C.C.No.444 of 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
(SPECIAL MOBILE), AT KARIMNAGAR.
PRESENT: Sri M. Raju, Judl. Magistrate of F.C., (Special Mobile), Karimnagar.
THURSDAY, the 20th day of August, 2020
CC.No 444 of 2015
Between : The State through, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Karimnagar-II town
...Complainant
AND
A1Mohd. Younus Noumani, S/o.Majeed, Age:34 years, Caste:Muslim, Occ:Mufthi Saheb in Darul Salehin Madarsa, Ashok Nagar, Karimnagar, R/o.H.No.6-1-367, Ashok nagar, Karimnagar.
A2Nishat Afreen, D/o.Wahaduddin, Age:22 years, Caste:Muslim, Occ:Teacher in Darul Salehin Madarsa, Ashok nagar, Karimnagar, R/o.Khanpura, Karimnagar.
...Accused
This case is coming before me on 11.08.2020 for fnal hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri Md.Akbar, learned Counsel for accused No.1 and Sri Mohd. Aqeel Shahed learned counsel for accused No.2 and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Charge Sheet is laid by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Karimnagar-II town in Crime No.284 of 2011 for the ofences under Sections 419, 193, 420, 465 read with 109 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).
2.The brief facts of the case are that, on 28.09.2011 at 16.30 hours, the Hon’ble Asst.Sessions Judge, Karimnagar has sent a complaint submitted by Lws. 1 and 2 stating that they are working as Incharge Superintendent and Criminal Bench Clerk
in the Court of Asst.Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and on 28.09.2011, the Hon’ble
Asst.Sessions Judge, Karimnagar directed to lodge a complaint in connection with the case in SC.No.387 of 2011 on the fle of that Court (Cr.No.14 of 2011 of P.S., Karimnagar-I town for the ofence under Section 376 of IPC) with regard to the giving of evidence by one Chandrika @ Fathima, D/o.Bhoomaiah, R/o.Galipalli by saying herself as Neha Samrin, D/o.Mohammed Saleem, R/o.Kagaznagar/victim, who came to the Hon’ble Asst.Sessions Court, Karimnagar and her(Chandrika @ Fathima) statement was recorded partly and during the course of recording the evidence, the Additional Public Prosecutor Smt. R.V.Geetha Reddy (LW4/PW4) represented that the deponent, who is deposing as PW1, is not the victim and she 1
C.C.No.444 of 2015 wants some time to elicit information about the identity of the victim and fled a memo stating that on her enquiry, she came to know that she is Chandrika @ Fathima, D/o.Bhoomaiah, R/o. Galipalli and now residing at Durgammagadda, Karimnagar and she is not said Neha Samrin (original victim) and she is impersonated as victim as Neha Samrin and hence they requested to take necessary action against said Chandrika @ Fathima, D/o.Bhoomaiah as she impersonated the original victim Neha Samrin in the above case. Basing on the complaint, LW12/Inspector registered a case in Cr.No.284 of 2011 for the ofences under Section 419 and 193 of IPC and during the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of Lws. 1 and 2, visited the Hon’ble Asst.Sessions Court, Karimnagar, examined and recorded the statement of Lws. 3 to 5 and has taken the juvenile delinquent into custody on 28.09.2011 at 18.15 hours and on interrogation in the presence of Lws. 8 and 9, she confessed to have committed the ofence with the abetment of A1 and A2. Then he recorded confession statement of juvenile delinquent/impersonated in the presence of mediators and she lead the police and panchas to her house bearing Door No.6-3- 279, located at Durgammagadda, Karimnagar, went into her house and brought one Ration Card, one Arogyasri, Health Card and 2 afdavits, which were impersonated while her father converted into Muslim Community and the same were seized under cover of seizure panchanama in the presence of same mediators. Thereafter, LW12 produced juvenile delinquent before the Hon’ble Court after complying with the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act. Then he secured the presence of Lws. 6 and 7, examined and recorded their statements. Then on 03.10.2011 at 12.20 hours, he along with his staf went and apprehended the accused No.1 and on interrogation in the presence of Lws. 10 and 11, A1 voluntarily confessed to have committed this ofence and they motivated the juvenile delinquent to impersonate herself as victim in SC.No.387 of 2011 on the fle of Hon’ble Asst. Sessions Court,Karimnagar, then LW12 recorded confession statement of A1 in the presence of mediators and as lead and shown by A1, the police and panchas went to the house of A2, where they took the custody of A2 with the assistance of Women P.C, on interrogation, A2 voluntarily confessed to have committed this ofence and then LW12 drafted confession statement of A2 and seized a chit in Urdu language mentioning the name with details and her family members in the presence of same mediators. Then LW12 brought A1 and A2 to P.S., efected their arrest and after formalities remanded them to judicial custody. During the course of further investigation, LW12 forwarded the witness batta register and deposition of PW1 in SC.No.387 of 2011 (which contains the forged signature of original victim done by juvenile delinquent in this case) and the statement of complainant/victim in Cr.No.14 of 2011 (SC.No.387 of 2011) recorded by the I.O., therein to hand writing expert for comparison and opinion. After completion of investigation, he fled Charge Sheet against the accused No.1 and 2.
2
C.C.No.444 of 2015
3.The case was taken on fle for the ofences under Sections 419, 193, 420, 465 read with 109 of IPC against A1 and A2 by the AJMFC, Karimnagar vide CC.No.246 of 2013.
4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently the matter was transferred to the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate First Class (Excise), Karimnagar for trial and disposal as per the orders of the Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and the same was renumbered as CC.No.444 of 2015.
5.The accused were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and framed charges under Sections 193 (part-I) read with 109, 419 read with 109, 466 and 466 read with 109 of IPC, against them, explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution PW1 was examined and got marked Ex.P1 and in the meanwhile the matter was transferred to this Court for trial and disposal according to law as per the orders of the Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, on point of jurisdiction. Later during the course of further trial, on behalf of the prosecution, Pws. 2 to 9 were examined and Ex.P2 to P12 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was marked on behalf of the accused.
7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material found against them, explained to them, to which they denied and reported no defence evidence.
8.Heard both sides. The learned counsel for A2 also fled written arguments.
9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the ofences under sections 193 (part-I) read with 109, 419 read with 109, 466 and 466 read with 109 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ?
