APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 1 (Fair)
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
FOR RAILWAYS, NELLORE.
Present: Palamangalam Vinodh,
Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railway,
Nellore.
Thursday, the Twelfth (12 th ) day of June, 2025
C.C.No. 525/2019
Between:-
Inspector of Police,
Railways, Renigunta. .... Complainant.
And
1. Nakka Rajasekhar, S/o Jayaramudu R/o. D. No. 1-48, Nakkavaripalli Village, Mylavaram Mandal, Kadapa District.
2. Guvvala Pulla Reddy, S/o Lakshmi Reddy, R/o. D. No. 1-43, Babusanipalli Village, Mylavaram Mandal, Kadapa District.
3. Mallipogu Prasad, S/o Late Pullaiah, R/o. D. No. 1-23, Prakash Nagar,
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 2 (Fair)
Yerraguntal, Kadapa District.
4. M. Subbarayudu, S/o M. Kondaiah, R/o. D. No. 3-620, Aravinda Ashrama Street, Produtooru, Kadapa District. … Accused No. 1 to 4.
This case is coming on 04.06.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. T.Leela Kumari, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri J. King Paul, Counsel foraccused No. 1 and 4 and Sri Sk. Anwar Basha, Counsel foraccused No. 2 and 3 upon hearing both sides, and on perusing the material on record 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 Inspector of Police, Railways, Renigunta filed charge sheet against accused No. 1 to 4 in Cr. No. 48/2019 of Chittoor Railway Police Station for the offences punishable Under Sections 420, 384, 382, 419 and 120(b) r/w 109 of
IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
(a) On 10-06-2019 at 22.00 hours the complainant/B.Muguntha Rajan and his brother cum partner B. Anatharaman were boarded in to B-1 coach in
Tr.No.16362 Jayanthi Express at Coimbatore RS in order to go to Proddatur via
Yerraguntla RS on his gold selling business purpose. During Journey as per their reservation the complainant slept in his berth No-47. The accused A-1 to A-3 were also travelling in the same coach in the same train, as per their preplan. When the train is with a distance of about 15 minuntes to reach Pakala Railway Station, the
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 3 (Fair)
accused A-2 had worn police Sub Inspector's uniform as per the pre-plan and A-3 had worn police constable uniform and went to the complainant at about 04.45 hours on 11.06.2025 nearby Pakala Railway station in running train and asked his journey ticket, after verifying it they checked his travel bags and found multiple gold jewellery weighing about 1080 grams worth Rs.21,60,000/- in his inner jacket (which was prepared to carry and transport jewely then forcibly taken the gold jewels by A-3, de-boarded the train at Pakala RS, brought the complainant along with his brother far away from railway station towards railway quarters beside of
Pakala RS., Boarded in auto and got down both of them after going little distance at
Ramulavari temple, there they collected mobile phones.1. Samsung S6 edge and 2.
Apple phone worth Rs.30,000/- belongs to the complainant and his brother and instructed them to met them at Chittoor 1 Town Police station at 10 AM and escaped with the booty, all worth Rs.21,90,000/-
(b) On 11-06-2019 at 17:00 hours, basing on the report of the complainant, LW.21/A. Praveen Kumar, RPSI, Chittoor RPS registered a case in
Cr.No.48/19 u/s 382 IPC of Chittoor R.P.S, and submitted Original FIR to the
Hon'ble court and a copy to the LW.22 to take up investigation. During the course
of investigation, the 10 LW.22 examined as many as 14 witnesses. During the course of further investigation, on 16-07-2019 at 14.00 hrs, LW.22 arrested the accused A-1 to A-3 on Platform No-2 of Pakala Railway station and seized the stolen property i.e., one black colour Apple i-phone concerned in Cr.No. 48/2019
U/S 382 IPC Chittoor R.P.S and seized them under cover of confession, arrest and seizure mazer in the presence mediators LWs 15 & 16.
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 4 (Fair)
3.On appearance of accused No. 1 to 4 before the Court, relevant copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.
4.Accused No. 1 to 4 were examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C, charges are framed for the offence punishable Under Sections 420, 384, 382, 419 and 120(B) r/w 109 of IPC, read over and explained the same to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 and MO’s 1 to M.O.27. The evidence of L.W3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 19 was given up by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused No. 1 to 4 were examined
U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and incriminating material against them are read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the entire material on record .
8.Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offense punishable u/s 384 r/w 109 of IPC?
2. Whether prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offense punishable u/s 419 r/w 109 of IPC?
3. Whether prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offense punishable u/s 420 r/w 109 of IPC?
4. Whether prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 5 (Fair)
offense punishable u/s 382 r/w 109 of IPC?
5. Whether prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offense punishable u/s 120 B of IPC?
9. ARUGMENTS:-
(a) Learned APP submits:
(i) That, PW's 1 and 2 are victims and eye witnesses and their evidence establishes that Accused came to them impersonating themselves as police and took away gold from the posession of PW1.
(ii) That evidence of PW's 3 and 7 corrobarates the evidence of PW's 1 and 2 as they both witnesed the Accused and PW's 1 and 2 in the scene of offence.
(iii) That evidence of PW.8 establishes that A1 mortgaged crime property in Sriram
Finance, Proddatur
(iv) That evidence of PW.9 establishes that A3 mortgaged crime property in Muthoot
Finance, Yerragondlapalem
(v) That evidence of PW.16 establishes that A1 to A4 confessed their guilt to PW.16 in the presence of mediators and he discovered crime property based on confesion of accused.
(vi) That evidence of prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that A1 to
A4 committed offence of cheating impersonating and extortion.
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 6 (Fair)
(b) Learned Counsels for Accused No's 1 to 4 submits:
(1) That false case was foisted against accused and accused are innocent
(ii) That as per FIR, report was given at 05:00 PM but as per PW1 he reached to
Pakala fallway Station at 07:00 PM and thereafter he gave report. It shows that at the FIR was registered before PW.1 going to PS and giving report. It shows serious doubt over case of prosecution.
(iii) That PW.1 did not stated descriptive particulars of gold articles/crime property in his repon and his statement.
(iv) That no evidence is collected to show that PW1 is running gold business in coimbatore.
(v) That PW.1 not produced GST, IT returns and father PW1 do not know meaning of GST which shows that PW.1 have no gold business.
(vi) That PW.1 in his report stated that he kept geld is his pocket whereas PW.1 in his deposition stated that he kept gold in jacker pockets inside the shirt which amounted to contradiction.
(vii) That registration number of auto is not stated by PW's 1 and 2.
(viii) That investigation officer did not visit Coimbatore or proddatur which shows that investigation is conducted properly.
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 7 (Fair)
(ix) That alleged mortgage applications are not seized by police which shows serious doubt over the case of prosecution.
10. Appreciation of Evidence:
a) The allegation of prosecution is that A1 to A4 conspired together to snatch away the gold of PW.1. Accordingly A2 and A3 went to PW.1 as police, searched his bag, body, found gold in his pocket and took away the same by saying that they seized the same. they asked them to come to police station, PW's 1 and 2 followed them but A2 and A3 went away with the gold.
b) As per case of prosecution PW's 1 and 2 are eye witnesses and victims.
c) Evidence of PW1 is that on 16.06.2019 PW1 along with his brother/PW.2 boarded Jayanthi Janatha Express in Coimbatore in berth no's 45 and 47 of B1 coach to go to Yerragondla in order to go to Proddatur. He slept in berth No.45 and after 04:30 AM, 2 persons came in police uniform and asked his ticket and he showed the same in his mobile phone. They found suspision and checked luggage bag of PW.1. they found nothing. They searched body of PW.1. PW.1 is wearing a jacket inside the shirt and in said jacket he placed 23 packets of gold jwelleries weighing 1 KG 80 Grams. They also searched PW2. They took those jwellery from
PW1 and said that they seized them and instructed PW.1 to come to Police Station.
PW.1 requested them that he will accompany him. They got down train in Pakala
Railway Station. PW.1 and his brother/PW.2 followed them and got down in pakala
Railway Station. Said persons went towards railway quarters railway quarters and
PW.1 and PW.2 followed them. Said persons took one auto and PW's 1 and 2 also
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 8 (Fair)
boarded said auto alongwith them. After travelling some distance, said persons asked PW's 1 and 2 to get down auto and asked them to come to Chittoor railway station. PW1 tried to run behind auto but not able to run to catch them. Said requested persons also took away the mobile phones of PW's 1 and 2. PW1 took requested mobile of one person present over there, informed wife of PW1 about the incident, went to proddatur and thereafter came Profond back to pakala and gave report in Chittoor Railway Police Station. PW.1 identified A2 and A3 in the court hall.
d) PW.2 also deposed in the same lines of PW.1 except on the aspect of date of offence and time of offence. As per PW.2 date of offence is 10.06.2019 and time of offence is done 04-30 AM.
e) The evidence of PW3 is that on 11.06.2019 at about 04:00 AM he went to
Pakala Railway Station to drop PW.7 in B1 Coach of Jayanthi Express. By that time he noticed two persons in police uniform getting down from train along with 2 other persons forcibly. They dashed PW.7 when PW7 is bording train. Said persons crossed plotform no.3, railway track and went towards backside of Railway station.
After 1:30 hours PW.7 called PW3 over phone and informed that said two persons in uniform are not police and they committed theft of gold jwellery from two persons not in uniform. PW3 further deposed that he cannot identify said persons since there is failure of light at the time of incident.
f) The evidence of PW.7 is that at about 5 years back on one day morning 03:00 to 04:00 AM he went to Pakala Railway Station to go to Guntakal and boarded
Jayanthi Express. His attender PW3 accompanied him to the railway station. At the time of boarding train, one person in police uniform and another person in civil dress came out of train. Thereafter he came to know that some persons committed
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 9 (Fair)
theft of gold in Jayanthi Express. PW,7 deposed that he cannot identify said persons.
g) Evidence of PW.4 is that on 11.06.2019 he boarded jayanthi Express in karpadi ar 02:00 am and went to Ac coach for checking tickets and thereafter to sleeper coaches. He noticed that the door in between AC and sleeper coaches was closed, he tried to open it but it did not open. Sowоле opened door in pakala railway station. Later he came to know that some theft occurred in AC coach.
h) Defence cross examined all the above witnesses elaborately but elicited nothing in their favour.
i) The evidence of PW.1 establishes that A2 and A3 came to him as police officers, searched him and took away his gold by saying that he seized the same.
The evidence of PW2 corrobarates the version of PW.1 in all aspects except on the time and date of offence. As per PW.1 time of offence is after 04:30 am but asper
PW.2 time of offence is about 04:00 to 04:30 am. These difference of time is only 30 minutes and as such same cannot be taken into consideration as contradiction.
Further PW1 deposed that date of offence is 16.06.2019 whereas PW.2 deposed that date of offence is 10.06.2019. as per report also date of offence is 10.06.2019.
j) Learned counsel for accused contends that it amounts to material contradiction and as such evidence is PW.1 is to be discarded.
k) As per record, alleged incident took place in the year 2019 and PW.1 is deposing in November of 2023 which shows that PW.1 is giving evidence after years. He cannot be expected to have photographic memory. As such PW.1 cannot
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 10
(Fair) be expect to remember the date exactly. Further defence did not posse the same question to PW.1 in cross examination as to change in date. Hence the contradiction of date in the evidence of PW's 1 and 2 is natural and cannot effects the trustworthyness of PW.1.
L) Evidence of PW 3 shows that on 11.06.2019 two persons in Police uniform and two persons in civil dress de-boarded from B1 coach of Jayanti Express at about 04:00 AM on 11.06.2019. It shows that PW.3 is present at the scene of offence at the time of A2 and A3 de boarding train with A22 and A3. Athough PW.3 failed to identify accused, but his evidence completly corroborated the evidence of
PW1 and 2 on the aspect of de-boarding train along with two persons in police uniform.
m) As per PW.3, he went to scene of offence to drop PW.7 as PW.7 is going to travel in the same Jayanti Express Train from Pakala. Evidence of PW.7 also shows that PW.3 accompanied him. But evidence of PW.7 is that only one person in Police uniform and one person in civil dress came out of the train.
