Smt S Sree Devi

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSISONS JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI DIVISION, ELURU.

Present: Smt. Siripurapu Sreedevi,

Principal Sessions Judge,

West Godavari, Eluru.

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 44 of 2026

From what Court the appeal :Special Judicial Magistrate of First isClass(Mobile) for Trial of cases under PCR Act at Eluru-cum-III Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Eluru.

:C.C.No.593/2025. No. of the case in that Court

No. of the Criminal Appeal:Criminal Appeal No.44/2026

Name and Description of the :1. Syed Rajak S/o Majid, Muslim, Male, Aged 50 years, R/o Mubharak Centre, Gudivada Appellant Town, Krishna District.

2.Syed Kareemullah Shavali @ Vali S/o. Majid, Muslim, Male, Aged 45 years, R/o.Mubharak Centre, Gudivada Town, Krishna District.

Name and description of the :The State rep. by its Public Prosecutor W.G., Eluru. Complainant/respondent.

The Sentence and Law and : In the result, A1 and A2 are not guilty for the charge under sections 303(2) of BNS. which it was imposed in the Accordingly, they both are acquitted under Lower Court Section 265(1) of B.N.S.S. However, A1 and 2

A2 are guilty of charge under section 317(2) of BNS. Accordingly, A1 and A2 are convicted under section 265(2) BNSS, for which, A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for Six months each and also sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.500/- each for the said charge and in default of payment of fine amount, A1 and A2 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period one month each.

It is made clear that, the period of sentence of six months sentence ordered against A1 and A2 in this case shall run concurrently, along with the period of sentence of six months ordered in CC No.556/2025, CC.No. 588/2025,

CC No.589/2025, CC No.591/2025,

CC No.592/2025 and CC No.595/2025

respectively. The accused shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/- in each case. In the event of default in payment of the fine, A1 and A2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month each for each case, with the default terms to run concurrently. Accordingly, the total period of imprisonment shall be six (6) months each, and the total fine payable shall be Rs.3,500/- each, subject to default terms as above.

The property covered by MO1 was already given to PW1 vide Crl.M.P.No.77/2026 and the same shall be made absolute after the expiry of appeal time

Whether confirmed, modified : or reversed and if modified

M O D I F I E D.

the modification

Date of presentation:06.03.2026

Date of filing:1103.2026 3

Date of notice issued :11.03.2026

Date of Bail bond:--

Date of appearance:18.03.2026

Date of hearing:31.03.2026

Date of Judgment:17.04.2026

This appeal is coming on 31.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Vidyasagar, Advocate for Appellants/A1 and A2 and

Public Prosecutor, for the State/respondent and on perusal of grounds of appeal and the evidence available 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 appellants-Syed Razak and Syed Karimulla Shavali are A1 and A2 in the Trial Court, who preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of

First Class(Mobile) for Trial of cases under PCR Act at Eluru-cum-III Additional

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Eluru, in C.C.No.593/2025 dt.24.02.2026 and the

parties to the appeal hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the Trial Court and the brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

(a) On 24.12.2024 the informant viz., Medabalimi Bharat

Bhushanam/PW1 went to CMR shopping Mall, on his red colour Hero Passion

Plus Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP37BA2400 and parked the same at

CMR shopping Mall and went inside the Zudio shopping Mall and after completion of his work he returned to the place of parking his vehicle at 8:30 4

P.M and he found that his vehicle was missing. He searched for the vehicle surrounding the place where he parked the vehicle but in vain. As he could not get any information till 27.07.2025, he gave Ex.P1/report to the police.

(b) On the report given by the informant/PW1, M.Radha Krishna/Head

Constable of Eluru III Town P.S./PW3 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.

187/2025 for the offence under Section 303(2) of BNS on 27.07.2025 at about 9.30 p.m., and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined PW1 and three others on 27.07.2025 and recorded their statements. On the same day PW3 observed the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. P.Rambabu/PW4/SI of Police, Eluru III Town P.S., verified the investigation conducted by PW3 and took up further investigation in this case on 28.07.2025.

(c) On 29.07.2025 at about 6.00 a.m., PW4 received some credible information and secured the presence of M.Srinivas/PW2/VRO and

K.Sirisha/LW6 to Mini Byepass road, near Kranthi Kalyanamandapam road and started conducting vehicle checking in the presence of mediators. He found two persons coming on motorcycle, who tried to escape by looking at police having turned their motorcycle and then the police apprehended them with the assistance of his staff and interrogated them. Both A1 and A2 who are brothers disclosed their identity particulars and confessed that they have stolen away the motorcycles and kept them in the mechanic shop of A2. PW4 arrested A1 and A2 on 29.07.2025 in Cr.No.181/2025 of Eluru III Town P.S., for the offence under Section 303(2) of BNS and recovered the Hero Glamour motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 39 F 0732. Based on their confessional statement, being led by A1 and A2, they rushed to Gudiwada and seized 14 motorcycles from their possession, pertaining to various crimes in the 5 presence of PW2 and Kammula Sirisha/LW6. One of the vehicles was identified as the stolen property pertaining to Cr.No.187/2025 of Eluru III Town

P.S.

(d) On 02.08.2025 the property was given to the interim custody of the informant. A1 and A2 are the habitual offenders and they got the habit of committing similar offences. After completion of investigation, PW4 filed the charge sheet.

2. Cognizance was taken under section 303(2) and alternatively under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023.

3. On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of documents were furnished to them under section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 and A1 and A2 were examined under section 262 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 regarding the accusation made against them and charge under Section 303(2) alternatively under

Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses on its behalf as PWs.1 to 4 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P5 and

MO1.

5. After the closure of the evidence of prosecution, A1 and A2 were examined under section 351 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023, regarding the incriminating material placed against them for which, they denied and reported no oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

6. The trial court framed the following point for determination:

6 “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 303(2) or 317(2) of BNS?

7. After having heard the rival contentions of both sides, the learned

Trial Court acquitted A1 and A2 under Section 265(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 for the offence under Section 303(2) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 and further found that A1 and A2 are guilty for the offence under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six months each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of One(01) month each and further held that the sentences in this case shall run concurrently along with the period of sentences ordered in CC No.556/2025, CC.No. 588/2025, CC

No.589/2025, CC No.591/2025, CC No.592/2025 and CC No.595/2025 respectively.

