P.V.S. Surya Narayana Murthy

Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2020 1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE :: MADANAPALLE

Present: P.V.S. Surya Narayana Murty, II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle.

Tuesday, the Nineteenth (19th ) day of May, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.79 of 2020

[CC No. 649 of 2018 on the file of II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle].

1. Name & Description of Erri Reddi Prasad, S/o late Prasad Babu, aged the Appellant/ Accused about 23 years, Event Organizer, Kan- No.5 nemaduguvaripalle Village, H/o Vempalle, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. Name & Description of The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Respondent/ Com-the Sub Inspector of Police, Madanapalle I plainant Town Police station, Madanapalle.

3. Sentence and order the 12.02.2020 law under which it was imposed.

4. Whether modified, con- firmed, or reversed, if Confirmed modified, the details of modification

5. Presentation of the ap-04.03.2020 peal

6. Finding of the appeal Appeal is dismissed.

7. Date of hearing 09.04.2026 & 11.05.2026

8. Date of judgment 19.05.2026

Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2020 2

This Criminal Appeal coming on for hearing before on 09.04.2026 and 11.05.2026 and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y.Samba Siva Reddy, Advocate for

Appellant/Accused No.5 and of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madanapalle in CC No.649 of 2018 dated 12-02-2020, the accused No.5 has preferred the present Appeal under section 374(3) of Cr.P.C.

a). The present appellant is the accused No.5 before the trial court. For the sake of convenience the appellant herein is called as Accused No.5 .

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, I Town Police station, Madanapalle had filed a charge-sheet against the accused No.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under section 379 or 411 of IPC in Crime No.109 of 2018. The case of the prosecution in brief are as follows:

(a) The informant i.e., PW1 had parked his Royal Enfield motor bike i.e., MO1 in front of his house at Nakkaladinne Thanda during the night hours of 03.07.2018 and on the next morning, he found his bike missing.

The same is worth about Rs.1,00,000/-. In this regard, having searched for the same, he lodged a report on 02.09.2018. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the Accused 1 to 5 have committed the theft of the same and it was seized from their possession under the cover of arrest cum seizure mahazarnama on 06.10.2018 by the police.

Thus, the accused 1 to 5 have committed the offence under section 379/Sec. 311 of IPC.

Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2020 3 3). The II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle has taken the case on its file under section Sections 379 or 411 of I.P.C., against the

Accused Nos.1 to 5 and issued summons and registered the case as

CC.No.649/2018.

a) After the appearance of the accused No.1 to A5, the trial court has furnished the copies of the documents to them according to section 207 of

Cr.P.C. Later they were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and the charges for the offences under section 379 or 411 of I.P.C., framed against A1 to A5 read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which, they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial, before the trial court, the prosecution examined P.W.’s 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.s’ P.1 to P.6 and MO1.

a). After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 5 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material for which they denied the same and reported that they have no evidence on their behalf.

5. After hearing the arguments of both sides and considering the material on record, the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Madanapalle has found the Accused Nos.1 to 5 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.411 IPC and they are convicted U/Sec.248(2)

Cr.P.C. Further, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years each for the offence punishable under section 411 of I.P.C.

The Accused Nos.1 to 5 are sentenced by the same court to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Two years each for the offence punishable U/Sec.411 of I.P.C. in each case i.e., C.C.No.604/2018,

C.C.No.608/2018 and C.C.No.644/2018. The sentence of substantive imprisonment imposed in this case shall run concurrently with the sentence of

Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2020 4 substantive imprisonments imposed in the above calendar cases U/Sec.427

Cr.P.C. The respective remand period of the Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall be given set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the

II Additional Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle the Accused No.5 has preferred the present appeal under section 374(3) of Cr.P.C on the following grounds.

1. The judgment of the trial Court in convicting the

Appellant/Accused No.5 is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2. The trial court ought not have convicted the

Appellant/Accused No.5 as the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the

Appellant/Accused NO.5 for the offence U/Sec.411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The Trial court failed to notice that the alleged stolen property which is said to have been recovered from the alleged possession of Accused NO.1 but not from the possession of the

Appellant/Accused No.5.

4. The trial court failed to notice that the alleged confession of the Appellant/Accused No.5 is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act.

5. The trial court failed to notice that the investigating officer had not collected CCTV footage and failed to collect scientific evidence.

It is prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Second Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Madanapalle in CC No. 649 of 2018 dated 12.02.2020.

Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2020 5

7. Heard the arguments of appellant counsel and APP.

The counsel for the appellant/Accused No.5 has submitted that in

Ex.P1 complaint it mentions unknown offenders and there is no mention of the name of the accused. According to him the alleged seizure of MO1 is from the possession of Accused No.1 but not from the possession of the

Accused No.5 and hence the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.5. He has further submitted that except the inadmissible confession there is no material to prove the guilt of the accused No.5. He has further submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. According to him the trial court without appreciating the evidence on record convicted the accused. He prays to allow the appeal.

(a) Per contra, the learned APP has submitted that based on the confession of the accused MO1 seized and accused No.1 to 5 committed the offence and hence the accused were in constructive possession of MO1 and hence the version of appellant is incorrect. He has further submitted that the trial court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the accused and there are no grounds in the appeal . He prays to confirm the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

8. Based on the contentions, the following points are formulated for determination.

1.whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

Accused No.5 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec.411 of I.P.C.?

2.Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is it factually and legally sustainable?

3.To what relief?

Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2020 6 9.POINT No.(i)

The perusal of the Ex.P1 report lodged by PW1 dt. 02.09.2018 discloses that since 8 months prior to the report, PW1 was working as a Field

Officer in a private company and he owns the Royal Enfield motor bike bearing No. AP 02 CC 4581. On 03.07.2018, as usual, he parked his bike in front of his room by locking it. The next morning, he found his bike missing and searched for the same. He went to his native place and could not come back to Madanapalle due to his personal works. He enquired with his friends about his bike and later, lodged this report against unknown offenders suspecting that the same was committed theft. The worth of the bike is

Rs.1,00,000/- and the engine number, chassis number of the bike are given.

Based on the same i.e., Ex.P1 report, the F.I.R vide crime No. 109/2018 was registered under Ex.P4 and the case was investigated.

(a).PW1 who is the informant has deposed that when he was residing at

Nakkala Dinne Thanda in the year 2018, on 03.07.2018 at about 8-30 PM, he parked his Royal Enfield Gun metal bike bearing No. AP 02 CC 4581 in front of his room at Nakkaladinne Thanda. He found the same missing on the next day. Having searched for the same for about one month, he lodged an Ex.P1 report and subsequently, police informed him that his bike was traced out. He took the interim custody of the MO1 bike from the court.

(b) This witness is not cross examined at all and so, there is no denial about PW1 being the owner of MO1 bike and the same being in possession of

PW1 prior to the theft. Significantly, there is no claim from the accused or anyone else regarding MO1 bike and the engine, chassis number are clearly mentioned in Ex.P1 report. Considering the nature of the stolen property, it is not possible to plant any other bike in place of a stolen bike of PW1 with the same engine and chassis numbers by police or anyone else.

Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2020 7

(c) It is the testimony of PW4 that basing on this Ex.P1, he registered a case in crime No. 109/2018 and examined the witnesses.He has seized the

R.C. of M.O.1 under the cover of police proceedings dt. 02.09.2018. Also, the

Xerox copy of the insurance of the bike along with R.C. Xerox copy was seized under this Ex.P6. All this further fortifies the fact that the MO1 bike belongs to PW1. Though the seized copies are not exhibited separately, there is no denial about the ownership of the bike as mentioned above. This PW4 i.e., the 1st Investigating Officer has visited the scene of offence on the next day, examined the witnesses, scene of offence and drawn Ex.P5 rough sketch. He admits about the delay in lodging the report. But the delay is satisfactorily explained and PW1 belongs to the neighboring district. He was at

Nakkaladinne Thanda in pursuance of his employment at that time. Later, he went to his native place. After ascertaining with his friends and after thoroughly searching for the bike, with a delay of 1 ½ months, he lodged the report. There is no cross examination regarding the Ex.P1 at all. So with the above material, the prosecution could establish that the bike i.e., MO1 was stolen from the possession of PW1 and there is no claim from anyone else regarding this bike including the accused.

(d). During the course of investigation, as seen from the evidence of PW5, after he took up investigation from PW4, on 04.09.2018. He received information on 07.10.2018 that the accused were arrested in crime

No.13/2018 of Madanapalle Taluq police station and that they confessed about this offence also. Then they filed P.T. warrant requisition and got regularized the accused and later filed a charge sheet. He admits that PW3 has arrested the accused and shown the recovery of all the two wheelers and thereafter, he got executed P.T. warrant. PW3 has denied the suggestion that the two wheeler seized somewhere were planted in this case. But there is no such possibility considering the engine and chassis numbers of the vehicle and in fact, there was no cross examination of PW1 at all regarding the

Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2020 8 identity of the stolen bike. In the light of PW1 not being cross examined, the reasons for the delay put forth stands proved and already, it is held that MO1 is the stolen bike of PW1 and that PW1 was in possession of the same before it was committed theft.

(e).Now adverting to the aspect whether the Appellant herein along with the other accused was found in the dishonest possession of the stolen MO1 bike of PW1 for which he could not account for, as the Appellant is acquitted for the offence under section 379 IPC, the scope of the present appeal is restricted to examining the offence under Sec. 411 of I.P.C alone.

(f) As per the prosecution case and particularly, the evidence of PW3, while he was the S.I of Madanapalle, Taluq police station, on credible information on 06.10.2018 i.e., about 3 months after the theft and after about 1 month of PW1 lodging the report, at about 6-30 AM, he received credible information. PW3 was not working at I Town Police station, Madanapalle in which this crime was registered.

(g) PW3 has secured the presence of PW2 and LW7 namely Reddy Sekhar and proceeded to Thattivaripalle junction. He went along with other police staff and mediators and while they were present there, 5 persons came on 3

Royal Enfield bikes. When they tried to escape, they were apprehended.

They were enquired separately and they revealed about the commission of thefts at different places and all the three bikes were seized from the Accused

Nos.1 to 5. MO1 pertaining to Crime No.109/2018 i.e., the present crime is also seized from the possession of the accused persons and the mahazarnama was prepared to that effect in the presence of the mediators.

Further, it came to light that they pledged one Royal Enfield motorbike with one G.V.Kiran Kumar of Madanapalle and 2 more Royal Enfield bikes were kept at the house of the Accused No.1. Thereafter, the accused led them to

Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2020 9 the house of the Accused No.1 and the Accused No.1 brought the 2 bikes which were pertaining to Crime Nos. 126/2018 and 127/2018 of Madnapalle II

P.S. The police seized them under another mahazaranama and the same is not relevant for the present case. Thereafter, the accused and the seized properties were brought to the police station and the accused were remanded in their crime i.e., Taluq P.S. Crime No. 13/2018. Later, the bikes were handed over to the concerned S.H.Os.

(h) During cross examination, he has stated that the C.C cameras at

Thattivaripalle cross were not in working condition. He admits that the registration numbers of the private vehicles by which they proceeded to the place of arrest are not mentioned in mahazarnama. Though there are three ways to proceed from Madanapale to Thattivaripalle cross, he admits that he specifically has not mentioned which way they proceeded to Thattivaripalle and from Thattivripalle cross to Seshappa Thota. Regarding the non examination of any person at Thattivaripalle cross, he has stated that none came forward and has denied that PW2 is a stock witness. He admits that he did not mention the colour of the alleged 3 motor bikes by which the accused came on that day. Admittedly, the signatures of the scribe i.e., P.C. so also, the other police staff are not seen on mahazarnama. He has pleaded ignorance if one crime i.e., Crime No.88/2018 registered against the Accused

No.1 has ended in acquittal. PW3 did not prepare the rough sketch with regard to the seizure of objects and the scribe i.e., P.C is not cited as the witness. PW3 denies that this is a false case foisted without placing CC footage and that he has recovered the alleged vehicles in a piecemeal manner and subsequently, implicated the accused. He has clarified that 18 police officials have accompanied him and they proceeded by two private vehicles.

Much of the cross examination is concentrated on those two private vehicles used to reach the place where the accused were caught while coming on three bikes. The same does not require much discussion at all. PW3 has

Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2020 10 denied the suggestion of the accused that the accused were wrongly detained for 4 days prior to sending them for judicial custody and PW3 has clarified that there is no crime police station at all at Madanapalle. Except giving suggestions, nothing could be elicited from this witness regarding the recovery of MO1 bike from the accused persons at Thattivaripalle cross while they were coming on 3 Royal Enfield bikes including MO1 and about the recovery being in the presence of PW2 and LW7 namely Reddy Sekhar under the cover of

Ex.P2.

(i). At this juncture, if the evidence of PW2 i.e., the VRO who acted as mahazardar is perused, he has stated that on 06.10.2018 at about 6-00 AM, he was fetched to Taluq police station by S.I though P.C. and by then, the other mahazardar was at station. The S.I has served summons to act as mediator and from there, they all went to Thattivripalle cross and found 5 persons coming on Royal Enfield motor bike and they tried to escape on seeing them. They were apprehended and enquired about the number plates of 3 Royal Enfield bikes. One after the other, they were enquired separately.

They confessed about committing the theft of those bikes at Maddikayyala

Sivalayam, Nakkaladinne Thanda (i.e., the present offence), Prasanth Nagar,

Gollapalle and Punganur. They revealed their identity particulars and further that, two more bikes are available at the house of the Accused No.1.

