C.C. No. 299/20121Dated 14.06.2019
IN THE COURT OF 1 st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum- 1 st ADDITIONAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT BOBBILI
Present: Kum. P. Bujji, 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class ,
BOBBILI
Friday, the 14th day of June, 2019
Calendar Case No.299/2012
Between:
The State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Bobbili Police Station …Complainant
And
Bantu Rambabu @ Ramu, S/o late Sanyasi Naidu, 39 years, K. Velama, Rajupeta Village, Bobbili Mandal… Accused
This case coming on 12.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor representing the State and of Sri C. Suryananarayana, learned Counsel for the
Accused and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
01.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bobbili Police Station, filed charge sheet in Crime No. 114/2012 of Bobbili Police station against accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 450, 394 read with 397 and 324 of Indian Penal Code.
02.The case of the Prosecution in brief is that:
L.W.1/Vadapalli Nirmala is the defacto Complainant, who is resident of Gowda Veedhi, Bobbili and on 20.05.2012 morning at about 5:30 hours, when she went to the Milk Shop from her house and after getting the milk packet and returned her house and went into her house, by that time an unknown culprit trespassed into house and confronted her suddenly, when she/L.W.1 asked him as to who is he and why he came there, the Accused showed a small knife and threatened that she will be killed if she raises any cries and he also closed her mouth and demanded her to give away all her gold, when she/L.W.1 hesitated, he/the Accused caused injuries with the above said knife on her neck and chest, she frightened and gave her bangles and ear studs to the Accused, however the Accused was not deterred and put the knife into her mouth to prevent her from further raising cries and threatened her to kill and took away the Chandraharam chain and Saibaba ring from her, the Accused throw away the knife and pulled the chain made of gold and coral beads and some of the beads fell down on the floor while he snatching it, thereafter the accused escaped, then the L.W.1 cam out and was wailing, that the neighbours came to the place and L.W.2 telephoned to 108 Ambulance and she was taken to Hospital,
HC.755 of Bobbili Police Station recorded the statement of L.W.1 at the Hospital, the Inspector of
C.C. No. 299/20122Dated 14.06.2019
Police took up the investigation, observed the scene in the presence of mediators, seized the knife with red coloured plastic handle, one red coloured bed sheet, one white blouse and white coloured saree with flower design and Gold Dippa of the Ear Stud in the veranda in the presence of mediators, during the investigation, the Accused was seen on the road junction at Patha Bobbili and tried to flee away on seeing the Police Jeep, he was nabbed with in a short distance and was questioned, then he disclosed about the commission of offence and he also stated that he sold some of the Gold for his financial problems, then the Inspector of Police searched the Pant Pockets of the Accused and found a packet containing a gold chain of two rows weighing about 2 Tulas with gold round shaped balls and another packet containing small gold beads, which was identified as the property in Cr.No.104/2012 under
Section 379 of IPC of Bobbili PS and the remaining part is of this Crime and seized the said property under cover of Mediators’ Report and the beads were seized under the cover of Observation Report on 22.06.2016 tallied with each other indicating them as the part of same chain, that the Accused lead the
Police and Mediators to Naidu Jeweler shop situated on the Bobbili main road and showed a person/L.W.13 sitting in the shop as the person to whom he has given a gold ring and a pair of ear studs for pledge, he/L.W.13 handed over the said items and the Inspector of Police seized them under cover of Mediators Report, that at about 16:00 hours the Accused lead the Police to Muthoot Finance
Corporation, Bobbili stating that he/the Accused pledged gold jewels twice at that place, the Branch
Manger/L.W.11 also admitted that the Accused pledged gold at Muthoot Finance Corporation, on verification of records it was found that the Accused pledged two gold bangles on 21.05.2012 and one gold chain on 25.05.2012 by producing his Voter ID and received Rs.43,700/- for the gold chain and
Rs.32,000/- for two gold bangles, the Inspector of Police seized the said property by obtaining records of the said Muthoot Finance Corporation and at about 17:15 hours, the Accused lead the Police to
Manappuram Finance, Bobbili and showed the person as to whom he pledged two gold bangles on 20.05.2012 and L.W.12/Abothula Mangamma admitted the same and disclosed that the Accused obtained Rs.30,000/- on 21.05.2012 and produced the same, the same was seized under cover of
Mediators’ Report and the Accused was produced before the Court on 23.06.2012.
On 23.06.2012 at about 8:00 am during the identification proceedings held in the compound of
M.R.O’s Proceedings, Bobbili, L.W.1 and her daughter identified the properties recovered from the
Accused and the two row chandraharam gold chain at the time of his arrest was being produced before the Honourable Court in Cr.No.104/2012 of Bobbili PS, since it is related to that case, out of the amounts secured by the Accused by pledging the gold ornaments, the accused paid Rs.40,500/- to his
C.C. No. 299/20123Dated 14.06.2019 financier and got released his Auto Rickshaw and also constructing a house under INDIRAMMA Phase – I scheme in his village and also educating his children in the College and School for which he is in a financial distress, besides he is also having immoral vices and after receipt of Wound Certificate of
L.W.1/de facto Complainant from L.W.18/Dr.A.K.Ratna Kumari, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Bobbili filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 394 read with 397 and 324 of IPC, hence the Charge Sheet.
03.After perusal of the record, the case was taken on file for the offence under Sections 451, 394 read with 324 of Indian Penal Code against Accused and numbered as C.C. 299/2012 on the file of this Court and summons were issued to Accused.
04. After appearance of accused before the Court, Accused was furnished with copies of case documents, as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.,
Charge was framed by my predecessor for the offence under Sections 451 and 390 of Indian Penal
Code against the Accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
05.To prove the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.15 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.20 and M.Os 1 to 5.
06. After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating evidence against himand reported no defence evidence.
07. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel for the
Accused.
08. The learned APP submitted that prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.15 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.20 and Mos 1 to 5 all the prosecution witnesses supported the case of prosecution and proved the guilt of accused for the alleged offence under Sections 451 and 390 of Indian Penal Code, hence prays to punish the accused as per law.
09. On the other hand, the learned legal aid counsel for the Accused submitted that the Accused did not commit any offence as alleged and that the Accused was falsely implicated in this case and that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged offence and that the evidence adduced before the Court does not prove the guilt of the Accused as there are several contradictions, omissions, exaggerations and inconsistencies therein and that this Accused is falsely implicated for statistical purpose alone by the
Police and that there is no corroborative prosecution evidence, so prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence prays to acquit the accused.
C.C. No. 299/20124Dated 14.06.2019
10.Now, the points for determination are: -
1) Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 451 and 390 of Indian Penal Code of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?
2) To what relief?
Point No.1:
11. The prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.15, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.20 and Mos 1 to 5 were marked in support of prosecution case.
12. The evidence of P.W.1/G. Padmavathi, who is the daughter of the complainant is that in the year 2012, she received phone call from her relatives that theft was taken place at her L.W.1/Mother’s house, on the same day she started to Bobbili and found fellmel condition and her mother also received bleeding injury on her tongue, her mother also informed that four bangles, chandraharam, one gold ring, pagadalu and Ear Studs nearly about seven tulas of gold was lost and the Accused also threatened with knife and caused injury on tongue and roped the gold items
In the cross-examination, P.W.1/G.Padmavathi stated that she does not know anything about the facts of the case and the date of offence, she was at Visakhapatnam and she knows nothing what was happened in her Mother’s house and the Police did not examine her.
13.PW2/Kolli Venkatanaidu, who is Shop Owner, he turned Hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and he deposed that he was running Jewelery Shop and he cannot identify the Accused and the Accused never came to his Shop along with the Police, but the Police recovered one Ring and Ear
Studs from his Shop weighing about 2 to 3 grams, but he does not know how the articles were found in his shop.
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared the said witness hostile and though cross- examined the P.W.2, nothing was elicited from him.
14. P.W.3/N. Mrutyunjaya Rao, who is Branch Manager of Manappuram Gold Finance deposed that he was a retired Branch Manager of Manapuram Gold and on 21.05.2012, the Accused approached their Branch and shown two gold bangles and requested for loan of Rs.30,000/- by pledging the said bangles, after completion of acid test, weighing of the articles as 17.3 grams and after obtaining Voter
ID Card and and two phone numbers of the Accused and obtaining his signatures on the demand
Promissory Note across the Revenue Stamp and after completion of procedure, they gave Rs.30,000/- to the Accused towards Gold Loan and on the next day morning L.W.22/Rajeswara Rao, Inspector of
Police along with two mediators and the Accused went to their Branch and asked him/P.W.3 about the articles pledged by the Accused and the Accused also confessed that the pledged bangles are thefted
C.C. No. 299/20125Dated 14.06.2019 from the mother of P.W.1 at Gowda Street, Bobbili on 20.05.2012, then he/P.W.22 informed to their higher authorities and after due permission from his higher officials, delivered the said gold bangles and the relevant documents to the Inspector of Police/L.W.22 in the presence of two mediators by obtaining acknowledgment from the Accused.
In the cross-examination, P.W.3/Branch Manager deposed that the Branch was fully occupied with CC Cameras and entrance of anybody and everything will be recorded in CC Cameras, but he stated that he could not produce the CC Camera recording to prove the presence of the Accused into the
Branch and the Police also did not ask him to produce the CC Camera recording to show that the
Accused approached their Branch for availing Gold Loan for the theft articles, the original records are available in their Head Office, but the Police did not examine the Head Office Officials at Kerala, that the Police also did not seize the Promissory Note duly signed by the Accused, he also stated that he cannot say the names of the Mediators said to have accompanied the Police, the Acknowledgement of the Accused was seized by the Police. He/P.W.3 further stated that conducting of Acid Test and Sault test of the gold articles was recorded in CC Cameras, but he did not hand over any record to the Police to prove the same, he again stated that the Police failed to ask him for handing over the CC Camera
Recording, so also the Police did not seize any Loan Ledger or Cash Registers with regard to this case, no confession statement of the Accused was not recorded in his/P.W.3 presence and no mediators slips affixed to the Bangles and he also stated that he was examined by the Police on 22.05.2012.
15. P.W.4/Srinivasa Panigrahi was turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and he deposed that he does not know P.W.1, but in the year 2012 one old woman came to his Shop and purchased Milk Packet at about 5:30 am and left from there, later some people went to his shop and informed that her gold chain was committed theft by unknown person. The Prosecution declared the said witness as hostile, though cross-examined him, but did not elicit in favour of the prosecution case.
16.P.W.5/T.Kiran Kumar, who is the School Principal deposed that he is working as Principal in e-
Techno School of Excellent English Medium and he knows the Accused since the children of the
Accused are studying in their school, but he does not know L.W.1 and the facts of the case, he further deposed that the Accused did not pay the School Fees of children regularly and he/P.W.4 was examined by the Police.
But in cross-examination by the Counsel for the Accused, P.W.5/T.Kiran Kumar stated that he was not examined by the Police and he does not know the fee payment particulars of the children of the
Accused.
C.C. No. 299/20126Dated 14.06.2019
17. P.W.6/Abothula Mangamma was turned hostile and she did not support the prosecution case and she deposed that he was running a Pan Shot at his house and he does not know the Accused and the facts of the case and was not examined by the Police.
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross-examined the witness since she turned Hostile, but P.W.6 did not depose anything favouring to the case of the prosecution.
18.P.W.7/R.Prasanga Raju, Deputy Executive Engineer, Housing Corporation, Visakhapatnam deposed that previously he worked as Deputy Executive Engineer, Housing Corporation, Bobbili and he stated that he granted housing loan under the Indiramma Colony Scheme to a person in the year 2006-07 and released an amount of Rs.28,000/- for the said constructions, but he stated that he could not identify the said person at present, but he is residing of Gopalaerayudupeta Village.
19. P.W.8/P.Neelakanteswara Swamy, Managing Partner in PVR Vehicle Finance, Vizianagaram deposed that he knows the Accused since the Accused purchased Auto from their Company on installment basis for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and the installment amount is Rs.6,030/- per month for total 20 installments and also fixed in 10 installments for an amount of Rs.5,730/- per month, but in the year 2012 in he month of April, their finance Company seized the said Auto since the Accused failed to pay the 6 to 7 installments and after one month, the accused paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- and they released the vehicle, later the Accused failed to pay an amount of Rs.88,000/- after payment of said
Rs.40,000/-. P.W.8 further deposed that after three or four months, the Police went to their Finance
Company and inquired about installments payments by the Accused, then he issued letter/Ex.P.3 with regard to the payments made by the Accused.
In Cross-Examination P.W.8/P. Neelakanteswara Swamy deposed that the said Letter/Ex.P.3 does not disclose that he is the Managing Partner of the Finance Company, they used to maintain original records containing the installment payment particulars, the Police also verified the original record of Ex.P.3, but it does not disclose the contents with the original record and did not disclose the name of the customer and vehicle registration number as AP 35 V 9864 and there is no evidence under
Ex.P.3 to show that the vehicle number mentioned therein belongs to the Accused, he do not remember that whether the Accounts of heir Company were annually audited or not and whether he handed over the seizure record of the alleged vehicle to the Police or not. P.W.8 further deposed that his Assistant viz., Lakshmi prepared Ex.P.3 and he signed the same and he further stated that their company do not have Managing Director and Ex.P.3 does not disclose that their Firm is registered Firm. P.W.8 denied the suggestion that PVR vehicle finance company is nothing but shell and bogus company and it was
C.C. No. 299/20127Dated 14.06.2019 not existing in Vizianagaram and it was created one at the request of the Police for the purpose of
Ex.P.3 and police never approached him and the Police did not issue any acknowledgment and did not obtain any letter form him and the accused never availed any finance with them and the question of repayment does not arise and further stated that he was not examined by the Police.
20.P.W.9/Dr.A.K.Ratnakumari, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health Centre, Mutluru deposed that previously she worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Community Health Center, Bobbili and on 20.05.2012 at 6:45 am, she examined Vadapalli Nirmala and found the injuries viz., (1) a cut injury over the tongue size about 3 X 2X 2 Cms regular margin and bleeding present, (2) a cut injury over the dental surface of tongue size about 2 X 2 X 2 Cms. Regular margions and bleeding present, (3) a cut injury right side of the neck size about 2 X 2 X 1 Cms and (4) a cut injury over the right sterner size about 2 X 2 X 1 Cms and she further deposed that the patient was in conscious and coherent vitals normal other system examination is normal and opined that the above said injuries are simple in nature and accordingly issued Wound Certificate/Ex.P.4 to the said Vadapalli Nirmala.
During her cross-examination, the Doctor/P.W.9 deposed that she does not know with regard to the crime number for which the Wound Certificate/Ex.P.4 is issued, only one mole of the alleged victim is recorded in the Ex.P.4 and there is possibility to sustain the injuries 1 and 2 if the patient suffered with High B.P, she further stated that she did not mention in Ex.P.4 about the nature of object caused the said injuries and Injuries 3 and 4 may be sustained if the victim fell down unconscious.
21.P.W.10/Thota Kiran Kumar, Photographer deposed that he is running a Photo Studio in the name and style of Arun Photo Studio and on 20.05.2012 at the request of Bobbili Police he went to
Gowda Street of Bobbili and photographed the scene of offence and took 6 photographs/Ex.P.5 and handed over to Bobbili Police.
22.P.W.11/Chellarapu Swaminaidu, retired Village Revenue Officer deposed that he worked as
Village Revenue Officer of Gollapalli Village and at the request of L.W.16, he went to Police Station, the Police people drafted some papers at Police Station and he signed the said three papers after going through the contents of them, he further stated that he do not remember the contents of the said papers.
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared the witness as Hostile with the permission of the Court and cross-examined him and he stated that the Police did not sieize any property in his presence, he signed on four Mediators’ Reports’ dt. 22.06.2012 at 1:00 pm, dt.22.06.2012 at 3:00 pm, dt.22.06.2012 at 4:00 pm, and dt.22.06.2012 at 5:15 pm, but he does not know the contents of the
Reports, marked his signatures on the mediators’ reports dt.22.06.2012 at about 1:00 pm, 3:00 pm, 4:00
C.C. No. 299/20128Dated 14.06.2019 pm and 5:15 pm as Exs. P.6 to P.9 respectively and Ex.P.10 is his signature on the identification of property report dt.23.06.2012 at about 8:00 am. When the learned Counsel for the Accused cross- examined the witness/P.W.11, he stated that he does not know anything about the case and he signed
Exs.6 to 10 at the instance of the Police.
23. P.W.12/Peesapu Satyanarayana, Councilor deposed that in the year 2012 at the request of
Bobbili police himself and Gunana Venkata Rao went to the house of one old lady at Gowda Street near
Hatchery and when they entered into the house, they found one cot and saw some small beeds were lying on the cot, then the police seized the black beeds in a paper, one bed sheet and one knife lying on the bed were also seized by the police and the police got photographed the scene of offence in their presence and except that, they did not see anything and the police drafted Ex.P11, Scene Observation
Report and he signed on it.
In Cross-Examination, P.W.12 stated that he was not the Councilor of Gowda Street and he cannot say the date on which he visited the house of old lady and the name of the owner of the house, but the Inspector called him to act as Mediator, the Inspector drafted Ex.P.11, at that time the neighbours were also present, but he does not know the said neighbours signed on Ex.P.11 or not, he does not know whether the name of the owner of the House was incorporated in Ex.P.11 or not, on the advice of the Vice Chair Person of Bobbili Municipality, he proceeded to the House, the Police seized the black beeds, knife and blanket separately in his presence, but they did not affix any identification slips on the seized items and did not obtain his signatures, but the Police obtained his signatures on written papers, except his signature on Ex.P.11, the Police did not obtain any signature on any written paper and he further stated that he did not know who opened and closed the doors of the said house, so also he cannot say the name of the person, who photographed the scene and it was the practice vogue that the Police people used to call him to the Police Station to obtain signatures as mediator on the written papers prepared in the Police Station.
24.P.W.13/P.Thowdu, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police deposed that previously he worked as
Head Constable Bobbili Police Station and on 20-05-2012, he received Medical intimation from
Government Hospital, Bobbili, then he rushed there and recorded the statement of Vadapalli
Nirmala/LW.1 and basing on the same, registered the case in Crime No.114/2012 for the offence under
Sections 451 and 390 of Indian Penal Code, issued FIR and submitted FIR/Ex.P.12 to the court and copies to the concerned and later further investigation was handed over to L.W.22/L. Rajeswara Rao,
Inspector of Police, Bobbili.
C.C. No. 299/20129Dated 14.06.2019
During Cross-Examination, he stated that there is a delay of 3 hours and 30 minutes for lodging
Ex.P.12 and he did not receive any report from the relatives of LW-1. It is true there is over writing in
Ex.P.13 in respect of date i.e two zero. Ex.P.12 does not disclose the intimation by the hospital authorities about the alleged incident and he also admitted about the correction in Ex.P.13 in respect of age of L.W.1.
25.P.W.14/U. Tata Babu, Police Constable deposed that previously he worked as Police Constable at Seethanagaram Police Station and attached to SDPO since 01-02-2012 and on receipt of Letter of
Advice, sent the seized property and copy of FIR from LW-22/L.Rajeswara Rao, Inspector of Police to
RFSL Visakhapatnam and after receiving the RFSL report and the same was sent to LW-22
L.Rajeswara Rao Inspector of Police, Bobbili.
During Cross-Examination, P.W.14 stated that he found the seized articles containing identification slips and signatures of the accused and mediators, but he does not know whether the case property deposited before the Court or not and he knows the contents of the letter of advice, but he does not know whether the Police obtained prior permission to send the seized property to RFSL or not.
26.P.W.15/L. Rajeswar Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police deposed that previously he worked as Inspector of Police, Bobbili Circle and on 20-05-2012 at about 8-30 AM Head Constable 755/P.W.13 received phone call from Public and immediately he proceeded to Government Hospital, Bobbili, where the injured/Vadapalli Nirmala taking first-aid treatment and he recorded her statement and registered the same as a case in Crime No.114/2012 for the offence punishable under section 457, 392, 324 r/w 397 of IPC and after receiving information about the registration of FIR, perused the FIR and proceeded to the scene of offence at Gowada Street, Bobbili, which is the residence of the injured/complainant, by that time at about 9-15 hours injured also present at the house, then he secured the presence of mediators LW.14/Gunana Venkata Rao and PW.12/Peesapu Satyanarayana observed the scene and got prepared rough sketch/Ex.P.14 and got photographed the scene of offence by
PW.5/Photographer, seized blood stained bed sheet and steel knife with red coloured handle and about 110 number of small coral beads and about 30 Gold colour small beads in the presence of the above said mediators, also seized blood stained Saree and blouse worn by the complainant/Vadapalli Nirmala at the time of offence, examined her/Vadapalli Nirmala Chelukani Ranga Rao, Ganta Srinivasa Rao,
Mudanagiri Gopala Rao and recorded their statements at the scene, on the same day in the evening time, again visited her house and examined PW-1 and recorded her detailed statement and on 27-05- 2012, prepared letter of advise and sent blood stained clothes, bed sheet, blood stained knife and the
C.C. No. 299/201210Dated 14.06.2019 remaining seized items to RFSL Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis through SDPO Bobbili and on 22-06-2012 on reliable information, he secured the mediators LW.16 and PW.11 and arrested the
Accused/Bantu Rambabu @ Ramu at Patha Bobbili junction and recovered Gold chain, which is said to the property in another Crime of Bobbili Police Station and gold beads 22 in number stolen property in Crime No.114/2012 of Bobbili Police Station under cover of confessional statement by the accused in the presence of mediators and during his confession, the accused disclosed the facts of the offence and thereafter he along with mediators proceeded to Main road Bobbili at Naidu Jewelery and recovered some part of ornaments pledged/kept by the accused, then he examined P.W.2 and recorded his statement and drafted mediators report at the shop of PW.2, on the same day he along with the same mediators proceeded to Muthoot finance Corporation and seized the Gold chain and two Gold bangles, which were pledged by the accused and received loan amount of Rs.75,000/- and received attested copies to the transaction concerned from G.Gowri Sankara Rao, Branch Manager Muthoot finance, Bobbili and he also examined Branch Manager and recorded his statement and on the same day, the accused led the police and the Mediators to Vishnava Street, Bobbili and shown Manappuram
Finance company and told that he has pledged two Gold bangles and on his confession, approached the
Branch Manager and recovered the intact stolen property of Vadapalli Nirmala/complainant which was stolen and pledged by the accused and taken the concerned transaction records from the Branch
Manager, Manappuram Finance Company, he examined and recorded the statement of PW-3 and after completion of recovery and brought the accused to the Bobbili Police station at about 6-30 PM and kept in side the Lock and on 23-06-2012 sent the accused to the Court for judicial custody along with remand report and on the same day secured the presence of Srinivasa Panigrahi, the Milk Vendor at
Swetha Chelapathi School, Terli Kiran Kumar, Head Master Techno school, where the two children of the accused are studying and Pallantla Neelakanteswara Swamy/PW.8, Managing Partner PVR Vehicles
Partner Vizianagaram, who gave finance to the accused to purchase an auto and on the same day he conducted identification of property with the help of mediators Maradana Appalanaidu/LW.16 and PW- 11 and on 25-06-2012, he secured the presence of Abothula Mangamma/PW.6 and PW-7, recorded their statements and later sent property form to the Court by mentioning all the details of stolen property recovered from the possession of the accused and meanwhile he handed over the property to
L.W.1/Vadapalli Nirmala on the proper acknowledgment on receipt of memo from the Court to hand over property, Ex.P.15 is the mediators report date 22-06-2012 at about 1-00 PM. Ex.P.16 is the mediators report date 22-06-2012 at about 3-00 PM. Ex.P.17 is the mediators report date 22-06-2012 at
C.C. No. 299/201211Dated 14.06.2019 about 4-00 PM. Ex.P.18 is the mediators report date 22-06-2012 at about 5-30 PM, Ex.P.19 is the seizure Nama dated 23-06-2012 at about 8-00 AM, Ex.P.20 is the RFSL Report dated 19-06-2012 and
MO.1 is the Saree with blouse, M.O.2 is the bed sheet, M.O.3 is the 110 red colour coral beeds, MO.4 is the 30Gold colour beeds and MO.5 is the ear stud and after receipt of the wound certificate and
RFSL report and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused.
In Cross examination by the counsel for the Accused, P.W.15/L. Rajeswar Rao, Deputy
Superintendent of Police stated that Manappuram finance company is approved by the reserved bank of
India and having head office at Madras and he did not observ whether the Manappuram finance company branch Bobbili having CC Cameras or not and he did not seize any original records from the company to prove the pledging by the Accused in the finance company and he further stated that he do not remember whether we have given any acknowledgment to the concerned authority of said finance company from whom he received the alleged gold ornaments and later he sent the seized property duly affixing identification slips of the authorities of the said finance company and mediators including the mentioning the crime number thereon. He further stated that he did not try to secure nearest respectable inhabitants places covered by Ex.P.16 to Ex.P.19 to witness the alleged securing of gold articles from the persons as mentioned in the mediators report since already he has got secured two mediators and hence he did not secure other mediators like nearest inhabitants place of seizure.
27.The crime in this case was registered under section 451 and 390 of Indian Penal Code and also charges were framed under same sections. Section 451 of IPC contemplates that
Sec.451 :imprisonment.--Whoever commits house-trespass in order to committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of imprisonment may be extended to seven years.
390. Robbery.
390. Robbery.--In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery.--Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery. When extortion is robbery.--Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person, so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
C.C. No. 299/201212Dated 14.06.2019
28.On thorough examination of the case, the de facto complainant was died before the commencement of the trial and the prosecution filed Death Certificate to that extent, the Prosecution was not examined L.Ws. 2 to 4, their evidence was given up by the prosecution, the prosecution examined L.W.5 as P.W.1, who is the daughter of the de facto Complainant, she did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile, she deposed in her evidence stating that she does not know anything about the facts of the case, by the time of alleged offence, she was at Visakhapatnam and further stated that she does not know what had happened at her mother’s house, thus she is not the direct witness, her evidence is noway helpful for the prosecution case.
29.Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, he is turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, he deposed that he is running gold jewelery shop, but he cannot identify the Accused and
Police never came to his Shop along with the Accused, Police recovered one Ring and Ear Studs weighing about 2-3 grams, but he do not remember how the articles finds place in his shop, but in his cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot say what articles are seized by the Police from him. He was not examined by the Police and the Accused never visited his Shop, so the evidence of P.W.2 also noway helpful for the case of prosecution.
30.Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, who is the Branch Manager of Manappuarm Finance
Company, he deposed in his evidence that he did not produce the original documents to show that the
Accused pledged the gold articles in their company, he categorically admitted in his cross-examination that if generally whoever pledged the gold articles, the original identification proof has to be produced by them, but in the present case they sanctioned loan without obtaining the Original identification cards and they sanctioned loan only obtaining the xerox copy of voter ID of the Accused, which creates doubt on sanctioning loan to the Accused.
31.P.W.4, who is milk vendor was also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, he deposed that he cannot say the name of the customer, who approached him and purchased the milk packets and further admitted that the Police did not examine him, thus his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case.
32.P.W.5, who is the Principal of the School deposed that the children of the Accused are studying at their School, but he does not know about the case facts, his evidence is noway helpful for the case of prosecution.
33.P.W.6 also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and he simply stated that he does not know anything about the case and he was resiled his previous statement.
C.C. No. 299/201213Dated 14.06.2019
34.P.W.7, who is the Deputy Executive Engineer, his evidence is no way helpful for the case of prosecution, who sanctioned loan to the Accused under Indiramma Colony Scheme in the year 2006- 2007 and he did not even identify the persons who availed the Loans from him.
35.P.W.8, who is the Managing Partner of PVR Vehicle Finance deposed that Ex.P.3 does not disclose the name of the customer and also contained vehicle bearing No. AP 35 V 9868 and also deposed that there is no evidence under Ex.P.3 to show that the vehicle bearing No. AP 35 V 9868 belongs to the Accused and he was not examined by the Police, thus the Ex.P.3 does not disclose any incriminating evidence against the Accused, so the evidence of P.W.8 is no way helpful for the case of prosecution.
36.P.W.9, who is Civil Assistant Surgeon examined de facto Complainant/L.W.1/Deceased and issued Ex.P.4/Wound Certificate, her evidence is limited to the examination of the Complainant and issuance of Wound Certificate. Moreover the main eye witness i.e. de facto complainant, who received injuries was not examined by the prosecution since she died, which becomes impossible to
Court to come to conclusion that how she received injuries.
37.P.W.10, Photographer’s role is limited to take photographs of the scene under
Ex.P.5/Photographs.
38.P.W.11, who is the Mediator in this case, turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and he deposed that at the request of the Police, he acted as Mediator and he signed on some papers, but he does not know the contents and the Police did not seize any thing in his presence, the Accused did not confess anything before him, at the instance of Police, he signed on Exs.P.6 to P.10, but he does not know their contents.
39.P.W.12, who is another Mediator’s evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution, during the course of examination, he clearly stated that the Bobbili Police used to call him to the Police Station to act as Mediator and obtained his signature as Mediator on written papers at the Police Station, so the version of P.W.12 not believable by this Court.
40. P.W.13 to 15, who are the Investigation Officers, their role is limited for registering FIR and examining the witnesses. Coming to the evidence of P.W.13, basing on report given by L.W.1/de facto
Complainant, he registered the FIR, the main eye witnesses i.e. de facto complainant was not examined by the Prosecution through P.W.13 marked Ex.P.12/FIR and Ex.P.13/statement of de facto complainant.
The learned counsel for the Accused argued that the non-examination of main witness, there is no probative value of the Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.13 and coming to the evidence of P.W.15, he clearly admitted
C.C. No. 299/201214Dated 14.06.2019 in his cross-examination that there is no direct independent witnesses in this case to prove that Accused made attempt over de facto Complainant and snatched away the gold articles of L.W.1. On careful observation, the Investigation Officer failed to seize the butter knife, which is said to have used by the
Accused at the time of alleged offence, but the prosecution did not produce the same before the Court, which creates the doubt whether the Accused said to have used the said knife or not except the oral evidence of P.W.15, there is no material evidence to show that the Accused made attempt on L.W.1 with butter knife. Without material object, this court is unable to found the guilty of the Accused and non-examination of the de facto complainant, who is the eye witness in this case is fatal to the prosecution case and also there is no direct independent witnesses in this case, it become impossible to come to conclusion that the Accused committed the alleged offence.
41.The learned counsel for the Accused also relied upon a Judgment of Honourable High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2019 (2) ALT (Crl.) 25 (DB) (T.S & A.P) between Tekkam Lakshmi Vs. State of A.P., represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.
In due respect to the above decision, it is squarely applicable in the present case since the
Accused confessed before the P.Ws.12 and 11, who are the Mediators, but the P.W.11 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and P.W.12, another mediator clearly stated that he used to visit the Police Station and at the request of Police, he signed on some papers, so there are inconsistencies in their evidence, thus their evidence is not believable and further the evidence of P.W.15, he clearly admitted that he did not seize the Butter Knife, which is said to be used in commission of offence by the Accused, the same is not seized, so also not produced before the Court, thus the confession before the Police is inadmissible.
42.I am scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record, though the prosecution examined
P.Ws. 1 to 15 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.20 and M.Os. 1 to 5 and observed that there is no direct witnesses and no one could identify the Accused to show that the Accused committed the said offence and on careful observation, the main eye witness, who is the defacto complainant i.e. L.W.1 was not examined by the prosecution since she was died and the material witnesses for this case i.e. L.Ws. 2 to 4 were not examined by the prosecution, many opportunities were given to the Prosecution, for the reasons best known to them, the prosecution failed to produce them before this Court. The prosecution examined L.W.5 as P.W.1, who is the daughter of L.W.1, she did not support the case of prosecution and her evidence is no way helpful for prosecution, the P.Ws. 2, 4, 6 and 11 also turned hostile and did
C.C. No. 299/201215Dated 14.06.2019 not support the case of prosecution and their evidence also no way helpful for prosecution, this Court relied the evidence of P.W.3, he also categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he did not produce original record to show that the Accused pledged gold articles and also he further stated that if generally whoever pledged the gold articles, they will obtain original identification proofs, but in the present case, they sanctioned loan only after obtaining xerox copy of voter ID of the Accused, thus the version of P.W.3 is not believable by this Court, coming to the evidence of P.W.5, his evidence also noway helpful to the case of prosecution, he clearly stated that he knows the Accused and the children of the Accused studying in their School, but he does not know about the facts of the Case. P.W.7, who is Deputy Executive Engineer stated that he sanctioned the loan under Indiramma Housing Scheme, but he stated that he cannot identify the said person to whom the loan was sanctioned, his evidence is also noway helpful for the case of prosecution, P.W.8, who is managing partner of PVR Vehicle, observed that the Ex.P.3 does not disclose anything relating to the Accused, he clearly stated that after verification, he simply signed on Ex.P.3, but he did not verify Ex.P.3 correctly, hence his evidence is no way helpful for the prosecution case, P.W.9, who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon stated that she examined the L.W.1 and issued Wound Certificate, but the main eye witness, who is de facto complainant, who received injury was not examined by the prosecution and during the cross- examination of P.W.9 she stated that it is possible to sustain the said injuries if the patient struggle and also may happen if the patient fell down unconscious and without non-examination of the de facto
Complainant, this court could not come to conclusion that how the de facto complainant received injuries. P.W.10, who is the Photographer and his evidence is limited for taking photographs only and hence his evidence just come to conclusion of the case is no way useful to the prosecution case. P.W.11 and P.W.12 are the mediators in this case. P.W.11 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and at the request of the Police, he signed on Ex.P.6 to P10, during the course of cross- examination, he clearly stated that the Police did not seize any property in his presence and also did not conduct any test identification property in his presence, at the instance of Police only he signed E.x.P.6 to 10, but he does not know their contents, thus the evidence is no way helpful for the prosecution case,
P.W.12, who is another mediator clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the Police used to call him to Police Station and obtained his signature at Police Station, hence the evidence of P.W.12 is not believable, P.Ws. 13 to 15, who are the Investigation Officers in this case, their role is limited to register the FIR and examine the witnesses. The Investigation Officer failed to seize the butter knife, which is said to have used by the Accused at the time of alleged offence, but the prosecution did not
C.C. No. 299/201216Dated 14.06.2019 produce the same before the Court, which creates the doubt whether the Accused said to have used the said knife or not except the oral evidence of P.W.15, there is no material evidence to show that the
Accused made attempt on L.W.1 with butter knife. Without material object and non-examination of the de facto complainant, who is the eye witness in this case is fatal to the prosecution case and also there is no direct independent witnesses in this case, this court is unable to found the guilt of the Accused and it is impossible to the Court to come to conclusion that the Accused committed the alleged offence and the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence under Sec 451 and 390 IPC.
43.By over all consideration of material and evidences available on hand, the prosecution fails to bring home the alleged charge for the offence under Sec. 451 and 390 of IPC against the accused and hence the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence under Sec 451 and 390 IPC and hence, the charges leveled against the accused are liable to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec.451 and 390 of IPC and accordingly, the 1st Point is answered against to the case of the prosecution and the Accused is entitled for acquittal.
Point No.2:
44.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 451 and 390 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The interim custody of unmarked property i.e. gold items 1) four gold bangles weighing about four Tulas 2) One gold chandraharam chain weighing about 2 ½ Tulas, 3) One Coral Chain with small Gold beads weighing about 4 Grams 4) One gold ring weighing about ¼ tula 5) One pair of gold ear studs weighing ¼ Tula total weighing about 7 Tulas, which was given to the interim custody of the de facto complainant as per Crl.M.P.9520/12 dt.21.01.2012 shall holds good. The M.Os. 1 to 5 are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of Appeal time. The Accused is directed to execute the Bond of
Rs.5,000/- under Section 437-A Cr.P.C to appear before the Appellant Court if any appeal is preferred.
The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 14th day of June, 2019.
Sd/- P.Bujji
1st Addl. Jr. Civil Judge cum 1st Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class ,
BOBBILI
C.C. No. 299/201217Dated 14.06.2019
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution: P.W.1G.Padmavathi P.W.2 Kolli Venkata Naidu P.W.3N. Mrutyunjaya Rao P.W.4Srinivasa Panigrahi P.W.5T. Kiran Kumar P.W.6 Abothula Mangamma P.W.7R. Prasanga Raju P.W.8P. Neelakanteswara Swamy P.W.9Dr. A.K.Ratna Kumari, Civil Assistant Surgeon P.W.10Thota Kiran Kumar P.W.11Chellarapu Swami Naidu P.W.12Peesapu Satyanarayana P.W.13P. Thowdu P.W.14U. Tatababu P.W.15L. Rajeswara Rao
For Defence -NIL- Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution:
Ex.P.1161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.2161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.3Letter issued by P.V.R.Fincance Company Ex.P.4Wound Certificate of Vadapalli Nirmala/Complainant Ex.P.56 Photographs Ex.P.6Signature of P.W.11 on Mediators’ Report dt 22.06.2012 at 1:00 pm Ex.P.7Signature of P.W.11 on Mediators’ Report dt 22.06.2012 at 3:00 pm Ex.P.8Signature of P.W.11 on Mediators’ Report dt 22.06.2012 at 4:00 pm Ex.P.9Signature of P.W.11 on Mediators’ Report dt 22.06.2012 at 5:15 pm Ex.P.10Signature of P.W.11 on Mediators’ Report dt 23.06.2012 at 8:00 am Ex.P.11Scene Observation Report Ex.P.12F.I.R Ex.P.13Statement of L.W.1 (Subject to objection) Ex.P.14Rough Sketch of the Scene of offence Ex.P.15Mediators Report dt.22.06.2012 at about 1:00 pm Ex.P.16Mediators Report dt.22.06.2012 at about 3:00 pm Ex.P.17Mediators Report dt.22.06.2012 at about 4:00 pm Ex.P.18Mediators Report dt.22.06.2012 at about 5:15 pm Ex.P.19Seizurenama dt.23.06.2012 at about 8:00 am Ex.P.20RFSL Report dt.19.06.2012
For Defence - NIL -
C.C. No. 299/201218Dated 14.06.2019
Material Objects Marked
M.O.1 -Saree with Blouse M.O.2 -Bed Sheet M.O.3 -110 red color coral beeds M.O.4 -30 Gold Color beeds M.O.5 -Ear Stud (Subject to Objection)
Sd/- P.Bujji
1st Addl. Jr. Civil Judge cum 1st Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class ,
BOBBILI