n) Evdence of PW’s 3 and 4 are not contradictory as to presence of PW3 and 7 at the scene of offence. As per PW.3 its 2 persons in police uniform and 2 persons in civil dress whereas as per PW.7 its only one person in police uniform and one person in civil dress. There is no material to show that either PW.3 or PW.7 is a interested witness. Both PW’s 3 and 7 are independent witneses who have no acquitance with both accused and victim. As such the question arises as to whose version is correct. PW.3 deposed exact date and narrated the incident detailedly .
Whereas PW.7 did not depose the exact date and did not narrate the incident in
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 11
(Fair) detail. Even, PW.7 is not completely denying the incident. He is partly varing from the PW3. As such the evidence of PW3 is cogent. The evidence of PW3 is inspiring the confidence of this Court. This Court is not taking the evidence of PW7 into consideration as he is not able to narrate all the facts that occurred at the time of incident.
o) The evidence of PW.4 is no help to the case of prosecution as his evidence is only permitted only to the closing of door in between AC and sleeper coach.
p) PW.16 evidence is that he conducted investigation in this case and arrested
A1 to A3 in the presence of mediators/ Pw.10 and LW.15, and A1 to A3 confessed their guilt in his presence. Basing on the confession of A1 to A3, PW.16 went to
Seekalakona situated near Srinivasa puram and discovered a black bag which contains police uniform, damaged torch light, two play guns and one broken lati. He also discovered gold jewelleries placed in a cloth under Neem tree. Later he arrested A4. He obtained the police custody of A1 to A3 and seized the crime property from various banks.
q) PW.10 is the mediator for arrest and confession of A1 to A3 and PW.11 and
PW.12 are the mediators for recovering the crime gold from various banks. These three witnesses deposed that they signed on some written papers without knowing their contents and further deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of this case. Since Pw.10 to 12 deposed that they signed on some written papers,
Serious doubt arose on the confession of accused and seizure of gold.
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 12
(Fair)
r) The evidence of P.W.5 is that PW.6 maintains accounts in his bank namely
Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Midtur, Nandyal district and he mortgaged gold weighing 85.6 grams on 12.06.2019 and again mortgaged gold weighing 90.70 grams on 13.06.2019 and thereafter police seized 4 bangles and 6 gold chains mortgaged by PW.6. The allegations of the prosecution is that P.W.5 mortgaged the crime gold in this case on behalf of A1. Said P.W.6 denied the suggestion that he is working as attender under A1 and took gold from A1 and mortgaged the same in bank. As such evidence of PW’s 5 and 6 are no help to the prosecution to say that PW6 martgaged gold on behalf of A1.
s) The evidence of Pw.8 is that on 12.06.2019 A1 came to his office namely
Shriram Finance Limited, Kadapa and mortgaged one gold chain, one gold ring weighing 36 grams and after one month police seized the same. The evidence of
Pw.8 proves that A1 mortgaged gold in the office of PW.8. But there is nothing in the evidence of PW8 to say that the gold mortgaged by A1 is the crime property of this case.
t) PW9 deposed that A3 came to his office namely Muthoot finance, Kadapa and mortgaged gold. Later Pw.9 came to know that the gold mortgaged by A3 is the stolen property. The evidence of PW.9 established that A3 mortgaged gold in the office of PW.9, but there is nothing on in the evidence of PW9 to show that the gold mortgaged by A3 is the crime property in this case.
u) Although the evidence of Pws.8 and 9 goes to shows that A1 and A3 mortgaged gold in their banks, the only evidence to link the mortgaged gold to the crime property is the test identification parade conducted by the PW.14 who is the
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 13
(Fair) VRO in this case. His evidence shows that he conducted test identification parade in Pakala Railway Station and PW.1 identified his gold. Rule 35 of Criminal Rules of Practice says that identification parade of properties shall be held in the court of the Magistrate where the properties are lodges. But in this case the identification parade was conducted in the railway station by VRO which is against to the procedure contemplated by law. As such the test identification conducted by PW.14 is not valid in the eyes of law.
v) Although Pw.16 deposed that A1 to A3 confessed before him but the same have no validity in the eyes of law. Further the mediators to said confession and recovery of gold from bank also turned hostile.
w) Merely because the gold mortgaged by A1 and A3 is recovered from the banks of PWs.8 and 9, it cannot be said that said gold is the crime property in this case. Further PW1 failed to mention the descriptive particulars of said gold ornaments both in his report and in his statement. In these circumstances, it it doubt ful as to how investigation officer ascertained crime property from the gold seized.
x) Hence, the prosecution failed to establish that gold recovered from the banks of PW.8 and 9 is the crime property of this case.
y) PW.15 is the SI of GRPS, Chittoor and his evidence is permitted only to the registration of FIR. PW.13 turned hostile and did not supported the case of prosecution in any way.
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 14
(Fair)
z) Learned Counsel for Accused contends that FIR was registered prior to giving report as FIR was registered at 05:00 PM whereas PW.1 deposed he went to
Pakala Station at 07:00 PM and thereafter gave report and as such this case is a created one. It is true that as per record FIR was registered prior to PW 1 going to police station and giving report. It is necessary to remember that PW.1 is giving evidence after morethan 3 years. As discussed earlier he cannot be expected to posess photographic memory. He might stated the time wronly as his memory may faded away due to passage of time. Perusal of entire evidence of PW's 1 and 2 shows that they have no prior acquitance with accused and they have no rivalry with accused. As such PW's 1 and 2 have no need to create case against accused.
As such, there is no merit in contention of the accused that this case is a created one.
aa) It is further contention of the defence that PW1 failed to state the discriptive particulars of gold/Mo’s 1 to 23. Perusal of record shows that PW1 did not state the discriptive particulars of gold in his report and in his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement.
PW16/Investigating officer admitted the same. Although, PW1 did not state the descriptive particulars of gold/Mo’s 1 to 23, that will no effects the credibility or trustworthyness of PW1.
ab) Learned Counsel for Accused contends that no evidence is collected to show that PW1 is running gold business in coimbatore. Learned counsel for accused further contends that PW1 not produced GST, IT returns and further PW.1 do not know meaning of GST which shows that PW1 have no gold business. PW's 1 and 2 deposed that they are running gold business in Coimbatore. They did not file any documents including GST of IT returns to substantiate the same. This Court
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 15
(Fair) is of the view that the fact of PW's 1 and 2 running gold shop is only corrobaradve fact and oral evidence of PW's 1 and 2 is sufficient to prove the same. Further in cross examination PWI deposed that GST means central service tax and further admitted the suggestion that GST means Goods and Service Tax. PW.1 is not a economics teacher to know abbrevation of each word. He is doing business and out of his layman knowledge he deposed that GST means central tax. There is nothing in said aspect to discard his evidence in saying that he is running gold business.
ac) Learned Counsel for Accused contends that PW's 1 and 2 did not depose the registration number of auto in which accused went away. This Court is of the view, at that time PW's 1 and 2 might be under high mental agony or tension and as such they could not noticed auto number or could not remember auto number. That cannot be used to discredit witness. Further it shows that witness is natural as they are not appearing to be tutored.
ad) Learned counsel for accused contends that in report PW.1 stated that he kept gold in his shirt pocket whereas in his evidence he deposed that he kept the gold in jacket and as such there is material contradiction in the evidence of PW.1.
Ex.P1 report shows that PW1 kept his gold in the inside shirt pockets and in his evidence he deposed that he kept gold in the jacket pockets weared inside the shirt. Ex.P1 and evidence of PW.1 not in contradictory as in Ex.P1 report PW1 stated that pocket inside the shirt. In his deposition he elobarated his version by saying that pockets inside shirt means he wore jacket inside shirt and placed gold in pockets of said jacket. As such there is no material contradiction in the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P1.
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 16
(Fair)
11. Finding of Facts:-
a) The discussion in the appreciation of evidence shows that the evidence of
PW’s. 1 and 2 are cogent and inspiring the confidence of this court. There is nothing to believe that PW’s 1 and 2 are deposing false. Hence, the evidence of
PW’s 1 and 2 established that A2 and A3 personated themselves as police officers and conducted search over the bag and body of Pw.1. Their evidence further establishes that A2 and A3 took over the gold in the possession of Pw.1 and got down from the train in Pakala Railway Station. Said fact was corroborated by the evidence of PW3. The evidence of Pw’s. 1 and 2 further establishes that A2 and A3 went away with the gold of PW.1.
b) The above discussion also shows that the evidence of Pws. 10 to 12 and
PW.16 failed to establish that Pw.16 discovered the crime property in this case.
Further the evidence of Pws.5, PW.6 to PW.9 and Pw.14 failed to establish that the gold mortgaged by A1 and A3 is the crime property in this case.
12. POINT No.1: Whether prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offense punishable u/s 384 r/w 109 of IPC?
a) Section 384 of IPC provides punishment for extortion. Before determining the charges u/s 384 of IPC against A1 to A4 it is necessary to go through the definition of extortion as defined under section 383 of IPC.
Section 383 of IPC defines "extortion" as intentionally putting a person in fear of injury, either to themselves or another, and thereby dishonestly inducing that person to deliver property, a valuable security, or anything signed or sealed that can be converted into a valuable security.
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 17
(Fair)
b) Reading of above section makes it clear that the following ingredients must be satisfied in order to make out an offense u/s 384 of IPC.
(I) Accused must put the victim in fear of injury to the victim or any other person.
(ii) By keeping the victim under fear, accused must dishonestly induce the victim to deliver any property to him or to any other person.
c) Pws 1 and 2 who are the eye witnesses did not deposed that any of the accused put them under fear of injury and thereafter took away the gold. Any other witness also did not depose about the same. In the absence of allegation that accused put Pw.1 under fear and took away the gold it cannot be said that prosecution satisfied the essential ingredients of section 383 of IPC. Hence, prosecution failed to prove this case against A1 to A4 for the offences punishable u/s 384 of IPC.
13. POINT No.2:- Whether prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offense punishable u/s 419 r/w 109 of IPC?
a) Section 419 of IPC provides punishment for cheating by personation.
Section 416 of IPC defines cheating by personation as cheating by pretending to be some other person or by knowingly substituting one for another or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 18
(Fair)
b) Cheating is defined u/s 415 of IPC and it says that a person (1) deceiving others fraudulently or dishonestly and induces the person so deceived to deliver property or (2) intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or ommit to do anything which he would not do or ommit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind or reputation or property.
c) This court has already held that A2 and A3 personated themselves as police, conducted search over the body of PW.1 and took away the gold of Pw.1.
d) Now the question is whether said proved facts satisfied the ingredients of section 419 of IPC. Section 419 of IPC is having two ingredients. One is personation and other is cheating. The cheating as defined u/s 415 of IPC is having two parts. The first part deals with delivery of property by fraudulent or dishonest inducement. The other part deals with intentionally deceiving the victim to do some act or to ommit some act which causes damage to him and in the absence of said deceivement, the victim cannot do or ommit to do said thing with regard to cheating under sectinon 415 of IPC, satisfying any one part is enough to attract offence of cheating.
e) The proved facts shows that A2 and A3 personated themselves as police.
It satisfied the first ingredient of section 419 of IPC. The 2nd ingredient deals with cheating which is dealt u/s 415 of IPC. The proved facts showes that A2 and A3 personated themselves as police, deceived PW.1 as they are conducting search and thereby seized the gold. The circumstances of the case further shows that if A2 and A3 not personated themselves as police, PW’s 1 and 2 not allowed them for
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 19
(Fair) conducting search over the body of PW. 1 and taking away the gold of PW.1. It satisfied the ingredients in the 2nd part of the section 415 of IPC. Hence, the proved facts satisfied the both the ingredients of section 419 of IPC.
f) The above discussion in the appreciation of evidence part shows that there is force in the contentions raised by the defence. Further nothing was elicited in the cross examination of prosecution witnesses to create benefit of doubt infavour of accused. Hence, prosecution proved the guilt of A2 and A3 for the offences punishable u/s 419 of IPC.
g) Further there is nothing in the evidence of prosecution which shows that
A1 and A4 have nexus with A2 and A3 or A1 and A4 took part in the any of the acts committed by A2 and A3 or A1 and A4 abated A2 and A3 to commit offence. As such prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 and A4 for the offences punishable u/s 419 r/w 109 of IPC
14. POINT No.3: Whether prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offense punishable u/s 420 r/w 109 of IPC?
Section 420 of IPC provides punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing for delivery of property. It shows tha section 420 of IPC having two ingredients. (i)
Cheating (ii) dishonestly inducing for delivery of property. The proved fact is that A2 and A3 searched body of PW1 and took away gold. There is no evidence which shows that PW1 delivered gold to A2 and A3. Delivery of property is essential ingredient of section 420 of IPC. In its absence guilt of accused cannot be
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 20
(Fair) established. Hence prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.
14. POINT NO.4: Whether prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offense punishable u/s 382 r/w 109 of IPC?
Section 382 of IPC provides punishment for theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restrain or fear of death, hurt or restraint. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed that any of the accused made preparation for causing death, hurt or restraint. Further there is no evidence to show that any of accused caused fear of death, hurt or restrain to any person. There is no allegation in the case of prosecution that any of the accused abated other accused to commit such offence In the absennce of said allegatin, it cannot be said that prosecution proved guilt of accused under section 382 r/w 109 of IPC. Accordingly, this Court came to the conclusion that prosecution failed to its case against accused under section 382 r/w 109 of IPC.
15. POINT NO.5: Whether prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offense punishable u/s 120 B of IPC?
a) Section 120 B of IPC provides punishment for criminal conspiracy. Section 120 A of IPC defines criminal conspiracy as 2 or more persons agreeing to do any illegal act. This court have already found that A2 and A3 personated themselves as police and took away the gold of PW.1. Without there being any agreement to commit an offense in between A2 and A3, they could not have came in a police uniform. Without there being an agreement between A2 and A3, they could not have searched Pw.1 and 2 alone in the early morning of 4.30 a.m. They are the
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 21
(Fair) circumstantial evidence that A2 and A3 have agreed to commit the illegal act of personating themselves as police and took away the gold. It satisfied the ingredients of section 120 A of IPC. Hence, prosecution proved the guilt of A2 and
A3 for the offense punishable u/s 120B of IPC.
b) Further there is nothing in evidence of prosecution which shows that A1 and
A4 have previous plan or agreement with A2 and A3. Although the allegation of prosecution is that A1 is the key person in the plan to take away the gold of PW.1, there is nothing in evidence of prosecution to substantiate the same. Hence, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 and A4 for the offense punishable u/s 120
B of IPC.
14.In the result, Accused No. 2 and 3 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 120(B) of IPC and accordingly they are convicted for the same Under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.
Further A2 and A3 are not found guilty for for the offence punishable under
Sections 420, 384, 382 r/w 109 of IPCand accordingly they are Acquitted U/Sec.
248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence.
Further A1 and A4 are not found guilty for for the offence punishable under
Sections 420, 384, 382, 419 and 120(b) r/w 109 of IPCand accordingly they are
Acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. Bail bonds of Accused No.
1 and 4 shall stand cancelled after a period of expiry of appeal period.
Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant (Contract basis) corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12 th day of June, 2025.
Sd/-Palamangalam Vinodh
Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 22
(Fair)
15. This court questioned accused on sentence. They stated that they are the sole bread winner of their family. A2 stated that he is having old age parents and children. A3 stated that his mother his bed ridden and he is the only person to take care of her.
16In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, they are not entitled for benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. However having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the accused, it would be just and proper to take a reasonable view in imposing the sentence against him instead of imposing maximum sentence prescribed for the offence proved.
17.SENTENCE: Accused No. 2 and 3 are sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 03 Months and also sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand Rupees) each for the offence punishable under sections 419 of IPC. and in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 (Ten) days for the above said offence. Further accused No. 2 and 3 are sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 01 Month and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under sections 120 (B) of IPC and in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 (Ten) days for the above said offence. The above sentences of the accused shall run concurrently.