Pertaining to the recovery of the bikes at Thattivaripalle cross, Ex.P2 was conducted and accused have signed in Ex.P2. They were led to Seshappa

Thota to the house of the Accused No.1 and shown 2 Royal Enfield bikes which were committed theft at Prasanth Nagar and Gollapalle and they were seized under the cover of Ex.P3 seizure mahazarnama. During the cross examination, he has pleaded ignorance if there are C.C. TVs at that four road junction and stated that they travelled by private vehicles i.e., TATA Sumo vehicles. He has acted as mahazardar in about 9 or 10 cases and has clarified that they proceeded in the same vehicles to the house of the Accused

Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2020 11

No.1. According to him, the police did not enquire about anyone at the house of the Accused No.1 and stated that he has obtained oral permission from the

MRO. He has denied the suggestions given to him and nothing could be elicited from this witness about the recovery of Royal Enfield bikes including

Mo1 under Ex.P2 from the accused persons. Merely because PW2 has acted as mediator in 9 or 10 cases, he cannot be termed as a stock witness of police. In fact, nothing is elicited from PW2 about those cases and the period during which he has acted as mediator in 9 or 10 cases.

(j).From the consistent and convincing testimonies of PW2 and 3, the seizure of MO1 bike from the accused persons under Ex.P2 is thoroughly established. Absolutely, no discrepent versions are elicited from these witnesses in respect of Ex.P2 and the alleged suggestions given are denied by these witnesses. Infact, there is no possibility of planting a MO1 bike with similar engine number and chassis number as already pointed out. Even otherwise, there is no necessity for the police to plant 5 Royal Enfield bikes just to falsely implicate the accused.

(k). According to Section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, in the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

Illustration (a) says that that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession;

In this case on hand, there is unaccounted possession of M.O.1 by the accused and there is no denial that the MO1 is the stolen bike of PW1. The accused were found in illegal possession of MO1 bike and though the alleged confession of the accused is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the

Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2020 12 recovery of bikes is thoroughly proved. Considering the nature of the stolen property, it cannot be held that there is abnormal time gap between the theft and the recovery. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the presumption can safely be drawn that the Appellants have retained the stolen property i.e., M.O.1 for which they could not account for. Since there is no appeal preferred by the prosecution pertaining to the acquittal of the accused for the offence under section 379 of I.P.C, no comments regarding the charge under section 379 of I.P.C. are warranted. Therefore, the Appellants/Accused

No.5 is the receiver of the stolen property and have committed the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C.

(l) The counsel for the Appellant/accused No.5 has relied on the citation reported in 2025 (3) Ald Crl. 526 AP in between

Bommisetti Harikiran Vs. State of A.P.

In the cited case the Appellant approached the Hon’ble High court for grant of Anticipatory bail . In the cited case his lordship has observed at para 19 that the confession given to a police officer is inadmissible U/Sec.25 of

Indian Evidence Act, but if such confession leads to a discovery of fact it is relevant U/Sec.27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(m) The counsel for the appellant relied on the citation reported in 2025 (3) ALD Crl.117 T.S in between

Mohammed Ahmed @ Fardeen @ Laddu Vs. State of Telangana.

In the cited case his lordship has held at para 25 that the confession of an accused is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act, however exceptions are

Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2020 13 made U/Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of the confession.

In this case on hand based on the confession of the accused MO1 seized under the cover of the Ex.P2. No doubt the confession given by the accused while he was in custody of police is hit by Sec.25 of Evidence Act but the said confession which leads to recovery of MO1 is admissible U/Sec.27 of

Indian Evidence Act. Hence the above citations are not helpful to the accused

No.5 in the present set of facts.

(n).This court for the above discussion is of the considered opinion that the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the Accused No.5 and he is liable for conviction under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence under section 411 of

I.P.C and this point is answered against the Accused No.5/ Appellant.

10. Point No.(2):

Adverting to the point "whether the sentence passed by the trial court is factually and legally sustainable or not", as far as the Judgment of the trial court convicting the accused for the offence under section 411 I.P.C. is concerned, it is factually and legally sustainable and does not require any interference.

With regard to the quantum of sentence, in the light of the huge stolen properties involved in this case, the Accused No.5 is not entitled for the invocation of the benevolent provisions of P.O. Act. Already, a lenient view is taken by the trial court in respect of the sentence for the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C in this case while deciding 3 other C.Cs against the same

Accused. Hence, the sentence passed by the trial court also does not require any interference.

Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2020 14

11. Point No.(3):

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Appellant/Accused No.5 is dismissed, confirming the calendar and Judgment in C.C. No.649/2018,

dated 12.02.2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Madanapalle.

Dictated to the Typist of Special Magistrate Court, Madanapalle, after

her typing, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 19th day of May, 2026.

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge. Madanapalle.

Copy to the : II Additional Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle .

Note : The appellant/ Accused No.5 is absent. Hence the trial court is

directed to issue NBW against the accused No.5 secure his presence

and send him to Jail to undergo remaining sentence.

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge. Madanapalle.

Criminal Appeal. No. 81 of 2020 1.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE :: MADANAPALLE

Present: P.V.S. Surya Narayana Murty, II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle.

Tuesday, the Twelfth (12th ) day of May, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.81 of 2020

[CC No. 73 of 2015 on the file of Special J.M.F.C, Madanapalle].

1.Name & Description Mittapalle Dorababu S/o Lokanadha of the Appellant/ Reddy, aged about 43 years, Hindu, Accused residing at Kotarlapalle Village, Kothapallimitta Post, S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District.

2.Name & Description of the The State of A.P. Rep.by the Sub- Respondent / Inspector of police, Taluq P.S., Complainant Madanapalle (Crime No.283/2013 of Taluq Police Station, Madanapalle )

3.Sentence and order 15.02.2020 the law under which it was imposed.

4.Whether modified, confirmed, or Confirmed reversed, if modified, the details of modification

5.Presentation of the 04.03.2020 appeal

6.Finding of the appealDismissed

7.Date of hearing 11.04.2026 & 29.04.2026

8.Date of judgment 12.05.2026

This Criminal Appeal coming on for hearing before on 29.04.2026 and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y.V.Sesha Reddy, Advocate for

Appellant/Accused and of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

Criminal Appeal. No. 81 of 2020 2.

and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle in CC No.73 of 2015 dated 15.02.2020, the accused has preferred the present Appeal under section 374(2) of

Cr.P.C.

a). The present appellant is the accused before the trial court.

For the sake of convenience the appellant herein is called as

Accused.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluq Police station, had filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304(A), 338, 337 IPC and Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act in Crime No.283 of 2013. The case of the prosecution in brief are as follows:

The defacto/complainant is resident of Obulreddigaripalle village H/o Kothavaripalle . The accused is resident of Kothavaripalle village and working as a driver of Mahendra Max Jeep bearing

No.AP04 U 8895. On 28.10.2023 at about 5.00 AM one A.Krishna

Reddy (herein after called as the deceased) along with PW4 to 7 and others boarded an auto bearing No.AP03 X 6227 belonging to the

Pw11 to proceed Madanapalle and the said auto on the way stopped at Santhi nagar on Madanapalle – Tirupathi road for the purpose of passengers at about 5.30 AM. Then the vehicle i.e., Mahindra Jeep bearing No.AP04 U 8895 driven by the accused in a rash/negligent manner dashed the auto on its back side as a result, Pw4 to PW6,

Criminal Appeal. No. 81 of 2020 3.