10.POINT:
It is the case of the prosecution that A1 and A2 abetted one juvenile delinquent by name Chandrika @ Fathima, D/o.Bhoomaiah to give evidence in place of original victim by name Neha Samrin with an intention to get acquittal and 3
C.C.No.444 of 2015 caused loss to the said original victim Neha Samrin and thereby said Chandrika @ Fathima, juvenile delinquent impersonated the original victim in the Court of Hon’ble Asst.Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in SC.No.387 of 2011 and hence on the complaint of the concerned Court through Lws. 1 and 2, police conducted investigation and fled Charge Sheet against the accused.
11.To prove the ofence under Section 193(part-I) read with 109 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that A1 and A2 got fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using it in the judicial proceeding by impersonating as original victim Neha Samrin, by the juvenile delinquent (Chandrika @ Fathima, D/o.Bhoomaiah) by abetting her to appear before the Court of Hon’ble Asst.Sessions Judge Karimnagar and to give evidence in the place of original victim to get acquittal in that case and hence they got created or fabricated false evidence. To prove the ofence under Section 419 read with 109 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused abetted one Chandrika @ Fathima, D/o.Bhoomaiah (juvenile delinquent) to give evidence by pretending to be the original victim Neha Samrin, knowingly substituting her in the name of Neha Samrin and thereby cheated the prosecution . To prove the ofence under Section 466 or 466 read with 109 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the said Chandrika @ Fathima was abetted to give evidence in the place of original victim Neha Samrin thereby forged the evidence of original victim with a view to get acquittal in the said case in SC.No.387 of 2011.
12.To prove the allegations, the prosecution has examined Pws. 1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12. Pws.1 and 3 are the complainants-cum-Incharge Superintendent and Bench Clerk of the Court of Hon’ble Asst.Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, PW2 is the Presiding Ofcer of that Court, PW4 is the Additional Public Prosecutor of that Court, PW5 is the Court Constable, PW6 is the original victim Neha Samrin, Pws.7 and 8 are the panch witnesses for confession-cum-seizure panchanamas of accused and PW9 is the Investigating Ofcer.
13.The evidence of PW1 shows that while he was working as Incharge Superintendent in the Court of Hon’ble Asst.Sessions Judge, Karimnagar on 28.09.2011, as per the instructions of the then Presiding Ofcer, he lodged Ex.P1 complaint, that one Chandrika @ Fathima came to their Court to give evidence on 28.09.2011 in SC.No.387 of 2011 by pretending herself as victim/Neha Samrin and as per the directions of the then Presiding Ofcer, he along with LW2 lodged Ex.P1 complaint by endorsing his signature. He clearly deposed that he did not see the said witness as he was in section as usual as such he cannot identify the said alleged witness. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused 4
C.C.No.444 of 2015
No.1 he admitted that Ex.P1 was prepared by them and they have not mentioned the time of alleged ofence in Ex.P1, that as per the memo fled by the Public Prosecutor and endorsement on the docket, they prepared Ex.P1 report. He further admitted that in Ex.P1 report, the name of accused in SC.No.387 of 2011 is not mentioned. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.2 he admitted that as the alleged ofence took place in the open Court, procedure enunciated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C is to be followed and the Presiding Ofcer has to conduct preliminary enquiry, that in Ex.P1 report, there is no mention of conducting preliminary enquiry and that he cannot say whether provisions under Section 340 of Cr.P.C is violated in present case. He clearly admitted that the name of A2 is not mentioned in Ex.P1 report and that there is no mention in Ex.P1 that A2 accompanied said Chandrika. He clearly admitted that when concerned police requested to pass over the matter as witnesses are present, the matter will be passed over in criminal Courts, that on the identifcation of witness by concerned police, witness will be permitted to enter into the witness box, that the police may take the witnesses to Public Prosecutor to brief them before giving evidence.
14.The evidence of PW2, the then Presiding Ofcer of the Hon’ble Asst.Sessions Court, Karimnagar, has clearly deposed that on 28.09.2011 at about 10.45 or 11.00 A.M., when the case in SC.No.387 of 2011 in Cr.No.14 of 2011 of Karimnagar-I town was called, the Public Prosecutor along with Burka clad woman woman entered into the Court hall, then Public Prosecutor commenced chief examination and after few minutes Court Constable Mr.Srinivas ie., PW5 came running into the Court hall and informed to Public Prosecutor that the woman in Burka clad is not the original victim and that the victim and her mother in SC.NO.387 of 2011 were in Kagaznagar only and they did not come to Court to give evidence as such, the Public Prosecutor/PW4 Geetha Reddy fled a memo before him stating that the the deponent is not the victim and sought time to place the actual victim for examination, as such further chief of PW1 in SC.No.387 of 2011, who impersonated the actual victim, was deferred and he also observed another Burka clad woman, who stood out side the Court hall accompanying the Burka clad woman, who impersonated the actual victim, as such he instructed his Incharge Superintendent/PW1 and Bench Clerk/PW3 to lodge the complaint before the concerned police and they prepared complaint and accordingly he forwarded the same to concerned SHO on the same day. He got marked Ex.P2, memo fled by the Addl.Public Prosecutor and Ex.P3, the deposition of the alleged impersonated victim as PW1 in SC.No.387 of 2011. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for A1 he deposed that without verifying the record in SC.No.387 of 2011, he cannot say whether Mr.Hanmantha Rao fled a vakalath/Memo of appearance on behalf of the accused No.1 therein, that he does not remember whether the learned counsel for the accused was present on 5
C.C.No.444 of 2015 28.09.2011 but explained that A1 was present physically. He admitted that the Court has discretion to initiate criminal proceedings against erring wrong doer in lieu of Section 190 or 345 of Cr.P.C, if any person commits an ofence before the Presiding Ofcer and again explained that he specifcally directed Pws. 1 and 3 to lodge the complaint against the person, who impersonated the victim in SC.No.387 of 2011. He denied that all the Advocates of Karimnagar Bar Association abstained the Courts in Karimnagar during the demand of separate Telangana State period on that relevant day. He clearly denied the suggestion that no incident was occurred on that day of incident and if really any such incident was occurred, he would have initiated proceedings in lieu of Section 340 of Cr.P.C, that as A1 in SC.No.387 of 2011 is no way concerned with the alleged ofence, there is no need for him to injuct A1 and A2 in this case. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for A2, he admitted that he did not state about another Burka clad woman, who stood out side the Court hall accompanying Burka clad woman, who impersonated the actual woman in his 161 Cr.P.C statement. He clearly deposed that since the ofence occurred in his presence only, as such there is no question of his preliminary investigation/enquiry and that he forwarded Ex.P1 complaint to concerned SHO for proper investigation only in this case on hand. He denied the suggestion that he bypassed/fouted the procedure contemplated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C in this case on hand, that knowingfully well about the procedure contemplated under Cr.P.C, intentionally he is evading to answer the questions posed by the learned counsel pertaining to Section 340 Cr.P.C or 195 Cr.P.C.
15.The evidence of PW3 is in the same lines of the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 duly supporting the case of the prosecution that the Addl.Public Prosecutor along with Burka clad woman entered into the Court hall and when the Public Prosecutor commenced chief examination after few minutes Court Constable/PW5 came running into the Court hall and informed to Public Prosecutor that woman in Burka is not the victim and the victim and her mother in SC.No.387 of 2011 were in Kagaznagar only and they did not come to the Court to give evidence as such Public Prosecutor/PW4 fled a memo before bench, stating that the deponent is not the victim and sought time to place the actual victim for examination, as such the further chief of PW1 in SC.No.387 of 2011, who impersonated the actual victim was deferred and PW2 herein endorsed the docket and instructed to take necessary action against the accused, who deposed as PW1 in that case and later directed them to give the complaint and accordingly they lodged the complaint. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for A1 he admitted that in SC.No.387 of 2011 schedule was fxed and summons were issued and Constable took the summons, that no report was fled by P.C., and that complaint was got prepared by the Superintendent on the requisition of PW2. He admitted that on that day abstaining 6
C.C.No.444 of 2015 of Courts was there due to Telangana agitation, that he along with PW1 went to P.S., and lodged the complaint. He clearly admitted that if any wrong was committed in the Court, the Presiding Ofcer can initiate proceedings and take action, that the Presiding Ofcer has discretion either to conduct proceedings before him or to forward the complaint to the concerned Magistrate Court. He denied the suggestion that if the incident was happened, their P.O., would have conducted the proceedings
before him. Hence, the evidence of Pws. 1 to 3 is duly supporting the case of the
prosecution that one juvenile delinquent in a Burka clad came to the Court hall and started to give evidence in SC.No.387 of 2011 in the place of original victim Neha Samrin on the date of alleged incident.
16.The evidence of PW4 shows that in the month of November, 2011, Telangana agitation was going on, as such the Advocates were not appeared. On one day
before her entering into the Court hall, two women came to her and introduced
themselves by stating that one is witness in a rape case and another one is her mother and they intended to depose before the Court in that rape case. Immediately after entering into the Court hall, she asked the concerned police constable/PW5 and informed about the coming of two witnesses, then he informed that the witnesses are not coming and how they come now, on which she asked him to verify as the said persons are waiting out side the Court hall. Then he left the Court hall. In the meanwhile, call work was completed and in that case when called the matter, A1 was present as accused and in that case when the name of witness was called, A2 was present in the Court hall with Burka, entered into the witness box. Then her particulars were entered in the deposition and when she asked her to remove the face mask, she did not remove it. Then she objected for recording her evidence without seeing her face, then she removed the face mask. In the meanwhile the concerned police constable/PW5 came there and informed that she is not the original witness in that case. Then she asked the Presiding Ofcer/PW2 to pass over for verifcation of the identity of the witness and on her enquiry, she disclosed her original name as Chandrika, she got converted into Muslim Community. Then PW4 informed the same to the Court along with a memo by stating that she is not the original witness in the said rape case and the said memo was already marked as Ex.P2. Then the Presiding Ofcer has initiated necessary proceedings by directing the concerned personnel for further steps. She identifed A2 as that witness. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for A1 she admitted that as per the general procedure, whenever the Court P.C., produces the witness and after confrming the same, they call the witness into the Court hall and she explained that since the alleged witness herself came voluntarily and after asking the Constable, the witness was called directly into the Court hall. She further admitted that generally the witnesses are produced before the Prosecutor and after 7
C.C.No.444 of 2015 getting refresh, they would be produced before the Court but due to agitation, the witnesses were not produced as expected. She clearly admitted that she has no acquaintance with the witness and the witness should be produced with the concerned P.C., and that the Police Constable did not inform about serving of summons on witnesses in that case, but he informed the witnesses through phone. She clearly admitted that after her instructions, the Police Constable went outside and came again into the Court hall and without identifying by the concerned Police Constable, the witness when called was present and entered into the witness box. She clearly admitted that she has no acquaintance with the accused, but they have to see their faces whenever they appeared before the Court. She clearly denied the suggestion that if the Court conducted trial, and after knowing the true facts, she would have shown as A1 and Police Constable would have shown as A2, that no witness by impersonation was present on that day to give evidence and no such incident was occurred. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for A2, she clearly admitted that she did not state the descriptive particulars/physical features of those two women to police. She does not remember the exact name of A2. She clearly deposed that the original name of alleged witness PW1 in that case was Neha Samrin @ Chandrika. She admitted that said Neha Samrin before the juvenile Court was examined as witness, that in that juvenile case the CCL was found guilty, and no alleged witness is not in the Court hall now and again explained that A2 herein is mother of that witness. She denied the suggestion that she willfully omitted to identify the person in his statement and intentionally identifed now
before this Court, that what at all deposed by her before this Court in respect of A2
is improved version with a view to support the case of prosecution, that to get conviction of A1 in that case, they got implicated A2 falsely in collusion with investigating agency.
17.The evidence of PW5, Police Constable shows that on 28.09.2011, the evidence was scheduled in SC.No.387 of 2011 before the Court of Hon’ble Asst.Sessions Judge, Karimangar and accordingly summons were issued to Lws.1 and 2 therein and he made call to them and they informed to come on the schedule date ie., on 28.09.2011. Accordingly on 28.09.2011 in the morning at 9.30 A.M.,, he again called them to know whether they are coming, on which they informed that due to bandh of buses, they are not coming to the Court and at that time he has been looking after the cases in PCR Court, Excise Court, Asst. Sesssions Court for their police station. He further deposed that in the morning call work, he attended the PCR Court and Excise Court and then went to the Asst.Sessions Court after 11.00 A.M.,, after reaching that Court he met their P.P and informed that the witnesses are not coming , but she informed him that the witnesses already came and asked him to verify and then immediately he called them in phone and during 8
C.C.No.444 of 2015 enquiry, they disclosed that they did not come. Meanwhile the matter was called in Asst.Sessions Court, at that time one witness in the name of Neha Samrin, entered into the Court hall, while he was talking in phone with the original witnesses. Immediately he entered into the Court hall and observed that the said witness sat in the witness box is not the original victim, then he informed to their P.P., that original witness is not yet come and in turn the P.P., informed the same to the Presiding Ofcer of that Court and immediately the Presiding Ofcer stopped the proceedings and on enquiry through P.P., it came to know that her original name is Chandrika @ Fathima, D/o.Bhoomaiah, converted into Muslim Community. After confrming the same that she is not the original witness, the Presiding Ofcer directed the staf to lodge the complaint and the said Chandrika @ Fathima was handed over to II town P.S., the staf of that Court also lodged complaint. He deposed that said Chandrika @ Fathima was a juvenile and she is not present in this case. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for A1, he clearly deposed that at the time of registering Crime No.14 of 2011 ie., SC.No.387 of 2011, he was working in I town P.S. , that while the witnesses were examined in Cr.No.14 of 2011, he was not there in police station, that after fxing schedule, he obtained summons to witnesses and they were not served. About four or fve days prior to the schedule ie., 28.09.2011, he obtained summons to witnesses from the Court. He clearly deposed that he has seen the witnesses in the police station about four or fve times as they visited their P.S., for about four or fve days, that he has seen them once or twice in morning hours and remaining in the evening hours ie., at 6.00 P.M., or later. He denied the suggestion that as woman cannot be summoned to P.S., after 6.00 P.M., there was no chance of his seeing them, and he explained that since they are victims, in rape case, they were referred to doctor for examination etc.,. He admitted that in general procedure, they have to produce the witnesses before the Public Prosecutor, who inturn produce the witnesses before the Court, that except the Court duty Constable and Public Prosecutor, no one can produce the witnesses in the police cases before the Court. He clearly deposed that on his information, their Public Prosecutor has fled a memo before the Court, the complaint was lodged by Superintendent of that Court at about 3 or 4 P.M., on that day. He clearly denied the suggestion that as the original witnesses refused to give false evidence, with a view to strengthen the case against the accused, by implicating the story, a false case was fled. He expressed his ignorance that whether the Presiding Ofcer can take immediate action if impersonation was done before him and in that situation himself and P.P., would have been shown as accused. He denied the suggestion that no such incident was happened and they created a false case and deposing false.
18.The evidence of PW6, original rape victim in SC.No.387 of 2011, shows that A1 herein, who is head of Madarsa school, called her to his room and asked her to 9
C.C.No.444 of 2015 sit in the room, then to drink water and then he closed the doors of the room and committed rape on her, then she called her mother and informed the incident to her and immediately her mother rushed to the school and the same was occurred on 10.01.2011 and immediately after her mother’s coming, they both together went to I town P.S., where they lodged the complaint and in that regard a case was registered and the same is pending in that Court and in that case she has to give her evidence on 28.09.2011. She clearly deposed that two days prior to the said date ie., 26.09.2011, the Police Constable called them asking to come to Court for giving evidence and accordingly they assured to come on that date. On 28.09.2011 in the morning at 9.00 A.M., they informed the said Constable that they could not come to the Court due to bus strike. Then again the said Constable at about 11.30 A.M., called them inquiring whether they have come to the Court or not as evidence is going on, for which they stated that they did not come. Thereafter, the said Police Constable informed that by impersonation one Fathima and one of their teachers by name Nishath in place of her mother appeared in that Court for giving their evidence and police caught hold them as they wanted to withdraw the case fled by them. After the Presiding Ofcer came to a conclusion that they are false persons and accordingly police arrested them on his directions. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for A1 she admitted that she stated to police about the calling her by accused to room, giving water, closing doors and committing rape on her. She clearly deposed that the name of Constable as Srinivas, who called her mother informing to come to Court for giving their evidence. She clearly deposed that said Constable called them for two times on 28.09.2011 ie., at 9.00 or 9.30 A.M., and at 11.30 A.M., and thereafter or prior to 9.00 A.M., on that day, they did not receive his calls. She clearly deposed that her statement was recorded on 02.10.2011 at her residence in the afternoon hours ie., after 2.00 P.M., at Kagaznagar and she does not know in which language her statement was recorded, but she stated to Police in the Urdu language and her statement was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., they informed the police that the accused is pressurising them to get the matter compromised, but they did not lodge any complaint. She admitted that the entire alleged incident happened in the Court was informed to them by Police in phone as well as after coming to their home. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing false at the instance of police, that on that day there was no buses strike, that the initial rape case was fled by her at the instance of two persons namely Syed Gulam Ahmad and Shaik Mahamood and now deposing false in this case at the instance of police, by creating this false case at the instance of those two persons. She denied the suggestion that due to rivalry of accused with those two persons, false cases were fled by using her as a tool to take revenge against them, that A1 never asked them to compromise the frst matter as he has not committed any sin or guilty, that if really he intended to compromise, they would have lodged the complaint in that aspect.
10
C.C.No.444 of 2015
In the cross examination by the learned counsel for A2 she denied the suggestion that the teacher by name Nishath was not at all working in their Madarsa school and the said name was stated by police.
19.Pws. 7 and 8 are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama of accused but they did not support the case of the prosecution, as such they were treated as hostile and nothing was elicited int their cross examination.
20.There remains the evidence of PW9 and his evidence is formal in nature. In the evidence he clearly deposed about the receipt of complaint from the Hon’ble Asst.Sessions Court, Karimnagar, examining the witnesses, apprehending the accused and seizing of documents from the possession of A1 and A2 as per their confession under cover confession panchanama in the presence of mediators. He also deposited the seized slip which was seized from A2 and produced it before this Court. The said seized slip contains name and particulars of Neha Samrin in Urdu language, duly written by A1 and subsequently they also fled a petition before this Court to forward the said slip along with admitted signatures/writings to the Forensic Science Laboratory, for comparison and report. Accordingly this Court obtained specimen signatures and specimen writings and forwarded them along with the disputed slip to the FSL, which after examining, gave its opinion and the said issue is pertaining to the case against juvenile. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for A1 he stated that he recorded the statement of LW6/PW6, alleged victim in the Sessions case, at her residence by visiting her place. He denied all the suggestion of the learned counsel for A1. He admitted that in the complaint, the name of accused was not mentioned, that in the statements of Pws. 1 to 5, they did not state the names of the accused. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for A2 he admitted that in the complaint, the name of A2, who alleged to have accompanied with the alleged impersonated victim juvenile, is not mentioned in the complaint Ex.P1 and that the eye witnesses also did not state the name of A2 and he did not collect any documents to show that A2 worked as Teacher in Madarsa school, that no statement of juvenile victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C was recorded.
21.The evidence of Pws. 1 to 5 clearly goes to show that the schedule in
SC.No.387 of 2011 was fxed and accordingly as per the evidence of PW5, he
informed the same to the original witnesses Lws. 1 and 2 therein to come and give their evidence in that case on 28.09.2011 prior to that date. As per the evidence of Pws. 1 to 5, the said alleged witnesses in Burka clad came to Court to give their evidence therein. As per their evidence, A1 herein, who was shown as accused in 11
C.C.No.444 of 2015
SC.No.387 of 2011 was physically present as an accused and when called the
matter, said juvenile delinquent in that case was present in the Court hall as a witness to depose in that case. As per the evidence of PW4 while she was entering into the Court hall two woman in Burka clad came to her and informed that they came to depose in a case and she asked to wait them outside and thereafter she informed the police constable/PW5 that the witnesses have already come, on which he informed to confrm the same and went outside and immediately one Burka clad woman entered into Court hall as a witness and then she asked that witness entered into witness box to depose her evidence and while deposing, suddenly the Court Constable/PW5 came to her and informed that the said witness is not original victim in that SC.No.387 of 2011. Immediately she asked the said witness to know her particulars and when she failed to give the exact particulars, she asked her to open face mask and then that alleged witness informed her name as Chandrika @ Fathima and then they confrmed that she came to Court as a witness by impersonating original victim Neha Samrin, then she informed the same to the Presiding Ofcer PW2 and also fled a memo in that aspect, on which the Presiding Ofcer PW2 stopped the recording of evidence of that witness, recorded the same on the docket and directed the concerned Court personnel to lodge the complaint by handing over that impersonated person to police. The evidence of PW5 duly supported the evidence of PW4 with regard to the presence of alleged impersonated witness in the place of original witness. The evidence of PW2 the Presiding Ofcer is also duly supporting the case of the prosecution that the alleged impersonated witness entered into the witness box and while deposing, the P.P. asked her particulars and after informing the concerned Court Constable, she questioned that witness with regard to her particulars, on which the impersonated witness expressed her original particulars that she came to depose in the place of original victim Neha Samrin. Then PW2 stopped the proceedings and asked the staf to lodge the complaint by handing over that impersonated witness to police. Though PW2 deposed before this Court that he saw another Burka clad woman outside the Court hall, he did not give the particulars of that woman as well as the evidence of PW4/P.P. initially shows that the Burka clad woman A2 came to witness box and while deposing, she asked that A2 to open her face mask and on her giving particulars, she confrmed that she is not the original victim, as informed by the Police Constable/PW5. Though in the chief examination she(PW4) mistakenly deposed that A2 entered into the witness box, in the cross examination she clarifed that the witness therein was a juvenile delinquent, and also during the course of cross examination by the learned counsel for A2 she stated the original name of alleged witness PW1 in that case was Neha Samrin @ Chandrika, and later also deposed that the said impersonated was accompanied by A2 herein at that time.
22.As per the evidence of PW6, original victim they were informed about the trial schedule in that SC.NO.387 of 2011 by PW5 asking to come to the Court for giving 12
C.C.No.444 of 2015 their evidence on 28.09.2011 prior to two days of that date but they did not come to the Court on that date due to buses strike. The same can be acceptable because as suggested by the learned counsel for A1 in the cross examination of Pws. 1 to 5 that the Telangana agitation was going on in those days and due to which the buses might have been under strike. Hence, it is clear that from the evidence of PW6 that schedule was fxed on that date, but though informed about the schedule, they did not come due to buses strike and informed their non attending the Court to the said Constable PW5 and as deposed by PW6, on that date itself, PW5 called her and confrmed whether they came to Court or not since the alleged impersonated witness was already present and was in the witness box in her place. Therefore , it is clear that the alleged juvenile delinquent was present on that date to depose in the place of original victim Neha Samrin in SC.No.387 of 2011 and on the information of PW5 to PW4, they informed to the Presiding Ofcer PW2, who stopped the proceedings and got initiated the legal proceeding by directing the concerned ofcials to lodge the Complaint and accordingly PW1 lodged the complaint and put the criminal law into motion.
23.The evidence of PW2 clearly goes to show that the alleged impersonated witness was present in the witness box and they started recording her evidence and when the learned P.P informed that she is not the original witness, they stopped recording the evidence and they obtained signature ofPW1 (impersonated person) on that deposition and it was got marked as Ex.P3, which shows the name and particulars of that witness as Neha Samrin, D/o.Mohammed Saleem, Age:15 years and her deposition is as under; “I am resident of Vijayabasanthi street, Khagaznagar. I am without any avocation. LW2 Jahida Begum is my mother. I do not know the accused. 4 or 5 months back under the infuence of some persons of Karimnagar I gave a report to police. (at this juncture the learned PP has represented that the deponent who is deposing at present is not the victim (LW1) Neha Samrin and she wants some time to elicit some information with regard to the identity of the victim. Hence, further chief is deferred.”
24.Then it was typed as deferred and obtained her signature. From the above evidence, it is clear that the witness deposed before that Court that she does not know the accused which shows that she might have compromised the matter and when the P.P., represented that she is not the original victim Neha Samrin, the further chief examination was deferred and on the memo Ex.P2 fled by the said learned P.P., that the original victim did not appear before the Court and in her place the said delinquent impersonated witness appeared and to get acquittal or to depose in favour of the accused, she deposed that she does not know the accused clearly in that case, which shows that as per the evidence of Pws. 1 to 6 and 9, the 13
C.C.No.444 of 2015 accused brought the said witness with a view to get favourable deposition and to get acquittal of that case. Though the learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that the accused is nothing to do with that witness, cannot be believable because he the is main culprit in that case and without his knowledge or abetment, the said impersonated witness shall not have dare to come to the Court and give evidence in his favour. Further, the evidence of PW6, original victim clearly shows that PW5 informed her about fxing of schedule and asking them to come to Court to give their evidence, they informed the Police Constable PW5 that they are not coming to Court due to buses strike and when the proceedings were going on in the open Court at about 11.30 A.M., on information by the learned P.P./PW4, again PW5 called for confrmation and on which PW6 informed that they did not come and then immediately he went and informed the non appearance of original witness to the learned APP/PW4, who inturn accordingly informed the same to PW2 and then PW2 stopped proceedings and in the meanwhile PW4 also fled Ex.P2 memo. Hence, it is clear that it is the accused, who tried to get acquittal of that case by placing the false evidence through the impersonated witness in place of original witness and without his complicity, no witness shall not have dare to come and to depose before that Court. Though the learned counsel for A1 tried to discredit the testimonies of Pws. 1 to 6, by cross examining at length he failed to discredit their testimonies because in the cross examination they did not shake and they clearly supported the case of the prosecution.
25.The evidence of Pws. 1 and 3 shows that on the instructions of PW2, they lodged the complaint and PW3 also deposed about the happening of that incident in the Court hall and his evidence is also duly supported by the evidence of Pws. 2, 4 and 5 that the alleged impersonated witness was present before the Court in the witness box and tried to give false evidence and accordingly deposed that she does not know the accused, which clearly shows that she was deposing in favour of accused and when PW5 contacted the original victim(PW6) who, confrmed of their non appearance before that Court which shows that the said alleged delinquent juvenile was present in the place of original victim and deposed before the Court in favour of accused with a view to get acquittal in the said case against the accused. Further, as contended by the learned APP, there is no one to procure this type of witness except the accused and no prudent man can expect that they themselves voluntarily came to that Court and gave evidence in favour of accused without information or abetment of accused person, as such it is clear that the accused brought that witness with a view to getting deposition of the witness in his favour in the place of original victim and to get acquittal of that case as such he is responsible for the said alleged acts of the alleged juvenile delinquent witness.
14
C.C.No.444 of 2015
26.The evidence of Pws. 1 to 6 and 9 shows that A2 was also accompanied with the juvenile delinquent duly brought by A1 to the Court and as per the evidence of PW2, he has seen another Burka clad woman outside the Court hall whereas in the chief examination itself PW4 deposed that A2 entered into the witness box as original witness Neha Samrin and started deposing before the Court and meanwhile on the information of PW5, she informed that the witness is not original witness Neha Samrin and she came to know that said witness is Chandrika and later in the cross examination by the learned counsel for A2 she verifed with the name of the impersonated witness as Chandrika @ Nehasimran, whereas the cross examination PW2 admitted that he did not state the name of accused in his statement, Pws. 1 and 3 also admitted that they did not state the names of accused in the complaint and in their statements, admittedly they did not state the names of A1 and A2 in their statements as well as in the complaint. Further, PW2 also did not state in his statement about his witnessing that another Burka clad woman outside the Court hall, as admitted by him, as such it is clear that he improved his version with regard to the presence of A2 outside the Court hall and his witnessing her. Further PW5 deposed about the presence of A2 out side Court hall but in his statement also he did not depose about the presence of A2 outside the Court hall as such the evidence of Pws.2, 4 and 5 with regard to the presence of A2 out side the Court hall in Burka clad woman, is treated as improved version and except the said improved version there is no other material placed before this Court with regard to the alleged abetment of A2 in getting deposition of juvenile delinquent in favour of A1 in that
SC.NO.387 of 2011.
27.Moreover, the alleged mediators Pws. 7 and 8 did not support the case of the prosecution to say that the alleged documents were seized from the possession of the accused/A1 and A2 in pursuance of their confession and the evidence of Pws .1 to 6 coupled with the evidence of PW9 clearly goes to show that the alleged acts of A1 in abetting juvenile delinquent for deposing false evidence before the Hon’ble Asst.Sessions Court, Karimnagar in a judicial proceeding and that juvenile delinquent also signed in that deposition.
28.As per the evidence of PW9 coupled with Ex.P9 to P12, which are pertaining to the alleged writings on Ex.P9 which were compared with the specimen writings of A1 and as per Ex.P12 report, it is stated that “the specimen signatures marked as S2 have been executed in English, whereas ,questioned signatures marked as Q2 and Q3 are in Urdu. However, on inter-se-examination, they have found similarities between the questioned signatures marked Q2 and Q3”. But further stated that “as the said Urdu signatures are not comparable with the English signatures marked S2, no defnite opinion can be expressed regarding their authorship or otherwise and 15
C.C.No.444 of 2015 asked the investigating agency to send further document of similar nature” but they did not act upon it. However, since, as already stated supra, there is no evidence
before this Court in respect of the role played by A2 and the alleged documents
Ex.P9 to P12 also did not support the case of the prosecution, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 for the alleged ofences. But whereas the evidence of Pws. 1 to 6 and 9 coupled with Ex.P1 to P6 clearly goes to show that A1 abetted the juvenile delinquent ie., impersonated witness in SC.No.387 of 2011 to give false evidence in his favour and accordingly she deposed before that Court but the same was, after knowing that she is not the original witness, adjourned for further continuation of recording her evidence and hence it is clear that it is A1, who has brought that witness for getting favourable evidence in that case and to get acquittal of that case but in the meanwhile, the same was identifed by Pws. 4 and 5 on confrmation with PW6 and then informed the same to the learned Presiding Ofcer/PW2, who accordingly stopped the proceedings and directed to lodge the complaint and on such direction, PW1 lodged the complaint and the evidence of PW2 is also duly supported by the evidence of Pws. 1 and 3 to 6 and 9 and hence the evidence of Pws. 1 to 6 and 9 is duly supporting the case of the prosecution against A1 for the alleged ofences. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution could establish the guilt of A1 for the alleged ofences beyond reasonable doubt.
29.The learned counsel for A1 contended that instead of initiating procedure under Section 340 or 195 of Cr.PC, PW2 intentionally got lodged the complaint and failed to follow the procedure and saying so he relied on a decision reported in
K. Ram Reddy vs. State of AP. & Another [1998 (1) ALD (Crl.) 437 (AP).
30.For better understanding Section 340 and 195 of Cr.P.C are reproduced here under:
“340.Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195:
(1) when, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of Justice that an inquiry should be made into any ofence referred to in clause(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, or as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,
(a) record a fnding to that efect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) sent it to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction; 16
C.C.No.444 of 2015
(d) take sufcient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate or if the alleged ofence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate, and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate, (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an ofence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that ofence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub section (4) of Section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this Section shall be signed
(a) whether the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such ofcer of the Court as the Court may appoint:
(b) in any other case, by the Presiding Ofcer of the Court or by such ofcer of the Court as the Court may authorize in writing in this behalf.
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in Section 195.
“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for
the ofences against public justice and for ofences relating to documents
given in evidence: (1). No Court shall take cognizance:
(a) (I) of any ofence punishable under Section 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such ofence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such ofence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b). (I) of any ofence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such ofence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any ofence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, Section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such ofence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding, in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any ofence specifed in sub-clause(i) or sub-clause(ii).
31.As per the above provision under Section 340 of Cr.P.C, the Court may after such preliminary inquiry, record a fnding to that efect; or make a complaint thereof in writing; or send it to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction; or take sufcient security or bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate etc.,.
17
C.C.No.444 of 2015
32.Since in the present case on hand, the learned APP therein ie., PW4 has fled a memo by stating that the witness is not the original victim to depose before that Court on which the truth or otherwise of the same has to be elicited by conducting an investigation through the investigating agency. As per section 195 of Cr.P.C, no Court shall take cognizance of the ofence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC or of abetment or attempt to commit such ofene or of criminal conspiracy of such ofence except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned. As per section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C for the ofence under Section 193 of IPC no Court can take cognizance except on the complaint of the public servant concerned. In the case on hand, on the directions of PW2, PW1, public servant, lodged the complaint against the accused for the alleged acts committed by them in a judicial proceeding before PW2 and accordingly the investigating ofcer PW9 conducted investigation and fled Charge Sheet, on which this Court took cognizance and as per Section 195 (1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C, there is no fault in taking cognizance against the accused for the alleged ofences. Though the learned Presiding Ofcer did not initiate proceedings before him, as per Section 340 of Cr.P.C, the same is not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution and the learned Presiding Ofcer/PW2 has discretion either to conduct inquiry before him or to lodge the complaint for getting true facts of the case and accordingly he directed the concerned personnel of the Court to lodge the complaint and accordingly PW1 lodged the complaint on which the criminal law was set in motion and PW9 conducted investigation and fled Charge Sheet against the accused for the alleged ofences.
33.Further the above decision cited by the learned counsel for A1 shows that in that decision, the Court of Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar made complaint on the basis of orders made by them under Section 340(i) of the Code with regard to the bails issues and on which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Karimnagar took cognizance and transferred them to the Court of Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad and in those cases the accused were convicted and against
which some of the accused appealed to the Hon’ble High Court questioning the orders of the lower Court. Further in that matter it was alleged that some Advocates have tampered the orders of the Hon’ble Sessions Courts in bails applications for making over those matters to a specifc Hon’ble Sessions Court and on identifying the same lodged the complaint but in the case on hand, it is juvenile delinquent, who gave false evidence before the learned Presiding Ofcer/PW2 in a judicial proceeding directly and on knowing that she is not the original victim deposing in favour of the accused, on the memo fled by PW4, PW2 directed to launch the criminal proceeding and since the alleged acts were occurred in the presence of the Presiding Ofcer/PW2 while conducting the judicial proceeding, he pressed the 18
C.C.No.444 of 2015 criminal law into motion by directing the personnel to lodge the complaint, to know the real facts in the matter and accordingly the police conducted investigation and fled Charge Sheet against A1 and A2. Therefore, the said facts of above cited decision are not applicable to the facts on hand in exercising the discretion by PW2. Since there is no evidence against A2, as stated supra, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution is failed to establish the guilt of A2, but whereas, it could establish the guilt of A1 for the alleged ofences that he abetted the impersonated juvenile delinquent to act as original victim with a view to depose in his favour and accordingly the impersonated witness deposed in his favour and in the meanwhile, it was found that she is not the original victim and deposing falsity in favour of the accused, which was at the instance of the accused No.1.
34.The learned counsel for the accused contended that the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 and 9 is not corroborating with each other and there are contradictions, omissions or improvements with that of the prosecution case. It is true that there are some minor inconsistencies in the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 and 9 and the same are not at all a ground to consider, as such, the same cannot be a ground to discredit the entire testimonies of those witnesses. The Hon'ble Apex Court in A.Shankar v. State of Karnataka decided on 9th June, 2011 held that “However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not afect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a fnding as to whether his deposition inspires confdence.” As observed above and as per the above decision, the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 and 9 together with Ex.P1 to P8 is corroborating with each other and their evidence is found to be reliable and trustworthy duly supporting the case of the prosecution, as it inspires the confdence of the court.
35.The learned defence counsel for A1 further contended that there is unexplained delay in fling Ex.P1 complaint, as such the accused is entitled for acquittal. As per the evidence and case of the prosecution, the incident was occurred on 28.09.2011 in the morning hours, Ex.P1 was lodged on 28.09.2011 at 16.30 hours and as per the endorsement it was received by PW9 on that day at 16.30 hours. It is true that there is some delay in fling Ex.P1 complaint, in which PW1 has already explained the circumstances and the same were also deposed by Pws. 1 to 6 and 9 duly supporting the case of the prosecution and though there is some delay, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the same cannot be considered as a ground to throw away the entire case of the prosecution in the light of the evidence placed before this court. Further, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh &
19
C.C.No.444 of 2015
Ors. [(2003) 2 SCC 518] held that “there is no hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would automatically render the prosecution case doubtful. It necessarily depends upon facts and circumstances of each case whether there has been any such delay in lodging the FIR which may cast doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case.” The Supreme Court also further held that “there is no mathematical formula by which an inference may be drawn either way merely on account of delay in lodging of the FIR”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in Sahebrao & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [2006 Crl.L.J. 2881] held as “the settled principle of law is that delay in fling FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case and discard it. The delay in lodging the FIR would put the Court on its guard to search if any plausible explanation has been ofered and if ofered whether it is satisfactory.” Basing on the above settled principles of law and as per the discussion made above with regard to Ex.P1 complaint, this court is of the considered opinion that the alleged delay cannot be considered as a ground to throw away the case of the prosecution. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused No.1 in that regard has no force to sustain.
36.Therefore, from the above discussion and in view of the settled principles of law, this court is of the opinion that the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 and 9 coupled with Ex.P1 to P8 is reliable in nature, trustworthy and corroborating with each other in all aspects as the same inspires confdence of this Court, as such it is held that the prosecution has amply proved the guilt of the Accused No.1 for the ofences punishable under Sections 193 (part-I) read with 109, 419 read with 109, 466, 466 read with 109 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.
37.In the result, A2 is found not guilty for the ofences under Sections 193 (Part-1) read with 109, 419 read with 109, 466 and 466 read with 109 of IPC as such she is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., but A1 is found guilty for the ofences punishable under Sections 193 (Part-1) read with 109, 419 read with 109, 466 and 466 read with 109 of IPC and he is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.
38. Due to COVID-19 instructions and as per the circular instructions of the
Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad in ROC.No.394/SO/2020,
dt.13.06.2020, this case is disposed of on 20.08.2020 fnding the accused No.1 guilty for the above said ofences and as he is absent, adjourned to 25.08.2020 for hearing the accused No.1 on quantum of sentence.
Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the
open Court on this the 20th day of August, 2020.
Judl. Magistrate of First Class, 20
C.C.No.444 of 2015 (Special Mobile),Karimnagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1B.Satyanarayana Raju Nil PW2P.Ranjankumar PW3V.Kankaiah PW4R.V Geethareddy PW5A.Srinivas Rao PW6Neha Samreen PW7Md.Ahmed PW8Mirza Azmath Ali Baig PW9G.Vijay Kumar
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE Ex.P1: Complaint fled by B.Sathyanarayana Raju and V.Kankaiah Nil Ex.P2: Memo fled by Addl.P.P. Mrs. Geetha Reddy, dt.28.09.2011 Ex.P3: Deposition of PW1 in SC.No.387 of 2011 on the fle of Hon’ble Asst.Sessions Judge’s, Karimnagar Ex.P4: Signature of PW7 on confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P5: Signature of PW8 on confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P6: First Information Report. Ex.P7: Confession panchanama of A1 Ex.P8: Confession-cum-recovery panchanama of A2 Ex.P9: Slip written in Urdu language Ex.P10: Admitted signatures of A1 (in 6 pages). Ex.P11: Admitted writings of A1 (in 6 pages). Ex.P12: Letter, dt.04.07.2012 of FSL.
MATERIAL OBJECTS:- Nil Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Special Mobile),Karimnagar.
21
C.C.No.444 of 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
(SPECIAL MOBILE), AT KARIMNAGAR.
PRESENT: P.Sai Sudha,
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JMFC,
KARIMNAGAR.
FAC: Judl. Magistrate of F.C., (Special Mobile), Karimnagar.
TUESDAY, the 1st day of September, 2020
CC.No 444 of 2015
Date:01.09.2020
1.Today, the accused No.1 is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence through the Whatsapp video call of the Bench Clerk Smt.Sravani to the Whatsapp video call of the respective learned counsel.
2.Heard A1 with regard to the quantum of sentence that may be imposed against him. He submitted that he is having old aged parents and three children and he has to look after them and fne may be imposed.
3.As the ofences committed by A1 are serious in nature this Court is not inclined to invoke benevolent provisions under Section 360 Cr.P.C or Probation of Ofenders Act. As A1 has abetted giving false evidence in the Court proceedings, lenient view cannot be taken.
4.Therefore considering the above circumstances, this court is not inclined to extend the beneft under the provisions of Probation of Ofenders Act for the accused No.1. Hence, considering the nature of ofence and to meet the ends of justice, this court is inclined to impose sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, the accused No.1 is sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and shall pay a fne of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fne to undergo S.I for one month for the ofence punishable under Section 193 (part-I) read with 109 of IPC. Further the accused No.1 is sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and shall pay a fne of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fne to undergo S.I for one month for the ofence punishable under Section 419 read with 109 of IPC Further the accused No.1 is sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay a fne of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fne to undergo S.I for one month for the ofence punishable under Section 466 of IPC. Further the accused No.1 is sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay a fne of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fne to undergo S.I for one month for the ofence punishable under Section 466 read with 109 of IPC. The sentence of imprisonment already underwent by the accused No.1 from 03.10.2011 to 07.06.2012 to till date shall be set of as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. All the sentences of imprisonment imposed against the accused No.1 shall run concurrently. The copy of judgment is 22
C.C.No.444 of 2015 supplied to the accused No.1 at free of cost under Section 363 of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The right of appeal is intimated to accused No.1.
5.In the result, A2 is found not guilty for the ofences under Sections 193 (Part-
1) read with 109, 419 read with 109, 466 and 466 read with 109 of IPC as such she is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., but A1 is found guilty for the ofences punishable under Sections 193 (Part-1) read with 109, 419 read with 109, 466 and 466 read with 109 of IPC and he is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.
Accused No.1 is sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and shall pay a fne of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fne to undergo S.I for one month for the ofence punishable under Section 193 (part-I) read with 109 of IPC. Further the accused No.1 is sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and shall pay a fne of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fne to undergo S.I for one month for the ofence punishable under Section 419 read with 109 of IPC Further the accused No.1 is sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay a fne of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fne to undergo S.I for one month for the ofence punishable under Section 466 of IPC. Further the accused No.1 is sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay a fne of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fne to undergo S.I for one month for the ofence punishable under Section 466 read with 109 of IPC.
Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open Court on this the 1st day of September , 2020.
Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-JMFC, Karimangar FAC:Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Special Mobile),Karimnagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1B.Satyanarayana Raju Nil PW2P.Ranjankumar PW3V.Kankaiah PW4R.V Geethareddy PW5A.Srinivas Rao PW6Neha Samreen PW7Md.Ahmed PW8Mirza Azmath Ali Baig PW9G.Vijay Kumar
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE Ex.P1: Complaint fled by B.Sathyanarayana Raju and V.Kankaiah Nil Ex.P2: Memo fled by Addl.P.P. Mrs. Geetha Reddy, dt.28.09.2011 23
C.C.No.444 of 2015
Ex.P3: Deposition of PW1 in SC.No.387 of 2011 on the fle of Hon’ble Asst.Sessions Judge’s, Karimnagar Ex.P4: Signature of PW7 on confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P5: Signature of PW8 on confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P6: First Information Report. Ex.P7: Confession panchanama of A1 Ex.P8: Confession-cum-recovery panchanama of A2 Ex.P9: Slip written in Urdu language Ex.P10: Admitted signatures of A1 (in 6 pages). Ex.P11: Admitted writings of A1 (in 6 pages). Ex.P12: Letter, dt.04.07.2012 of FSL.
MATERIAL OBJECTS:- Nil
Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-JMFC, Karimangar FAC:Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Special Mobile),Karimnagar.
24