18. The interim custody of MO’s 1 to 27 to PW1 shall become absolute after expiry of appeal period.
19.This Court informed the accused about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment.
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 23
(Fair) Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant (Contract basis) corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12 th day of June, 2025.
Sd/-Palamangalam Vinodh
Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
Prosecution: Defence:
Pw.1:B. Mugunda Rajan - None-
Pw.2:Anantha Raman
Pw.3:S. Tejesh
Pw.4:Akula Venkata Ramana
Pw.5:M. Lakshmi Pathi
Pw.6:Bodagala Venkatesh
Pw.7:Kakarla Dora Babu
Pw.8:T. Venkata Ramana
Pw.9:M. Prasanthi
Pw.10:P. Subramanyam
Pw.11:N. Kiran Kumar
Pw.12:Pydala Vasu
Pw.13:K. Siva Sankar Reddy
Pw.14:A. Dayakar
Pw.15:A. Praveen Kumar
Pw.16:B. Ashok Kumar, Inspector, Dharmavarma Railways Circle.
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 24
(Fair)
Exhibits marked for
Prosecution:
Ex.P1:Report of Pw.1.
Ex.P2:Gold property
Ex.P3:Certified copies
Ex.P4:161 Cr.P.C. statement of LW9
Ex.P5:161 Cr.P.C. statement of LW4
Ex.P6:Confession and seizure mahazarnama
Ex.P7:Seizure mahazarnama dt: 26.07.2019
Ex.P8:Interrogatin of A1 and A3 and Seizure mahazarnama dt: 26.07.2019
Ex.P9:161 Cr.P.C. statement of LW13
Ex.P10:Mahazarnama
Ex.P11:Original First Information Report
Ex.P12:Confession statement
Ex.P13:Seizure mahazaranama
Ex.P14:Rough sketch
Ex.P15:Seizure mahazarnama
Ex.P16:Seizure mahazarnama
Ex.P17:Pledge register
Ex.P18:Certified copy of loan sanction letter
Ex.P19:Seizure mahazarnama
Ex.P20:Proceedings of Test identification
Defence: Nil
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 25
(Fair)
Material Objects marked for
M.O.1 Necklace weighing 47.800 grams.
M.O.2: Kasula Danda weighing about 39.200 grams.
M.O.3: Gold stones studded chain weighing about 27.360 grams.
M.O.4: Ear studds with hanging one pair weighing about 10.800 grams.
M.O.5: Plain ear Studds one pair weighing about 3.27 grams.
M.O.6: Plain ear Studs one pair weighing about 4.43 grams.
M.O.7: Plain gold bangles weighing 25 in numbers weighing 455.76 grams
M.O.8: Matilu one pair weighing 8.90 grams.
M.O.9: Matilu one pair weighing 9.37 grams.
M.O.10: Matilu one pair weighing 8.26 grams.
M.O.11: Designed gold bangles one pair weighing 33.42 grams.
M.O.12: Gold beeds chain weighing about 7.60 grams.
M.O.13: Papitabilla weighing 5.88 grams.
M.O.14: Gold Ring weighing about 5.35 grams.
M.O.15: Gold Sarudu weighing about 34.36 grams.
M.O.16: Gold Sarudu Weighing about 24.54 grams.
M.O.17: Plain gold Chain weighing 20.72 grams.
M.O.18: Plain Gold chain weighing 17.97 grams.
M.O.19: Two Gold bangles and 6 gold chains total 176.3 grams.
M.O.20: Gold Chain weighing 24 grams.
M.O.21: Gold Chain weighing 29.6 grams.
M.O.22: One Gold chain weighing 29.4 grams.
APNE120005472019
CC No. 525/2019
Dt: 12.06.2025. 26
(Fair) M.O.23: One gold chain weighing 44.400 grams.
M.O.24: Two police uniform shirts
M.O.25: Broken lotti
M.O.26: Whistle
M.O.27: Play gun
Sd/-Palamangalam Vinodh
Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.
// True Copy //
Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.