Pw9 and the deceased sustained injuries and they were shifted to

Area hospital, Madanapalle. On the advice of a medical officer the deceased and Pw9 were referred to SVRR hospital, Tirupathi. On the way the deceased passed away. Pw9 sustained grievous injuries.

Based on the complaint of PW1 a case in Crime No.283/2013 was registered against the accused. PW13 conducted an inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and examined the witnesses. He arrested the accused on 31.10.2013.

The Pw11 is the owner of the vehicle. Pw15 examined the injured and issued the wound certificate. The PW12 conducted an autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. The accused did not provide first aid to the injured and did not inform the Police about the accident. After completion of investigation Pw13 filed the charge sheet.

3). The II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle has taken the case on its file under sections 304(A), 338, 337 IPC and

Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act , against the Accused and issued summons and registered the case as CC.No.13/2014.

a) After the appearance of the accused, the trial court has furnished the copies of the documents to him according to section 207 of Cr.P.C. Later he was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C for the offences under section 304(A), 338, 337 IPC and Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act., read over and explained to him in his vernacular language for which, he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Subsequently the case was transferred to

Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble District Judge, Chittoor vide

Dis.No.129/2015 dt.05-01-2015.

Criminal Appeal. No. 81 of 2020 4.

4. During trial, before the trial court, the prosecution examined

P.W.’s 1 to 15 and got marked Ex.s’ P.1 to P.13 . No exhibits are marked for the defence.

a). After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material for which he denied the same and reported that he has no evidence on his behalf.

5. After hearing the arguments of both sides and considering the material on record, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Madanapalle has found the Accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 304(A), 338, 337 IPC and Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and convicted U/Sec.255 (2) Cr.P.C.

(a) The Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Two years for the offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for two months, and the accused is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence U/Sec.337 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, S.I for two months, and the accused is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence U/Sec.338 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, S.I for two months, and the accused is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.250/- for the offence U/Sec.134(a) r/w 187 of M.V.Act, in default of payment of fine, S.I for one month, and the accused is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.250/- for the offence U/Sec.134(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act, in default of payment of fine, S.I for one month.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Criminal Appeal. No. 81 of 2020 5.

Madanapalle the Accused has preferred the present appeal under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C on the following grounds.

1. The judgment of the trial Court is against the law, incorrect and improbable.

2. The trial court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of

Pws 1 to 15 and acquit the accused .

3. The trial court failed to see that in case of criminal prosecution the complainant has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

4. The trial court failed to see that the name of the accused is not mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint and a test identification parade was not conducted to identify the accused.

5. The trial court failed to see that the complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence i.e., Trip sheet or log book to show that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle.

6. The trial court failed to see that the prosecution failed to prove the rash/negligent act of the accused.

7. The trial court failed to see that the material witnesses I.e

Pw6 to 8 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version.

8. The trial court failed to see in Ex.P7 postmortem report the time of death noted as 18 to 24 hours prior to PM examination and the time of accident is 5.30 AM and hence the deceased might have died prior to the accident.

9. The trial court failed to see that the auto bearing

NO.AP03 X 6227 stopped in the main road without any due care by putting indicator lights and the auto also overloaded and suddenly stopped the auto in a rash /negligent manner, caused the accident.

It is prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Madanapalle in CC No. 73 of 2015 dated 15.02.2020.

Criminal Appeal. No. 81 of 2020 6.

7. Heard the arguments of appellant counsel and APP.

The counsel for the Appellant/Accused has submitted that there was no sun light at the time of alleged accident at 5.30 AM on 28.10.2013 and that the eye witnesses i.e., Pws 6 to 9 turned hostile and there is no material to show that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle. According to him the Pw4 did not say the manner of the accident, and there was no identification parade to the accused and the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle and caused the accident. He has further submitted that there is no material to show that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash/negligent manner and caused the accident. He has further submitted that the trial court without appreciating the evidence in a proper manner convicted the accused.

He prays to allow the appeal.

(a) Per contra, the learned APP has submitted that the Pw4 and 5 who are the passengers in the auto clearly and categorically testified that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle and caused the accident. He has further submitted that PW11 was the owner of the crime vehicle clearly and categorically testified that the accused was the driver of the Jeep at the time of accident. He has further submitted that the evidence of Pws 4 and 5 supported the evidence of Pw11. He has further submitted that the trial court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the accused. He prays to confirm the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

8. Based on the above contentions, the following points are formulated for determination.

1.whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

Criminal Appeal. No. 81 of 2020 7.

Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under

Secs.304(A), 338, 337 IPC and Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act ?

2.Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is factually and legally sustainable?

3.To what relief?

9. POINTS No. 1 & 2:

Both these points are required for common discussion and hence discussed together under one head. The case of the prosecution in brief is that On 28.10.2013 the deceased along with

PW4 to 6 and others boarded the auto bearing No.AP03 X 6277 to reach Madanapalle and when the auto reached Santhi nagar, the same was stopped and in the meanwhile the crime vehicle bearing

No. AP04 U 8895 driven by the accused dashed the auto on its back side. Due to which the occupants of the auto sustained injuries and one person died on the way to SVRR hospital Tirupathi and remaining persons sustained the injuries .

(a) To prove the offence under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients.

1. That there was an accident on 28.10.2013 at about 5.30

AM near Santhi nagar on Madanapalle – Tirupathi road .

2. The involvement of the crime vehicle bearing number

AP04 U 8895 and that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle.

3. The accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash/negligent manner and caused the accident.

Criminal Appeal. No. 81 of 2020 8.

4. The Pws 4, 6 & 9 sustained injuries in the said accident and the death of husband of Pw1 in the said accident.

(b) Ex. P6 is the complaint given by PW1 is to the effect that on 28.10.2013 at about 05.00 A. M. while she was in the house, her husband (deceased) took the chillies to sell the same in Madanapalle and proceeded to the Madanapalle along with Pw9 and others in the auto bearing No.AP03 X 6227 and the auto stopped near Santhi nagar and then the Jeep coming from Tirupathi side vide No.AP04 U 8895 dashed the auto due to which the inmates sustained the injuries and when her husband was shifting to Tirupathi, on the way he died.

Based on Ex.P6 a case in Crime No.283/2013 was registered for the offence U/Sec.304-A and 337 IPC.

(c) The first aspect to be decided is whether the crime vehicle bearing NO. AP04 U 8895 involved in the accident or not. In this case on hand the case of the prosecution is that PW4 to 6, 9 and deceased boarded the auto bearing No.AP03 X 6227 along with their agriculture produce on 28.10.2013 at 5.00 AM in Dubbiganipalle village to proceed to Madanapalle and on the way to Madanapalle at

Santhi nagar the accident occurred.

(d) The PW1 is the wife of the deceased Krishna Reddy and she came to know about the offence and went to the Area hospital,

Madanapalle and found her husband with injuries. PW2 is the brother of the deceased Krishna Reddy and that he received a phone call from the deceased soon after the accident and immediately he rushed to the place of accident and found the injuries on the body of his brother and also crime vehicle. He further testified that the driver

Criminal Appeal. No. 81 of 2020 9.

of the Jeep was not there at the place of the accident. The PW3 received the intimation from PW1 and rushed to the hospital. Thus

Pws 1 to 3 are not the eye witnesses to the accident, but Pw2 testified regarding the presence of the crime vehicle at the place of accident.

