MS.Rubina Fatima

1

CC. No. 1365 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM- XIII

ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CYBERABAD AT

RAJENDRANAGAR

PRESENT: MS.RUBINA FATIMA,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge –cum- XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Monday, this the 17th day of April, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.1365 of 2018

IN

Crime No.435 of 2017

Between:

The State through the

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Raidurgam...Complainant

A N D

Jerripothula Ramu S/o. J.Chandrayudu, Aged 25 years, Occ: Unemployee, R/o. H.No. 3-101/1, Muchurami Village,

Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District. ...Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Praveen Naik, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri.Varaprasad, learned Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Raidurgam filed charge sheet against the accused in crime

No.435 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 506 IPC.

The case of the prosecution in brief:

2.Brief facts of the case are that, on 08-08-2017 at 1100 hours LW5 received complaint from LW1 basing on the same he registered the case in Crime No. 435/2017

U/Sec.354D, 506 of IPC.

3.During the course of investigation, LW5 has examined and recorded statement of

LW1 to LW4. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

Cognizance by the court :

4.The case was taken on file by learned predecessor in office for the offences under

Sections 354D, 506 IPC against accused.

2

CC. No. 1365 of 2018

Appearance of accused :

5.On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with copies of all necessary documents as required U/Sec.207 Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred as

Cr.P.C.).

Examination and charge :

6.The accused are examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s. 354D, 506 IPC, by explaining the substance of in his vernacular language, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Evidence adduced by prosecution :

7.To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined PW1to PW5 got marked Exs.P1 and P2 and Lr.APP given up the evidence of LW6.

Examination of accused and defence evidence:

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C.

with reference to the incriminating evidence and denied material evidence and reported defence evidence and got marked Ex.D1.

Arguments :

9.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused. Perused the record.

Point for determination:

10.“Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 354D, 506 IPC”?

Evidence on record in brief:

11. PW1/G.Anitha (Complainant) deposed that, one year prior to date of complaint one person by name Ramu use to harass her by making phone call to her mobile and use to threaten to kill her and her parents if she don’t accept his love. But she refused his proposal and avoided him. She have recorded the accused phone call and submitted to police. after 3

CC. No. 1365 of 2018

her marriage the accused made phone call once to her number. During the cross examination, she deposed that, she received phone call from accused from a particular number. She admits that, in her statement she have stated that she and accused are classmates. She admits that, she and accused have studied in same college but in different groups during graduation. She admits that, after registering the present case she got married i.e., on 17.08.2018. She admit that, she have mentioned in the compliant that six months prior she came to hyderabad and accused started harassing her from eight months. Further she denied the suggestions made by the defence counsel.

12. PW2/Srinivasulu (Witness) deposed that, on 08.08.2017 PW1 made a phone call and informed about the harassment made by accused. She further stated that the accused was threatening PW1 by stating that if she reveal the matter to any third person, then he will kill her. During cross examination, he admits that, he have stated in his statement that

PW1 and accused were studying at native village and use to talk. PW1 have never said that about the acquaintance with accused. He admits that, PW1 informed him that she studied in same college during which accused was harassing. Further, he denied the suggestions made by the defence counsel.

13. PW3/Harish (Witness) deposed that, one day she was crying, on enquring the reason she stated that one boy from her village by name Ramu was harassing her over phone on pretext of love and also he was threatening her and that if she not accepted his proposal, then he will kill her. On the same day during evening hours they went to PS and lodged compliant. During the cross examination, he deposed that, he have not submitted any document to police to show that he and PW1 work in same company. He admits that, he stated in his statement that PW1 and accused belongs to same village and they studied in same college and they have acquaintance with each other. He further denied the suggestions made by defence counsel.

14. PW4/K.Sanjeevarani (Head constable) deposed that, LW5 orally instructed her to record statement of victim girl Anita. She enquired the victim about the incident, then she 4

CC. No. 1365 of 2018

orally deposed that she and alleged accused were classmates and she was staying in

Hyderabad for studies. From two months the alleged accused was harassing PW1 by making phone calls on pretext of love. She further stated that he was torturing her parents and also stated that accused threatened her that if she marries another person, he will kill her and her family. During cross examination, she deposed that, PW1 and alleged accused belongs to same village and they were classmates. She further denied the suggestions made by defence counsel.

15. PW5/G.Raja Shekat (Investigating officer) deposed that, on 08.08.2017, he received complaint from PW1. Basing on the complaint he registered case vide Cr.No.

435/2017 U./Sec. 354(D) IPC and took up the investigation. During course of investigation he examined LW1 to LW4 and further on 11.08.2017 accused was arrested and produced

before court for judicial remand. Then after the CD file was handed over to LW6 for further

investigation. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused.

During cross examination, he deposed that, during his investigation it was not found that prior to the date of the present compliant there were no prior complaints lodged by PW1 against accused. He admits that, as per statement of PW1, the accused and victim are resident of same village. He further admits that, PW1 and accused belongs to same college.

He deposed that, he have not visited the native villagers of PW1 neither enquired about

PW1 and accused. He have not examined any common friends of PW1 and accused as such they are not listed as witness in charge sheet. He have not seized the cell phone from which

PW1 received phone calls and messages. He admits that, PW2 is brother of PW1 and PW3 is friend of PW1. He admits that, PW1 and accused were known to each other. He further denied the suggestions made by the defence counsel.

16. DW1/Ramu (accused) deposed that, During graduation PW1 proposed her love to him and they both were in relationship for five year. When they were at village PW1 wrote love letter and asked me to marry her after completion of graduation. In the said letter she 5

CC. No. 1365 of 2018

stated that he have to marry her, otherwise she will commit suicide in any situation. Then they both came to Hyderabad. He came to Hyderabad to take SI coaching at Dilsukhnagar.

PW1 came to Hyderabad to take oracle computer course at Maitrivanam, Ameerpet and the amount for her course Rs.15,000/- was paid by him. On every Sunday they both use to meet each other in any park. One day when himself and PW1 came to Krishnakath Park at

Yousufguda, then her brother PW2 came to same park and caught us red handed, then he beat PW1 and took her along with him. Then next day they went to PS and lodged report against him. Due to filing of criminal case on him his life got spoiled. He never threatened

PW1 and her family members at any point of time. During cross examination, he admits that the date and time of writing and giving of letter is not mentioned. He have never submitted Ex.D1 to police neither disclosed about giving of letter to him by PW1. He admits that, in Ex.D1 in the last line PW1 written as yours lovingly A & R. Further denied the suggestions that, writing in Ex.D1 does not belongs to PW1 instead he have written the letter to PW1, but he is deposing false before the court.

Discussion, Decision/conclusion :-

17.On perusing of the record the court found that, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 got marked Exs.P1 and P2 and Lr.APP given up the evidence of LW6 and accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1. On verifying the evidence the court found PW1 to PW5 and DW1 admits PW1 and accused belongs to same village and studied in the same school and same college during graduation. It is found the investigating officer has failed to seized the phone number from which PW1 use to receive phone call and to show that accused use to make phone calls to PW1. But from the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5. The court has not considered the Ex.D1 because PW1 during cross examination denied the handwriting in the love letter confronted to her.

Moreover, Ex.D1 is not supported with any supplementary evidence in his support. The court found, PW1 statement is corroborated with the evidence of PW4/Head constable 6

CC. No. 1365 of 2018

who recorded her statement. Therefore, the court is of the view that the statement of the victim is sufficient to prove the commission of offence by accused for the offence U/sec.

354D IPC. Accordingly the same was corroborated with PW2, PW3 and PW4 evidence.

Hence, the offence against accused U/sec. 354 D IPC is supported and sufficient to prove the offence. The court observed the investigating officer has failed to submit the audio recording of accused phone calls it shows the lacunas on part of investigating officer, but at this stage the court has considered to view in the case of Ramsing V/s State of UP 2020(1) ALD (Cri) 585 SCC. Where negligence of investigation team cannot be used to defence to support their case. Therefore, the court has taken the view in the above case and found negligence in investigation will not be considered.

18.On going through the evidence the court found, the statement of PW1 (victim) is sufficient to prove the commission of offence U/sec. 354D of IPC. Moreover her evidence is corroborated with the evidence of PW2, PW4 and PW5 which is sufficient to prove the ingredients U/sec. 354D of IPC. Moreover, accused continued harassing PW1 even after her marriage. Hence, the accused is found guilty for the offence U/sec.354D and U/sec.

506 of IPC.

18.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable Under Sections 354D, 506 IPC, accordingly he is convicted for the said offences under Section 248 (2)

Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2023)

II Additional Junior Civil Judge –cum- XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar.

19.Heard the accused with regard to quantum of sentence. Accused requested to take lenient view with regard to imprisonment and fine stating he is not having parents and to look after her grand mother and no means to survival. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence, the court is of the opinion 7

CC. No. 1365 of 2018

that it is not a fit case to apply benevolent provisions under Probation of Offenders Act.

Hence, it is just and proper to award punishment to accused in the interest of justice and to meet ends of justice.

In the result, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 (four) months and fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence U/Sec.354 D of IPC and the ingredients u/sec. 506 IPC attracts and shall undergo simple imprisonment for a periodof 4 (four) months and in default of payment of fine amount accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 30 Days. The sentence in both offences shall run concurrently.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

PW1/G.Anitha Complainant PW2/Srinivasulu Witness PW3/Harish Witness PW4/K.Sanjeevarani Head constable PW5/G.Raja Shekat Investigating officer

For Defence:

DW1/Ramu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 is Report Ex.P.2 is FIR.

For Defence:

Ex.D1 is love letter.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

II Additional Junior Civil Judge –cum- XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar.

1 C.C. No.3928 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – XIV ADDL.

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR

PRESENT: Smt.Rubina Fatima

Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum –

XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Monday, this the 21 rd day of March, 2022

C.C.No.3928 of 2021

BETWEEN:

The State through Inspector of Police, P.S. Rajendranagar, (Crime No.1569/2021) …Complainant

And

A1: Mohammed Mubeen, S/o. Mohammed Moin, Age: 24 Years, Occ: Auto Driver/Tiles Work, R/o. H.No.19-4-340/49/54/78/5, Arsh Mahal, Kishanbagh, Rajendranagar.

A2: Syed Gafoor, S/o. Syed Kabir, Age: 23 Years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. Tower – II, Happly Homes Heights, Upparpally, Rajedranagar. Previously resided at H.No.19-4-322/2, Lane Opp: Akbar Function Hall, Mahmood Nagar, Kishan Bagh, Hyderabad.

…Accused

This case coming on today before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B.Siddaiah, Counsel for A1 and Sri K.Gnaneshwar Chary, Legal Aid counsel for A2 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Rajendranagar has filed charge sheet against A1 & A2 in Crime No.1569/2021 for offence punishable under Section 457, 380 r/w 511 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 07.08.2021 received a complaint from complainant/LW1/Sri Poorna Chandra Reddy, in which he stated that on 07.08.20241 at about 02.00 hours the complainant received a call from Patrol mobile stating that some unknown offenders tried to commit 2 C.C. No.3928 of 2021 theft in temple. Immediately the complainant along with colony members reached the said temple and noticed that some unknown offenders tried to take away the hundi by breaking the temple gate lock and hundi lock. On reaching the temple found accused fled away from the scene. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action.

3.As per the contents of complaint, LW6/Sri N.Rajender, Asst.Sub-

Inspector of Police, PS Rajendranagar, has registered a case in crime

No.1569/2021 under Section 379 IPC and entrusted the investigation to

LW7/Sri A.Arun Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Rajendranagar. During investigation, he examined and recorded the detailed statement of LW1/Sri

Poorna Chandra Reddy in police station. Later rushed to scene of offence and inspected the scene minutely, observed the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW2/Sri T.Premavarma and

LW3/Sri Mohammed Mukkaram Ali and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence. Then on 09.09.2021 LW7 arrested A1 & A2 in Cr.No.1788/2021,

U/Sec.380 IPC of PS Rajendranagar and accused confessed the commission of offence in Cr.No.1569/2021, U/Sec.457, 380 r/w 511 IPC. Thereafter, and he secured the presence of LW4/Sri K.Sai Kumar and LW5/Sri Ramakrishna

Ravikanth and conducted confession panchanama in their presence and remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet for offence U/Sec.457, 380 r/w 511 IPC against A1 & A2.

4. Investigation conducted by LW7 revealed A1 & A2 presumed to be habitual offenders and found A1 & A2 committed offence U/Sec.457, 380 r/w 511 IPC.

5.The case was taken on file under Section 457, 380 r/w 511 IPC against

A1 & A2. On producing A1 & A2, copies of documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’).

3 C.C. No.3928 of 2021

6.A1 & A2 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges under

Section 457, 380 r/w 511 IPC, are framed, the contents of charges are read over and explained to them in their language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During course of trail, prosecution examined PWs’ 1 to 5 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P6. PW1 is the complainant, PWs’2 & 3 are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama, PW4 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and PW5 is the investigating officer who filed charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is Confession cum seizure panchanama,

Ex.P3 is Confession cum seizure panchanama of A2, Ex.P4 is the Confession cum seizure panchanama of A1, Ex.P5 is the crime detail form, Ex.P6 is FIR.

8. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, A1 & A2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found against them in the prosecution witnesses to which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence closed.

9. Heard the arguments from both sides.

10. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A1 & A2 for the charged offence under Section 457,

380 r/w 511 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

Evidence on record:

Let us discuss Provision of Law Under Section 380 IPC: 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 with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

4 C.C. No.3928 of 2021

Now the Provision of Law Under Section 457 IPC: Lurking house-

trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence

punishable with imprisonment — Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.

11.PW1/Sri Poorna Chandra Reddy, who is complainant, deposed that on 07.08.2021 at about 02.00 A.M., he was informed by police about attempt to commit theft by accused and found gate lock of temple and hundi lock was found broken. Then he lodged a complaint and proved his complaint as Ex.P1.

12.PW2/Sri Ramakrishna, who is panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama, deposed that accused confessed the commission of offence and police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama and he correctly identified the accused who was present in court hall and proved confession cum seizure panchanama as Ex.P2.

13.PW3/Sri Sai Kumar, who is another panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama, deposed that on 09.09.2021 polcie conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 & A2 in his presence and seizure of property and proved his statement by Ex.P3 and Ex.P4.

14.PW4/Sri Mohd.Mukaram Ali, who is panch witness for scene of offence, deposed that on 07.08.2021 police conducted crime detail form in his presence and admits about knowing the contents of Ex.P5/crime detail form.

5 C.C. No.3928 of 2021

15.PW5/Sri K.Arun Kumar, Investigating Officer deposed that basing on the

CD file, he recorded statements of LW6/Sri N.Rajender, ASI of Police, PS

Rajednranagar, and conducted confession panchanama. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 & A2.

16.In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, the court found prosecution proved charges against A1 & A2 for offences U/Sec.457, 380 r/w 511 IPC against both accused. Further, the court found prosecution has proved the commission of offence i.e. attempt to commit theft in temple by accused through the testimony of PWs’1 to 5 beyond reasonable doubt for purpose of commission of offence. The accused miserably failed to adduce defence evidence on their behalf or to raise any doubt. Therefore, the court found prosecution has successfully proved there was an attempt of theft made in the temple. Whereas the prosecution has successfully proved the case U/Sec.457, 380 r/w 511 IPC i.e. factum of incoherent theft by A1 & A2.

17.The instant case is supported by the decision in the Judgment given in

State Vs. Raju on 05 th May 2016. By taking the view in the said case, the court found prosecution has successfully proved the commission of offence

U/Sec.457, 380 r/w 511 IPC by A1 & A2.

18. R E S U L T: In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for offences punishable under Section 457, 380 r/w 511 IPC and accordingly they are convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time, if any.

(Typed to my dictation by steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21 st day of March, 2022) -Sd/XXXXXX Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

6 C.C. No.3928 of 2021

When A1 & A2 are questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, they/A1 & A2 stated that they belongs from poor family and father of accused

No.1 is suffering from ill-health.

Heard A1 & A2 with regard to quantum of sentence. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence, the court opine that it is not a fit case to apply benevolent provisions under

Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, it is just and proper to award punishment to accused in the interest of justice and to meet ends of justice.

In the result, A1 & A2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of (07) months each and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees

Five Hundred only) each. In default of payment of fine amount, A1 & A2 shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of (01) month each for offence punishable U/sec.457 IPC. FurtherA1 & A2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of (07) months each and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) each. In default of payment of fine amount, A1 & A2 shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of (01) month each for offence punishable U/sec.380 r/w 511 IPC. Both sentences shall run concurrently. The imprisonment in this case and in C.C.No.3964/2021, shall run concurrently.

The remand period which was undergone by A1 & A2 from 21.09.2021 to till date 21.03.2022 i.e. (06) months shall be given set off U/sec. 428 Cr.P.C.

A1 & A2 are informed about their right to appeal against the judgment of this court within the limitation period of law.

-Sd/XXXXXX Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar 7 C.C. No.3928 of 2021 :: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :: Witnesses Examined For the Prosecution: - For the Defence:-

PW1/LW1/Sri Poorna Chandra Reddy - Nil – PW2/LW5/Sri Ramakrishna Ravikanth PW3/LW4/Sri K.Sai Kumar PW4/LW3/Sri Mohammed Mukkaram Ali PW5/LW7/Sri A.Arun Kumar, SI of Police, PS Rajendranagar

Exhibits Marked

For the Prosecution: - For the Defence:- Ex.P1 is the complaint. - Nil – Ex.P2 is Confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P3 is Confession cum seizure panchanama of A2. Ex.P4 is the Confession cum seizure panchanama of A1. Ex.P5 is the crime detail form. Ex.P6 is FIR.

-Sd/XXXXXX Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar

1 C.C. No.3964 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – XIV ADDL.

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR

PRESENT: Smt.Rubina Fatima

Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum –

XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Monday, this the 21 rd day of March, 2022

C.C.No.3964 of 2021

BETWEEN:

The State through Inspector of Police, P.S. Rajendranagar, (Crime No.1546/2021) …Complainant

And

A1: Mohammed Mubeen, S/o. Mohammed Moin, Age: 24 Years, Occ: Auto Driver/Tiles Work, R/o. H.No.19-4-340/49/54/78/5, Arsh Mahal, Kishanbagh, Rajendranagar.

A2: Syed Gafoor, S/o. Syed Kabir, Age: 23 Years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. Tower – II, Happly Homes Heights, Upparpally, Rajedranagar. Previously resided at H.No.19-4-322/2, Lane Opp: Akbar Function Hall, Mahmood Nagar, Kishan Bagh, Hyderabad.

…Accused

This case coming on today before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B.Siddaiah, Counsel for A1 and Sri K.Gnaneshwar Chary, Legal Aid counsel for A2 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Rajendranagar has filed charge sheet against A1 & A2 in Crime No.1546/2021 for offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 03.08.2021 received a complaint from complainant/LW1/Sri Mohd.Ayyub, in which he stated that on 03.08.20241 at about 15.00 hours the complainant parked his Honda Activa bike bearing No.TS-12-EF-9596, in front of Friends Wines Shop, Shivarampally 2 C.C. No.3964 of 2021 and went inside to consume alcohol. After one hour at about 16.00 hours the complainant came outside and noticed that some unknown persons have committed theft of his bike from where he had parked. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action.

3.As per the contents of complaint, LW8/Sri A.Arun Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Rajendranagar, has registered a case in crime No.1546/2021 under Section 379 IPC and issued FIR. Thereafter, visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW2/Sri Syed

Haroon Ali and LW3/Sri Ahmed Khan. Then on 14.08.2021 he conducted seizure panchanama in the presence of LW4/Sri Mohd.Jaffar and LW5/Sri

Ahmed Khan and seized one Honda Activa bike bearing No.TS-12-EF-9596.

Then on 09.09.2021 accused was arrested in Cr.NO.1788/2021, U/Sec.380

IPC of PS Rajendranagar and accused confessed the commission of offence in crime and he secured the presence of LW6/Sri K.Sai Kumar and LW7/Sri

Ramakrishna Ravikanth and conducted confession panchanama in the presence. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet for offence

U/Sec.379 IPC against A1 & A2.

4. Investigation conducted by LW8 revealed A1 & A2 presumed to be habitual offender and found A1 & A2 committed offence U/Sec.379 IPC.

5.The case was taken on file under Section 379 IPC against A1 & A2. On producing A1 & A2, copies of documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’).

6.A1 & A2 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. A charge under

Section 379 IPC, is framed, the contents of charge is read over and explained to 3 C.C. No.3964 of 2021 them in their language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During course of trail, prosecution examined PWs’ 1 to 5 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P6. PW1 is the complainant, PW2 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama, PW3 is the panch witness for seizure panchanama, PW4 is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama and PW5 ist he investigating officer who filed charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is the Crime Detail Form, Ex.P3 is Seizure panchanama, Ex.P4 is the Confession cum seizure panchanama of A2, Ex.P5 is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 and Ex.P6 is FIR.

8. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, A1 & A2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found against them in the prosecution witnesses to which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence closed.

9. Heard the arguments from both sides.

10. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A1 & A2 for the charged offence under Section 379 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

Evidence on record:

Let us discuss provision of Law under Section 379 IPC: Punishment for theft - Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

11.PW1/Sri Mohammed Ayub deposed that three months ago his vehicle bearing No.9596 was found missing when he kept in front of one pan shop.

Then he lodged a complaint and proved his complaint as Ex.P1.

4 C.C. No.3964 of 2021

12.PW2/Sri Syed Harun Ali deposed that on 03.08.2021 police called him and conducted scene of offence in his presence and he knows the contents of

Ex.P2/Crime Detail Form.

13.PW3/Sri Mohd.Jaffar, deposed that on 14.08.2021 at 03.00 P.M., police conducted panchanama, but property was not seized. But he deposed that he knows the contents of panchanama, thereafter, he signed on Ex.P3/seizure panchanama.

During cross-examination, he admitted that PW1 is his friend. Further stated that he cannot read and write Telugu language, but denied the suggestion that as PW1 is his friend and he is deposing false to help PW1.

14.PW4/Sri Sai Kumar, deposed that on 09.09.2021 he enquired three persons and they are confessed the commission of offence and proved by Ex.P4 & P5.

15.PW5/Sri K.Arun Kumar, Investigating Officer deposed that basing on the complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.1546/2021. During investigation, visited scene of offence and drafted rough sketch and conducted seizure panchanama and seized property, also conducted confession panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 & A2.

16.In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, the court found prosecution proved charges for offence U/Sec.379 IPC against both accused. Further, the court found prosecution has proved the commission of offence through the testimony of PWs’1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubt for purpose of commission of offence. The accused miserably failed to adduce defence evidence on their behalf.

5 C.C. No.3964 of 2021

17.It is observed that there is contradictions relating to date of commission of offence by accused. But from the testimony of PWs’1 to 5 it clearly reflects about commission of offence by accused. Hence, the court found prosecution has successfully proved the commission of offence U/Sec.379 IPC. Thereby, the court found prosecution has successfully proved a theft committed by A1 &

A2.

18.The instant case is supported by the decision in the Judgment given in

Fagu Mahto and another Vs. State of Jharkhand. By taking the view in the said case, the court found prosecution has successfully proved commission of offence U/Sec.379 IPC by A1 & A2.

19. R E S U L T: In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and accordingly they are convicted under

Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

(Dictated to steno, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21 st day of March, 2022) -Sd/XXXXXX Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

When A1 & A2 are questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, they/A1 & A2 stated that they belongs from poor family and father of accused

No.1 is suffering from ill-health.

Heard A1 & A2 with regard to quantum of sentence. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence, the court opine that it is not a fit case to apply benevolent provisions under

Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, it is just and proper to award punishment to accused in the interest of justice and to meet ends of justice.

In the result, A1 & A2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of (07) months each for offence U/Sec.379 IPC. The 6 C.C. No.3964 of 2021 imprisonment in this case and in C.C.No.3928/2021, shall run concurrently.

The remand period which was undergone by A1 & A2 from 21.09.2021 to till date 21.03.2022 i.e. (06) months shall be given set off U/sec. 428 Cr.P.C.

The unmarked case property i.e. Honda Activa bike bearing No.TS-12-

EF-9596, Chasis No.ME4JF507FHT369478, Engine No.JF50ET5369534, which was already given interim custody to the owner of the property vide

Crl.M.P.No.1193/2021, shall stands good after expiry of appeal time.

A1 & A2 are informed about their right to appeal against the judgment of this court within the limitation period of law.

-Sd/XXXXXX Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar :: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :: Witnesses Examined For the Prosecution: - For the Defence:-

PW1/LW1/Sri Mohd.Ayyub - Nil – PW2/LW2/Sri Syed Haroon Ali PW3/LW4/Sri Mohd.Jaffar PW4/LW6/Sri K.Sai Kumar PW5/LW8/Sri A.Arun Kumar, SI of Police

Exhibits Marked

For the Prosecution: - For the Defence:- Ex.P1 is complaint. - Nil – Ex.P2 is crime detail form. Ex.P3 is seizure panchanama. Ex.P4 is confession cum seizure panchanama of A2. Ex.P5 is confession cum seizure panchanama of A1. Ex.P6 is FIR.

-Sd/XXXXXX Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar

1

CC. No. 800 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM- XIII

ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CYBERABAD AT

RAJENDRANAGAR

PRESENT: MS.RUBINA FATIMA,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge –cum- XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Thursday, this the 13th day of April, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.800 of 2017

IN

Crime No.185 of 2017

Between: The State through the

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Moinabad ......Complainant

A N D

1.Nagulapally Ramulu, S/o. Chandraiah, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 1-20, Chinnamangalaram Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District.

2. Nagulapally Narayana S/o. Kistaiah, Age: 55 years, R/o. Chinnamangalaram Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District.

3.Nagulapally Srisailam S/o. Venkataiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinnamangalaram Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District

...Accused No.1 to 3

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Praveen Naik, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri.B.Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Moinabad filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 in crime No.185 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 of Indian

Penal Code.

The case of the prosecution in brief:

2.Brief facts of the case are that, on 29-04-2017 at 2000 hours LW7 received complaint from LW1. Basing on the same he registered the case in Crime No. 185/2017

U/Sec.447, 427 of IPC.

2

CC. No. 800 of 2017

3.During the course of investigation, LW7 has examined and recorded statement of

LW1 to LW4 and visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama.

After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

Cognizance by the court :

5.The case was taken on file by learned predecessor in office for the offences under

Sections 447, 427 of IPC against accused No.1 to 3.

Appearance of accused :

6.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 3, they were furnished with copies of all necessary documents as required U/Sec.207 Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.).

Examination and charge :

7.The accused No.1 to 3 are examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s. 447, 427 of IPC by explaining the substance of in their vernacular language, for which accused

No.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Evidence adduced by prosecution :

8.To prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 the prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and LW5 report filed, hence evidence of LW5 is closed by this court and Lr.APP given up the evidence of LW7.

Examination of accused and defence evidence:

9.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence and denied material evidence and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

Arguments :

10.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused. Perused the record.

3

CC. No. 800 of 2017

Point for determination:

11.“Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 427 of IPC”?

Evidence on record in brief:

12. PW1/B.Ramchandraiah (Complainant)deposed that, on 24.04.2017 accused persons came to his land along with JCB and leveled his agriculture and claiming the ownership. Then they asked the accused to stop the work. But the accused persons did not stop and continued the work and stated that “we won’t stop. What ever you want to do, you do”. Then on the same day, he approached PS and lodged report. Police examined and recorded my statement. During the cross examination, he deposed that, at present he do not possess passbook in his name. His name is also not reflecting in pahani due to the new process of Dharani portal. He do not know whether the eye witness name is mentioned in

Ex-P1 and also in his statement who has witnessed the incident on alleged day. Further he denied the suggestions made by the defence counsel.

13. PW2/T.Raju (eye witness), PW3/P.Naresh (eye witness), PW4/B.Rajamallesh (circumstantial witness), they deposed that, they do not know anything about the facts of the case and they turned hostile.

14. PW5/B.Mallesh (panch witness for the scene of offence), he deposed that, police obtained his signature on written papers, but he do not know the contents of the same and he turned hostile.

13. PW6/L.Ravinder Naik (Investigating officer ) deposed that, on 29.04.2017 at about 2000 hrs., LW7 received compliant from PW1. Basing on the complaint LW7 registered case in Cr.No. 185/2017 U/Sec. 447, 427 IPC and the CD file was handed over to him for further investigation. During course of investigation he recorded statements of

PW1 and visited scene of offence situated in land Sy.No. 437/AA at Chinnamangalaram village and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch in presence of 4

CC. No. 800 of 2017

LW5, PW5. Then the CD file was handed over to LW9 for further investigation. During the cross examinationa he admits that, he have not received compliant from PW1. He deposed that, he have not received any document pertaining to disputed land along with complaint from LW7. He have not collected any documents pertaining to Sy.No. 437/AA from PW1 while recording his statement. He further admits that, PW1 has not stated the name of owner of JCB in his statement. He further denied the suggestions made by the defence counsel.

14. PW7/S.Sunitha (Investigating officer) deposed that, on 16-07-2017 she received

CD file from LW8. The after she recorded statements of PW2 to PW4. On 16-11-2017 she issued notice U/sec. 41 (A) Cr.P.C to accused. After completion of investigation she filed charge sheet against accused. During the cross examination, she deposed that she do not know whether LW2 resides adjacent neighbour to scene of offence. She did not examined the owner of JCB but the driver was examined. She did not collect any document from owner of JCB. She further deposed that, she have not collected the documents pertaining to Sy.No. 437 from PW1 during investigation and same is not filed along with charge sheet.

Further, she denied the suggestions made by the defence counsel.

Conclusion :-

15.On perusing of the record the court found that, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and Lr.APP given up the evidence of LW7. On going through the evidence the court found except complainant and the investigating officer evidence there is no independent witness or eye witness available to support the prosecution case. Therefore, in absence of independent witness and in sufficient evidence the court found the ingredients U/sec. 447,427 is not proved successfully by prosecution and the specified damage is not proved by prosecution. Hence, the ingredients U/sec. 447, 427 IPC is not proved. Accordingly the accused is found not guilty.

5

CC. No. 800 of 2017

14.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable

Under Sections 447, 427 of IPC, accordingly they are acquitted for the said offences under

Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of April, 2023)

II Additional Junior Civil Judge –cum- XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

PW1/ Hari Darshancomplainant PW2/T.Raju eye witness PW3/P.Naresheye witness PW4/B.Rajamallesh circumstantial witness PW5/B.Mallesh panch witness for the scene of offence PW6/L.Ravinder Naik Investigating officer PW7/S.Sunitha Investigating officer

For Defence: - None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 is Report Ex.P2 is Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P3 is Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P4 is Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P5 is Signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P6 is Signature of PW5 on rough sketch. Ex.P7 is FIR Ex.P8 scene of offence panchanama Ex.P9 is rough sketch. Ex.10 is Adangal

For Defence: - NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

II Additional Junior Civil Judge –cum- XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar.

1

CC. No. 658 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM- XIII

ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CYBERABAD AT

RAJENDRANAGAR

PRESENT: MS.RUBINA FATIMA,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge –cum- XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Monday, the 17th day of April, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.658 of 2017

IN

Crime No.371 of 2017

Between: The State through the

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Moinabad...Complainant

A N D

B.Chandraiah, S/o. Chembaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Appojiguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District.

...Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Praveen Naik, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri.B.Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides 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 of Police, Moinabad filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.371 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 509, 323 of IPC.

The case of the prosecution in brief:

2.Brief facts of the case are that, on 10-08-2017 at 1900 hours LW5 received complaint from LW1, stating that , on 10-07-2017 the LW1 was present at her agriculture land situated at Appojiguda Village limits, at meantime the accused unnecessarily picked up quarrel with her, abused in most filthy language by insulted her modesty and beat her with hands. Basing on the same he registered the case in Crime No. 371/2017 U/Sec.509, 323 of IPC.

3.During the course of investigation, LW6 has examined and recorded statement of

LW1 to LW4. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

2

CC. No. 658 of 2017

Cognizance by the court :

4.The case was taken on file by learned predecessor in office for the offences under

Sections 509, 323 of IPC

Appearance of accused :

5.On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with copies of all necessary documents as required U/Sec.207 Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred as

Cr.P.C.).

Examination and charge :

6.The accused are examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s. 509, 323 of IPC by explaining the substance of in his vernacular language, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Evidence adduced by prosecution :

7.To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

Examination of accused and defence evidence:

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C.

with reference to the incriminating evidence and denied material evidence and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

Arguments :

9.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused. Perused the record.

Point for determination:

10.“Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 509, 323 of IPC”?

3

CC. No. 658 of 2017

Evidence on record in brief:

11. PW1/G.Anuradha (Complainant)deposed that, on 10.08.2017 while she was sowing seeds in her agriculture field meantime accused disturbing sowing seeds and picked up quarrel with her by removing her cultivated crops. When she questioned the same, he refused and abused in filthy language and caught hold of her hand, due to which she sustained injury on her wrist. Then on same day she went to PS and lodge report. Police examined and recorded her statement. During the cross examination,she admits that, one

Lakshmaiah is her brother in law. She do not know whether Lakshmaiah purchased Ac.

0.20 Gts., of land from accused. She denied the suggestions made by the defence counsel.

12.PW2/G.Swamy (eye witness), PW3/G.Alively (eye witness) they deposed that, they do not know anything about the facts of the case and turned hostile.

13. PW4/G.Pandu (circumstantial witness) deposed that, five years ago he was working at his agriculture field where the field was cultivating by him, meantime accused tried to enter into his field through his agriculture field and the same was obstructed by PW1 by saying that to cross the field from the other way. Then the accused started abusing PW1 and beat her on her back and caught hold of her wrist. Due to which she sustained injuries.

Police examined and recorded his statement. During the cross examination, he deposed that, at the time of incident he was at a distance of 200 mts., far from scene of offence.

There is no land dispute between accused and him. He admits that, his brother purchased

Ac. 0.20 Gts., of land from accused. He further denied the suggestions made by the defence counsel.

14. PW5/P.Srinivas (Investigating officer) deposed that, on 10.08.2017, LW5 received compliant from PW1 in which it was found that on 10.07.2017 PW1 was present at agriculture field situated at Apojiguda village. Meantime the accused came to agriculture field and started quarrelling with PW1 and abused her in filthy language and also insulted her modesty and beat her with hands. Basing on the complaint LW5 issued FIR in Cr.No.

371/2017 U/Sec. 509, 323 IPC then investigation was entrusted to him. During course of 4

CC. No. 658 of 2017

investigation he recorded statements of PW1 to PW4. Then on 08.09.2017 he issued notice

U/Sec. 41(A) Cr.P.C to accused. Then CD file was handed over to LW7 for further investigation. During the cross examination, he deposed that, on 10.08.2017 the incident was occurred. He admits that, the statements of eye witnesses are also recorded at PS. He admits that, PW2 to PW4 are accompanied with PW1. He further denied the suggestions made by the defence counsel.

15.PW6/S.Sunitha (Investigating officer) deposed that, on 10-08-2017 at about 1900 hours, she received complaint from PW1. Basing on the complaint she registered case in

Cr.No. 371/2017 U/Sec. 509, 323 IPC and handed over the CD file to LW6 for further investigation. During the cross examination, she deposed that she received complaint on 10-08-2017 at 1900 hours. She denied the suggestions made by the defence counsel.

16.PW7/MD. Ghouse (Investigating officer) deposed that, on 15-09-2017 he received

CD file from PW5. On verifying of record and conducting further investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec. 509, 323 of IPC. During the cross examination, he admits that he have not visited the scene of offence and not collected any document relating to disputed land and also not collected Medical certificate of PW1. He further denied the suggestions made by the defence counsel

Conclusion :-

17.On perusing of the record the court found that, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The court found the PW1 states that accused started quarrelling with PW1 and obstructed her for sowing seeds and it appears the dispute is civil in nature. Except the evidence of PW1 there is no eye witness or independent witness evidence available on record to corroborate with the evidence of PW1. Therefore, in the absence of eye witness to the incident the court found the ingredients U/sec. 323, 509 IPC is not proved successfully by the prosecution. Neither filed any documentary evidence to show the offence U/Sec. 323 IPC is committed. Accordingly, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 323, 509 IPC.

5

CC. No. 658 of 2017

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable Under

Sections 509, 323 of IPC, accordingly he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2023)

II Additional Junior Civil Judge –cum- XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

PW1/G.Anuradha Complainant PW2/G.Swamy eye witness PW3/G.Alively eye witness PW4/G.Pandu circumstantial witness PW5/P.Srinivas Investigating officer PW6/S.Sunitha Investigating officer PW7/MD. Ghouse Investigating officer

For Defence:

- None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 is Report Ex.P.2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P3 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P4 is FIR IPC.

For Defence:

- Nil –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

II Additional Junior Civil Judge –cum- XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar