident took place what were the steps taken by the said police personnel. Further PW4, the investigating officer has also not made the efforts to examine the above said two police personnel as prosecution witnesses, to come to proper conclusion of the case.

VII ACMM

6 Judgment of CC No.485 of 2017

17. Hence, in view of all the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/ss.324 and 506 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/ss.324 and 506 of IPC and hence, acquitted for the same charges under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be destroyed after apeal time is over.

Dictated to PA (VII ACMM), transcribed by him and after its correction,

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19 th day of May, 2022.

FAC: VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :-

PW1/LW1: G. Giridhar – Complainant and Victim

PW2/LW5: Ali Bin Awad – Panch witness to the scene of offence observation cum seizure panchanama

PW3/LW2: G. Sai Prasad – Witness

PW4/LW8: G. Srinivas Reddy/SI - Investigating Officer

For Defence :- -None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P1: is the complaint, dt.04.09.2017

Ex.P2: is the signature of PW2 on the Crime Detail Form, dt.4.9.2017

VII ACMM

7 Judgment of CC No.485 of 2017

Ex.P3: is the FIR, dt.04.09.2017

Ex.P4 : is the Crime Detail Form, 04.09.2017

Ex.P5 : is the rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P6: is the Medical Certificate, dt.03.09.2017

For Defence :-

Ex.D1: is the part of 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW3, dt.4.9.2017

MOs MARKED:

MO1 is the crime stick

FAC: VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

VII ACMM

8 Judgment of CC No.485 of 2017

JUDGMENT AND CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

CC.No.485 of 2017

Complainant:The State of Telangana through Sub- Inspector of police of P.S., Reinbazar. Accused:J. Naresh, S/o. J. Narsing Rao, Age: 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.17-3B-644, East Chandra Nagar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad U/sec. 324 and 506 of IPC

Date of offence03.09.2017 Date of Report04.09.2017

Date of commencement of trial 01-01-2022

Date of close of trial17.05.2022 Date of Judgment19.05.2022 Finding:Found not guilty Sentence/OrderIn the result: The accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.324 and 506 of IPC. Accordingly the accused is acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

To

The Hon’ble I Addl. Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

VII ACMM