(e) The PW4 evidence is to the effect that she is resident of

Dubbiganipalle village and she boarded the auto along with others about 3 years back prior to giving evidence and when the auto reached near Sanitorium the same was stopped and one Jeep came from back side hit the auto due to which herself and others sustained injuries and the accused was the driver of the said jeep.

During the cross examination, she pleaded ignorance whether the auto driver possessed the driving license or not. She has denied the suggestion that due to negligence of the auto driver the accident occurred and there is no negligence on the part of the accused.

(f) The PW5 evidence is to the effect that she was the resident of

Dubbiganipalle village and on one day in October 2013 herself and others boarded the auto to go to Madanapalle and when the auto reached Santhi nagar stopped by the side of road and then one Jeep came from behind the auto dashed it due to which she sustained injuries. She further testified that the accused was the driver of the

Jeep and the accident occurred due to the rash/negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep.

During the cross examination, Pw5 deposed that the auto was stopped at the place of the accident. She further stated that she knew the accused person and auto driver did not stop the auto suddenly at the place of the accident.

Criminal Appeal. No. 81 of 2020 10.

(g) The Pw4 and 5 who are the occupants of the auto and who sustained the injuries in the accident clearly and categorically testified that the accused was the driver of the Jeep and the accused was responsible for the accident. Though Pw4 and 5 were cross examined at length nothing could be elicited to discredit their testimony.

(h) The Pw6 one of the injured did not support the prosecution version. The Pw7 and 8 also did not support the version of the prosecution. The PW9 who is one of the injured testified that while he was waiting on the road in order to go to Madanapalle one van hit him due to which he sustained the injuries. Though Pw9 is one of the injured and inmates of the auto he did not say that he boarded the auto. But he testified that one van dashed him due to which he sustained the injuries.

(i) The PW11 is the owner of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP04

U 8895 and he testified that the accused was the driver of the jeep at the time of accident and that his jeep involved in the accident on 28.10.2013 and he obtained the jeep from the Taluk police station.

Thus Pw11 who was the owner of the crime vehicle clearly testified that his vehicle was involved in the accident and he had taken back the vehicle from the police station.

(j) The PW14 evidence is to the effect that he is the Motor Vehicle

Inspector and he inspected the crime vehicle bearing No.AP04 U 8895 and issued Ex.P10 report opined that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect.

Criminal Appeal. No. 81 of 2020 11.

(k) The Pw13 was the investigating officer who deposed the chronological events of the investigation. No doubt Pws 4 and 5 did not say the crime vehicle number, but they clearly testified that the accused was the driver of the Jeep . In Ex.P1 the crime vehicle number i.e., AP04 U 8895 is clearly mentioned. The PW11 who was the owner of the crime vehicle also testified that he received information from the police about the involvement of the vehicle and he took back the vehicle from the Taluka Police station, Madanapalle.

The Pw2 also clearly testified that the jeep was at the place of accident soon after the accident. The Pw13 investigating officer has deposed that he visited the scene of offence, prepared the rough sketch under Ex.P9 and shifted the crime vehicle to the police station.

Thus the crime vehicle was at the scene of offence till Pw13 shifted the crime vehicle to the police station. No suggestion given to Pw13 that he did not shift the crime vehicle to the police station. Thus the material on record clearly proves the involvement of the vehicle bearing No.AP04 U 8895 in the accident that occurred on 28.10.2013 at 5.30 AM near Santhi nagar on Madanapalle – Tirupathi road.

10. The next aspect to be decided is whether the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident and drove the vehicle in a rash/negligent manner. The Pw4 who is one of the injured testified that the accused was the driver of the jeep and herself and others sustained the injuries in the accident. She further deposed that the accused was responsible for the accident. The

Pw5 has testified that the accident occurred due to rash/negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep and the accused was the driver of the jeep. Though Pws 4 and 5 were cross examined at length nothing could be elicited to discredit their testimony. No motive is attributed to

Pws 4 and 5 to depose false evidence against the accused.

Criminal Appeal. No. 81 of 2020 12.

(a) The PW11 is the owner of the crime jeep bearing No.AP04 U 8895 and he clearly and categorically deposed that the accused was the driver of the jeep at the time of accident and he went to the

Taluka Police station and got released his jeep from the custody of the police and also he got released the accused from the custody of the police. PW11 testified during the cross examination he does not know the manner of the accident. No suggestion given to Pw11 that the accused was not the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. No suggestion given to PW11 that he was not the owner of a crime vehicle bearing No.AP04 U 8895. PW13 investigating officer has deposed that PW11 owner of the crime vehicle produced the accused before him and then he arrested the accused. Though Pw13 cross examined at length nothing could be elicited to show that Pw11 is not the owner of the crime vehicle. As seen from the record the

PW13 also seized the copy of RC of the crime vehicle but the same is not exhibited. The crime vehicle stands in the name of PW11. The counsel for the appellant submitted the manner of the accident is not mentioned in Ex.P6. It is well settled FIR is not an encyclopedia to contain all the details. Thus the material on record clearly proves that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove the vehicle in a negligent manner and caused the accident.

11. The PW1 who is the wife of the deceased clearly testified that her husband met with an accident on 28.10.2013 at about 5.30 AM and died . PW12 is the doctor Prasad Raju who conducted an autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P7 report and opined that the deceased appears to have died due to hemorrhage shock with multiple injuries. Thus the evidence of Pw12 and Ex.P7 proves the death of the deceased. The evidence of Pws 4

Criminal Appeal. No. 81 of 2020 13.

also proves that one of the injured Krishna reddy died on the way to hospital. Pw10 who is the inquest panchayathdar under Ex.P5 supports the version of the prosecution.

(a) The PW15 evidence is to the effect that he examined injured

Ademma i.e., Pw6 and issued Ex.P11 wound certificate. PW15 also examined PW4 and issued the Ex.P12 wound certificate. Pw15 also examined PW9 and issued the Ex.P13 wound certificate. The evidence of PW15 goes to show that he examined PW4, 6 and 9 and issued the wound certificates. Ex.P13 goes to show that the injuries sustained by Pw9 are grievous in nature. No doubt Pws 6 to 9 did not support the prosecution version. Admittedly Pw9 sustained the injuries in the accident. He did not identify the accused. He did not say he boarded the auto. Pw6 who sustained the simple injuries did not support the prosecution version. Pw4 who sustained injuries deposed regarding the manner of the accident. Thus the material on record clearly proves that the deceased died due to injuries received in the accident and Pws 4, 9 and others sustained the injuries. The injuries sustained by Pw9 are grievous in nature as seen from

Ex.P13.

