Ms. Rita Lal Chand

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, KAZIPET.

Tuesday, 9 th day of April, 2019.

Present:- Kum. Rita Lalchand II-Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, FAC.Judl. First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet.

C.C.No.226 OF 2018

Between

The Sub-Inspector

RPF/Ramagundam. ….......Complainant

And

Jetti Vinod, aged about 24 yrs, s/o.Anjaiah, r/o.H.no.1-5, Jawaharpet, Illanthakunta (m), Rajanna Sirisilla dist.

…....Accused.

This Case is coming before me on 02-4-2019 for final hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant; and Sri. S.

Ramu, Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

The Sub-Inspector, RPF Ramagundam, filed a Final Complaint

before this Court against the accused in Cr.No.625/17 for the offence

Under Section 147 and 174 (c) of Railway Act.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

That on 29-06-2017 at about 18.00 hours, SIPF/RDM received an information through phone from JE/Tele/PDPL regarding OFC cable cut and damage mission Bhagiratha staff at KM No 57/1-2 in between

Gangadhara – Lingampally Jagityal Railway station. On receipt of information LW-1 along with LW-2/A.B. Abdullah attended the spot on 30-06-2017 and caused enquiries with LW-3/Anil, TCM/Tele/PDPL and found that unknown person cut and damaged the OFC cable after - 2 - trespassing the railway area. LW-1 ascertained that JCB/Proclaine cut and damaged the OFC cable during work of pipeline of Mission

Bhagiratha without any intimation to railway authorities. Due to the said damage, block, EC, hot line communication failed all the trains are detained and passed on PLCT (paper line clear train). LW-1 prepared observation report and Rough Sketch and took photographs. LW-1 then returned to the post and registered a case vide crime No 625/17 under

Section 147 and 174 (c) of Railways Act. LW-1 obtained complaint from

LW-3 and obtained train detention certificate from Station Master

Gangadhar/LW-4. On 06-07-2017, LW-1 received damage certificate from M. Venkateshwarlu, SSE/Tele/S/KZJ/LW-5. On 10-02-2017, LW-1 recorded the statement of Manideep/LW-6 stating that the Bhagirathi work was being done under the supervision of contractor Raji

Reddy/LW-7. Then on 12-07-2017, LW-1 recorded the statement of eye witness Mallesham/LW-8. Accused said to have surrendered on 15-07- 2017 at 16.00 hours at Karimnagar Railway station along with JCB TS 02 EH 7703 and admitted commission of the present crime. LW-1 along with LW-9 then secured the presence of mediators LW-10/D. Sadaiah and LW8/J. Mallesh. LW-1 recorded confession panchnama of the accused, caused his arrest and seized JCB. LW-1 also recorded the statement of Contractor/LW-7, JCB Owner Jetti Angaiah/LW-11. On 17- 07-2017, LW-1 recorded the statement of mediators LW-10 and LW-8.

On 23-09-2017, LW-1 received railway area limits from V. Appa Rao,

SSE/PWI/Karimnagar/LW-12. After completion of enquires, LW-1 filed final complaint before this court.

3. This court took cognizance for the offences Under Section 147 and 174 (c) of Railway Act.

4. The accused, when was present, copies of case documents were furnished to him.

- 3 -

5. The accused when was examined Under Section 251 of Criminal

Procedure Code, by explaining the accusation levelled against him for the offence Under Section 147 and 174 (c) of Railway Act in Telugu

Language, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

6. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked Ex P-1 to P-18. The prosecution had given up the evidence of LW.2/A.B.Abdullah, LW.3/Anil,

LW.4/Gangadhar, LW.5/M. Venkateshwarlu, LW.6/V. Manideep, LW.7/

Raji Reddy, LW.8/Mallesham, LW-9/Thirupathi, LW-10/D.Sadaiah, LW- 11/Jetti Anjaiah and LW-12/D.V. Appa Rao.

7. After closing of the prosecution evidence, when Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining all the incriminating evidence available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and reported no defence on his behalf. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

8. Now the points for determination are:

1) Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence Under Section 147 of Railway Act, beyond reasonable doubt or not?

2) Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence Under Section 174 (c) of Railway Act, beyond reasonable doubt or not?

9. Heard learned Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

Perused the record.

10. Before adverting to the merits of the case, the relevant provision shall be referred:

147. Trespass and refusal to desist from trespass.—(1) If any person enters upon or into any part of a railway without lawful authority, or having lawfully entered upon or into such part misuses such property or refuses to - 4 - leave, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both:

Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such punishment shall not be less than a fine of five hundred rupees.

(2) Any person referred to in sub-section (1) may be removed from the railway by any railway servant or by any other person whom such railway servant may call to his aid.

174. Obstructing running of train, etc.—If any railway servant (whether on duty or otherwise) or any other person obstructs or causes to be obstructed or attempts to obstruct any train or other rolling stock upon a railway,—

(a) by squatting or picketing or during any Rail roko agitation or bandh; or

(b) by keeping without authority any rolling stock on the railway; or

(c) by tampering with, disconnecting or interfering in any other manner with its hose pipe or tampering with signal gear or otherwise, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

11. PW-1 is the complainant and enquiry officer. PW-1 deposed that on 29-06-2017 at about 18.00 hours, he received an information through phone from JE/Tele/PDPL regarding OFC cable cut and damage mission Bhagiratha staff at KM No 57/1-2 in between Gangadhara –

Lingampally Jagityal Railway station under Ex P-1. On receipt of information under Ex P-1, PW-1 along with LW-2/A.B. Abdullah attended the spot on 30-06-2017 and caused enquiries with LW-3/Anil,

TCM/Tele/PDPL and found that unknown person cut and damaged the

OFC cable after trespassing the railway area. PW-1 ascertained that

JCB/Proclaine cut and damaged the OFC cable during work of pipeline of

Mission Bhagiratha without any intimation to railway authorities. Due to the said damage, block, EC, hot line communication failed and all the trains were detained and passed on PLCT (paper line clear train). PW-1 prepared joint observation report under Ex P-2 and Rough Sketch under

Ex P-3 and took photographs under Ex P-18. PW-1 then returned to the - 5 - post and registered a case vide crime No 625/17 under Section 147 and 174 (c) of Railways Act. PW-1 obtained complaint from LW-3 and deposed to have obtained train detention certificate from Station Master

Gangadhar/LW-4 under Ex P-4. On 06-07-2017, PW-1 received damage certificate from M. Venkateshwarlu, SSE/Tele/S/KZJ/LW-5 under Ex P-5.

On 10-02-2017, PW-1 recorded the statement of Manideep/LW-6 under

Ex P-7, stating that the Bhagirathi work was being done under the supervision of contractor Raji Reddy/LW-7 and his statement was recorded under Ex P-15. Then on 12-07-2017, PW-1 deposed to have recorded the statement of eye witness Mallesham/LW-8 under Ex P-9 and P-13. PW-1 deposed that accused surrendered on 15-07-2017 at 16.00 hours at Karimnagar Railway station along with JCB TS 02 EH 7703 and admitted commission of the present crime. PW-1 along with

LW-9 then secured the presence of mediators LW-10/D. Sadaiah and

LW8/J. Mallesh. LW-1 recorded confession panchanama of the accused under Ex P-8, caused his arrest and seized JCB under Ex P-11. PW-1 deposed to had recorded the statement of Contractor/LW-7, JCB Owner

Jetti Angaiah/LW-11 under Ex P-14. PW-1 deposed that on 17-07-2017, he have recorded the statement of mediators Sadaiah/LW-10 under Ex

P-10 and LW-8. On 23-09-2017, PW-1 received railway area limits i.e.,

Boundary certificate from V. Appa Rao, SSE/PWI/Karimnagar/LW-12 under Ex P-12. Further PW-1 released the crime vehicle under orers of this court vide Crl. Mp. NO 693/2017 date 18-07-2017 under acknowledgment vide Ex P-17.

12. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex P-1 to P-18 clearly goes to show that the accused had entered the railway premises without any authority and caused damage to OFC Cable due to which the trains were detained. Ex P-4 I..e, detention Certificate clearly shows detention of four trains.

- 6 -

13. The prosecution having proved so, the burden lies on the accused to disprove the same. The accused had put a mere suggestion that he had not committed any such offence. Mere suggestion without any evidence can be of no help to the accused. Thus, the accused could not disprove the case of the prosecution.

14. In view of the above discussions, this court is of firm opinion that the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence Under Section 147 and 174(c) of Railways Act.

15. In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence Under Section 147 and 174(c) of Railways Act and accused is convicted U/sec.255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for the offence Under Section 147 and 174(c) of Railways Act.

The crime vehicle which was handed over to the accused vide Crl.

Mp.No.693/2017 dated 18-07-2017 shall be retained by the accused absolutely after lapse of appeal period.

(Typed by me and pronounced in open court on this the 9th day of April, 2019)

II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal FAC.Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet.

Heard the accused, on quantum of sentence. Accused submitted that he is a poor person and his family is dependent on me. Hence pleaded mercy.

Upon hearing the accused on the quantum of sentence, it is observed that the accused is having still obligations towards his family.

So, if, the accused is sent to jail, his family would put to sufferance.

- 7 -

As the offence is against the public entrepreneur, this court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of Probation of offenders Act. As such, this court is of the opinion that imposing fine on the accused would meet the ends of justice rather sending him to Jail.

In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence U/sec. 147 and 174(c) of Railway Act. Accordingly, the accused is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/sec.147 and 174(c) of Railway

Act. Keeping in view of the submission made by the accused before this court, I hereby pass a sentence to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/- (Rupees One

Thousand Only) for offence under Sec 147 of Railways Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of ten days. I further hereby pass a sentence to pay a fine of

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) for the offence U/sec. 174 (c) of Railway Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of twenty days.

Copy of Judgment is served to the accused. Accused is hereby informed about their right to appeal and right to have legal Aid in the appellate Court also.

The crime vehicle which was handed over to the accused vide Crl.

Mp. No. 693/2017 dated 18-07-2017 shall be retained by the accused absolutely after lapse of appeal period.

(Typed by me and pronounced in open court on this the 9th day of April 2019)

II-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, FAC.Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet.

- 8 -

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W-1: S. Venkataswamy, - Nil -

Exhibits Marked

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P-1 is the message copy. - Nil - Ex-P2 is the Joint Observation report, Ex-P3 is the rough sketch, Ex-P4 is the train detention certificate, Ex-P5 is the Damage certificate, Ex-P6 is the panchanama, Ex-P7 is the statement of LW6/M. Manideep/JE/Mission Bhagiratha Supervisor, Ex-P8 is the confessional statement of accused, Ex-P9 is the statement of mediator LW8/Mallesham, Ex-P10 is the statement of mediatorLW10/D. Sadaiah, Ex-P11 is the seizure list, Ex-P12 is the boundary certificate issued by SSE/P-way Karimnagar, Ex-P13 is the further statement of LW8/Mallesham, Ex-P14 is the statement of LW11/Jetti Anjaiah/Owner of the crime vehicle, Ex-P15 is the statement of Ch. Raja Reddy, Ex-P16 is the crime and occurrence report, Ex-P17 is the acknowledgment for releasing of crime vehicle, Ex-P18 is the four photos with CD.

Material Objects

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

MO1 is 20 Pendrol Clips - Nil – MO2 is the polythene bag.

II-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, FAC.Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet.

C.C.No. 339/2018 1 Dt: 16-04-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, KAZIPET

Tuesday, 16 th day of April, 2019

Present:- Kum. Rita Lalchand II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal FAC Judl. First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet.

C.C.No. 339 OF 2018

Between :

The Assistant Sub-Inspector

RPF Ramagundam ......Complainant

And

Serla Venkati, S/o Venkat, age: 35 years, BC Colony, Kannala, Kammanpur

…....Accused

This Case is coming before me on 09-4-2019 for final hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant; and Sri. S. Ramu Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, RPF, Ramagundam filed final complaint against the accused in Cr.No.5/2018 for the offence U/Sec.3(a) of RP (UP)

Act.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is as follows: On 16.05.2018 at about 16.30 hours, LW-1 received a reliable information that stolen railway property has been stored in an old Iron shop of Serla Venkati situated at Kannala Village. Immediately,

LW-1 along with two mediators Lw.4/Peta Rambabu, Lw.5/Sampangi Sammaiah proceeded to the shop of accused herein. On reaching the shop, a person, who the accused herein was sitting in the shop and revealed his identity as accused herein. On further enquiry in the presence of mediators the accused said to had confessed that on 16-5-2018 at early hours he purchased the Railway property from unknown cycle vendor for the first time and kept the same at his shop for disposal. The accused then

C.C.No. 339/2018 2 Dt: 16-04-2019 voluntarily went into his shop and brought one polythene bag and produced before

LW-1 and mediators. On checking the bag it was found that it consisted of 06 kgs of copper wires, 01 Fish plate and 05 Nos. ER clips. As the accused did not possess any valid receipt or voucher pertaining to the possession of Railway property, LW-1 seized the same under cover of panchanama, recorded the confessional statement of the accused and prepared the seizure list, returned to the post along with accused and property, handed over to the LW-3 SI /RDM. Basing on the material LW-3 registered a case in Cr. No. 05/2018 for the offence U/sec. 3(a) of RP (UP ) Act. The accused was arrested and was produced before the court on 17-05-2018. Further on 16-5-2018

LW-3 obtained theft memo from LW.6/SSE/P-way/PDPL pertaining to 01 Fish plate and 05 No’s of ER clips. On 26-5-2018 LW-3 recorded the statement of LW- 8/P.Laxmi/Owner of the land. On 3-6-2018 LW-3 said to had obtained the case property certificate from LW.6/SSE/P-way/PDPL. On 03-06-2018 LW-3 recorded the statements of the mediators LW-4/Peta Rambabu and LW-5/Sampangi Sammaiah. On 25-6-2018 LW-3 obtained the case property certificate from LW- 7/Ravinder/SSE/S&T/BPA, pertaining to 12 core cable wire and after completion of enquiry LW-3 filed a final complaint against the accused.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence Under Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act.

4. The accused, when was present, copies of case documents were furnished to him, recorded the statement of complainant.

5. The accused when was examined Under Section 246(2) of Criminal

Procedure Code, he denied his involvement or commission of offence and on perusal of record, a charge Under Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Acts has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu Language, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked Ex

P-1 to P-11 and also MO1 to MO-4. The prosecution gave up the evidence of LW.2/K.

C.C.No. 339/2018 3 Dt: 16-04-2019

Shyamsunder, LW.3/M. Dhara Singh, LW.4/Peta Rambabu, LW.5/S. Sammaiah, LW- 6/Shivanjaneyulu, LW-7/Ravinder and LW-8/P. Laxmi.

7. After closing of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code on the incriminating evidence deposed by prosecution witness. The accused denied the same and reported no defence on his behalf. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

8. Heard learned Prosecutor and Learned Counsel for the accused. Perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for

the offence Under Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act beyond reasonable doubt or not?

10. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to refer the provision of law, which is:

3. Penalty for unlawful possession of railway property.—Whoever is found, or is proved to have been, in possession of any railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawful obtained shall, unless he proves that the railway property came into his possession lawfully, be punishable—

(a) for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees;

(b) for the second or a subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than two years and such fine shall not be less than two thousand rupees.

11. PW-1 deposed that on 16.05.2018 at about 16.30 hours, while he and LW- 2/K. Shyam Sunder were on confidential watch near Raghavapuram Railway station, he received a reliable information that stolen railway property has been stored in an old

Iron shop of Serla Venkati situated at Kannala Village. Immediately, PW-1 along with two mediators Lw-4/Peta Rambabu and Lw-5/Sampangi Sammaiah proceeded to the

C.C.No. 339/2018 4 Dt: 16-04-2019 shop of accused herein. On reaching the shop, a person, who is the accused herein was sitting in the shop and revealed his identity as accused herein. On further enquiry in the presence of mediators, the accused said to had confessed that on 16-5-2018 at early hours he purchased the Railway property from unknown cycle vendor for the first time and kept the same at his shop for disposal. The accused then voluntarily went into his shop and brought one polythene bag and produced before PW-1 and mediators. On checking the bag, PW-1 found that it consisted of 06 kgs of copper wires, 01 Fish plate and 05 Nos. ER clips. As the accused did not possess any valid receipt or voucher pertaining to the possession of Railway property, PW-1 seized the same under cover of panchanama under Ex P-1, recorded the confessional statement of the accused under Ex P-2 and prepared the seizure list under Ex P-3 and the seized material was photographed under Ex P-10. The seized material are marked as MO1 to

MO4. PW-1 then returned to the post along with accused and property, handed over to the LW-3 SI /RDM under Ex P-11. Basing on the material LW-3 registered a case in Cr. No. 05/2018 for the offence U/sec. 3(a) of RP (UP ) Act. The accused was arrested and was produced before the court on 17-05-2018. PW-1 further deposed that on 16-5-2018 LW-3 obtained theft memo from LW.6/SSE/P-way/PDPL pertaining to 01 Fish plate and 05 No’s of ER clips under Ex P-4. It was further deposed that on 26- 5-2018, LW-3 said to had recorded the statement of LW-8/P.Laxmi/Owner of the land.

On 3-6-2018 LW-3 obtained the case property certificate from LW.6/SSE/P- way/PDPL under Ex P-5. On 03-06-2018 LW-3 recorded the statements of the mediators LW-4/Peta Rambabu and LW-5/Sampangi Sammaiah under Ex P-7 and P-8.

On 25-6-2018 LW-3 obtained the case property certificate from LW- 7/Ravinder/SSE/S&T/BPA, pertaining to 12 core cable wire under Ex P-6. PW-1 further deposed to had recorded the statement of the owner of the shop i.e., LW-8 under Ex P- 8.

12. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex P-1 to P11 and MO1 to MO-4 clearly proves the case of the prosecution that the accused was in possession of the railway

C.C.No. 339/2018 5 Dt: 16-04-2019 material without any receipt. Hence it proves the guilt of the accused. To disprove the case of the prosecution, it is seen that the accused had merely put a suggestion that he is not involved in commission of any offence. Mere suggestion without any evidence can be of no help to the accused. Infact since it is proved that the accused is in possession of the railway property the burden lies on the accused to show that the said possession is legal. Admittedly, no such evidence is produced by the accused and the same stands contradictory to the case of the accused.

13. In view of the above discussions, this court is of firm opinion that the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence Under

Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act.

14. In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence Under Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act and accused is convicted U/sec.248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for the offence Under Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act.

M.O2 i.e., 05 Nos. ER clips, M.O. 3 i.e., 01 Fish plate and M.O.4 i.e., 06 kgs of copper wires, which was given for safe custody to the concerned RPF, vide CPR No. 117/2018

dated 19-11-2018 shall be returned to concerned after appeal time is over with proper

acknowledgment to be filed before this Court. MO.1 Polythene bag shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. The bail bonds of accused stall stand in force till six months from the date of this Judgment U/s 437-A of Cr.P.C.

(Typed by me and pronounced in open court on this the 16th day of April 2019)

II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal FAC Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet

Heard the accused, on quantum of sentence. He submitted that he is poor person and has children. Further in case he is sent to jail his family would be put to starvation.

As the offence is against the public entrepreneur’s property, this court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of Probation of offenders Act. Hence, levying of fine would meet ends of justice rather sending him to Jail. In the result, Accused is found

C.C.No. 339/2018 6 Dt: 16-04-2019 guilty for the offence U/sec.3(a) of RP (UP) Act. Accordingly, accused is convicted under section. 248(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/sec.3(a) of RP (UP) Act. Keeping in view of the submission made by the accused before this court, I hereby pass a sentence to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) for the offence U/s 3(a) of RP (UP)

Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Fifteen days. Copy of Judgment is served to the accused.

Copy of Judgment is also served. Accused is hereby informed about their right to appeal against the fine imposed and right to have legal Aid in the appellate Court also.

M.O2 i.e., 05 Nos. ER clips, M.O. 3 i.e., 01 Fish plate and M.O.4 i.e., 06 kgs of copper wires, which was given for safe custody to the concerned RPF, vide CPR No.

117/2018 dated 19-11-2018 shall be returned to concerned after appeal time is over with proper acknowledgment to be filed before this Court. MO.1 Polythene bag shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. The bail bonds of accused stall stand in force till six months from the date of this Judgment U/s 437-A of Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my dictation by my personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2019)

II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal FAC Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: Mohammad Jhani, -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1is the panchanama .

Ex-P2 is the confessional statement of the accused.

Ex-P3 is the seizure list.

Ex-P4 is the theft memo issued by Lw-6

C.C.No. 339/2018 7 Dt: 16-04-2019

Ex-P5 is the case property certificate issued by Lw.6/SSE/P-way/PDPL

Ex-P6 is the case property certificate issued by LW.7/Ravinder/SSE/S &

T/BPA

Ex-P7 is the statement of mediator Lw.5/Sampangi Sammaiah

ExP8 is the statement of mediator Lw.4/Peta Rambabu.

Ex-P9 is the statement of Laxmi

Ex-P10 is the one photo with CD

Ex-P11 is the handing over letter

FOR DEFENCE: Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 is one polythene bag

M.O2 is the 05 Nos. ER clips.

M.O. 3 is the 01 No’s of Fish plate

M.O.4 is the 06 kgs of copper wires.

II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal FAC Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, KAZIPET.

Tuesday, 9 th day of April, 2019.

Present:- Kum. Rita Lalchand II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, FAC Judl. Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Kazipet.

C.C.No. 258 OF 2018

Between

The Assistant Sub-Inspector/

RPF Badrachalam. ….......Complainant

And

Challa RamBabu, S/o Venkateshwarlu, Age: 33 years R/o Krishna Sagar, Burgampadu (M),

Bhadradri, Kothagudem District. …....Accused

This Case is coming before me on 02.04.2019 for final hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant; and

Sri. Ch. Ramesh Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, RPF, Bhadrachalam Road filed final complaint against the accused in Cr.No.7/2018 for the offence

U/Sec.3(a) of RP (UP) Act.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is as follows: That on 06-07-2018 at about 14.30 hours PW.1 along with M. Nagraju while on confidential watch detained one person at K.M. No 54/3 at Bhadrachalam Road

Railway station yard on suspicion carrying white Polythene bag. So, he detained the said person, enquired him in the presence of mediators

LW-2/Vanam Kumar and LW.3/I. Sammaiah, for which, he revealed his identity and confessed to have committed theft of 15 Pendrol Clips, with 2 an intention to sell the same to someone. The accused failed to produce any voucher or receipt to possess the railway material. PW.1 then seized 15 Pendrol Clips under cover of panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses, recorded the confessional statement of accused, returned to the post along with the accused and property and registered a case in

Cr.No.07/2018 for the offence under section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act and produced the accused before the Court. Accused was remanded to judicial custody, later he was released on bail.

During course of enquiry, on 07-07-2018 PW.1 obtained theft memo and Case Property Certificate from

LW.4/SSE/P.Way./Bhadrachalam. On 19-04-018 LW.1 recorded the statements of mediators LW.2/Vanam Kumar and LW.3/I. Sammaiah and after completion of enquiries, filed final complaint.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence Under Section 3(a) of

RP (UP) Act.

4. The accused, when was present, copies of case documents were furnished to him, recorded the statement of complainant.

5. The accused when was examined Under Section 246(2) of

Criminal Procedure Code, he denied his involvement or commission of offence and on perusal of record, a charge Under Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Acts has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu

Language, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1, given up the evidence of LW.2/Vanam Kumar, LW.3/I. Sammaiah, LW.4/B.G.

Malleswar Rao and LW.5/M.Nagaraju and during the course of trial, the prosecution got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 and MO.1.

7. After closing of the prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code on the 3 incriminating evidence deposed by prosecution witness, the accused denied the same and reported no defence on his behalf. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

8. Heard learned Prosecutor and Learned Counsel for the accused.

Perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of

the accused for the offence Under Section 3(a) of RP (UP)

Act beyond reasonable doubt or not?

10. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to refer the provision of law, which is 3. Penalty for unlawful possession of railway property.—Whoever is found, or is proved to have been, in possession of any railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawful obtained shall, unless he proves that the railway property came into his possession lawfully, be punishable—

(a) for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees;

(b) for the second or a subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than two years and such fine shall not be less than two thousand rupees.

11. PW-1 being the complainant and the enquiry officer deposed evidence that on 06-07-2018 at about 14.30 hours, he along with LW- 5/M. Nagaraju while on confidential watch detained one person at K.M.

No.54/3 at Bhadrachalam Road Railway station yard on suspicion carrying white Polythene bag on his shoulder. So, he detained the said person, enquired him in the presence of mediators LW.-2/Vanam Kumar and LW.3/I. Sammaiah, for which, the accused revealed his identity and confessed to have committed theft of 15 Pendrol Clips, with an intention to dispose the same to unknown persons. The accused failed to produce 4 any voucher or receipt to possess the railway material. PW.1 then seized 15 Pendrol Clips under cover of panchanama under Ex P-1 in the presence of panch witnesses, recorded the confessional statement of accused under Ex P-2 and the details of the property seized is clear under Ex P-3. PW-1 then returned to the post along with the accused and property and registered a case in Cr. No.07/2018 for the offence under section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act and produced the accused before the

Court. PW.1 deposed to have obtained theft memo under Ex P-4 and

Case Property Certificate from LW.4/SSE/P.Way./Bhadrachalam under Ex

P-5. PW-1 further deposed to had recorded the statements of mediators

LW.2/Vanam Kumar and LW.3/I. Sammaiah on 19-04-018 under Ex P-6 and Ex P-7.

12. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex P-1 to P8 clearly proves the case of the prosecution that the accused was in possession of the railway material without any receipt. Hence it proves the guilt of the accused. To disprove the case of the prosecution, it is seen that the accused had merely put a suggestion that he is not involved in commission of any offence. Mere suggestion without any evidence can be of no help to the accused. Infact since it is proved that the accused is in possession of the railway property the burden lies on the accused to show that the said possession is legal. Admittedly, no such evidence is produced by the accused and the same stands contradictory to the case of the accused.

13. In view of the above discussions, this court is of firm opinion that the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence Under Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act.

14. In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence Under Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act and accused is convicted U/sec.248(2) of Criminal 5

Procedure Code for the offence Under Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act.

MO.1 i.e. 15 Pendoral Clips which was given for safe custody to the concerned RPF, vide CPR No.90/2018 dated 21.08.2018 shall be returned to concerned after appeal time is over with proper acknowledgment to be filed before this Court. The bail bonds of accused shall stand in force till six months from the date of this Judgment

U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C.

(Typed by me and pronounced in open court on this the 9th day of April 2019)

II-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, FAC.Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet.

Heard the accused, on quantum of sentence. He submitted that he is poor and he had small children and he earns his livelihood through agriculture. If he is sent to the jail his family would put to starvation.

He is very poor and promise that he won’t commit the offence once again. He plead mercy of the court.

As the offence is against the public entrepreneur’s property, this court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of Probation of offenders

Act. Hence, levying of fine would meet ends of justice rather sending him to Jail. In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence

U/sec.3(a) of RP (UP) Act. Accordingly, accused is convicted under section. 248(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/sec.3(a) of RP (UP) Act.

Keeping in view of the submission made by the accused before this court, I hereby pass a sentence to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One

Thousand only) for the offence U/s 3(a) of RP (UP) Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Fifteen days. Copy of Judgment is served to the accused.

6

Copy of Judgment is also served. Accused is hereby informed about their right to appeal against the fine imposed and right to have legal Aid in the appellate Court also.

MO.1 i.e. 15 Pendoral Clips which was given for safe custody to the concerned RPF, vide CPR No. 90/2018 dated 21.08.2018 shall be returned to concerned after appeal time is over with proper acknowledgment to be file before this Court. The bail bonds of accused stall stand in force till six months from the date of this Judgment

U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C (Typed by me and pronounced in open court on this the 9th day of April 2019)

II-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, FAC.Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W-1: Ch. Sambaiah - Nil -

Exhibits Marked

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P-1 is the Panchanama. - Nil - Ex-P2 is the statement of the accused, Ex-P3 is the seizure list, Ex-P4 is theft memo, Ex-P5 is the case property certificate, Ex-P6 is the statement of mediator LW.2/Vanam Kumar, Ex-P7 is the statement of mediator LW.3/Ilaveni Sammaiah, Ex.P8 is the one photo with CD.

Material Objects

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

M.O-1 is 15 Pendrol Clips - Nil –

II-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, FAC.Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet.

C.C.No. 368/2018 1 Dt: 16-04-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, KAZIPET

Tuesday, 16 th day of April, 2019

Present:- Kum. Rita Lalchand II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal FAC Judl. First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet.

C.C.No. 368 OF 2018

Between :

The SHO of police, Railway Police District: Warangal, RPF Ramagundam.

...Complainant

AND

Ityala Sathish, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 35 years, R/o. H.No.1-42, Andugulapalli, Peddapalli District Telangana (State) …. Accused

This Case is coming before me on 09-04-2019 for final hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant; and Sri. S.Ramu,

Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Sub-Inspector, RPF Ramagundam, filed a Final Complaint before this

Court against the accused in Cr.No.786/18 for the offence Under Section 174 (c) of

Railway Act.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is: On 07-08-2018 at about 00.50 hours,

LW-1 received information regarding OFC cable cut and on 06-08-2018 at about 18-07 hours at KM No 284/6-8 RGPM Railway Station. On receipt of information LW-1 along with staff and JE/TELE/PDPL LW-3/Rajesh Kumar attended the spot and found that unknown person cut and damaged the OFC cable while digging work by farmer for planting electrical poles for supply of electricity, borewells and restored the said wire through Tele staff. LW-1 prepared observation report and Rough Sketch and took photographs. It was ascertained that due to the said damage, UTS/PRS phones, Hot

C.C.No. 368/2018 2 Dt: 16-04-2019 line, CTO, TPS Auto Phones communications were failed. LW-1 then returned to the post and registered a case vide crime No 786/18 under Section 174 (c) of Railways Act.

On 08-08-2018, at about 11.00 hours, the accused surrendered before LW-1. Then LW- 1 secured the presence of two mediators, LW-5 and LW-6 and the accused said to have confessed the guilt. LW-1 after recording the confession panchanama seized the property and connected the accused to the present crime. LW-1 received damage certificate from M. Venkateshwarlu, SSE/Tele/S/KZJ/LW-4 on 09-08-2018. On 11-08- 2018, LW-1 recorded the statement of P. Sunil/LW-5 and LW-6/D.Sadanandam who stated about witnessing the confession panchanama of the accused. After completion of enquires, LW-1 filed final complaint before this court.

3.This court took cognizance for the offences under Section 174 (c) of Railway Act.

4. The accused, when was present, copies of case documents were furnished to him.

5. The accused when was examined Under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure

Code, by explaining the accusation leveled against him for the offence Under Section 174 (c) of Railway Act in Telugu Language and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked Ex P-1 to P-11. The prosecution had given up the evidence of LW.2/J.

Upender, LW.3/Rajesh Kumar, LW.4/M. Venkateshwarlu, LW.5/P. Sunil and LW.6/D.

Sadanandam.

7. After closing of the prosecution evidence, when accused was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining all the incriminating evidence available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and reported no defence on his behalf. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

8. Now the point for determination are:

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence Under Section 174 (c) of Railway Act, beyond reasonable doubt or not?

C.C.No. 368/2018 3 Dt: 16-04-2019

9. Heard learned Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused. Perused the record.

10.Before adverting to the merits of the case, the relevant provision shall be referred:

174. Obstructing running of train, etc.—If any railway servant (whether on duty or otherwise) or any other person obstructs or causes to be obstructed or attempts to obstruct any train or other rolling stock upon a railway,—

(a) by squatting or picketing or during any Rail roko agitation or bandh; or

(b) by keeping without authority any rolling stock on the railway; or

(c) by tampering with, disconnecting or interfering in any other manner with its hose pipe or tampering with signal gear or otherwise, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

11. PW-1 is the complainant and enquiry officer. On 07-08-2018 at about 00.50 hours, PW-1 deposed to had received information under Ex P-6 from Security Control that on 06-08-2018 at about 18-07 hours at KM No 284/6-8 RGPM Railway Station there was a OFC Cable cut and damage was caused. On receipt of information PW-1 along with staff and JE/TELE/PDPL i.e., LW-3/Rajesh Kumar visited the scene of offence and found that unknown person cut and damaged the OFC cable while digging work by farmer for planting electrical poles for supply of electricity, borewells and restored the said wire through Tele staff. PW-1 deposed to had prepared observation report under Ex P-4 and Rough Sketch under Ex P-5 and LW-3 said to had taken photographs under Ex P-11. It was ascertained that due to the said damage, UTS/PRS phones, Hot line, CTO, TPS Auto Phones communications were failed. PW-1 deposed to had enquired from the near villagers but could not know the details of the accused.

PW-1 then returned to the post and registered a case vide crime No 786/18 under

Section 174 (c) of Railways Act.

C.C.No. 368/2018 4 Dt: 16-04-2019

12. PW-1 further deposed that on 08-08-2018, at about 11.00 hours, the accused surrendered before him and admitted the guilt under the present crime. Then PW-1 secured the presence of two mediators, LW-5/P. Sunil and LW-6/D. Sadanandam and the accused said to have confessed the guilt and recorded the confession panchanama under Ex P-2. PW-1 after recording the confession panchanama seized the property i.e., Crowbar and spade under Ex P-3 and connected the accused to the present crime.

PW-1 then released the accused directing him to appear before the court. On 09-08- 2018 PW-1 deposed to had received damage certificate from M. Venkateshwarlu,

SSE/Tele/S/KZJ/LW-4 to a tune of Rs 1,00,000/- under Ex P-7. On 11-08-2018, PW-1 recorded the statement of P. Sunil/LW-5 and LW-6/D.Sadanandam who stated about witnessing the confession panchanama of the accused under Ex P-8 and P-9. After completion of enquiry, PW-1 filed final complaint before this court.

13. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex P-1 to P-11 clearly goes to show that the accused had entered the railway premises without any authority and caused damage to OFC Cable due to which damage is caused which is evident from Ex P-7.

14. The prosecution having proved so, the burden lies on the accused to disprove the same. The accused had put a mere suggestion that he had not committed any such offence. Mere suggestion without any evidence can be of no help to the accused. Thus, the accused could not disprove the case of the prosecution.

In view of the above discussions, this court is of firm opinion that the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence Under

Section 174(c) of Railways Act.

C.C.No. 368/2018 5 Dt: 16-04-2019

In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence Under Section 174(c) of

Railways Act and accused is convicted U/sec.255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for the offence Under Section 174(c) of Railways Act.

(Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16th day of April, 2019)

II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal FAC Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet

Heard the accused, on quantum of sentence. Accused submitted that he is a doing agriculture and his family is dependent on him . Hence pleaded mercy.

Upon hearing the accused on the quantum of sentence, it is observed that the accused is having still obligations towards his family. So, if, the accused is sent to jail, his family would put to sufferance.

As the offence is against the public entrepreneur, this court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of Probation of offenders Act. As such, this court is of the opinion that imposing fine on the accused would meet the ends of justice rather sending him to

Jail. In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence U/sec. 174(c) of Railway Act.

Accordingly, the accused is convicted under section.255(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/sec. 174(c) of Railway Act. Keeping in view of the submission made by the accused before this court, I hereby pass a sentence to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees

Two Thousand Only) for the offence U/sec. 174 (c) of Railway Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of twenty days.

Copy of Judgment is served to the accused. Accused is hereby informed about their right to appeal and right to have legal Aid in the appellate Court also.

(Typed to my dictation by my personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2019)

II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal FAC Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet

C.C.No. 368/2018 6 Dt: 16-04-2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: M. Dhara Singh, -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the Panchanama,

Ex.P.2 is the confessional statement of accused

Ex-P 3 is the Seizure list

Ex-P4 is the Joint Observation report

Ex-P5 is the rough sketch

Ex.P.6 is the extract copy of message issued by LW.3/JE/Tele/Peddapally

Ex.P.7 is the damage certificate

Ex.P.8 is the statement of mediator LW.5/P.Sunil,

Ex-P9 is the statement of mediator Lw.6/D.Sadanandam

Ex-P10 is the crime and occurrence report

Ex-P11 is the three photos with CD

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal FAC Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet.

CC NO 311 OF 2018 16-04-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR

RAILWAYS, KAZIPET

Tuesday, 16 th day of April, 2019

Present:- Kum. Rita Lalchand II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal FAC Judl. First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet.

C.C.No. 311 OF 2018

Between: The State SI of Police, RPS Khamma

...Complainant

AND

Gollapudi Sudhakar, S/o Sarvaiah, Age: 35 years, R/o Gopalpuram

Thirumalayapalem Mandal ... Accused

This Case is coming before me on 09-4-2019 for final hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant; and legal aid counsel, for the accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, RPS, Khammam filed a Charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 133 of 2017 for the offence U/Sec. 379 IPC.

2. This is a case of theft of a luggage bag and the case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 22.12.2017 at 17.00 hours the Investigating Officer received

CD file vide Cr. No. 366/2017 under sec 379 IPC of RPS vijayawada through

SRP Secunderabad RC No 756/C3/RCRB/SC/2017 dated 14.11.2017 in which the defacto complainant stated that he works in defence and that he was transferred to Assam from Bangalore, during the break journey, he went to his native village at Khammam. Further after completion of leave on 26-09-2017 at 16.30 hours, the defacto complainant was travelling from Khamma to Howrah by

CC NO 311 OF 2018 16-04-2019

Tr. No. 18646 East Coast Express coach S5 berth No 38 for reporting to duty.

During the journey when the train reached Madhira the defacto complainant found his bag missing. The said bad said to had contained army dress and show. On 27-09-2017, the defacto complainant went to RPS vijayawada and lodged a complaint and as such crime No 366/2017 under sec 379 IPC was registered and the same was transferred to RPS khammam, who inturn registered Crime No 133/2017 under sec 379 IPC. LW-4 then flashed the radio message through TSPMS to all SHO's in state of Telangana and Andhra

Pradesh. On 22.05.2019, LW-4 said to had apprehended the accused A1 and A2 in other case and the accused in the present case, voluntarily confessed the guilt of committing theft including the crime in the present case. LW-4 then secured presence of two mediators, LW-2 and LW-3 and recorded the confessional statement of accused and seized phone from the possession of the accused and the accused was produced before the court and was remanded to

Judicial custody. After completion of evidence, LW-4 filed Charge sheet before the Court.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence Under Section 411 IPC.

4. The accused when was present, copies of case documents were furnished to him.

5. The accused was examined Under Section 239 Cr.PC and he denied the allegations levelled against him and denied committing of any offence. After perusal of record, a charge for the offence Section 379 IPC has been framed, read over and explained to accused in telugu language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined LW-2 as PW-1 and got marked Ex P-1 and P-2, LW-3 was examined as PW-2 and marked Ex P-3 and

P-4, LW-4 was examined as PW-3 and Ex P-5 and P-6 were marked and LW-5

CC NO 311 OF 2018 16-04-2019

was examined as PW-4. The evidence of LW-1 was closed. The details of the documents are mentioned in the annexure.

7. After closing of the prosecution evidence, when accused was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining all the incriminating evidence available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and reported no defence on his behalf. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

8. Heard learned Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused. Perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence Under Section 379 IPC or in alternative 411

IPC beyond reasonable doubt or not?”

10. To get the accused under the cover of Section 379 IPC, it is necessary that the prosecution shall prove that the offence was committed in presence of any person. Admittedly, none of the prosecution evidence or the Charge sheet reveals that any person witnessed accused committing offence and hence the charge under Section 379 IPC cannot be claimed against the accused.

11. In alternative, Section 411 IPC was also framed against the accused

Considering the ingredients which are essential for proving the case under

Section 411 IPC, it has to be looked into whether prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Admittedly the main defacto complainant is not examined in this case. However, as the charge is only in respect of 411 IPC, it has to be seen whether the accused was in possession of any stolen property.

12. PW-3 deposed that LW-1 lodged a complaint under Ex P-6 stating that his luggage bag was committed theft while he was traveling in train from Khammam to Howrah. Based on Ex P-6, PW-3 registered a case vide Crime No 366/2017

CC NO 311 OF 2018 16-04-2019

and issued FIR under Ex P-5. Pw-3 further deposed that he transferred the CD file to PW-4. PW-4 received the CD file vide RC No 756/C-3/RCRB/SC/2017

dated 14-11-2017 and registered the case and issued FIR vide Crime No 133 of

2017 and commenced investigation. PW-4 further deposed that during investigation, he apprehended two persons by name Sudhakar and Khaja Khan in Cr. No. 58/2018 in which they confessed to have committed theft and from the said two persons, the accused herein had confessed commission of the present offence. PW-4 deposed that he secured the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 and recorded the confession panchanama of the accused. On the other hand PW-1 and PW-2 deposed in chief examination that they were called by GRP

Khammam and were asked to sign on some written papers but they are unaware of the contents of the same and that nobody confessed about the offence. Their signatures were marked as Ex P-1 to P-4. However on being cross examined by the learned APP, PW-1 deposed that the accused had confessed the crime. Contrary to this evidence of PW-1, PW-2 deposed that the accused did not confess the commission of the present crime. Here it is also pertinent to mention that though PW-1 deposed that accused confessed before him PW-1 failed to depose as what is confessed by the accused in his presence.

In the absence of same mere statement that the accused confessed before PW- 1 is not enough to repose the confidence of the court, more specifically, when the evidence of PW-1 stands contrary to PW-2. Since none of the prosecution witness deposed evidence connecting the accused to offence under Section 379 or 411 IPC, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Hence it is clear that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

CC NO 311 OF 2018 16-04-2019

In the result, the accused are not find guilty for the offence u/s 379 or 411

IPC and is acquitted u/sec 248[1] Cr.P.C. for the above offence. The

Superintendent of Jail, Warangal is directed to release accused if not required in any other cases.

(Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16th day of April, 2019)

II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal FAC Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W-1: Banoth Hari. --NIL-- P.W-2: Balaji P.W-3: Venkat Rathnam P.W-4: D. Ravi Kumar

Exhibits Marked

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P-1 Signature of PW-1 on confession cum Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P-2 Signature of PW-1 on confession cum Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P-3 Signature of PW-2 on confession cum Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P-4 Signature of PW-2 on confession cum Seizure Panchanama

Ex-P5 FIR

Ex-P-6 Report given by LW-1

Material Objects

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

--Nil-- --Nil--

II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal FAC Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Kazipet