Ms.Nishad Naaz Shaik

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Chirala

Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka) · Prakasham · Andhra Pradesh

Ms.Nishad Naaz Shaik, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Chirala, is posted at Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka), Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh, India. 10,216 court orders on record since 2022. 30 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, PRC cases.

10,216

Total Orders

Judgments

324

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/71/2017 Acquitted

Sub Inspector of Police, Vetaplalem P.S. vs Shaik Vasim Nurani

25 Apr 2025

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF I CLASS - CUM - ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

Present: Nishad Naaz Shaik

Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chirala.

Friday, this the 25th day of April, 2025.

C.C.No.71 of 2017

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Vetapalem Police Station. …Complainant

And

Shaik Vasim Nurani, S/o.Abdul Salam, aged 19 years, Muslim, Chinnaganjam Village and Mandal now at Sujathanagar, Ongole. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 23.04.2025 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State- complainant and Sri. B.Amruth Kumar learned counsel for accused upon perusal of record and hearing both learned counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vetapalem Police Station, has filed charge sheet in Cr. No.16/2017 for the offence under Section 380 IPC or 411 IPC against the accused.

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

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

a) The L.W.1/Kommu Vinay Kumar and L.W.2/Mediconda Vinay were residents of Amodagiripatnam village of Desiapeta Panchayath, Vetapalem

Mandal. L.W.1 is living by doing job as a computer lecturer in Chirala

Engineering College, Chirala. L.W.2 is living by coolie works. L.W.1 has

Dell Laptop worth of Rs.40,000/-, L.W.2 had Red MI CE 1317 cell phone worth of Rs.6,999/-. On night of 09.02.2017 at about 22.00 hours L.W.1 kept his laptop on chain in bed room of his house, similarly L.w.2 kept charge to his cell phone in his house and both slept their houses, after closed doors without latches. Next day i.e.,10.02.2017 at about 06.00 hours L.w.1 found his Dell laptop and L.W.2 also found his cell phone were disappear. Then L.W.1 asked his parents i.e., L.W.3 & 4 viz.,Kommu

Nageswara Rao and Kommu Prameela about his laptop. L.w.2 asked his mother i.e., L.W.5 – Medikonda Padma and informed the same to L.W.6 –

Konakonda Durga Prasad, but got no clues. Later they caused enquiries about their stolen property in that vicinity, but got no clues. Later they decided that some unknown offenders committed their of their laptop, cell phone all worth Rs. 46,999/- from their houses and decamped with the booty.

b) During the course of investigation the L.W.9 – Shaik Masthan

Saharief, Sub Inspector of police visited the scene of offence and 3

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala examined L.W.1 to 6 and recorded their detailed 161(3) Cr.P.C statements and also prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence.

c)During the course of further investigation on 13.02.2017 at Chirala

Railway station premises in the presence of mediators L.W.7 & L.W.8 viz.,Jagnanadam Visakaha Rao and Mekala Suguna Rao seized stolen property under cover of mediatornama duly attested by L.W.7 & 8 and sent for judicial remand. On 14.02.2017 at Grama Panchayat Officer of

Vetapalem L.W.7 & 8 conducted Property Identification Parade by L.W.1 & 2 separately in which L.W.1 & 2 identified their recovered properties, under a cover of mediator’s report. After completion of investigation L.W.9 - Shaik Masthan Saharief Sub Inspector of police Vetapalem P.S filed charge sheet against the accused U/sec.380 or 411 IPC according to law.

03. This case was taken on file under Section 380 or 411 of IPC against the accused.

04. On appearance of accused case copies furnished under Sec.207

Cr.P.C.

05. Accused is examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C read over and explained the accusation in Telugu for the offences under Section 380 or 411 of IPC 4

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala against accused, after framing charge under Sec.240 Cr.P.C, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. During the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to P.W.6 and Exs.P1 to P16 viz.,Ex.P1 is the report of P.W.1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the signatures on Scene observation report of P.W.4, Ex.P4 is his signature on Arrest and seizure mediatornama of P.W.4, Ex.P5 is his signature on

Property Identification Parade of P.W.4 and Ex.P6 is signature on property identification Parade of P.W.4 and Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 are the signatures on

Scene observation report of P.W.5, Ex.P9 is his signature on Arrest and seizure mediatornama of P.W.5, Ex.P10 is his signature on Property

Identification Parade of P.W.5 and Ex.P11 is signature on property identification Parade of P.W.5 and Ex.P12 is the F.I.R. and Ex.P13 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence dt:12.02.2017 at the house of P.W.1,

Ex.P14 is the scene observation report at the house of P.W.1, P.W.15 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence dt:12.02.2017 at the house of P.W.2,

Ex.P16 is the scene observation report at the house of P.W.2, Ex.P17 is the seizure and arrest mediatornama, Ex.P18 is the Test Identification of property of M.O.1 of P.W.1, Ex.P19 is the Test Identification of Property of

M.O.2 of P.W.2. The Learned APP has given up the evidence of L.Ws.5 and

L.W.6 and the evidence of L.W.3 is closed as died. After due verification of

Death Certificate filed by prosecution.

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

07. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, Accused is examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, read over and explained the incriminating material appearing against them in Telugu for which he denied and stated no defence witnesses.

08. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

09. For better appreciation of evidence I would like to reiterate the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6 on material aspects.

(i) P.W.1/Kommu Vinay Kumar deposed that as he is working as

Software Engineer in Dhanush Infotech at Hyderabad. Now he is doing work from home and residing at Amodagiripatnam. On 09.02.2017 at about 10.00 p.m. after completion of his work he slept by putting aside his laptop. After he wokeup he found his DELL Company Laptop worth of

Rs.40,000/- was missing. He searched his house and he asked his neighbours. Then he went to police station to give complaint. Where he came to know one Medikonda Vinay also theft his mobile phone he gave report to police Ex.P1 is the report. He received his Dell Company Laptop from court vide Crl.Mp. No.613/2017. M.O.1 is the Dell Company Laptop.

In his cross-examination he admitted that he do not remember whether she stated before the police that he came to know in Police station that one Medikonda Vinay also lost his mobile phone. On his narration Ex.P1 6

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala was scribed by police. He lost his computer on 09.02.2017 and gave report on 10.02.2017. he further admitted that he did not give any bill or receipt related to M.O.1 and not even stated the Model number of M.O.1.

He further admitted that after one week police informed him to come to police station and identified the laptop. He further admitted that he do not remember whether L.W.2 also came to police station on that day. He further denied that he laptop was not thefted and he lost his laptop in

Train and gave false case as some one thefted his laptop.

(ii)P.W.2/Medikonda Vinay is the Junior Assistant in Panchayat Raj.

Dept. On 09.02.2017 at about 05.00 a.m. he noticed that his Redmi – 3S mobile Phone was thefted from home when it was kept for charging. He searched in his house, but in vain. He enquired his neighbours and came to know that P.W.1 also lost his laptop on the same day. Then himself and

P.W.1 went to Vetapalem P.S., P.W.1 gave a report. He received mobile phone from court vide Crl.Mp.No.612/2017, Police examined him. M.O.2 is

Redmi -3S Mobile Phone.

In his cross-examination he admitted that the distance between his house and the house of P.W.1 is 1km. He further admitted that he did not state before the police in his statement about IME number and SIM card numbers of his mobile phone. He further admitted that he met P.W.1 in 7

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala the police station itself. He further admitted that police informed him to collect his mobile phone from court.

(iii)P.W.3/K.Prameela who is the mother of P.W.1 deposed more or less P.W.1. in her cross-examination she admitted that she along with her son went to police station.

(iv)P.W.4/ Jagannadham Visakha Rao living by doing Electrician deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of this case. In his presence nothing was happened in this case. On request he put is signatures on some papers in P.S. Ex.P2 is the Signature on Scene observation report, dt:12.02.2017 at 10.00 a.m, Ex.P3 is his signature on scene observation report, dt:12.02.2017 at 11.30 a.m, Ex.P4 is his signature on Arrest and seizure mediatornama, Ex.P5 is his signature on property identification parade dt:14.02.2017 and Ex.P6 is his signature on

Property identification parade, Dt:14.02.2017 at about 12.30 p.m. in his cross-examination he denied that in his presence police conducted property identification parades and drafted scene observation reports various dates and items also prepared arrest and seizure mediatornama.

(v)P.W.5/Mekala Suguna Rao living by doing Pastor deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of this case. In his presence nothing was happened in this case. On request he put is signatures on 8

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala some papers in P.S. Ex.P7 is the Signature on Scene observation report

dt:12.02.2017 at 10.00 a.m., Ex.P8 is his signature on scene observation

report dt:12.02.2017 at 11.30 a.m., Ex.P9 is his signature on arrest and seizure mediatornama, Ex.P10 is his signature on property identification parade dt:14.02.2017 and Ex.P11 is his signature on Property identification parade dt:14.02.2017 at 12.30 a.m. in his cross-examination he denied the suggestions posed by the prosecution that in his presence police conducted property identification parades and drafted scene observation reports various dates and items also prepared arrest and seizure mediatornama.

(v)P.W.5 – Shaik Masthan Sharif, Sub-Inspector of Police he deposed that on 12.02.2017 at about 9.00 hours. P.W.1/Kommu Vinay

Kumar came to police station and lodged a report. Basing on that he registered the case in Cr.No.16/2017 for the offence U/sec.380 IPC.

Ex.P12 is the F.I.R. copies submitted to all the officers concerned. He examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Then he went to scene of offence situated at Amodagiripatnam village along with P.W.1 & 2 and drew rough sketches of the scene of offence and prepared scene observation report. Ex.P13 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence

dt:12.02.2017 at the house of P.w.1, Ex.P14 is the Scene observation

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala report of the house of P.W.1. Then he secured P.W.3 and L.W.3 and recorded their statements and went to the scene of offence i.e., the house of P.W2 of Amodagiripatnam there he drew rough sketch of the scene of offence and prepared Scene observation report. Ex.p15 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence dt:12.02.2017 at the house of P.W.2. Ex.P 16 is the Scene observation report at the house of P.w.2. there he secured

L.W.5 & 6 and recorded their statements. On 13.02.2017 at about 18.45 hours on credible information where about the accused then he secured mediators P.w.4 & 5. Then he along with mediators and staff and reached

Railway station, Chirala there he caught hold of the accused on suspicious manner. On enquiry the accused shown the case property M.O.1 and

M.O.2 and seized the property from the possession of the accused under cover of mediatornama. Ex.p17 is the seizure and arrest mediatornama and arrested the accused. On 14.02.2017 he conducted test identification of property of M.O.1 in the presence of mediators P.W.4 & 5. Ex.P18 is the test identification of property of M.O.1 of P.W.1. Ex.P19 is the Test identification of property of M.O.2 of P.W.2. After completion of investigation he laid charge sheet against the accused.

In his cross-examination he admitted that written report submitted by P.W.1 and P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not mention the EMI number, Receipts,

SIM Card numbers, Serial number and bills of M.O.1 & 2. He further 10

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala denied that P.W.1 & P.W.2 are residing side by side houses. He further denied that nothing was seized from the possession of the accused.

10.The learned APP submitted her arguments, that the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.w.6 and Ex.P1 to P19 got marked. Even though the

P.W.4 & P.W.5 did not supported the version of prosecution the evidence of

P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.6 is enough to prove that the accused committed the offence u/sec.380 or 411 IPC and he is liable for punishment and prays to punish the accused according to law.

11. The learned counsel for the accused submitted his arguments that this is a false case foisted by the police officials against the accused only for the statistical purpose and also submitted that the version of prosecution is P.W.6 arrested the accused and seized M.O.1 and M.O.2 from the possession of accused in the presence of individual mediators i.e.,P.W.4 and P.W.5. But P.W.4 and P.W.5 admitted in thier cross- examination that they do not know anything about the case and police obtained their signature in Ex.P2 to Ex.P11 and they do not know its contents. According to sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act, the confession given by the accused before police officer cannot be taken as an offence proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for acquitted and prays to acquit the accused.

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

12. The point that germane for determination is:

a) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the ownership or possession of PW.1 over MO.1 & M.O.2 beyond all reasonable doubts?

b) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the offence U/Sec. 380 of IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts? or

c) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the offence U/Sec. 411 of IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT NO.1:- To prove the ownership of MO.1 & M.O.2 the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.6 where PW.1 who is the Soft Ware

Engineer explained about the circumstances as to the theft of MO.1 and

P.W.2 who is the Junior Assistant in Panchayath Raj Department he also explained about the circumstances as to the theft of M.O.2. P.W.3 who is the mother of P.W.1 corroborated the same with P.W.1. The evidence of

PW.1 to P.W.3 corroborated with each other about the committed theft of

M.O.1/Dell Company Laptop and M.O.2/Redmi -3S Mobile Phone were committed theft by some unknown offenders. P.W.6 who is Investigative

Officer also corroborated the same, as P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to Vetapalem

P.S. and lodged a report. Ex.P1 is the report. In their cross-examination nothing was elicited by defence counsel as to the ownership of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 over M.O.1 and M.O.2 and there is no rival claimant for M.O.1 and

M.O.2, as it does not belongs to P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is safely concluded 12

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala that prosecution has proved the ownership of P.W.1 and P.W.2 over M.O.1 and M.O.2. According the point is answered infavour of prosecution.

POINT NO.2: To prove the offence u/Sec.380 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:

Sec.380 of IPC:- Theft in dwelling house, etc. – whoever

commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building,

tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the

custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to seven year,

and shall also be liable to fine.

To prove the same, the prosecution got examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked Ex.P1 to P19 and M.O.1 & M.O.2 got marked where is P.W.1 to P.W.3 deposed that some unknown offenders are committed theft and decamped booty. As per the version of prosecution P.W.4 & P.W.5 are the mediator in whose presence case property seized from the possession of accused and arrested the accused. But they did not supported the version of the prosecution and admitted that they put signatures on some papers in police station. P.W.6 who is Investigative Officer of this case stated that accused confessed his crime in front of P.W.4 & P.W.5 and shown the case property and the said property seized from the possession of accused. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 it is clear and 13

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala admitted fact that some unknown persons committed theft in their houses. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, there is nothing on record to prove that the accused committed theft in

P.W.1 & P.W.2 houses . The confession given by the accused to the police officials is hit U/sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act and it cannot be taken as an offence proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, point is answered in favour of Accused.

POINT NO.3: To prove the offence under Sec. 411 of IPC the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients held in

Trimbak Vs. State AIR 1954 SC 39 :

Certain property was stolen; i.Such property was in the possession of the accused; ii. Such property was in possession of some other person before the accused got possession of the same; iii. Accused possessed the property with the knowledge that it was stolen property; The accused got possession of the property dishonestly.

To establish the same, the prosecution got relied on the evidence of

PW.6 who is the investigative officer P.W.6 deposed that he seized the

M.O.1 from the possession of accused in the presence of P.W.4 and P.W.5.

P.W.4 and P.W.5 did not supported the version of prosecution. From the 14

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala above circumstances it is clear that prosecution failed to prove that the said property M.O.1- Dell Company and M.O.2 – Redmi – 3S Mobile Phone are seized from the possession of Accused. Section 25 of Indian Evidence act also clearly explained that the confession given by the accused before police officer, cannot be taken as an offence proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly point answered in favour of Accused.

13.In view of the foregoing discussion, this court feels that the prosecution has filed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges framed u/sec.380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code.

14. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec. 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly he is acquitted under

Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 and M.O.2 given to the P.W.1 and P.W.2 for interim custody as per orders under Crl.Mp. No.613/2017 Dt:107.02.2017 and Crl.Mp. No.612/2017

Dt:17.02.2017 shall hold good after completion of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 25 th day of April, 2025

Sd/-Nishad Naaz Shaik

Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chirala.

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW.1: Kommu Vinay Kumar NONE PW.2: Medikonda Vinay PW.3: K.Prameela PW.4: Jagannadham Visakha Rao PW.5: Mekala Suguan Rao PW.6: Shaik Masthan Sharif

// DOCUMENTS MARKED //

FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P1 : Report of P.W.1 Ex.P2 : Signature on Scene observation report dt:12.02.2017 at 10.00 a.m.P.W.4 Ex.P3 : Signature on Scene observation report dt: 12.02.2017 at 11.30a.m.P.W.4 Ex.P4 : Signature on Arrest and seizure mediatornama P.W.4 Ex.P5 : Signature on property identification Parade dt:14.02.2017, at 11.30 a.m. P.W.4 Ex.P6 : Signature on property identification Parade dt:14.02.2017 at 12.30 p.m. P.W.4 Ex.P7 : Signature on Scene observation report dt:12.02.2017 at 10.00 a.m.P.W.5 Ex.P8 : Signature on Scene observation report dt: 12.02.2017 at 11.30 a.m. P.W.5 Ex.P9 : Signature on Arrest and seizure mediatornama P.W.5 Ex.P10 : Signature on property identification Parade dt:14.02.2017 at 11.30 a.m. of P.W.5 Ex.P11 : Signature on property identification Parade dt:14.02.2017 at 12.30 p.m. of P.W.5 Ex.P12 : The F.I.R on Cr.No.16/2017 Ex.P13 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence dt:12.02.2017 at the house of P.W.1 Ex.P14 : Scene observation report of the house of P.W.1 Ex.P15 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence dt:12.02.2017 at the house of P.W.2 Ex.P16 : Scene observation report at the house of P.W.2. Ex.P17 : Seizure and Arrest mediatornama 16

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

Ex.P18 : Test Identification of Property of M.O.1 of P.W.1 Ex.P19 : Test identification of property of M.O.2 of P.W.2

FOR DEFENCE:- --None--

// MATERIAL OBJECTS //

MO.1 : The Dell Company Laptop MO.2 : Redmi – 3S Mobile Phone

Sd/-Nishad Naaz Shaik

A.J.C.J-cum- A.J.F.C.M, Chirala.

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-Cum-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: CHIRALA

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.17 of 2017

Date of offence prior to :10.02.2017 Date of report: 12.02.2017 Date of apprehension of accused: 13.02.2017 Date of release of accused: 28.02.2017 Date of commencement of trial: 06.12.2023 Date of closure of trial: 21.04.2025 Date of Judgment: 25.04.2025

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Vetapalem Police Station. …Complainant

And

Shaik Vasim Nurani, S/o.Abdul Salam, aged 19 years, Muslim, Chinnaganjam Village and Mandal now at Sujathanagar, Ongole. … Accused

Offence: u/Sec. 380 or 411 of IPC, Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 380 or 411 of IPC,and he is acquitted under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The seized property under CPR.No.25/2017 of M.O.1/Dell Company Laptop and M.O.2/Redmi - 18

C.C.71 of 2017 A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala 3S mobile phone which was given to the defacto complainant for interim custody as per orders under Crl.Mp.613/2017 Dt:17.02.2017, and

Crl.Mp.612/2017 Dt:17.02.2017, shall holds good after expiring of appeal

time.

Explanation for delay:-

This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence u/Sec. 380 or 411 of IPC. On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents were furnished u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C read over and explained the accusation in

Telugu for the offences u/Sec.380 or 411 of IPC, after framing charges under Sec.240 Cr.P.C, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial was commenced on 28.05.2024 and concluded on 21.04.2025 during trial PWs.1 to P.W.6 were examined as Exs.P1 to P19 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 got marked and this court closed the evidence of

L.W.5 and L.W.6 and closed the evidence of L.W.3 as he died. On 23.04.2025 accused examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence found against him for which he denied the same and reported no defence. Arguments heard on both the sides. On 25.04.2025 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/-Nishad Naaz Shaik

Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.