12. The accused being the driver of the crime vehicle did not provide first aid to the injured nor gave a complaint and he left the place soon after the accident. Pw2 testified that by the time he reached the place of the accident the driver of the crime vehicle was not present. The Pw13 Investigating Officer deposed that he visited the scene of offence and found the crime vehicle and also shifted the crime vehicle to the police station and then PW14 examined the crime vehicle. It is not the case of the accused that he gave information about the accident to the police station nor shifted the injured to the hospital for first aid. The PW2 has specifically testified that the driver

Criminal Appeal. No. 81 of 2020 14.

of the jeep was not present by the time he reached the scene of offence and they shifted injured to Madanapalle area hospital. Thus for the above reasons this court is of the opinion that the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is hereby upheld.

13. Point No.3:

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Appellant/Accused is dismissed, confirming the calendar and Judgment in C.C.

No.73/2015, dated 15.02.2020 on the file of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle.

Dictated to the Typist of Special Magistrate Court,

Madanapalle, after her typing, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- P.V.S. Surya Narayana Murty,

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge. Madanapalle.

Copy to the : Special Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle.

// True Copy//

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge. Madanapalle.

Read by :

Compared by :

Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2020 1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE :: MADANAPALLE

Present: P.V.S. Surya Narayana Murty, II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle.

Tuesday, the Nineteenth (19th) day of May, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.71 of 2020

[CC No. 608 of 2018 on the file of II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle].

1. Name & Description of Erri Reddi Prasad, S/o late Prasad Babu, aged about 23 years, Event Organizer, the Appellant/ Accused Kannemaduguvaripalle Village, H/o No.5Vempalle, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor Dis- trict.

2. Name & Description of The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, II Town Police the Respondent/ Com- station, Madanapalle. plainant

3. Sentence and order the 12.02.2020 law under which it was imposed.

4. Whether modified, con-Confirmed firmed, or reversed, if modified, the details of modification

5. Presentation of the 04.03.2020 appeal

6. Finding of the appealAppeal dismissed.

7. Date of hearing09.04.2026 & 11.05.2026

8. Date of judgment19.05.2026

Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2020 2

This Criminal Appeal coming on for hearing before on 9.4.26 and 11.05.2026 and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y.Samba Siva Reddy, Advocate for

Appellant/Accused No.5 and of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madanapalle in CC No.608 of 2018 dated 12.02.2020, the accused No.5 has preferred the present Appeal under section 374(3) of Cr.P.C.

a). The present appellant is the accused No.5 before the trial court. For the sake of convenience the appellant herein is called as Accused No.5.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Madanapalle II town Police station had filed a charge-sheet against the accused No.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under section 379 or 411 of IPC in Crime No.126 of 2018. The case of the prosecution in brief are as follows:

(a) The informant i.e., PW1 has parked his Royal Enfield motor bike i.e.,

MO1 i.e., AP27 BY 5599 in front his house on 03.10.2018 at Prasanth Nagar,

Madanapalle. The next morning, he found his bike missing and some unknown offenders committed the theft of his bike bearing No. AP27 BY 5599. In this regard, having searched for the same, he lodged a report on 05.10.2018. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the

Accused Nos.1 to 5 have committed the theft of the same and it was seized from their possession under the cover of seizure mahazarnama on 06.10.2018 at 10.20 AM by the police. Thus, the Accused Nos.1 to 5 have committed the offence under section 379/Sec. 411 of I.P.C.

Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2020 3 3). The II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle has taken the case on its file under section Sections 379 or 411 of I.P.C., against the

Accused Nos.1 to 5 and issued summons and registered the case as

CC.No.608/2018.

a) After the appearance of the accused No.1 to 5, the trial court has furnished the copies of the documents to them according to section 207 of

Cr.P.C. Later they were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and the charges for the offences under section 379 or 411 of I.P.C., framed against A1 to A5 read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which, they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial, before the trial court, the prosecution examined P.W.’s 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.s’ P.1 to P.5 and MO1.

a). After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to A5 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material for which they denied the same and reported that they have no evidence on their behalf.

5. After hearing the arguments of both sides and considering the material on record, the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Madanapalle has found the Accused Nos.1 to 5 guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.411 IPC and they are convicted U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Further, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years each for the offence punishable under section 411 of I.P.C.

(a) The Accused No.5 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Two years for the offence punishable by U/Sec.411 of I.P.C. Also the Accused No.5 is convicted and sentenced in C.C.No.604/2018, 644/2018 and 649/2018 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable U/Sec.411 I.P.C in each case. The substantive

Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2020 4 sentence of imprisonment imposed in this case runs concurrently with the sentences of substantive imprisonments imposed in the above calendar cases U/Sec.427 Cr.P.C. The respective remand periods of the Accused No.5 along with others shall be given set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the

II Additional Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle the accused No.5 has preferred the present appeal under section 374(3) of Cr.P.C on the following grounds.

1. The judgment of the trial Court in convicting the accused No.5 is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2. The trial court ought not have convicted the accused No.5 as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.5 for the offence

U/Sec.411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The trial court failed to notice that the alleged confession of the accuse NO.5 along with other accused is hit by sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act and the Trial court failed to notice that the seizure of MO1 from the alleged possession of Accused No.1 in the presence of Pw2 is hit by Sec.27 of the

Indian Evidence Act.

4. The trial court failed to notice that the investigating officer had not collected CCTV footage and that the investigating officer failed to collect scientific evidence.

5. The trial court ought to have acquitted the accused No.5 as the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not trustworthy.

It is prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Second Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Madanapalle in CC No. 608 of 2018 dated 12.02.2020.

Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2020 5

7. Heard the arguments .

The counsel for the appellant/Accused No.5 has submitted that in

Ex.P1 complaint it is mentioned unknown offenders and there is no mention the name of the accused. According to him the alleged seizure of MO1 is from the possession of Accused No.1’s house but not from the possession of the

Accused No.5 and hence the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the

Accused No.5. He has further submitted that except the inadmissible confession there is no material to prove the guilt of the Accused No.5.

According to him the trial court without appreciating the evidence on record convicted the Accused. He prays to allow the appeal.

(a) Per contra, the learned APP has submitted that based on the confession of the accused MO1 seized from the house of accused No.1 and accused No.1 to 5 committed the offence and hence the accused were constructive possession of MO1 and hence the version of appellant is incorrect. He has further submitted that the trial court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the accused and there are no grounds in the appeal . He prays to confirm the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

8. Based on the contentions, the following points are formulated for determination.

1.whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused No.5 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec.411 of I.P.C.?

2.Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is it factually and legally sustainable?

3.To what relief?

Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2020 6

9. POINT No. 1 :

The perusal of the Ex.P1 report lodged by PW1 dt. 05.10.2018 discloses that he has been living in Prasanth Nagar and working in Indian Bank,

Burakayalakota and that he purchased Royal Enfield on 16.05.2018 vide No.

AP27 BY 5599 and he used to park the vehicle in front of his house and that on 03.10.2018 he parked the said vehicle and on 04.10.2018 morning he found missing of the vehicle and then he informed the same to his friends and searched about the vehicle but in vain and then he gave the complaint.

Based on the same i.e., Ex.P1 report, the F.I.R vide Crime No. 126/2018 was registered under Ex.P4 and the case was investigated.

(a). PW1 who is the informant has deposed that when he was residing at

Prasanth Nagar in the year 2018, on 03.10.2018 at about 9.00 PM, he parked his Royal Enfield bike bearing No. AP27 BY 5599 in front of his house . He found the same missing on the next day. Having searched for the same for about one day, he lodged an Ex.P1 report and subsequently, police informed him that his bike was traced out. He took the interim custody of the MO1 bike.

(b) This witness is not cross examined at all and so, there is no denial about PW1 being the owner of MO1 bike and the same being in possession of

PW1 prior to the theft. Significantly, there is no claim from the accused or anyone else regarding MO1 bike and the engine, chassis number are clearly mentioned in Ex.P1 report. Considering the nature of the stolen property, it is not possible to plant any other bike in place of a stolen bike of PW1 with the same engine and chassis numbers by police or anyone else.

(c) It is the testimony of PW4 that basing on this Ex.P1, he registered a case in crime No. 126/2018 and examined the witnesses. This PW4 i.e., the

Investigating Officer has visited the scene of offence on the next day, examined the witnesses, and prepared Ex.P5 rough sketch. So with the above material, the prosecution could establish that the bike i.e., MO1 was

Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2020 7 stolen from the possession of PW1 and there is no claim from anyone else regarding this bike including the accused.

(d). During the course of investigation, as seen from the evidence of PW3, he received credible information on 06.10.2018 at 6.30 AM and secured the presence of Pw2 and another and visited Thattivaripalle junction and found the accused No.1 to 5 coming in three motor cycles and on seeing the police they tried to run away but the police caught hold the accused No.1 to 5 and on enquiry the accused confessed regarding the guilt and then PW3 seized three motor cycles and identified them they are pertaining to Crime No.13/2018 of

Madanapalle Taluq police station, 109/2018 of Madanapalle I Town PS and 129/2018 of Punganur PS. He further deposed that based on the confession of the accused the accused took them to the house of accused No.1 and produced two motor cycles related to the crime No.126/2018 and 127/2018 of

II Town Ps, Madanapalle and then PW3 seized the same and handed over the motor cycle i.e., MO1 to PW4. Later the PW4 filed a PT warrant and secured the presence of the accused and produced them in the present case. Though

Pw3 and 4 were cross examined at length nothing could be elicited to discredit their testimony.

(e).Now adverting to the aspect whether the Appellant herein along with the other accused was found in the dishonest possession of the stolen MO1 bike of PW1 for which he could not account for, as the Appellant is acquitted for the offence under section 379 IPC, the scope of the present appeal is restricted to examining the offence under Sec. 411 of I.P.C alone.

(f) As per the prosecution case and particularly, the evidence of PW3, while he was the S.I of Madanapalle, Taluq police station, on credible information on 06.10.2018 he proceeded to Thattivaripalle cross and arrested the accused and seized three motor bikes and as per the confession of the accused they proceeded to the house of accused No.1 and seized the MO1.

One among them is the appellant herein i.e., the Accused No.5 duly identified

Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2020 8 by the S.I. of police. They were inquired separately and they revealed about the commission of thefts at different places and all the three bikes were seized from the Accused Nos.1 to 5. Pertaining to Crime No.126/2018 i.e., the present crime MO No.1 is also seized from the possession of the accused persons i.e., at the house of accused No.1 and the mahazarnama was prepared to that effect in the presence of the mediators.

(g) During cross examination, he has stated that the C.C cameras were not in working condition at Thattivaripalle cross. He admits that the registration numbers of the private vehicles by which they proceeded to the place of arrest are not mentioned in mahazarnama. Regarding the non examination of any person at Thattivaripalle cross, he has stated that none came forward and has denied that PW2 is a stock witness. Much of the cross examination is concentrated on those two private vehicles used to reach the place where the accused were caught while coming on three bikes. The same does not require much discussion at all. Except giving suggestions, nothing could be elicited from this witness regarding the recovery of MO1 bike from the accused persons at the house of Accused No.1.

(h). At this juncture, if the evidence of PW2 i.e., the VRO who acted as mahazardar is perused, he has stated that on 06.10.2018 at about 6-00 AM, he was fetched to Taluq police station by S.I though P.C. and by then, the other mahazardar was at station. The S.I has served summons to act as mediator and from there, they all went to Thattivripalle cross and found 5 persons coming on Royal Enfield motor bikes and they tried to escape on seeing them. They were apprehended and enquired about the number plates of 3 Royal Enfield bikes. One after the other, they were enquired separately.

They confessed about committing the theft of those bikes at Maddikayyala

Sivalayam, Nakkaladinne Thanda, Prasanth Nagar Gollapalle and Punganur.

They revealed their identity particulars and further that, two more bikes are available at the house of the Accused No.1. Pertaining to the recovery of the

Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2020 9 bikes at Thattivaripalle cross, Ex.P2 was conducted and accused have signed in Ex.P2. They were led to Seshappa Thota to the house of the Accused No.1 and shown 2 Royal Enfield bikes which were committed theft at Prasanth

Nagar and Gollapalle and they were seized under the cover of Ex.P3 seizure mahazarnama. During the cross examination, he pleaded ignorance if there are C.C.TVs at that four road junction and stated that they traveled by private vehicles i.e., TATA Sumo vehicles. He has acted as mahazardar in about 9 or 10 cases and has clarified that they proceeded in the same vehicles to the house of the Accused No.1. According to him, the police did not enquire about anyone at the house of the Accused No.1 and stated that he has obtained oral permission from the MRO. He has denied the suggestions given to him and nothing could be elicited from this witness about the recovery of

Royal Enfield bikes including Mo1 under Ex.P3 from the accused persons.

Merely because PW2 has acted as mediator in 9 or 10 cases, he cannot be termed as a stock witness of police. In fact, nothing is elicited from PW2 about those cases and the period during which he has acted as mediator in 9 or 10 cases.

(i).From the consistent and convincing testimonies of PW2 and 3, the seizure of MO1 bikes from the accused persons under Ex.P3 is thoroughly established. Absolutely, no discrepant versions are elicited from these witnesses in respect of Ex.P3 and the alleged suggestions given are denied by these witnesses. In fact, there is no possibility of planting a MO1 bike with similar engine number and chassis number as already pointed out. Even otherwise, there is no necessity for the police to plant 5 Royal Enfield bikes just to falsely implicate the accused.

(j). According to Section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regarding the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in relation to the facts of the particular case.

Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2020 10

Illustration (a) says that that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession;

(k) So, in this case on hand, there is unaccounted possession of M.O.1 by the accused and there is no denial that the MO1 is the stolen bike of PW1.

The accused were found in illegal possession of MO1 bike and though the alleged confession of the accused No.5 is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence

Act, the recovery of bikes is thoroughly proved. Considering the nature of the stolen property, it cannot be held that there is an abnormal time gap between the theft and the recovery. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the presumption can safely be drawn that the Appellant has retained the stolen property i.e., M.O.1 for which he could not account for. Since there is no appeal preferred by the prosecution pertaining to the acquittal of the accused for the offence under section 379 of I.P.C, no comments regarding the charge under section 379 of I.P.C. are warranted. Therefore, the appellant/accused No.5 is the receiver of the stolen property and has committed the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C.

(l) The counsel for the Appellant/accused No.5 has relied on the citation reported in 2025 (3) Ald Crl. 526 AP in between

Bommisetti Harikiran Vs. State of A.P.

In the cited case the Appellant approached the Hon High court for grant of Anticipatory bail . In the cited case his lordship has observed at para 19 that the confession given to a police officer is inadmissible U/Sec.25 of Indian

Evidence Act, but if such confession leads to a discovery of fact it is relevant

U/Sec.27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(m) The counsel for the appellant relied on the citation reported in 2025 (3) ALD Crl.117 T.S

Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2020 11 in between

Mohammed Ahmed @ Fardeen @ Laddu Vs. State of Telangana.

In the cited case his lordship has held at para 25 that the confession of an accused is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act, however exceptions are made U/Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of the confession.

In this case on hand based on the confession of the accused MO1 seized under the cover of the Ex.P3 . No doubt the confession given by the accused while he was in custody of police is hit by Sec.25 of Evidence Act but the said confession which leads to recovery of MO1 is admissible. Hence the above citations are not helpful to the accused No.5 in the present set of facts.

(n). This court for the above discussion is of the considered opinion that the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused No.5 and he is liable for conviction under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence under section 411 of

I.P.C and this point is answered against the Accused No.5/Appellant.

10. Point No.(2):

Adverting to the point "whether the sentence passed by the trial court is factually and legally sustainable or not", as far as the Judgment of the trial court convicting the accused for the offence under section 411 I.P.C. is concerned, it is factually and legally sustainable and does not require any interference.

With regard to the quantum of sentence, in the light of the huge stolen properties involved in this case, the Accused No.5 is not entitled for the invocation of the benevolent provisions of P.O. Act. Already, a lenient view is taken by the trial court in respect of the sentence for the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C in this case while deciding 3 other C.Cs against the same

Accused. Hence, the sentence passed by the trial court also does not require any interference.

Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2020 12

11. Point No.(3):

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Appellant/Accused No.5 is dismissed, confirming the calendar and Judgment in C.C. No.608/2018, dated 12.02.2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Madanapalle.

Dictated to the Typist of Special Magistrate Court, Madanapalle, after

her typing, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 19th day of May, 2026.

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge. Madanapalle.

Copy to the : II Additional Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle.

Note : The appellant / Accused No.5 is absent. Hence the trial court is

directed to issue NBW against the accused No.5, secure his presence

and send him to Jail to undergo remaining sentence.

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge. Madanapalle.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE :: MADANAPALLE.

Present :: Sri P.V.S.Surya Narayana Murty, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle.

Tuesday, this the Nineteenth (19th) day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No. 100 of 2026

(Cr. No. 69 of 2026 of Madanapalle I Town P.S.)

Between:

Gowri Imrankhan, S/o.Gowri Anwarkhan, aged about 26 years, cultivation, door No.8/26, Kandur Road, Nimmanapalle village and Mandal, Annamayya District.

.. Petitioner/Accused No.2.

And:

The S.H.O., Madanapalle I Town P.S. .. Respondent.

This petition coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri A.V.Sivakumar Reddy, Advocate for petitioner/accused No.2 and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, upon perusing the relevant material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

ORDER

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under

Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (in short

B.N.S.S.) seeking the court to grant anticipatory bail.

2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

The petitioner herein cited as the accused No.2 in the above case, which was registered for the offences punishable under

Section 316(5), 318(4), 61(2) r/w.3(5) of BNS and Section 66 of

I.T.Act. The contents are civil in nature and the above case is 2 nothing but criminal coloured civil case. The motive behind the above false case is to mint money from the accused 2 to 4. The petitioner/accused No.2 is an agriculturist living by doing cultivation and he is having aged parents, who are depended on him. The petitioner/accused No.2 is nothing to do with the crime. The accused 2 and 3 are relatives of the accused No.1 is false. The accused No.1 filed I.P.No.6/2026. Hence, the petition.

3. Notice given to the A.P.P.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Now the point for determination is:: Whether the

petitioner/accused No.2 is entitled for anticipatory bail ?

6. POINT:: The case of the prosecution is that the defacto/ complainant appointed the Accused No.1 as a manager for his cloth shop i.e., Anshu Fashions, CTM Road and the accused No.1 has to look after the business transactions i.e., purchase of commodities and collection of amount, etc. The further version of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 was dealing with the bank accounts of the said shop of the defacto/ complainant. The further version of the prosecution is that taking advantage of the same, the Accused 1 to 4 conspired together and the Accused No.1 transferred the amount from the account of the defacto/ complainant to the account of accused Nos.2 to 4 to a tune of Rs.21,88,710/-. Based on the complaint, a case in Crime No.69/2026 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 61(2) r/w.3(5) of

BNS and Section 66 of I.T.Act against the accused 1 to 4.

7. The version of the petitioner/accused No.2 is that he has no connection with the defacto/ complainant and he is nothing to do with the case. The specific allegations levelled against the accused 3 is that accused Nos.1 to 4 conspired together and in furtherance of conspiracy, the accused No.1, who was dealing with the business transactions of the defacto/ complainant, transferred the amount to the accused Nos.2 to 4 through phone pay, etc. The version of the petitioner/A2 is that accused Nos.2 and 3 no way related to the accused No.1 and their surnames are not tallied. The version of the prosecution is that the accused No.2 is the sister’s husband of the accused No.1 and accused No.3 is the sister of the accused No.1.

The investigation is at the initial stage. Cheating is a heinous offence. Considering the nature of the offence and the stage of the investigation, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner/accused

No.2 is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

8. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer, taken down by him, Corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of May, 2026.

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Madanapalle.

Copies to :

1. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle.

2. The Station House Officer, I Town P.S., Madanapalle.

3. The counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2. on payment of usual charges.

1 | P a g e

IN THE COURT OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE AT MADANAPALLE.

Present : Sri. P.V.S.Surya Narayana Murty, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle.

Tuesday, the twelfth (12th) Day of May Two thousand and Twenty Sixth (2026).

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION. No.22 of 2025

Crl.MP.No.218/2025 and Crl.MP.No.993/2024

MC.NO.11 of 2023

Between Shaik Shavali ... Revision Petitioner

And

Shaik Rachapalle Hameeda, W/o Shaik Shavali … Respondent

This Criminal Revision Petition is coming on 12-05-2026, before batta through Sri B.Sekhar Reddy, Advocate for revision petitioner, Sri M.H.Dadapeer, Advocate for respondent and upon perusing the relevant material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision petition is filed by the Revision

Petitioner/Respondent against the respondent/Petitioner.

Revision petitioner is called absent. No representation though waited till 3.30 pm. As seen from the office note batta not paid. Hence this petition is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of May,

2026.

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle.