CC 263 of 2016Page No.1 of 16
IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT ARMOOR
PRESENT:Smt. Racharla Shalini, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2022.
CC. No. 263 of 2016
Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS, Armoor
...Complainant
and
A1)Keval Chand Devasi, S/o. Buddiramdevasi, age 35 yrs., Caste: Devasi, Occ: Business, R/o. Sarvareddy colony, H.No.6-3-15/5/2 Plot No.8, Shivarampally, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. A2)Jaya Ram Devasi, S/o. Buddaramdevasi, age 32 yrs., Caste: Devasi, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.6-3-105/5/2, Plot No.8, Shivarampally, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.
... Accused
This case is coming on 04.11.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and Sri Ganta Sadanandam, Learned counsel for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS. Armoor, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.443 of 2014 for the offence punishable u/sec. 380 Indian Penal Code against accused
No.1 & 2.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:
The Lw-1/Shetan Singh stating that he is running the Textile business for the last 4 years, before that he used to do the same business at his native place Surat and he purchased the cloth material from accused No.1 at Hyderabad for the last 4 years and 3 months on credit basis and he is paying the amounts, accordingly as a practice and custom of the trade. During the course of business transactions, the
CC 263 of 2016Page No.2 of 16
amount of Rs.9.12 lakhs was due to the accused No.1 as on 02.10.2014. On the same day, he paid Rs.42,000/- cash and returned the stock of clothes worth of
Rs.3.82 lakhs and finally an amount of Rs.4,88 lakhs is the balance need to be paid to accused No.1. Further on 02.10.2014 during night hours, accused No.1 deputed two of his workers i.e., Rahul and Om Prakash at Lw-1/Shetan Singh house and instructed them to take next two days collection and warned Lw-1/Shetan Singh to take care of his persons and pay the two days shop collection and then left to
Hyderabad. On 04.10.2014 in the night hours, the above two persons Rahul and
Omprakash taken away the keys of the show room while Lw-1/Shetan Singh was attending for Durga Nimarjan, at about 3.00 a.m. on 05.10.2014 Lw-1/Shetan Singh received call from accused No.1 stating that immediately come over to the showroom and scolded him in filthy language, however at 7.00 a.m. Lw-1/Shetan
Singh returned to home and came to know that one Bhawararam and two other came to his house at 4.00 a.m. and abused his wife and searched for him and went away. He informed the matter to the elders Balusingh and Namesingh to talk with the accused No.1 and came to the showroom, on seeing him, accused No.1 caught hold his shirt caller and Bhawararam Jat, accused No.1 and Dharmaram Dakke/Jat pounced on Lw-1/Shetan Singh and took him to the 1st floor of the shop and confined him and then accused No.1 took out his revolver and shown him by stating not to shout. He also noticed one DCM AP-01-W-7737 with 10 to 14 members also.
Meanwhile two elders i.e., Balu Singh and Namesingh arrived and taken away accused No.1 and Dharmaram Daakke with them as the public gathered at the shop. Lw-1/Shetan Singh escaped from the top shutter and while he proceeding to
PS Armoor with intent to lodge complainant, in the meantime Namesingh stopped and told him that the matter will settled and no need to lodge the complaint. He followed the Namesingh and went to the house of Balusingh who advised to
CC 263 of 2016Page No.3 of 16
accused No.1 to take one lakh per month, but accused No.1 not accepted the proposal and came to the showroom along with him and forcibly taken away stock worth of Rs.40 lakhs and cash of Rs.75,000/- and also damaged the furniture and loaded the DCM and proceeded to Hyderabad, gave warning to Lw-1/Shetan Singh to take back the stock by paying the due amounts. In the meantime one person
Amar singh of Durga Dresses stopped the DCM as Lw-1/Shetan Singh is due of amount to him. Accused No.1 taken Amar singh with him in his Scorpio vehicle.
