Smt P.Chaitanya

1 C.C.No.317/2020 dt.08.06.2020

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: KAVALI

Monday, the Eighth (08 th ) day of June, 2020.

Present: - Smt. P.Chaitanya, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kavali

Calendar Case No.317/2020

State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bitragunta Police Station (Cr.No.215/2018) … Complainant

-Versus-

1.Gurramkonda Rajesh S/o. Subba Rao, Hindu, Aged about 36 years, Church Street, Bogolu Village, 2.Samudrala Kranthi S/o. Nagaraju, Hindu, Aged about 33 years, Allimadugu Sangam Village, Bogolu Mandal, … Accused (Case against A1 was split up from CC 391/2019 and renumbered as CC No.317/2020)

This case coming before me on 08.06.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri Sk.Rahiman Saheb, counsel for the accused/A1 and upon hearing on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bitragunta Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.215/2018 for the offences

U/Sec.457,356 and 379 or 411 of IPC.

2) The prosecution case in compact and concise manner as emerged from the charge sheet as follows: In the intervening night of 16/17.11.2018, while Pws.1 and 2 were sleeping in the varanda of their house, two unknown persons gained 2 C.C.No.317/2020 dt.08.06.2020 entry by scaling over the wall and tried to snatch a gold chain from the neck of PW.1 forcibly but she woke up and caught hold her chain, as such a portion of gold chain was went into the hands of said offenders and she raised cry by then Pw.2 woke up and tried to catch said offenders but they were fled away on motorbike, for that PW.1 gave a report, basing on that PW.8 registered a case in Cr.No.215/2018 for the offences Under Secs.457, 356, 379 of IPC was registered and investigated. During investigation, on 02.02.2019, in the presence of

Pws.3 and 4, PW.8 recovered cash of Rs.1000/- from possession of A1 and effected arrest of A1 under mahzarnama, during investigation, PW.7 effected arrest of A2 on 19.08.2019 in the presence of mediators PW.s5 and 6 and recovered cash of Rs.500/- under mahazarnama. On completion of investigation, PW.8 laid charge sheet against the accused.

3) This case was taken cognizance for the offence under Sec.457, 356, 379 or 411 of IPC against accused.

4) On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5)The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Accused denied the allegations. Charge U/Sec. 457, 356, 379 or 411 of IPC against accused has been framed against accused, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language under Sec.240 (2) of

Cr.P.C., for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-9. The evidence of L.Ws.2 and 4 namely Mekala Kaleb and Mekala Samadanam was given up by learned Assistant Public prosecutor.

3 C.C.No.317/2020 dt.08.06.2020

7) After closure of the prosecution side evidence, A1 was remained absent, as such case against A1 was spilt-up from CC No.391/2019 and renumbered as CC No.317/2020 and proceed against A2 as he was in jail and delivered judgment against A2, ended with acquittal. Now accused/A1 produced before this court and hence the court explained the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused/A1 totally denied the same. When the accused/A1 called upon to enter into the defence evidence, accused/A1 did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

8) Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused.

9) Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

accused/A1 for trespass into the house of Pw.1 and committed

theft of piece of gold chain from her neck during night hours or

recovery of Rs.500/- from possession of A2?

10)POINT:

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied on evidence of Pws.1 to 8 and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9.

11)Pw.1 deposed that in the intervening night of 16/17.11.2018, while herself and PW.2 were sleeping in the varanda of their house, two unknown persons gained entry by scaling over the wall and tried to snatch a gold chain from her neck forcibly but she woke up and caught hold her chain, as such a portion of gold chain was went into the hands of said offenders and she raised cry by then Pw.2 woke up and tried to catch said offenders but they were fled away on motorbike, for that she gave a report. She further stated that she could not able to identify said two persons as they focused torch of on her eyes while leaving.

4 C.C.No.317/2020 dt.08.06.2020

12) PW.2 also deposed in similar lines of PW.1. PW.1 stated about receiving Rs.1500/- /Mo.1 from the Court which was said to be sale proceeds of piece of chain of PW.1 recovered from A1 and A2.

13)Pw.8 deposed about receiving Ex.P1 from Pw.1 basing on that he registered FIR under Ex.P7 and investigated into. Accordingly, he went to Someswara puram village, drafted rough sketch/Ex.P8 thereafter he examined Lws.3 and 4 and recorded their statements. On 02.02.2019 at about 1.30 p.m., on information, he secured Pws.3 and 4 and it

Thaluka Office, Bogolu caught hold A1 and seized cash of Rs.1000/- on confession before mediators under Ex.P9.

14)PW.7 deposed about securing mediators Pws.5 and 6 near

Kovurupalli ST Colony, caught hold A2 and seized cash of Rs.500/- and effected arrest of A2 on his confession.

15) P.Ws.3 to 6 who were cropped up as witnesses from arrest and seizure Mahazarnama of A1 and A2, deposed in one voice that at about ten months back, at request of police, they signed on some written papers without knowing the contents and accused were never arrested in their presence and nothing was seized from the accused in their presence as such their signatures on arrest and seizure mahazarnama were marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 but nothing was elicited from their mouth by the prosecution.

16)Since the mediators were not supported the version of P.W.7 and Pw.8 about their association with them and recovery of Mo.1 from the possession of accused and arrest under Ex.P6 and Ex.P9. Since the

Arrest Mahazarnamas execution was doubtful as Mahazar witnesses not supported the case of prosecution. Even P.W.7 and PW.8 did not secure any independent witnesses at the locality of arrest of accused.

5 C.C.No.317/2020 dt.08.06.2020

However, the mediators secured by them at their wish was also not supported their version. Therefore, it creates a doubt about recovery of

MO.1 from the possession of the accused. Therefore, the prosecution case as stated by P.Ws.7 and 8 is not supported by their own witnesses.

Moreover, there is no evidence on record to connect the accuse with the crime, except their confession under Ex.P6 and Ex.P9, which is not supported by mediators in whose presence the confession was made.

Therefore, as per Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act, the confession of A1 and A2 is in admissible and even their confession not leads to recovery of MO.1. Moreover, PW.1 lost her piece of chain whereas it was recovered from A1 and A2 was only cash of Rs.1500/- and there is no investigation on the part of Pws.7 and 8 for conversion of gold into cash, where it was sold or with whom it was pledge etc., In absence of said things, the investigation of Pws.7 and 8 cannot be considered as proper regarding recovery of Mo.1 from the possession of the accused.

17) As regards, the prosecution failed to prove its case that, the accused person had committed theft of a piece of gold chain from the neck of the PW.1 while she was sleeping in her house premises or re- tains the same with the knowledge that it was of stolen property by accused.

18) In the result, the accused/A1 is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.457, 356, 379 or 411 of IPC. Accordingly accused/A1 is acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence under Sections 457,

356, 379 or 411 of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 is shall

stand cancelled after lapse of six months. The Mo.1 given to PW.1 under acknowledgment shall made absolute after appeal time. This court 6 C.C.No.317/2020 dt.08.06.2020 delivered the judgment against A2 in Original CC No.391/2019 dt.22.05.2020, which was ended with acquittal.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 08th day of June, 2020.

Sd/-P.Chaitanya,

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Kavali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: - For Defence:-

Pw.1:Ch.Vijaya -None- Pw.2:Ch.Sekhar Pw.3:B.Balaraju Pw.4:B.Suresh PW.5M.Mohan Rao Pw.6: K.Bhanuchandra PW.7:B.Bharth Kumar, the then S.I of police,Bitragunta police station PW.8:B.Nagabhushanam, the then S.I of police,Bitragunta police station

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P-1:Report of P.W.1 Ex.P-2:Signature of PW.3 on arrest mahazarnama of A1 dt.02.02.19 Ex.P-3:Signature of PW.4 on arrest mahazarnama of A1 dt.02.02.19 Ex.P-4:Signature of P.W.5 on arrest mahazarnama of A2 dt.19.08.19 Ex.P-5:Signature of P.W.6 on arrest mahazarnama of A2 dt.19.08.19 Ex.P-6:arrest mahazarnama of A2 dt.19.08.2019 Ex.P-7:First Information Report in Cr.No.215/2018 of Bitragunta police station Ex.P-8:Rough sketch of scene of offence (demarked as original was not filed in the record) Ex.P-9:arrest mahazarnama of A1 dt.02.02.2019 For Defence :- NIL Material objects: NIL

Sd/-P.Chaitanya,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kavali. // True Copy//

AJMFC,KAVALI.

1 C.C.No.35/2019 dt.01.06.2020

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: KAVALI

Monday, the First (01 st ) day of June, 2020.

Present: - Smt. P.Chaitanya, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kavali

Calendar Case No.35/2019

State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bitragunta Police Station (Cr.No.10/2018) … Complainant

-Versus-

1.Purini Swamulu S/o. Mlalakondaiah, Hindu, Aged about 23years, caste by SC, Alicheral Bangarupalem Village, Bogolu Mandal.

2.Puchallapalli Nageswara Rao S/o. Musalaiah,Hindu, Aged about 34 years, Caste by Samban, Sambuni Palem village, Alluru Mandal … Accused

This case coming before me on 20.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri K.Elisha Babu, Legal aid counsel for accused and upon hearing on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bitragunta Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.10/2018 for the offences U/Sec.379

IPC.

2) The prosecution case in compact and concise manner as emerged from the charge sheet as follows: In the intervening night of 22/23.01.2018, in the filed of Pw.1, some unknown offenders committed theft of four 2 HP Aerator Motors 2 C.C.No.35/2019 dt.01.06.2020 worth of Rs.48,000/- for that PW.1 gave a report, basing on the at a case in Cr.No.10/2018 for the offence Under Sec.379 of IPC was registered and investigated. During investigation, on 30.01.2018, in the presence of Pw.4, PW.5 recovered stolen motors from possession of A1 in this case and also in Cr. Nos.9 and 11/2018 of Bitragunta Police Station and effected arrest of A1 under mahzarnama, during investigation, PW.5 came to know about involvement of A2 and A3 from the confession of

A1. A3 was absconded since the date of arrest of A1 and A2 was released on anticipatory bail , on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 only by Lw.9/B.Nagabhushanam, the then S.I of Police.

3) This case was taken cognizance for the offence under Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC against accused.

4) On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5)The accused/A1 and A2 were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C.

Accused denied the allegations. Charge U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC against accused have been framed against accused, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language under Sec.240 (2) of

Cr.P.C., for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-7. The evidence of L.W.5//M.Venkata Rao, LW.9/B.Nagabhushanam was given up by learned Assistant Public prosecutor.

7) After closure of the prosecution side evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The court explained the incriminating 3 C.C.No.35/2019 dt.01.06.2020 circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused/A1 and A2 totally denied the same.

When the accused called upon to enter into the defence evidence, accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

8) Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused.

9) Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

accused/A1 and A2 for committed theft of motors from the field

of PW.1 during night hours or recovery of motors from

possession of A1?

10)POINT:

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied on evidence of Pws.1 to 6 and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7.

11)Pw.1 deposed that he is cultivating prawns for that HP

Aerator Motors were kept in his field and after harvesting the said motors were four in number kept in a hut adjacent to the pond. On 23.01.2018 in the morning hours, he went to the field and noticed that said motors were taken away by some unknown offeders, for that he gave a report Ex.P1 to police.

12) Pws.2 and 3 also deposed in similar lines of PW.1. PW.1 further stated about receiving Mos.1 to 4 under acknowledgment after giving report.

13)Pw.6 deposed about receiving Ex.P1 from Pw.1 basing on that he registered FIR under Ex.P6 and investigated into. Accordingly, he went to the scene of offence, situated at Enugulabavi Prawn ponds, drafted rough sketch/Ex.P7. Thereafter he examined Lws.2 to 4 and recorded their statements. PW.6 further deposed that during 4 C.C.No.35/2019 dt.01.06.2020 investigation by Pw.5, he effected the arrest of A1 on 30.01.2018 in

Cr.No.17/2018 of Rural Police Station, Kavali and seized stolen motors in this crime, thereafter on information, A1 was produced before the court in this case on executing PT warrant and A2 got anticipatory bail, A3 was absconded since then.

14)PW.5 deposed about receiving information regarding A1 and noticed him at SC Harizanawada of Kavali town in suspicious manner by then he is carrying a plastic bag containing one motor, for that on enquiry, A1 confessed about theft of said motor from the fields of

Kotadavi village along with A2 and A3 and he also confessed about his involvement in like manner in different areas, the same was reduced in writing under Ex.P4 in the presence of mediators. Basing on the confession of A1, PW.5 along with mediators, went to Alicherla

Bangarupalem village, and to the back side of the house of A1, seized motors pertaining to Cr.No.13/2018 of Kavali Rural P.s. and

Cr.No.08/2018 to 11/2018 of Bitragunta Police station and effected arrest of A1 under Ex.P5

15) P.W.4 who was cropped up as witness from arrest and seizure Mahazarnama of A1, deposed that at about one and half year back, at request of police, he signed on some written papers without knowing the contents and accused/A1 was never arrested in his presence and nothing was seized from the accused/A1 in his presence as such his signatures on arrest and seizure mahazarnama was marked as

Ex.P3 but nothing was elicited from his mouth by the prosecution.

16)Since the mediator was not supported the version of P.W.5 about his association with police and recovery of Mos.1 to 4 from the possession of accused/A1 and arrest under Ex.P5. Since the Arrest 5 C.C.No.35/2019 dt.01.06.2020

Mahazarnama execution was doubtful as Mahazar witness not supported the case of prosecution. Even P.W.5 did not secure any independent witnesses at the locality of arrest of accused/A1. However, the mediator secured by him at his wish was also not supported his version.

Therefore, it creates a doubt about recovery of Mos.1 to 4 from the possession of the accused/A1. Therefore, the prosecution case as stated by P.W.5 and Pw.6 is not supported by their own witnesses. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime, except confession under Ex.P4, which is not supported by mediators in whose presence the confession was made. Therefore, as per Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act, the confession of A1 is in admissible and even his confession is not relevant regarding involvement of A2 and nothing was recovered from A2. If A1 with the assistance of A2 and others committed theft in such a situation, the sale proceeds or stolen property may be apportioned between A1, A2 and others, but it is nto the case of prosecution. There is no evidence to connect A2 to this crime except confession of A1. The rule of evidence is confession of co accused is a weak of piece of evidence. In absence of said things, the investigation of Pws.5 and 6 cannot be considered as proper regarding recovery of Mos.1 to 4 from the possession of the accused/A1.

17) As regards, the prosecution failed to prove its case that, the accused persons have committed theft of motors from the field of PW.1, or retains the same with the knowledge that it was of stolen property by accused.

18) In the result, the accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC. Accordingly accused/A1 and A2 are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence under Sections 379 6 C.C.No.35/2019 dt.01.06.2020 or 411 of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.c., The Mos.1 to 4 given to

PW.1 under acknowledgment shall made absolute after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 01st day of June, 2020.

Sd/-P.Chaitanya

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Kavali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: - For Defence:-

Pw.1:I.Subba Rao -None- Pw.2:V.China Malyadri Reddy Pw.3:S.Suresh Pw.4:S.Rajeswara Reddy PW.5G.Pulla Rao, S.I of Police, Pw.6: Ch.Krishna Kumar, the then H.C

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P-1:Report of P.W.1 Ex.P-2:Acknowledgment given by PW.1 Ex.P-3:Signature of PW.4 on arrest mahazarnama of A1 dt.30.01.18 Ex.P-4:Confession mahazarnama of A1 dt.30.01.18 Ex.P-5:Arrest mahazarnama of A1 dt.30.01.18 Ex.P-6:First Information Report in Cr.No.10/2018 of Bitragunta P.s., Ex.P-7:Rough sketch of scene of offence

For Defence :- NIL Material objects: Mos.1 to 4: 2 HP Aerator Motors

Sd/-P.Chaitanya

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kavali.

// True Copy//

AJMFC,Kavali.

1 C.C.No.34/2019 dt.01.06.2020

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: KAVALI

Monday, the First (01 st ) day of June, 2020.

Present: - Smt. P.Chaitanya, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kavali

Calendar Case No.34/2019

State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bitragunta Police Station (Cr.No.09/2018) … Complainant

-Versus-

1.Purini Swamulu S/o. Mlalakondaiah, Hindu, Aged about 23years, caste by SC, Alicheral Bangarupalem Village, Bogolu Mandal.

2.Puchallapalli Nageswara Rao S/o. Musalaiah,Hindu, Aged about 34 years, Caste by Samban, Sambuni Palem village, Alluru Mandal … Accused

This case coming before me on 20.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri K.Elisha Babu, Legal aid counsel for accused and upon hearing on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bitragunta Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.09/2018 for the offences U/Sec.379

IPC.

2) The prosecution case in compact and concise manner as emerged from the charge sheet as follows: In the intervening night of 21/22.01.2018, at Kolladinne village, in the filed of Pws.1 and 2, some unknown offenders committed theft of 2 C.C.No.34/2019 dt.01.06.2020 two 2 HP Motors worth of Rs.24,000/- for that PW.1 gave a report. Basing on the at a case in Cr.No.09/2018 for the offence Under Sec.379 of IPC was registered and investigated. During investigation, on 30.01.2018, in the presence of Pw.3, PW.4 recovered stolen motors from possession of

A1 in this case and also in Cr. Nos.08 and 11/2018 of Bitragunta Police

Station and effected arrest of A1 under mahzarnama, during investigation, PW.4 came to know about involvement of A2 and A3 from the confession of A1. A3 was absconded since the date of arrest of A1 and A2 was released on anticipatory bail, on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 only by Lw.9/B.Nagabhushanam, the then S.I of Police.

3) This case was taken cognizance for the offence under Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC against accused.

4) On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5)The accused/A1 and A2 were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C.

Accused denied the allegations. Charge U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC against accused have been framed against accused, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language under Sec.240 (2) of

Cr.P.C., for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-7. The evidence of Lw.3/G.Subbaramaiah, Lw.4/G.Masthan, L.W.5//M.Venkata Rao,

LW.9/B.Nagabhushanam was given up by learned Assistant Public prosecutor.

3 C.C.No.34/2019 dt.01.06.2020

7) After closure of the prosecution side evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The court explained the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused/A1 and A2 totally denied the same.

When the accused called upon to enter into the defence evidence, accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

8) Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused.

9) Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

accused/A1 and A2 for committed theft of HP motors from the

fields of Pws.1 and 2 during night hours or recovery of motors

from possession of A1?

10)POINT:

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied on evidence of Pws.1 to 5 and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7.

11)Pw.1 deposed that he is cultivating paddy crop, for that HP

Motor was kept in his field. On 21.01.2018 in the morning hours, he went to the field and noticed that said motor were taken away by some unknown offeders, for that PW.2 gave a report Ex.P2 to police.

12) Pw.2 also deposed in similar lines of PW.1 regarding theft of his motor also and further both stated about receiving Mos.1 and 2 under acknowledgment after giving report.

13)Pw.5 deposed about receiving Ex.P2 from Pw.1 basing on that he registered FIR under Ex.P6 and investigated into. Accordingly, he went to the scene of offence, situated at Kolladinne, drafted rough sketch/Ex.P7. Thereafter he examined Lws.2 to 4 and recorded their statements. PW.5 further deposed that during investigation by LW.9, he 4 C.C.No.34/2019 dt.01.06.2020 came to know that Pw.4 effected the arrest of A1 on 30.01.2018 in

Cr.No.17/2018 of Rural Police Station, Kavali and seized stolen motors in this crime, thereafter on information, A1 was produced before the court in this case on executing PT warrant and A2 got anticipatory bail, A3 was absconded since then.

14)PW.4 deposed about receiving information regarding A1 and noticed him at SC Harizanawada of Kavali town in suspicious manner by then he is carrying a plastic bag containing one motor, for that on enquiry, A1 confessed about theft of said motor from the fields of

Kotadavi village along with A2 and A3 and he also confessed about his involvement in like manner in different areas, the same was reduced in writing under Ex.P4 in the presence of mediators. Basing on the confession of A1, PW.4 along with mediators, went to Alicherla

Bangarupalem village, and to the back side of the house of A1, seized motors pertaining to Cr.No.13/2018 of Kavali Rural P.s. and

Cr.No.08/2018 to 11/2018 of Bitragunta Police station and effected arrest of A1 under Ex.P5

15) P.W.3 who was cropped up as witness from arrest and seizure Mahazarnama of A1, deposed that at about one and half year back, at request of police, he signed on some written papers without knowing the contents and accused/A1 was never arrested in his presence and nothing was seized from the accused/A1 in his presence as such his signatures on arrest and seizure mahazarnama was marked as

Ex.P3 but nothing was elicited from his mouth by the prosecution.

16)Since the mediator was not supported the version of P.W.4 about his association with police and recovery of Mos.1 and 2 from the possession of accused/A1 and arrest under Ex.P5. Since the Arrest 5 C.C.No.34/2019 dt.01.06.2020

Mahazarnama execution was doubtful as Mahazar witness not supported the case of prosecution. Even P.W.4 did not secure any independent witnesses at the locality of arrest of accused/A1. However, the mediator secured by him at his wish was also not supported his version.

Therefore, it creates a doubt about recovery of Mos.1 and 2 from the possession of the accused/A1. Therefore, the prosecution case as stated by P.W.4 and Pw.5 is not supported by their own witnesses. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime, except confession under Ex.P4, which is not supported by mediators in whose presence the confession was made. Therefore, as per Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act, the confession of A1 is in admissible and even his confession is not relevant regarding involvement of A2 and nothing was recovered from A2. If A1 with the assistance of A2 and others committed theft in such a situation, the sale proceeds or stolen property may be apportioned between A1, A2 and others, but it is nto the case of prosecution. There is no evidence to connect A2 to this crime except confession of A1. The rule of evidence is confession of co accused is a weak of piece of evidence. In absence of said things, the investigation of Pws.4 and 5 cannot be considered as proper regarding recovery of Mos.1 and 2 from the possession of the accused/A1.

17) As regards, the prosecution failed to prove its case that, the accused persons have committed theft of motors from the field of Pws.1 and 2, or retains the same with the knowledge that it was of stolen property by accused.

18) In the result, the accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC. Accordingly accused/A1 and A2 are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence under Sections 379 6 C.C.No.34/2019 dt.01.06.2020 or 411 of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.c., The Mos.1 and 2 given to Pws.1 and 2 under acknowledgment shall made absolute after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 01st day of June, 2020.

Sd/-P.Chaitanya

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Kavali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: - For Defence:-

Pw.1:G.Srinivasulu -None- Pw.2:S.Venkateswarlu Pw.3:S.Rajeswara Reddy PW.4G.Pulla Rao, S.I of Police, Pw.5: Ch.Krishna Kumar, the then H.C

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P-1:Acknowledgment given by PW.1 Ex.P-2: Report of P.W.2 Ex.P-3:Signature of PW.3 on arrest mahazarnama of A1 dt.30.01.18 Ex.P-4:Confession mahazarnama of A1 dt.30.01.18 Ex.P-5:Arrest mahazarnama of A1 dt.30.01.18 Ex.P-6:First Information Report in Cr.No.08/2018 of Bitragunta P.s., Ex.P-7:Rough sketch of scene of offence

For Defence :- NIL Material objects: Mos.1 and 2: 2 HP Motors.

Sd/-P.Chaitanya

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kavali.

// True Copy//

AJMFC,Kavali.

1 C.C.No.33/2019 dt.01.06.2020

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: KAVALI

Monday, the First (01 st ) day of June, 2020.

Present: - Smt. P.Chaitanya, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kavali

Calendar Case No.33/2019

State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bitragunta Police Station (Cr.No.08/2018) … Complainant

-Versus-

1.Purini Swamulu S/o. Mlalakondaiah, Hindu, Aged about 23years, caste by SC, Alicheral Bangarupalem Village, Bogolu Mandal.

2.Puchallapalli Nageswara Rao S/o. Musalaiah,Hindu, Aged about 34 years, Caste by Samban, Sambuni Palem village, Alluru Mandal … Accused

This case coming before me on 20.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri K.Elisha Babu, Legal aid counsel for accused and upon hearing on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bitragunta Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.08/2018 for the offences U/Sec.379

IPC.

2) The prosecution case in compact and concise manner as emerged from the charge sheet as follows: In the intervening night of 21/22.01.2018 at Siddanapalem village, in the filed of Pw.1 and LW.2/Annagi Venkaiah, some unknown offenders 2 C.C.No.33/2019 dt.01.06.2020 committed theft of two Lambadi Engines worth of Rs.36,000/-, for that

PW.1 gave a report. Basing on the at a case in Cr.No.08/2018 for the offence Under Sec.379 of IPC was registered and investigated. During investigation, on 30.01.2018, in the presence of Pw.2, PW.3 recovered stolen motors from possession of A1 in this case and also in Cr.Nos.9 to 11/2018 of Bitragunta Police Station and effected arrest of A1 under mahzarnama, during investigation, PW.3 came to know about involvement of A2 and A3 from the confession of A1. A3 was absconded since the date of arrest of A1 and A2 was released on anticipatory bail , on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 only by Lw.9/B.Nagabhushanam, the then S.I of Police.

3) This case was taken cognizance for the offence under Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC against accused.

4) On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5)The accused/A1 and A2 were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C.

Accused denied the allegations. Charge U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC against accused have been framed against accused, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language under Sec.240 (2) of

Cr.P.C., for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-7. The evidence of Lw.2/A.Venkaiah, LW.3/K.Krishna Prasad, Lw.4/I.Venkta Rami Reddy,

L.W.5/M.Venkata Rao, LW.9/B.Nagabhushanam was given up by learned

Assistant Public prosecutor.

3 C.C.No.33/2019 dt.01.06.2020

7) After closure of the prosecution side evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The court explained the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused/A1 and A2 totally denied the same.

When the accused called upon to enter into the defence evidence, accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

8) Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused.

9) Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

accused/A1 and A2 for committed theft of Lambadi Engines

from the field of PW.1 and LW.2/A.Venkaiah during night hours

or recovery of motors from possession of A1?

10)POINT:

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied on evidence of Pws.1 to 4 and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7.

11)Pw.1 deposed that he is cultivating watermelon crop for that

Motors were kept in his field. On 21/22.01.2018 during night hours, some unknown offenders committed theft of Lambadi Engine and the same was noticed by him in the morning hours, then he searched for that but in vain, for that he gave a report Ex.P1 to police.

12) PW.1 further stated about receiving two engines(Mo.1) under

Ex.P2/ acknowledgment after giving report.

13)Pw.4 deposed about receiving Ex.P1 from Pw.1 basing on that he registered FIR under Ex.P6 and investigated into. Accordingly, he went to the scene of offence, situated at Siddanapalem village fields , drafted rough sketch/Ex.P7. Thereafter he examined Lws.2 to 4 and recorded their statements. PW.4 further deposed that during 4 C.C.No.33/2019 dt.01.06.2020 investigation by LW.9, he came to know that PW.3 effected the arrest of

A1 on 30.01.2018 in Cr.No.17/2018 of Rural Police Station, Kavali and seized stolen engines in this crime, thereafter on information, A1 was produced before the court in this case on executing PT warrant and A2 got anticipatory bail, A3 was absconded since then.

14)PW.3 deposed about receiving information regarding A1 and noticed him at SC Harizanawada of Kavali town in suspicious manner by then he is carrying a plastic bag containing one motor, for that on enquiry, A1 confessed about theft of said motor from the fields of

Kotadavi village along with A2 and A3 and he also confessed about his involvement in like manner in different areas, the same was reduced in writing under Ex.P4 in the presence of mediators. Basing on the confession of A1, PW.5 along with mediators, went to Alicherla

Bangarupalem village, and to the back side of the house of A1, seized motors pertaining to Cr.No.13/2018 of Kavali Rural P.s. and case property in Cr.No.08/2018 to 11/2018 of Bitragunta Police station and effected arrest of A1 under Ex.P5

15) P.W.2 who was cropped up as witness from arrest and seizure Mahazarnama of A1, deposed that at about one and half year back, at request of police, he signed on some written papers without knowing the contents and accused/A1 was never arrested in his presence and nothing was seized from the accused/A1 in his presence as such his signatures on arrest and seizure mahazarnama was marked as

Ex.P3 but nothing was elicited from his mouth by the prosecution.

16)Since the mediator was not supported the version of P.W.3 about his association with police and recovery of Mo.1 from the possession of accused/A1 and arrest under Ex.P5. Since the Arrest 5 C.C.No.33/2019 dt.01.06.2020

Mahazarnama execution was doubtful as Mahazar witness not supported the case of prosecution. Even P.W.3 did not secure any independent witnesses at the locality of arrest of accused/A1. However, the mediator secured by him at his wish was also not supported his version.

Therefore, it creates a doubt about recovery of Mo.1 from the possession of the accused/A1. Therefore, the prosecution case as stated by P.W.3 and Pw.4 is not supported by their own witnesses. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime, except confession under Ex.P4, which is not supported by mediators in whose presence the confession was made. Therefore, as per Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act, the confession of A1 is in admissible and even his confession is not relevant regarding involvement of A2 and nothing was recovered from A2. If A1 with the assistance of A2 and others committed theft in such a situation, the sale proceeds or stolen property may be apportioned between A1, A2 and others, but it is not the case of prosecution. There is no evidence to connect A2 to this crime except confession of A1. The rule of evidence is confession of co accused is a weak of piece of evidence. In absence of said things, the investigation of

Pws.3 and 4 cannot be considered as proper regarding recovery of Mo.1 from the possession of the accused/A1.

17) As regards, the prosecution failed to prove its case that, the accused persons have committed theft of engines from the field of PW.1 and Lw.2/A.Venkaiah, or retains the same with the knowledge that it was of stolen property by accused.

18) In the result, the accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC. Accordingly accused/A1 and A2 are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence under Sections 379 6 C.C.No.33/2019 dt.01.06.2020 or 411 of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.c., The Mo.1 given to PW.1 under acknowledgment shall made absolute after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 01st day of June, 2020.

Sd/P.Chaitanya

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Kavali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: - For Defence:-

Pw.1:A.Venkata Ramanaiah -None- Pw.2:S.Rajeswara Reddy PW.3G.Pulla Rao, S.I of Police, Pw.4: Ch.Krishna Kumar, the then H.C

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P-1:Report of P.W.1 Ex.P-2:Acknowledgment given by PW.1 Ex.P-3:Signature of PW.2 on arrest mahazarnama of A1 dt.30.01.18 Ex.P-4:Confession mahazarnama of A1 dt.30.01.18 Ex.P-5:Arrest mahazarnama of A1 dt.30.01.18 Ex.P-6:First Information Report in Cr.No.08/2018 of Bitragunta P.s., Ex.P-7:Rough sketch of scene of offence

For Defence :- NIL Material objects: Mo.1: two Engines. Sd/P.Chaitanya Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kavali.

// True Copy//

AJMFC,Kavali.

1 C.C.No.89/2020 dt.22.05.2020

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: KAVALI

Friday, the Twenty Second (22 nd ) day of May, 2020.

Present: - Smt. P.Chaitanya, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,Kavali

Calendar Case No.89/2020

State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kaligiri Police Station (Cr.No.126/2019) … Complainant

-Versus-

1. Kommalapati Govardhan S/o.Kantharao, Age 27 years, Mangali by caste, Vayunandana press Street, Sankulavarithota, Kavali Town,

2. Nadimpalli Gopi S/o.Thirupalu, Age 26 years, Achari by caste, Vayunandana press Street, Sankulavarithota, Kavali Town, … Accused

This case coming before me on 12.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri Elisha Babu, Legal aid counsel for the accused and upon hearing on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kaligiri Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.126/2019 for the offences U/Sec.379 of IPC.

2) The prosecution case in compact and concise manner as emerged from the charge sheet as follows: On 29.11.2019, after performing pooja, Lw.2/Ranganadh locked the

Venkateswara swamy temple at Kaligiri village during night hours, and on the next day morning at about 5.00 a.m., he went to the temple and noticed that some unknown offenders broke open the Hundi of temple, 2 C.C.No.89/2020 dt.22.05.2020 and committed theft of cash approximately Rs.10,000/- and decamped with the booty. On report of PW.1, case in Cr.No.126/2019 for the offences Under Secs.379 of IPC was registered and investigated by P.W.4.

During investigation, PW.4 examine the witnesses, drafted rough sketch of the scene. Thereafter, PW.4 came to know about arrest of the accused by Pw.3 on 27.12.2019 and on their confession in the presence of mediators under Mahazarnama about commission of theft from the hundi in this case also but nothing was seized from accused as accused spent the amount, as such the accused was produced in this crime on execution of PT Warrant and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3) This case was taken cognizance for the offence under Sec.379 of IPC against accused.

4) On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5)The accused were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Accused denied the allegations. Charge U/Sec. 379 of IPC against accused has been framed against accused, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language under Sec.240 (2) of Cr.P.C., for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-4. The evidence of L.Ws.2 to 4 and 6 namely Gudimella Ranganath, Malisetty Subbaiah,

Yarramreddy Srinivasulu Reddy and Kunnam Venka Reddy was given up by learned Assistant Public prosecutor.

3 C.C.No.89/2020 dt.22.05.2020

7) After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The court explained the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused totally denied the same. When the accused called upon to enter into the defence evidence, accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

8) Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused.

9) Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

accused for committing theft of money from the hundi

belongs to Sree Venkateswara Swamy temple at Kaligiri?

10)POINT:

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied on evidence of Pws.1 to 4 and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4.

11)Pw.1 deposed that on 30.11.2019 at about 8.00 a.m, he went to Kaligiri police station and lodged a report by stating that during night hours on 29/30.11.2019, some unknown offenders broke open the

Hundi of Venkateswara Swamy temple at Kaligiri Village and committed theft of cash approximately Rs.10,000/-.

12)P.W.4 deposed about receiving Ex.P-1 from Pw.1 and basing on it, registered a case in Cr.No.126/2019 for the offence U/Sec.379 of

IPC and issued Ex.P-3 First Information Report, then he visited the scene of offence at Kaligiri along with Pw.1 and observed the scene and drafted rough sketch Ex.P-4. There, he examined witnesses. Per contra to the evidence of Pws.1 or 4, nothing was elicited from them during their cross-examination.

4 C.C.No.89/2020 dt.22.05.2020

13) Pw.4 further deposed that during investigation, he came to know about arrest of the accused by II Town Police, Kavali in

Cr.No.134/2019 of their station and by then accused also confessed about commission of theft in this case, as such he produced the accused in this case on execution of PT warrant and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

14) PW.3 deposed that on 27.12.2019, on credible information he secured mediators PW.2 and LW.6/K.Venka Reddy, in their presence near

Bharath Petrol Bunk, situated at Christian pet, found the accused and caught hold them, on confession came to know about theft by accused in temples in and around Kavali area since two years, they also confessed about the theft committed at Venkateswara Swamy temple at

Kaligiri. Then Pw.3 arrested them in their crime and thereafter informed to SHO, Kaligiri Police Station.

15)PW.2 who is cropped up as witness from arrest and confession mahazarnama/Ex.P2 deposed that II Town Police arrested accused in his presence and also confessed about theft of cash from hundies by the accused. PW.2 per contra to his earlier statement changed his version during cross-examination and stated that he put his signature at request of police without knowing content in Ex.P2.

Therefore, the two different versions of Pw.2 is quite unsafe to come to the conclusion that he was present by the time of arrest of accused on their confession.

16)An over all summary of above evidence, it came to light that there was a theft of cash from Hundi by some unknown offenders on 29.11.2019 during night hours from the temple Hundi of Venkateswara

Swamy temple at Kaligiri, but no witnesses stated that commission of 5 C.C.No.89/2020 dt.22.05.2020 theft by accused and they saw him while accused taken away. More over, no evidence either oral or documentary to say that accused person had committed theft of cash from Hundi. Therefore, from the evidence of

Pws.1 and 4 coupled with Ex.P-1 discloses that the theft was committed by some unknown offenders. Except the confession of accused before police, there is no evidence of theft committed by accused. As per

Sec.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act confession before police is inadmissible. Therefore, the confession of accused was inadmissible one.

Even the mediator PW.2 is also not supported the version of PW.3 regarding arrest of accused in his presence and on confession. Except confession there is no evidence about theft by accused. Therefore, the prosecution was failed to establish the commission of theft of cash from

Hundi by broke open the lock of temple during night hours.

17) As regards, the prosecution failed to prove its case that, the accused person had committed theft of cash from hundi of temple after broke open the lock beyond reasonable doubt.

18) In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the charge

U/Sec.379 of IPC. Accordingly accused are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1)

Cr.P.C for the offences under Section 379 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after lapse of six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of May, 2020.

Sd/-P.Chaitanya

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Kavali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: - For Defence:-

Pw.1:Bijjam Venata Krishna Reddy -None- Pw.2:Ippagunta Manikanta 6 C.C.No.89/2020 dt.22.05.2020

Pw.3:S.Suman, the then S.I of Police, Kavali II Town P.s., Pw.4:P.Adilakshmi, the then S.I of Police, Kaligiri police station

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P-1:Report of P.W.1 dt.30.11.2019 Ex.P-2:Mahazarnama dt.27.12.2019 Ex.P-3:First Information Report in Cr.No.126/2019 of Kaligiri police station dt.30.11.2019 Ex.P-4:Rough sketch of scene of offence

For Defence :- NIL

Material objects: NIL

Sd/-P.Chaitanya

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kavali.

// True Copy//

AJMFC,KAVALI.