Later, Amar singh came to Lw-1/Shetan Singh and warned him to pay the due amount of Rs.1.61 lakhs. Then Lw-1/Shetan Singh contacted his son-in-law namely
Deep singh at Hyderabad in the intervening night of 5/6-10-2014 who inturn advised
Lw-1/Shetan singh to come to Hyderabad in the morning. Accordingly on 6th
Lw-1/Shetan Singh reached Hyderabad and his co-son-in-law Deep singh who contacted accused No.1 about the settlement, he replied that Lw-1/Shetan Singh has to pays 3 lakhs apart from the lifted stock, thereafter Lw-1/Shetan Singh returned to Armoor on the same night. On 07.10.2014 at about 4.00 p.m. Deep singh, Shantilal, Manusingh and one Advocate came to Lw-1/Shetan Singh, later
Lw-1/Shetan Singh along with his wife proceeded to the PS Armoor to lodge the complaint, but the police contacted accused No.1 and advised the said people to go to accused No.1 and settle the issue or file the private case in the court. On the same day night Lw-1/Shetan Singh along with his family went to Hyderabad. On 08.10.2014 morning Lw-1/Shetan Singh contacted accused No.1 over phone, thereafter he along with his family left Hyderabad and went to Rajastan in same night and came back on 15.10.2014 and lodged complaint against the accused
No.1 and 2, Dharmaram, Bhawararam, Sona Ram and 14 others as they have taken away the property i.e., clothes worth Rs.40 lakhs, cash Rs.75,000/- and also damaged the furniture by showing the revolver and abusing his wife and caused
CC 263 of 2016Page No.4 of 16
physical loss and reputation in the society. Thus, the accused No.1 & 2 committed the offence punishable u/s 380 IPC.
3.Basing on the above said report, Lw-18/T. Rajesh, Sub-Inspector of Police of
PS Armoor has registered a case vide Cr.No.443/2014 u/s. 395, 399 IPC and
Sec.25 of Indian Arms Act and took up the investigation and informed to Lw-19/G.
Govardhanagiri. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of Lw-1/Shetan Singh. On 19.10.2014 the Lw-19/G. Govardhanagiri/
Investigation officer taken up the investigation from the Lw-18/T. Rajesh and verified the investigation done by the Lw-18/T. Rajesh and found it on proper lines. Further the Lw-19/G. Govardhanagiri examined and recorded the statements of Lw-2 to Lw- 8/Nem Singh, Solanki Babu singh, Abdul Azaz, Abdul Raheem, Vislawath Bujji,
Motilal Devasi, Nami Chand, visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Lw-14 and Lw-15/Laxmi Chand Bati,
Kasthuru Satish Kumar. On 21.10.2014 the Lw-20/K. Ravi Kumar taken up the investigation from the Lw-19/G. Govardhanagiri and verified the investigation done by the Lw-19/G. Govardhanagiri and found on proper lines. Further Lw-20/K. Ravi
Kumar visited the Panth Road, Armoor and examined and recorded the statement of Lw-9/Amar Singh Purohith. On 09.11.2014 at 16.00 the Lw-20/K. Ravi Kumar along with his staff rushed to the accused house at Shivarampally, Rajendranagar,
Hyderabad and apprehended the accused No.1 & 2 and interrogated them and on interrogation they confessed to have committed this offence. The Lw-20/K. Ravi
Kumar secured the mediators Lw-16 & Lw-17/Dileep singh, Bheemsingh. On 10.11.2014 the Lw-20/K. Ravi Kumar brought the accused No.1 & 2 to PS Armoor and produced them before the court. The accused No.3 to 6 obtained the anticipatory bail vide Crl.P.No. 4139 of 2015 of the Hon’ble High Court Hyderabad.
As per the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad vide
CC 263 of 2016Page No.5 of 16
memorandum No.C2/136/DCRB-NZB/ 2015, dt. 17.06.2015, Lw-21/B. Vittal Reddy taken the investigation of this case from Lw-20/K. Ravi Kumar and reexamined the
Lw-2 & Lw-3/Nem singh, Solanki Babu singh and recorded their statements. Further he examined and recorded the statements of Lw-10 to 13/Anemeli Kavitha, Bochkar
Laxmi Narayana, Sirpa Naveen, according to the statements of above said eye- witnesses, the section of law 399, 395 IPC not established and the alleged accused
No.3 to 6 not involved in this case. As such the section of law altered from 399, 395
IPC to 380 IPC and the alleged accused No.3 to 6 names were not filed in this charge sheet. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 & 2.
4.My learned Predecessor in Office taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC against accused No.1 & 2 and issued summons to accused No.1 & 2.
5.After appearance of accused No.1 & 2, copies of documents were furnished u/s. 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.
6.After appearance of accused No.1 & 2, the accused No.1 & 2 are examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable u/sec. 380 IPC and same was denied by them. Charges have been framed against them for the above said offence, read over the contents of the same in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, this court has issued summons to the prosecution witnesses to commence the trial.
7.The prosecution examined Pw-1 to Pw-9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.
The learned APPO given up Lw-3, Lw-4, Lw-6 to Lw-13, Lw-15, Lw-17/Solanki Babu
Singh, Abdul Azaz, Vislawath Bujji, Motilal Devasi, Nami Chand, Amar Singh
Purohith, Anemeli Kavitha, Bochkar Laxmi Narayana, Sirpa Naveen, Kasturi
Ramaswamy, Kasthuru Satish Kumar, Bheemsingh.
CC 263 of 2016Page No.6 of 16
8.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined u/s. 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, by explaining the incriminating material evidence deposed against them in the evidence of Pws-1 to 9. Having understood the same, the accused No.1 & 2 denied the incriminating material evidence deposed against them and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.
9.Heard both sides.
10.Now the point for consideration is:-
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused No.1 & 2 for the offence punishable U/s. 380 Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubts or not ?
POINT :
11.In this case, the Pw-1 is a defacto complainant, who set the law into motion by presenting Ex.P1 in PS Armoor, who deposed in his evidence that on 02.10.2014 accused No.1 at about 4.00 to 5.00 p.m. came to his shop i.e., Subadra Saree shop in order to collect the amount as he was indebted Rs.9 Lakhs to the accused No.1, out of which he paid Rs.40,000/- to accused No.1 and Rs.3,82,000/- worth of sarees were returned to the accused No.1, as such accused No.1 went away on the same day night at about 11.00 to 12.00 p.m. Thereafter, sent one Rahul and Omprakash who stated that they were instructed to stay with him till he repay the entire dues to accused No.1 within 3 to 4 days. On 04.10.2014 at about 12.00 a.m. i.e., midnight hours, Pw-1 received phone call from accused No.1 who demanded him to repay the entire amount otherwise accused No.1 will eliminate him, on the next day morning at about 3.00 a.m. the accused No.1 and Darmaram Taka along with 15 to 20 persons came to his shop in two Scorpio cars vide bearing No.AP-28-BB-7028 and AP-28-AZ-9243 and called him to his mobile and asked him to come to his shop
CC 263 of 2016Page No.7 of 16
since they are waiting at his shop, so Pw-1 replied that he want to talk to them in the morning itself but not during night hours, later he received phone call from Bavaram
Jatt, accused No.1 and Darmaram Taka asking him to come down immediately otherwise they would kill him and his family, but he did not go to them, meanwhile
Bavarlal, Rahul, Soanlal went into his house and abused his wife and deterred her and asked her about his whereabouts. But Pw-1 has not returned home till morning.
At about 8.00 a.m. he again received phone call from Babusingh Namsee asking him to come down to his shop i.e., Subadra Saree center, Panthroad, Armoor at his instance he went to his shop in order to resolve the disputes between them, when he entered into his shop immediately accused No.1 caught hold his caller behind back and took him to first floor of the shop, then accused No.1, 2, Darmaram Taka,
Rahul, Soanlal and five six persons fisted him right side of the ribs and accused
No.1 shown his revolver, stating that if he made hues and cries he will kill him by shooting. So, he was restrained by accused No.1 meanwhile the other persons took away the entire material in his shop in a DCM. On 06.10.2014 he went to
Hyderabad and met his co-brother Deepsingh who inturn telephoned to accused
No.1 and asked about his illegal activities, but accused No.1 deterred him and asked him to do whatever he wanted to do. Later he went to Rajasthan and returned after two weeks to Hyderabad, though he tried to pacify the issue with the intervention of the elders, but in vain, so he approached police Armoor on 18.10.2014 and lodged report to the police. Ex.P1 report lodged by him.
12.During his cross-examination, he admitted that he is purchasing the sarees and dress materials from accused No.1 on credit basis on a condition to pay the installments regularly without any default and paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the accused No.1 and then entered into an agreement with the accused No.1 that he has to pay his daily earnings to the accused No.1. Except the above said
CC 263 of 2016Page No.8 of 16
admissions, no worthwhile substances were derived from the evidence of Pw-1 in the favour of accused No.1 & 2 pertaining to the alleged offence. Hence, this court believes the version to the extent that the accused No.1 & 2 went to the Pw-1’s shop and taken away the cloth material available in his shop.
13.Pw-2 is an another witness who deposed during his chief-examination that the Pw-1’s shop under the name and style of Subhadra Saree center was opposite to his shop situated at Panth Road, Armoor. Pw-1 made a phone call to him in the night hours and also the next day morning stating that the Accused No.1 & 2 and two other persons viz., Bawar Lal, Dharma Taka quarreled with him and abused him. After knowing the same he along with Lw-3/Solanki Babu Singh convinced
Accused No.1 & 2 and above said persons. Pw-1 was due amount of Rs.4,80,000/- to Accused No.1 & 2, in regard to said debt, there was an issue took place between
Pw-1 and Accused No.1 & 2 and other persons, as such he along with Lw-3/Solanki
Babu Singh convinced Accused No.1 & 2 stating that they will repay the amount of
Rs.50,000/- every month and asked accused to leave the scene of offence, but
Accused No.1 & 2 insisted for immediate payment of Rs.4,80,000/- or else accused will take off the available cloths in the shop. Thereafter, he went for getting the DCM upon the direction of Accused No.1, meanwhile Accused No.1 & 2 has taken away the entire cloths available in four shutters in accused DCM and transported the same along with them. After giving intimation to police Armoor, the police officials came to the scene of offence and tried to stop the above said DCM vehicle, but
Accused No.1 & 2 have paid deaf ears.
14.During his cross-examination, he admitted that the Pw-1 permitted the accused No.1 & 2 to take off the clothes to the extent of Rs.4,80,0-00/- which was due by him, but the accused No.1 & 2 has taken away the entire shop material, and he do not know the contents mentioned in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements. In the cross-
CC 263 of 2016Page No.9 of 16
examination of Pw-2 no useful information was elicited in favour of accused No.1 &
2. As such this court is accepting the evidence of Pw-2 to the extent that the accused No.1 & 2 has taken away the entire cloths available in the Pw-1’s shop along with them in the DCM Van.
15.Pw-3 is an another independent witness, who deposed that at about 7 years ago he was at the place of Canal katta road, Armoor where accused No.1 & 2 approached him and his owner and asked him to come along with his DCM Eicher van bearing No.AP-01-W-7737, as such he went to Panth road and placed his van
before the Textile shop where his van was loaded with clothes and other furniture
such as almirah, racks etc., in his van by around 10.00 p.m. and asked him to take the van to Hyderabad, meanwhile a person namely Bansilal tried to stop his vehicle, but accused No.1 & 2 pushed him away and then went to Ballamakula village,
Shamshabad, Hyderabad and then unloaded the above said materials in one new building shown by accused No.1 & 2. Thereafter, he came to his residence.
Thereafter, the C.I of police Armoor called him and took him to the residence of accused No.1 & 2 and seized some of the clothes and then he came to his home.
Thereafter, he came to know that accused No.1 & 2 and Pw-1 are about to get compromised for amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as part of the said amount,
Rs.5,00,000/- been paid by accused No.1 & 2 to the Pw-1.
16.No worthwhile substances were derived during the cross-examination of Pw- 3 to discredit his evidence. The evidence of Pw-3 proves the fact of lifting the stocks from the shop of Pw-1 on relevant date, time and place and moreover Pw-3 is a independent witness and his evidence is trustworthy.
17.Pw-4 is an another independent witness who acted as a mediator for confession-cum-recovery panchanama under the cover of Ex.P6 deposed that in the year 2014, he came to Armoor for the supply of “Mixture”. As he came to know
CC 263 of 2016Page No.10 of 16
that accused No.1 & 2 were taking away the Sarees from the shop of Pw-1, he along with Lw-17/Bheem Singh went to the scene of offence and then PS Armoor asked him and Lw-17/Bheem Singh to accompany them and they conducted the confession-cum-recovery panchanama at Flat No.8, 4th Floor, Shivarampally,
Rajendra nagar, Hyderabad in the presence of himself and Lw-17/Bheem Singh and recovered 1100 Sarees worth of around Rs.4 to 5 Lakhs from the possession of accused No.1 & 2. In his presence and Lw-17/Bheem Singh the C.I of police,
Armoor asked accused No.1 & 2 about the property of Rs.40,00,000/- of Sarees, but the accused confessed that they bought only 1100 Sarees worth of
Rs.5,00,000/- but not of Rs.40,00,000/-.
18.During his cross-examination, he admitted that he don ot know the telugu language, as such he do not know the contents written in the Ex.P6/confession- cum-recovery panchanama and the same was drafted by police personnel and he kept his thumb impression. He denied the suggestion that the confession-cum- recovery panchanama was not conducted in his presence and he is deposing false to help the police.
19.Pw-5 turned hostile and nothing is elicited from his evidence in the favour of prosecution except marking Ex.P3. Though the mediator for the scene of offence observation was turned hostile, it is not fatal to the case of prosecution, since, the
Pw-3 who is the driver of DCM van and independent witness to the case has categorically deposed about the scene of offence.
20.During the evidence of Pw-6 i.e., Investigating Officer in this case, he deposed that on 19.10.2014, he took up the further investigation from Lw-18/T.
Rajesh, S.I of Police of PS Armoor and then verified the investigation done by him and found it on proper lines and thereafter, went to the scene of offence located at
Hussainabad Gally area, Armoor town, where he secured the presence of Pw-2,
CC 263 of 2016Page No.11 of 16
Lw-3/Solanki Babu, Lw-4/Abdul AJaz examined and recorded the statements and also secured the presence of two panch witnesses i.e., Pw-5, Lw-15/K. Sathish
Kumar and in their presence he have conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in CDF. Ex.P4 is the scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P5 is the rough sketch. Thereafter, he secured the presence of Pw-3 and examined and recorded his statement. Basing on the statement of Pw-3 he went to the
Shamshabad Area, Cyberabad, wherein he examined and recorded the statements of Lws-6 & 7/Vislavath Bujji, Mothilal Devasi. Basing on the statements of Lws-6 & 7/Vislavath Bujji, Mothilal Devasi he visited the house of accused No.1 at
Shivarampalli of Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, wherein he examined and recorded the statement of Lw-8/Nami Chand. On 21.10.2014, he have handed over the investigation done by him to the regular Officer of PS Armoor town i.e., Lw-20/K.
Ravi Kumar, Circle Inspector of Police, PS Armoor.
21.During his cross-examination, he admitted that after 14 days of alleged offence he visited the scene of offence and the said delay was not mentioned in the
FIR and he has not collected the certificate pertaining to the Pw-1 shop and also not examined the neighbours of the scene of offence and he came to know about the alleged offence through the statements of Pw-3, Lw-3/S. Babu, Lw.4/Abdul Azaz.
22.Pw-7 deposed that as per the instructions of S.P. Nizamabad vide Memo
No.C2/136/DCRB-NZB/2015, dt. 17.06.2015 he took up the investigation of this case and re-examined the witnesses i.e., Pw-2 and Lw-3/Solanki Babu Singh who are the eye witnesses of the alleged offence. Further he also examined the witnesses i.e., Lws-10 to 13/A. Kavitha, B. Laxminarayana, S. Naveen, K.
Ramaswamy, who are the neighbours of the scene of offence. Basing on the evidence he altered section of law from Sec.399, 385 IPC to Sec.380 IPC, but the same was not filed before this court. After completion of the entire investigation, he
CC 263 of 2016Page No.12 of 16
filed the charge sheet before this Court.
23.During his cross-examination, he admitted that Pw-1 filed the complaint
before SDPO Armoor on 16.10.2014 and further admitted that he has not seized the
vehicle which was used in the alleged offence and he do not know the worth of seized property.
24.Pw-8 deposed that on 21-10-2014, Pw-6 handed over the further investigation to him and he verified the investigation done by Pw-6 and found it on proper lines. Thereafter, he went to the scene of offence and found the alleged shutters were locked and then he examined and recorded the statement of
Lw-9/Amarsingh Purohith. On 09.11.2014 he along with the other staff went to
Shivarampally, Hyderabad and reached there by 16.00 hrs., and then apprehended accused No.1 & 2 and also secured the presence of panch witnesses i.e., Pw-4,
Lw-17/Bheemsingh and then the Pw-4 and Lw-17/Bheemsingh enquired accused
No.1 & 2 with regard to the alleged offence wherein accused No.1 & 2 confessed that they have committed the alleged offence and also shown the Saree Bundles and the same were seized by him in the presence of above said witnesses. Ex.P6 is the confession-cum-seizure panchanama and then brought accused No.1 & 2 to the
PS Armoor and effected the arrest of accused No.1 & 2 and sent them for judicial custody and then deposited the seized property before this court vide CPR No.37 of 2015 and thereafter, he received a official memorandum from Superintendent of police, Nizamabad for transferring the case diary to the Central Crime Station,
Nizamabad. Accordingly, he transferred the entire case diary to the Central Crime
Station, Nizamabad, thereafter, Pw-7 filed charge sheet before this court.
25. During his cross-examination, he admitted that he seized 1180 sarees from the possession of the accused No.1 & 2 in the presence of Pw-4 and Lw-17/Bheem singh and particularly he seized 35 sarees from the possession of accused No.2
CC 263 of 2016Page No.13 of 16
and the remaining sarees were seized from the possession of accused No.1.
26.Pw-9 deposed that on 18.10.2014 at 11.00 hours he received a report from
Pw-1, basing on the contents of the report he registered the FIR vide
Cr.No.443/2014 for the offence punishable u/s.395, 399 IPC and Sec.25 of Indian
Arms Act. Ex.P9 is the FIR. Thereafter, he issued the FIR to the concerned departments in an express way and then, he examined and recorded the statement of Pw-1. Thereafter, he handed over the further investigation to Pw-6/G.
Govardhana Giri, C.I. of police of PS Armoor Rural.
27.During his cross-examination, Pw-9 admitted that he received Ex.P1 from
Pw-1 which contains the endorsement made by the SDPO, Armoor and further admitted that the Ex.P1 discloses that the offence took place on 02.10.2014 and the
FIR was registered on 18.10.2014 and the said delay was not mentioned in the FIR/
Ex.P9. It is well settled principle of law that the latches in the part of investigating agency is not a ground to acquit the accused if otherwise the evidence is proved against him with regard to his guilt.
28.It is one of the contention of the counsel for accused No.1 & 2 that there is a delay in lodging the FIR in the PS Armoor. It is well settled principle of law that all delays are not fatal case of the prosecution unless it causes prejudice to the accused No.1 & 2. In the instant case, the accused No.1 & 2 failed to establish that what prejudice caused them to them in lodging the FIR with delay by Pw-1, as such there is no force in the contention of the accused No.1 & 2 that the delay in loding the FIR is fatal to the case of the prosecution, hence, it is not accepted in this case.
29.Sec. 380 IPC reads as follows :
380. Theft in dwelling house, etc.—Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished
CC 263 of 2016Page No.14 of 16
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
30.In the instant case the accused No.1 & 2 took the cloth materials from the
Pw-1’s shop without his consent and transported the same to Hyderabad through
Pw-3 who is driver-cum-owner of the vehicle who is engaged by the accused No.1 & 2, as such the acts of the accused No.1 & 2 comes within the meaning of the theft in a dwelling house as stated u/s.380 IPC.
31.The evidence of Pw-1 to Pw-4, Pw-6 to Pw-9 read together, well established the fact that the accused No.1 & 2 committed theft of cloth materials from the Pw- 1’s shop and those were recovered from their possession in the presence of Pw-4 under the cover of Ex.P6.
32.In view of the above said discussions, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has well established the offence punishable u/s.380 IPC against the accused No.1 & 2 for which he is liable for conviction. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of prosecution and against the accused No.1 & 2.
33.In the result, the accused No.1 & 2 are found guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 380 of Indian Penal Code and they are liable for conviction for the said offence.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of November, 2022.
Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.
HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:
The accused No.1 & 2 are called present. Heard them in quantum of sentence, they submitted that they had wife and small children hence, requested the court to take
CC 263 of 2016Page No.15 of 16
lenient view in imposing the sentence.
Upon perusal of the case record, since it is grave offence pertaining to the huge property, this court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of Probation of
Offenders act or Sec.360 of Cr.P.C. However, considering the age and social background of the accused No.1 & 2 and dependents on them this court is inclined to take some lenient view in imposing sentence.
In the result, the accused No.1 & 2 are found guilty for the offence punishable u/s.380 IPC, for which they are convicted u/s. 248 (2) Criminal
Procedure Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and shall also pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The remand period if any shall be given set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 & 2 are informed that they had right to prefer appeal within 30 days before the Hon’ble Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge’s
Court, Nizamabad and they are further informed that they are at liberty to avail free legal services by approaching the Dist. Legal Service Authority, Nizamabad if they want to file appeal and has no means.
The unmarked case property i.e., total 1180 Sarees which were given to Pw- 1 towards interim custody vide common orders in Crl.M.P.No.492 of 2015 and
Crl.M.P.673 of 2015 dt. 04.08.2015 vide CPR No.37 of 2015 shall be made absolute
after expiry of appeal time.
Sd/-
Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:
PW-1: Chetan Singh -NIL- PW-2: Nemsingh
CC 263 of 2016Page No.16 of 16
PW-3: Abdul Raheem PW-4: Dilip singh PW-5: Laxmi Chand Bati PW-6: G. Govardhanagiri PW-7: B. Vittal Reddy PW-8: K. Ravi kumar PW-9: T. Rajesh
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.P1:Report given by Pw.1 - NIL - Ex.P2:Signature on confession-cum-recovery panchanama by Pw-4 Ex.P3:Signature on scene of offence panchanama by Pw-5. Ex.P4:Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5:Rough sketch Ex.P6:Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P7:FIR
MATERIAL OBJECTS
- NIL -
Sd/-
Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Armoor.
CC 263 of 2016Page No.17 of 16
FORM No.73
IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
AT ARMOOR
CC No. 263 of 2016
1Name of Complainant:: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Armoor 2Names of Accused:: A1) Keval Chand Devasi A2) Jaya Ram Devasi 3Nature of Offence:: Under Section 380 of IPC 4Finding:: Found guilty u/s. 380 IPC.
5Sentence :: Convicted 6Date of offence :: 05.10.2014 7Date of Complaint:: 18.10.2014 8Date of Apprehension/Surrender of :: 09.11.2014 the accused 9Date of Commencement of trail:: 28.01.2020 10Date of Closure of trial:: 29.07.2022 11Date of Sentence or Order:: 11.11.2022 12Explanation of delay:: ---
Sd/-
Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Armoor.
To:
The Hon’ble I.Addl. District &
Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.