8. Being aggrieved by the findings of the Trial Court, the appellants preferred the appeal on the following grounds:

The Trial Court ought to have seen that the informant did not identify the appellants/A1 and A2 and the police filed FIR against unknown offenders and the defacto-complainant identified the appellants through police in the court premises. The Trial Court ought to have seen that the police falsely implicated A1 and A2 for statistical purposes based on the pressure of higher officials and also implicated them in another seven(07) crimes and the evidence of PW1 is highly suspicious regarding the possession of the vehicles. The Trial Court ought to have seen that the police have not filed relevant documents for seizing the property and photos of motorcycle from the 7 shop of appellants/A1 and A2. The Trial Court ought to have seen that the police falsely seized the motorcycle from the possession of A1 and A2 and thereby the appellants No.1 and 2/A2 and A2 prayed the Court to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants in C.C.No.593/2025 for the charge under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023,

dt. 24.02.2026 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile)

for Trial of cases under PCR Act at Eluru-cum-III Additional Civil Judge(Junior

Division), Eluru.

9. Now the points for determination are:

1) Whether the prosecution proved the charge under Section

317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 beyond

reasonable doubt?

2) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the findings

of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile)

for Trial of cases under PCR Act at Eluru-cum-III Additional Civil

Judge(Junior Division), Eluru?

10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned

Public Prosecutor.

11. POINT NO.1: The case of the prosecution is that on 24.12.2024 the informant viz., Medabalini Bharat Bhushanam/PW1 went to CMR shopping

Mall, on his red colour Hero Passion Plus Motorcycle bearing registration

No.AP37BA2400 and parked the same at CMR shopping Mall and went inside the Zudio shopping Mall and after completion of his work he returned to the place of parking his vehicle at 8.30 p.m., and found that his vehicle was missing. He searched for the vehicle surrounding the place where he parked the vehicle but in vain. As he could not get any information till 27.07.2025, he gave Ex.P1/report to the police and basing on his report, the Investigating

Officer concerned took up investigation, arrested A1 and A2 at Mini Bye-pass 8 road, near Kranthi Kalyanamandapam, Eluru. Based on their confessional statement, they proceeded to Gudiwada to the shop of A2 and recovered MO1 from their possession and 13 other vehicles.

12. The learned Counsel for A1 and A2 argued that the Trial Court erroneously convicted A1 and A2 though PW1 never identified A1 and A2 and the entire record was prepared in the police station as the Investigating

Officer/PW4 himself admitted that he took out the print out of mediators report at the police station and that it shows that the investigation conducted by the

Investigation Officer is perfunctory.

13. By way of reply, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the learned Trial Court convicted A1 and A2 for the charge under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 but not for the charge under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023. He further argued that confession made by A1 and A2 led to the discovery of MO1 pertaining to this case and various other properties pertaining to other crimes. He also argued that MO1 and other properties were seized from their possession and they failed to explain as to how they got into possession of MO1 and other properties. He also argued that the learned Trial Court rightly convicted A1 and A2.

14. The Trial Court acquitted A1 and A2 for the charge under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 while convicting A1 and A2 for the charge under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023. So, any amount of evidence let in by the prosecution with reference to the charge under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 shall not be discussed and shall not be looked into as the prosecution has not challenged 9 the finding given by the trial Court in respect of the charge under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023

15. Coming to the charge under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita(BNS), 2023, the prosecution has to prove that A1 and A2 dishonestly received MO1 or retained MO1 knowing or having reason to believe that the same is a stolen property.

16. The evidence of informant/Medabalimi Bharat Bhushan/PW1 shows that on 24.12.2024 at about 8.00 p.m., he went to CMR shopping Mall, situated near Bus stand, Eluru and parked his Hero Passion Plus Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP37BA2400 at about 8.00 p.m., and went inside the

CMR shopping Mall and that after completing his work he returned at 8.45 p.m., from the Mall and found that the vehicle was missing. He further stated that on 27.07.2025 he gave Ex.P1/report to the police. His evidence further shows that based on the message circulated by SP in whatsApp group, he approached the police and in the month of August, police informed him that his bike was traced out and at their instance he went to police station and identified his vehicle and received the same i.e., MO1/red colour Hero Passion

Plus Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP37BA2400.

17. It is not the contention of the appellants/A1 and A2 that they purchased MO1/red colour Hero Passion Plus Motorcycle bearing registration

No.AP37BA2400. The evidence of PW1 shows that while he was in lawful possession of the property it was removed from his possession when he went inside the Mall.

18. The evidence of M.Radha Krishna/Head Constable of Eluru III

Town P.S./PW3 shows that on 27.07.2025 at about 9.00 p.m., PW1 came to the police station and presented Ex.P1/report and then he registered the same 10 as a case in Cr.No.187/2025 under Sections 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita(BNS), 2023 and submitted Ex.P4/FIR to the Court while furnishing copies to the concerned. The evidence of PW3 shows that he examined the witnesses and visited the scene of offence situated near Bus stop, CMR shopping Mall and prepared Ex.P5/rough sketch. Ex.P5/rough sketch shows that PW3 visited the area where the informant/ PW1 parked his vehicle.

19. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that there is an abnormal delay in lodging the FIR. However, the report itself shows that PW1 searched for the vehicle till the date of giving report and as it was not traced out, he gave Ex.P1/report to the police. Therefore, the prosecution explained the reason for delay as seen from the contents of Ex.P1.

20. The evidence of PW4/SI of Police, Eluru III Town P.S., shows that

PW3 registered FIR in Cr.No.187/2025 and he conducted further investigation.

His evidence further shows that on 29.07.2025 on reliable information he arrested A1 and A2 in Cr.No.181/2025 and recovered 15 vehicles including

MO1 at the shop of A2 located at Gudiwada and both the accused were sent to Court for judicial custody. PW4 further stated that after their release from the jail, he served notices under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 and received explanation from them. He also stated that on information, PW1 came to police station and received the vehicle under acknowledgment and later PW4 filed charge sheet. PW4 has not specified the place of arrest of A1 and A2 though stated about the recovery of MO1 and other properties at the shop of A2 located at Gudiwada. Further, in the cross- examination, PW4 stated that at about 5.30a.m., they went to Mini Bypass road nearby Kranthi Kalyana Mandapam and that he did not secure the information regarding the existence of CC camera nearby the place of seizure 11 of MO1. He denied the suggestion that he never recovered MO1 from the shop of A2 at Gudiwada.

21. To fasten the liability against A1 and A2 for the charge under

Section 317(2) of BNS, the prosecution has to prove that the accused dishonestly retained the stolen property having knowledge or reason to believe that the property is a stolen property.

22. In the instant case the evidence of one of the mediators viz.,

M.Srinivas, who was examined as PW2 shows that he rushed to Eluru III

Town P.S., along with LW6/K.Sirisha at the instance of PW4 and from there they accompanied the police personnel to Mini Bye pass road, Eluru and found A1 and A2, who tried to skulk away by looking at police and on that

PW4 apprehended them and during interrogation they revealed their identity particulars and confessed that they have stolen away Glamour bike bearing registration No.AP37F0732 near Kranthi Kalyanamandapam in the 2nd week of

May, 2025 and further confessed that they have stolen away nearly 15 vehicles from different areas i.e., from opposite to shopping malls, hotels and indoor stadium etc. His evidence further shows that the individual statements of A1 and A2 are replica and A1 confessed that all the vehicles were kept at the mechanic shop being run by A2 at Gudiwada and that he typed

Ex.P2/mediators report on the Lop-top given by the police and got the print outs from the printer available with the police in their jeep. Ex.P2/mediators report dt.29.07.2025, is admissible to the extent of showing the information given by A1 and A2 that they kept the motorbikes that were stolen away by them at the mechanic shop of A2 situated at Gudiwada.

23. As seen from the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.P2, it shows that A1 and A2 made confessional statements furnishing information leading 12 to discovery of MO1/red colour Hero Passion Plus Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP37BA2400 and other material objects.

24. The evidence of PW2 further shows that the police seized

Glamour bike Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP37F0732 at Mini Bye

Pass road, Eluru, from the possession of A1 and A2, who were apprehended by the police while they were proceeding on that bike.

25. PW2 further stated in his evidence that on the same day, A1 and

A2 led them to the shop of A2 situated at Nizampeta at Gudiwada bearing

Door No.2/282-1 near Bye-pass road and that he had shown fourteen(14) vehicles placed at the shop and PW4 seized those fourteen(14) vehicles. His evidence shows that PW4 seized the seven bikes pertaining to Eluru III Town

P.S., and also seized seven bikes pertaining to various crimes which includes red colour Hero Passion Plus Motorcycle bearing registration

No.AP37BA2400/MO1 said to have been stolen at CMR shopping Mall, near

New Bus stand, Eluru.

26. In the cross-examination, PW2 admitted that police did not secure the presence of nearby shop keepers and standby persons. PW2 denied the suggestion that the mediators reports have been prepared at the police station and that he signed at the police station. He admitted that police seized the vehicle from A2. He voluntarily stated that A1 was also present along with A2.

He further admitted that except one vehicle on which A1 and A2 were proceeding no other vehicles were seized from them at the scene of offence.

27. The case of the prosecution is also the same as it also says that one vehicle was seized at Mini Bye-pass road, near Kranthi

Kalyanamandapam, Eluru. The above referred suggestions clearly proved that

A1 and A2 were found in possession of Glamour motorcycle bearing 13 registration No.AP37F0732. At this stage, it is relevant to refer Section 119(1) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

28. Section 119(1) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, speaks that a Man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.

29. In the instant case when A1 and A2 themselves admit that they were in possession of the above referred Hero Passion Plus motor cycle motorcycle and when they failed to explain as to how they got into the possession of the said vehicle, it clearly shows that A1 and A2 are the receivers of MO1 having knowledge that it is a stolen property.

30. The contents of Ex.P2/mediators report show that when A1 and

A2 gave information that they kept the motorcycles in the mechanic shed of

A2 and Ex.P3 shows that they led them to the mechanic shed of A2, bearing door No.2/282-1, Old Bye-pass road, Nizampeta, at Gudiwada and based on the information given by them the police seized MO1 having identified that it is the property pertaining to Cr.No.187/2025. Ex.P3 is admissible to the extent of information disclosed by A1 and A2 leading to recovery of MO1 pertaining to this case and other material objects pertaining to other crimes.

31. Though the learned counsel for A1 and A2, cross-examined Pw2 nothing important could be elicited from his evidence as A1 and A2 failed to explain for their possession over MO1. Moreover, Ex.P3 contains the signatures of A1 and A2, PW2 and PW4 etc., dt.29.07.2025.

32. No doubt, the counsel for A1 and A2 argued that the entire record was prepared in the police station as PW4 admitted that print out was taken at 14 the police station. However, though there is no consistency in the evidence of

PW4, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 coupled with the evidence of PW2, proved that A1 and

A2 were found in possession of stolen property as admitted by A1 and A2 based on their own suggestion and his evidence further proved that MO1 was recovered from the possession of A1 and A2 based on the confessional statement made by them individually as they furnished information that they kept the stolen vehicles at mechanic shed of A2 at Gudiwada. PW2 also identified A1 and A2, as the persons from whose possession initially Glamour

Bike bearing registration No.AP37F0732 was seized at Kranthi

Kalyanamandapam and based on whose confession, the prosecution seized

MO1 and other material objects at the mechanic shed of A2, who is none other than the brother of A1. Therefore, the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 and A2 for the charge under Section 317(2) of BNSS beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered against the appellants/A1 and A2.

Point No.2:

33. There are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned

Trial Court. However, taking into consideration the age of A1 and A2, the circumstances of the case under which they committed the offence, this Court is of the considered opinion that a lenient view shall be taken while imposing sentence.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed while confirming the conviction by modifying the sentence of imprisonment i.e., from the period of six months each, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three

Months each for the charge under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita(BNS), 2023 and the rest of the sentence holds good 15

The sentence in this case shall run concurrently with the sentence in other connecting Crl.Appeal Nos.43/2026, 45/2026, 46/2026, 47/2026, 48/2026 and 49/2026.

The period of sentence already undergone by A1 and A2 shall be given set off under Section 468 of BNSS. A1 and A2 are in judicial custody from 24.02.2026 to till date.

The A1 and A2 are informed about their right of preferring appeal

Property: The custody of MO1/red colour Hero Passion Plus Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP37BA2400, which was already given towards interim custody to PW1 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-S.Sreedevi

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral and documentary evidence is adduced on either side. Id/-S.Sreedevi P.D.J., W.G., Eluru. Copy to: The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile) for Trial of cases under PCR Act at Eluru-cum-III Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Eluru(Along with entire Lower Court record )

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSISONS JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI DIVISION, ELURU.

Present: Smt. Siripurapu Sreedevi,

Principal Sessions Judge,

West Godavari, Eluru.

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 43 of 2026

From what Court the appeal :Special Judicial Magistrate of First isClass(Mobile) for Trial of cases under PCR Act at Eluru-cum-III Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Eluru.

:C.C.No.595/2025. No. of the case in that Court

No. of the Criminal Appeal:Criminal Appeal No.43/2026

Name and Description of the :1. Syed Rajak S/o Majid, Muslim, Male, Aged 50 years, R/o Mubharak Centre, Gudivada Appellant Town, Krishna District.

2.Syed Kareemullah Shavali @ Vali S/o. Majid, Muslim, Male, Aged 45 years, R/o.Mubharak Centre, Gudivada Town, Krishna District.

Name and description of the :The State rep. by its Public Prosecutor W.G., Eluru. Complainant/respondent.

The Sentence and Law and : In the result, A1 and A2 are not guilty for the charge under sections 303(2) of BNS. which it was imposed in the Accordingly, they both are acquitted under Lower Court Section 265(1) of B.N.S.S. However, A1 and A2 are guilty of charge under section 317(2) of BNS. Accordingly, A1 and A2 are convicted 2 under section 265(2) BNSS, for which, A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for Six months each and also sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.500/- each for the said charge and in default of payment of fine amount, A1 and A2 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period one month each.

It is made clear that, the period of sentence of six months sentence ordered against A1 and A2 in this case shall run concurrently, along with the period of sentence of six months ordered in CC No.556/2025, CC.No. 588/2025, and CC No.589/2025, CC No.591/2025, CC No.592/2025 and CC No.593/2025 respectively. The accused shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/- in each case. In the event of default in payment of the fine, A1 and A2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month each for each case, with the default terms to run concurrently. Accordingly, the total period of imprisonment shall be six (6) months each, and the total fine payable shall be Rs.3,500/- each, subject to default terms as above.

The property covered by MO1 was already given to PW1 vide Crl.M.P.No.50/2026 and the same shall be made absolute after the expiry of appeal time

Whether confirmed, modified : or reversed and if modified

M O D I F I E D.

the modification

Date of presentation:06.03.2026

Date of filing:1103.2026

Date of notice issued :11.03.2026 3

Date of Bail bond:--

Date of appearance:18.03.2026

Date of hearing:31.03.2026

Date of Judgment:17.04.2026

This appeal is coming on 31.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Vidyasagar, Advocate for Appellants/A1 and A2 and

Public Prosecutor, for the State/respondent and on perusal of grounds of appeal and the evidence available 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 appellants-Syed Razak and Syed Karimulla Shavali are A1 and A2 in the Trial Court, who preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of

First Class(Mobile) for Trial of cases under PCR Act at Eluru-cum-III Additional

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Eluru, in C.C.No.595/2025 dt.24.02.2026 and the

parties to the appeal hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the Trial Court and the brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

(a) On 15.07.2025 the informant viz., Uppala Naveen Babu parked his

Hero Glamour motorcycle bearing registration No.AP16CZ1178 at about 11 a.m., so as to have break-fast at Kubera Hotel, in front of CMR Shopping

Mall. At about 11.30 a.m., when he returned to the place of parking, he found that it was missing. He searched for the vehicle surrounding the place where he parked the vehicle but in vain. As he could not get any information till 27.07.2025, he gave Ex.P1/report to the police.

4

(b) On the report given by the informant/PW1, P.Rambabu/SI of Eluru III

Town P.S./PW3 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.186/2025 for the offence under Section 303(2) of BNS on 27.07.2025 at about 8.30 p.m., and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, PW3 examined PW1 and four others and recorded their statements. PW3 observed the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch.

(c) On 29.07.2025 at about 6.00 a.m., PW3 received some credible information and secured the presence of M.Srinivas/PW2/VRO and

K.Sirisha/LW7 to Mini Byepass road, near Kranthi Kalyanamandapam road and started conducting vehicle checking in the presence of mediators. He found two persons coming on motorcycle, who tried to escape by looking at police having turned their motorcycle and then the police apprehended them with the assistance of his staff and interrogated them. Both A1 and A2 who are brothers disclosed their identity particulars and confessed that they have stolen away the motorcycles and kept them in the mechanic shed of A2. PW3 arrested A1 and A2 on 29.07.2025 in Cr.No.181/2025 of Eluru III Town P.S., for the offence under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 and recovered Hero Glamour motorcycle bearing registration No.AP39F0732.

Based on their confessional statement, being led by A1 and A2, they rushed to

Gudiwada and seized 14 motorcycles from their possession, pertaining to various crimes in the presence of PW2 and Kammula Sirisha/LW7. One of the vehicles was identified as the stolen property pertaining to Cr.No.186/2025 of

Eluru III Town P.S.

(d) On 23.08.2025 the property was given to the interim custody of the informant. A1 and A2 are the habitual offenders and they got the habit of 5 committing similar offences. After completion of investigation, PW3 filed the charge sheet.

2. Cognizance was taken under section 303(2) and alternatively under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023.

3. On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of documents were furnished to them under section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 and A1 and A2 were examined under section 262 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 regarding the accusation made against them and charge under Section 303(2) alternatively under

Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses on its behalf as PWs.1 to 3 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P5 and

MO1.

5. After the closure of the evidence of prosecution, A1 and A2 were examined under section 351 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023, regarding the incriminating material placed against them for which, they denied and reported no oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

6. The trial court framed the following point for determination:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 303(2) or 317(2) of BNS?

7. After having heard the rival contentions of both sides, the learned

Trial Court acquitted A1 and A2 under Section 265(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik 6

Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 for the offence under Section 303(2) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 and further found that A1 and A2 are guilty for the offence under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six months each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of One(01) month each and further held that the sentences in this case shall run concurrently along with the period of sentences ordered in CC No.556/2025, CC.No. 588/2025, CC

No.595/2025, CC No.592/2025, CC No.591/2025 and CC No.593/2025 respectively.

8. Being aggrieved by the findings of the Trial Court, the appellants preferred the appeal on the following grounds:

The Trial Court ought to have seen that the informant did not identify the appellants/A1 and A2 and the police filed FIR against unknown offenders and the defacto-complainant identified the appellants through police in the court premises. The Trial Court ought to have seen that the police falsely implicated A1 and A2 for statistical purposes based on the pressure of higher officials and also implicated them in another seven(07) crimes and the evidence of PW1 is highly suspicious regarding the possession of the vehicles. The Trial Court ought to have seen that the police have not filed relevant documents for seizing the property and photos of motorcycles from the shop of appellants/A1 and A2. The Trial Court ought to have seen that the police falsely seized the motorcycle from the possession of A1 and A2 and thereby the appellants No.1 and 2/A2 and A2 prayed the Court to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants in C.C.No.595/2025 for the charge under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023, 7

dt. 24.02.2026 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile)

for Trial of cases under PCR Act at Eluru-cum-III Additional Civil Judge(Junior

Division), Eluru.

9. Now the points for determination are:

1) Whether the prosecution proved the charge under Section

317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 beyond

reasonable doubt?

2) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the findings

of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile)

for Trial of cases under PCR Act at Eluru-cum-III Additional Civil

Judge(Junior Division), Eluru?

10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned

Public Prosecutor.

11. POINT NO.1: The case of the prosecution is that on 15.07.2025 the informant viz., Uppala Naveen Babu, parked his Hero Glamour motorcycle bearing registration No.AP16CZ1178, at about 11 a.m., so as to have break- fast at Kubera Hotel, in front of CMR Shopping Mall. At about 11.30 a.m., when he returned to the place of parking, he found that it was missing. He searched for the vehicle surrounding the place where he parked the vehicle, but in vain. As he could not get any information till 27.07.2025, he gave

Ex.P1/report to the police and basing on his report, the Investigation Officer concerned took up investigation, arrested A1 and A2 at New Bye-pass road,

Eluru. Based on their confessional statement, they proceeded to Gudiwada to the shop of A2 and recovered MO1 from their possession and 13 other vehicles.

12. The learned Counsel for A1 and A2 argued that the Trial Court erroneously convicted A1 and A2 though PW1 never identified A1 and A2 and the entire record was prepared in the police station as the Investigating 8

Officer/PW3 himself admitted that he took out the print out of mediators report at the police station and that it shows that the investigation conducted by the

Investigation Officer is perfunctory.

13. By way of reply, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the learned Trial Court convicted A1 and A2 for the charge under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 but not for the charge under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023. He further argued that confession made by A1 and A2 led to the discovery of MO1 pertaining to this case and various other properties pertaining to other crimes. He also argued that MO1 and other properties were seized from their possession and they failed to explain as to how they got into possession of MO1 and other properties. He also argued that the learned Trial Court rightly convicted A1 and A2.

14. The Trial Court acquitted A1 and A2 for the charge under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 while convicting A1 and A2 for the charge under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023. So, any amount of evidence let in by the prosecution with reference to the charge under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 shall not be discussed and shall not be looked into as the prosecution has not challenged the finding given by the trial Court in respect of the charge under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023

15. Coming to the charge under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita(BNS), 2023, the prosecution has to prove that A1 and A2 dishonestly received MO1 or retained MO1 knowing or having reason to believe that the same is a stolen property.

9

16. The evidence of informant/Uppala Naveen Babu/PW1 shows that on 15.07.2025 he went to Kubera Hotel situated near CMR shopping Mall, at about 11.00 a.m., and parked his vehicle and later he returned to the place of parking at about 11.30 a.m., and found that his vehicle was missing. He further stated that he searched for the vehicle near the place of incident and around the vicinity but in vain and then he gave Ex.P1/report to the police on 27.07.2025. His evidence further shows that based on the information given by the police, he went to the police station as police informed him that his bike was traced out and he identified his vehicle and received the same i.e.,

MO1/Hero Glamour motorcycle bearing registration No.AP16CZ1178.

17. It is not the contention of the appellants/A1 and A2 that they purchased MO1/Hero Glamour motorcycle bearing registration

No.AP16CZ1178. The evidence of PW1 shows that while he was in lawful possession of the property it was removed from his possession when he went inside the Mall.

18. The evidence of P.Rambabu/SI of Police, Eluru III Town P.S./PW3 shows that on 27.07.2025 at about 8.30 p.m., PW1 came to the police station and presented Ex.P1/report and then he registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.186/2025 under Sections 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 and submitted Ex.P4/FIR to the Court while furnishing copies to the concerned. The evidence of PW3 further shows that he examined the witnesses and visited the scene of offence situated at Kubera Hotel, Eluru and prepared Ex.P5/rough sketch. Ex.P5/rough sketch shows that PW3 visited the area where the informant/ PW1 parked his vehicle.

19. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that there is an abnormal delay in lodging the FIR. However, the report itself shows that PW1 10 searched for the vehicle in and around Kubera Hotel and as he could not found his vehicle and as it was not traced out till 27.07.2025, he gave

Ex.P1/report to the police. Therefore, the prosecution explained the reason for delay as seen from the contents of Ex.P1.

20. The evidence of PW3 further shows that on 29.07.2025 on reliable information he arrested A1 and A2 in Cr.No.181/2025 and recovered 15 vehicles including MO1 at the shop of A2 located at Gudiwada and both the accused were sent to Court for judicial custody. He further stated that after their release from the jail, he served notices under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 and received explanation from them.

He also stated that on information, PW1 came to police station and received the vehicle under acknowledgment and later he filed charge sheet. PW3 has not specified the place of arrest of A1 and A2 though stated about the recovery of MO1 and other properties at the shop of A2 located at Gudiwada.

Further, in the cross-examination, PW3 stated that at about 5.30a.m., they went to Mini Bypass road nearby Kranthi Kalyana Mandapam and that he did not secure the information regarding the existence of CC camera nearby the place of seizure of MO1. He denied the suggestion that he never recovered

MO1 from the shop of A2 at Gudiwada.

21. To fasten the liability against A1 and A2 for the charge under

Section 317(2) of BNS, the prosecution has to prove that the accused dishonestly retained the stolen property having knowledge or reason to believe that the property is a stolen property.

22. In the instant case the evidence of one of the mediators viz.,

M.Srinivas, who was examined as PW2 shows that he rushed to Eluru III

Town P.S., along with LW7/K.Sirisha at the instance of PW3 and from there 11 they accompanied the police personnel to Mini Bye pass road, Eluru and found A1 and A2, who tried to skulk away by looking at police and on that

PW3 apprehended them and during interrogation they revealed their identity particulars and confessed that they have stolen away Glamour bike bearing registration No.AP37F0732 near Kranthi Kalyanamandapam in the 2nd week of

May, 2025 and further confessed that they have stolen away nearly 15 vehicles from different areas i.e., from opposite to shopping malls, hotels and indoor stadium etc. His evidence further shows that the individual statements of A1 and A2 are replica and A1 confessed that all the vehicles were kept at the mechanic shop being run by A2 at Gudiwada and that he typed

Ex.P2/mediators report on the Lop-top given by the police and got the print outs from the printer available with the police in their jeep. Ex.P2/mediators report dt.29.07.2025, is admissible to the extent of showing the information given by A1 and A2 that they kept the motorbikes that were stolen away by them at the mechanic shop of A2 situated at Gudiwada.

23. As seen from the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.P2, it shows that A1 and A2 made confessional statements furnishing information leading to discovery of MO1/Hero Glamour motorcycle bearing registration

No.AP16CZ1178 and other material objects.

24. The evidence of PW2 further shows that the police seized

Glamour bike Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP37F0732 at Mini Bye

Pass road, Eluru, from the possession of A1 and A2, who were apprehended by the police while they were proceeding on that bike.

25. PW2 further stated in his evidence that on the same day, A1 and

A2 lead them to the shop of A2 situated at Nizampeta at Gudiwada bearing

Door No.2/282-1 near Bye-pass road and that he had shown fourteen(14) 12 vehicles placed at the shop and PW3 seized those fourteen(14) vehicles. His evidence shows that PW3 seized the seven bikes pertaining to Eluru III Town

P.S., and also seized seven bikes pertaining to various crimes which includes

Hero Glamour motorcycle bearing registration No.AP16CZ1178/MO1 said to have been stolen at Kubera Hotel, Eluru.

26. In the cross-examination, PW2 admitted that police did not secure the presence of nearby shop keepers and standby persons. PW2 denied the suggestion that the mediators reports have been prepared at the police station and that he signed at the police station. He admitted that police seized the vehicle from A2. He voluntarily stated that A1 was also present along with A2.

He further admitted that except one vehicle on which A1 and A2 were proceeding no other vehicles were seized from them at the scene of offence.

27. The case of the prosecution is also the same as it also says that one vehicle was seized at Mini Bye-pass road, near Kranthi

Kalyanamandapam, Eluru. The above referred suggestions clearly proved that

A1 and A2 were found in possession of Glamour motorcycle bearing registration No.AP37F0732. At this stage, it is relevant to refer Section 119(1) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

28. Section 119(1) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, speaks that a Man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.

29. In the instant case when A1 and A2 themselves admit that they were in possession of the above referred Glamour motorcycle and when they failed to explain as to how they got into the possession of the said vehicle, it 13 clearly shows that A1 and A2 are the receivers of MO1 having knowledge that it is a stolen property.

30. The contents of Ex.P2/mediators report shows that A1 and A2 gave information that they kept the motorcycles in the mechanic shed of A2 and Ex.P3 shows that they led them to the mechanic shed of A2, bearing door No.2/282-1, Old Bye-pass road, Nizampeta, at Gudiwada and based on the information given by them the police seized MO1 having identified that it is the property pertaining to Cr.No.186/2025. Ex.P3 is admissible to the extent of information disclosed by A1 and A2 leading to recovery of MO1 pertaining to this case and other material objects pertaining to other crimes.

31. Though the learned counsel for A1 and A2, cross-examined Pw2 nothing important could be elicited from his evidence as A1 and A2 failed to explain for their possession over MO1. Moreover, Ex.P3 contains the signatures of A1 and A2, PW2 and PW3 etc., dt.29.07.2025.

32. No doubt, the counsel for A1 and A2 argued that the entire record was prepared in the police station as PW3 admitted that print out was taken at the police station. However, though there is no consistency in the evidence of

PW3, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 coupled with the evidence of PW2, proved that A1 and

A2 were found in possession of stolen property as admitted by A1 and A2 based on their own suggestion and his evidence further proved that MO1 was recovered from the possession of A1 and A2 based on the confessional statement made by them individually as they furnished information that they kept the stolen vehicles at mechanic shed of A2 at Gudiwada. PW2 also identified A1 and A2, as the persons from whose possession initially Glamour

Bike bearing registration No.AP37F0732 was seized at Kranthi

Kalyanamandapam and based on whose confession, the prosecution seized 14

MO1/Hero Glamour motorcycle bearing registration No.AP16CZ1178 and other material objects at the mechanic shed of A2, who is none other than the brother of A1. Therefore, the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 and A2 for the charge under Section 317(2) of BNSS beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly,

Point No.1 is answered against the appellants/A1 and A2.

Point No.2:

33. There are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned

Trial Court. However, taking into consideration the age of A1 and A2, the circumstances of the case under which they committed the offence, this Court is of the considered opinion that a lenient view shall be taken while imposing sentence.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed while confirming the conviction by modifying the sentence of imprisonment i.e., from the period of six months each, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three

Months each for the charge under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita(BNS), 2023 and the rest of the sentence holds good.

The sentence in this case shall run concurrently with the sentence in other connecting Crl.Appeal Nos. 44/2026, 45/2026, 46/2026, 47/2026, 48/2026 and 49/2026.

The period of sentence already undergone by A1 and A2 shall be given set off under Section 468 of BNSS. A1 and A2 are in judicial custody from 24.02.2026 to till date.

The A1 and A2 are informed about their right of preferring appeal 15

Property: The custody of MO1/Hero Glamour motorcycle bearing registration No.AP16CZ1178, which was already given towards interim custody to PW1 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-S.Sreedevi

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral and documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Id/-S.Sreedevi P.D.J., W.G., Eluru. Copy to:

The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile) for Trial of cases

under PCR Act at Eluru-cum-III Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Eluru(Along with entire Lower Court record)

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSISONS JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI DIVISION, ELURU.

Present: Smt. Siripurapu Sreedevi,

Principal Sessions Judge,

West Godavari, Eluru.

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2026.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 68 of 2024

From what Court the appeal : Special Judicial Magistrate of First is Class(Excise)-cum-IV Additional Civil

Judge(Junior Division), Eluru.

: C.C.No.127/2018. No. of the case in that Court

No. of the Criminal Appeal : Criminal Appeal No.68/2024

Name and Description of the : The State represented by SI of Police, Pedapadu PS., represented by Public Appellant Prosecutor, W.G., Eluru.

Name and description of the : 1.Yendam Anil Kumar S/o.Chiranjeevi, aged 24 years, R/o.Denduluru Village and Mandal, Complainant/respondent. West Godavari District. 2.Gandivalasa Anil Kumar S/o.Vishnu, aged 24 years, R/o.Sakalakothapalli village, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District.

The Sentence and Law and : In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 or which it was imposed in the 411 of Indian Penal Code and they are Lower Court accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

2

The Bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Property:M.Os. 1 to 9 which were given interim custody to PW1 shall be retained with him on the same conditions imposed earlier till the expiry of the appeal time.

Whether confirmed, modified : or reversed and if modified

C O N F I R M E D

the modification

Date of presentation : 11.12.2019

Date of filing : 06.04.2024

Date of notice issued : 06.04.2024

Date of Bail bond : --

Date of appearance : R1-02.12.2024

Date of hearing : 27.02.2026

Date of Judgment : 22.04.2026

This appeal is coming on 27.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Public Prosecutor, for the Appellant/State and of

Sri.B.Balaji, learned counsel for 1 st respondent and the case against 2 nd

respondent is dismissed for default and on perusal of grounds of appeal and the evidence available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 3

J U D G M E N T

The appellant is the SHO., Pedupadu P.S., being represented by its

Public Prosecutor, W.G., Eluru, who is the complainant in the Trial Court, who preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the calendar and judgment passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Excise)-cum-IV

Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Eluru, in C.C.No.127/2018

dt.05.03.2019 and the parties to the appeal hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the Trial Court and the brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

(a) On 22.11.2017 the informant viz., Biruduraju Prabhakara Rao/PW1 went to Hyderabad to attend the marriage of his relative. On 24.11.2017 during evening hours, the Dobi of the informant came to the house of informant situated at Pedapadu Village behind Petrol Bunk and found that the doors of his house were opened and then she called the neighbours and had shown the same. On the same day, she informed the same to the informant over phone. On coming to know the same, PW1 and LW2/B.Prameela Rani, wife of PW1 returned to their house situated at Pedapadu village during morning hours of 25.11.2017 and found that some unknown offenders gained entrance into their house and have broken the locks of the door, opened the iron safe with the keys available in their house and have stolen away gold and silver ornaments i.e., silver Kumkuma Barinalu(four in number), Silver Dipapu

Simme, Silver bowls(two in number) Silver glass(one), six pairs of gold ear studs, gold Papidibilla with chain, Rudrakshabeeds and cash of Rs.4,000/- from one Almarah and cash of Rs.10,000/- from another Almarah and two

CELCON phones bearing SIM No.9392809930.

(b) On the report given by PW1, the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Pedapadu P.S.,/PW3 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.247/2017 under 4

Sections 457 and 380 of IPC., of Pedapadu Police Station on 25.11.2017 at 10.00 a.m., and took up investigation.

(c) During the course of investigation, PW3 examined PW1 and recorded his statement on 25.11.2017. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. He secured the presence of

B.Prameel Rani/LW2/wife of PW1, G.Seetha, G.Ashok and

P.Appalanaidu/L.Ws. 3 to 5 examined them and recorded their statements.

L.Ws. 4 and 5 are the neighbours and LW3 is the individual who informed

PW1 at the earliest point of time about the theft.

(d) PW3 arrested the accused on 23.12.2017 at 12.00 noon at burial ground near cattle sandy, Appannaveedu Village, Pedapadu Mandal, where they confessed about the commission of the offence in the presence of the mediators viz., Shaik Babu Saheb, VRO/PW2 and N.Chandrahas/VRA/LW7.

PW3 recovered the part of the stolen property i.e., (i) red and black colour

CELCON Cell phone (ii) Gold Papidibilla having red and green colour enamel paint (iii) One pair of Gold Small Ear studs with white stones (iv) One pair of gold small Ear studs with green stones (v) One pair of gold Ear studs with red stones (vi) Gold Rudraksha flowers/two in number from the possession of A1.

(e)PW3 further recovered part of the stolen property i.e., (i) Silver

Deepapukunde having Lakshmidevi Idol (ii) big and small silver Kumkuma

Barinalu(Four in number) (iii) one big silver bowl (iv) One small silver bowl

(v) One black and red colour CELCON company cell phone (vi) A Cannon

Camera containing silver power shot A 4000 letters from the possession of

A2 on his confession, in the presence of PW2 and LW7 under the cover of mediators report and sent them to Court for remand.

5

(f) After completion of investigation PW3 filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Cognizance was taken under sections 457, 380 and alternatively under Section 411 of IPC.

3. On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 of Cr.P.C. and A1 and A2 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., regarding the accusation made against them and charge under Sections 457 and 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses on its behalf as PWs.1 to 3 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P4 and

MOs.1 to 9.

5. After the closure of the evidence of prosecution, A1 and A2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., regarding the incriminating material placed against them for which, they denied and reported no oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

6. The Trial Court framed the following point for determination:

“Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of A1 and A2 of the offences under Sections 457 and 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. Having heard the rival contentions of both sides, the learned Trial

Court acquitted A1 and A2 under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence under Sections 457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, while ordering that

M.Os.1 to 9 that were given to the interim custody of PW1 shall be retained by 6 him on the same conditions imposed by him earlier till the expiry of appeal time.

8. Being aggrieved by the findings of the Trial Court, the appellant/complainant/State preferred the appeal on the following grounds:

The judgment of the Trial Court in acquitting the accused is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; The Trial Court ought to have sentenced the accused/respondents to a maximum punishment provided under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court ought to have held that PW3 followed the procedure contemplated under Section 100(4) of

Cr.P.C., at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of property; The Trial

Court failed to consider that PW3 had taken the assistance of PW2 (VRO) and

VRA, who are Government employees and respectable persons; The Trial

Court erroneously came to a conclusion that Ex.P2-confessional statement was not made by A1 based on the admission of PW2 that Ex.P2 was dictated by ASI of Police; The Trial Court failed to consider that as per the prosecution case the ASI of Police, did not accompany PW3 at the time of arrest of accused; The Trial Court ought to have held that the admission made by PW2 is only a minor contradiction and thereby could have convicted the accused;

The Trial Court ought to have held that the confession of the accused lead to the recovery of M.Os. 1 to 9 from the possession of the accused, which is admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act and thereby could have convicted the accused for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal

Code. The Trial Court failed to consider that the accused has not accounted for the property and they have not offered any explanation for possessing

M.Os. 1 to 9; The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW2 who stated that based on the confessional statement made by P.Ws. 1 and 2, 7

PW3 recovered the stolen property from them; The Trial Court failed to consider that there are catena of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court and various

High courts that there is no hard and fast rule to secure VRO and VRA of the locality where the accused were arrested and where the property was seized, when the Investigating Officer has taken the assistance VRA and VRO on receipt of credible information about the accused; The Trial Court failed to consider that PW2 has no knowledge about the crime number and section of law and the same could be dictated by the Investigating Officer and the entire confessional statement was not dictated by the Investigation Officer. The Trial

Court ought to have held that the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is trustworthy and thereby could have convicted the accused. The appellant prayed the Court to set aside the order of acquittal of the accused in C.C.No.127/2018 dt.05.03.2019 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise- cum-IV Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Eluru and to convict the respondents and to sentence them for the offence under Section 411 of Indian

Penal Code.

9. Now the points for determination are:

1) Whether the prosecution proved the charge under Sections

457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?

2) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the findings

of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Excise) -

cum-IV Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Eluru?

10. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant/complainant and treated as no argument for the 1st respondent. The appeal is dismissed for default against the 2nd respondent as per the docket order dt.11.07.2025.

8

11. POINT NO.1: The case of the prosecution is that on 22.11.2017 the informant viz., Biruduraju Prabhakara Rao/PW1 went to Hyderabad to attend the marriage of his relatives and on 24.11.2017 during evening hours, the

Dhobi of the informant came to the house of informant situated at Pedapadu

Village behind Petrol Bunk and found that the doors of his house were opened and then she called the neighbours and had shown the same and on the same day, she informed the same to the informant over phone. On coming to know the same PW1 and LW2/B.Prameela Rani/ wife of PW1 returned to their house situated at Pedapadu village during morning hours of 25.11.2017 and found that some unknown offenders gained entrance into their house and have broken the locks of the door, opened the iron safe with the keys available in their house and have stolen away gold and silver ornaments i.e., silver

Kumkuma Barinalu(four in number), Silver Dipapu Simme, Silver bowls(two in number) Silver glass(one), six pairs of gold ear studs, gold Papidibilla with chain, Rudrakshabeeds and cash of Rs.4,000/- from one Almarah and cash of

Rs.10,000/- from another Almarah and two CELCON phones SIM

No.9392809930. It is it’s further case that on the report given by PW1 i.e.,

Ex.P1, PW3 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.274/2017 for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.

12. The learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant/complainant argued that the Trial Court erroneously acquitted the appellants No.1 and another(as the appeal was dismissed for default against 2nd respondent/A2) merely based on the admission made by PW2 that the mediators report was prepared to the dictation of ASI, though ASI never accompanied PW3 to the place of arrest of A1 and A2 as per the case of prosecution. The learned

Public Prosecutor for the appellant further argued that the accused failed to offer explanation for their possession over M.Os. 1 to 9 and so, the Trial Court 9 ought to have convicted the accused/A1 and A2/respondents for the charge under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code.

13. The contention of the 1st respondent /A1 as per the cross- examination made on his behalf is that the contents of Ex.P2 were prepared at the police station and the alleged confessional statement made by 1st respondent/A1 is not true and M.Os. 1 to 9 were planted by the prosecution.

14. Any amount of evidence let in by the appellant/prosecution pertaining to the 2nd respondent/A2 need not be looked into as the appeal was dismissed for default against the 2nd respondent/A2. Similarly, on perusal of the entire grounds of appeal the prosecution intends to challenge the finding of the learned Trial Court by contending that the Trial Court could have convicted 1st respondent/A1 and another for the charge under Section 411 of

Indian Penal Code.

15. The evidence of PW1 shows that on 22.11.2017 he went to

Hyderabad to attend a marriage having locked the doors of his house situated at Naidugudem road, Pedapadu village and returned home on 25.11.2017 and that he found that the locks of the doors of his house were broken. His evidence further shows that after entering into his house he found that (i) three(03) pairs of gold ear studs/MO1, (ii)one small size Papidibilla chain/MO2, (iii) one big silver bowl/MO3 (iv) One small silver bowl/MO4 (v)

One silver Diparadhana Kundi(Lakshmidevi/MO5) (vi) Four(04) silver kumkuma Barinelu/MO6 (vii) One CANON Company camera/MO7 (viii) red and black cell phones two in number/MO8 (ix) Two gold Rudraksha flowers/MO9 and cash of Rs.14,000/- were stolen away from the iron safe of his house and then he gave Ex.P1/report to the police. His evidence further shows that after one month of the incident, police informed him that some of 10 the properties were recovered from the culprits and that he obtained interim custody of M.Os. 1 to 9 by filing a petition.

16. To fasten the liability under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that A1 and another(as the appeal was dismissed for default against 2nd respondent/A2) committed lurking house trespass by breaking the locks of the main door of the house of PW1 with an intention to commit theft of the properties in the house of PW1. Similarly to fasten the liability under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that A1 and another had dishonestly stolen away M.Os. 1 to 9 from out of the possession of the informant without his consent from his house.

17. Coming to the evidence of PW1, he stated in the cross- examination that M.Os. 1 to 9 were stolen away from his house during his absence. He further stated that he does not know A1 and A2 and that he does not know whether A1 and A2 are responsible for the commission of theft of

M.Os. 1 to 9. Therefore, no liability can be fastened against 1st respondent /A1 for the charges under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code and the

Trial Court rightly acquitted them for the said charges.

18. Coming to the charge under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that 1st respondent/A1 and another(as the appeal was dismissed for default against 2nd respondent/A2) dishonestly received

MOs.1 to 9 or retained MOs.1 to 9 knowing or having reason to believe that the same is a stolen property.

19. The evidence of PW1 further shows that M.Os. 1 to 9 were stolen away from his house during his absence and he gave Ex.P1/report to the police. His evidence further shows that he obtained M.Os. 1 to 9 to his interim 11 custody. The evidence of PW1 shows that while he was in lawful possession of the property it was removed from his possession when he went to

Hyderabad.

20. The evidence of PW3/K.Rama Krishna/SI of Pedapadu P.S., shows that on 25.11.2017 at about 10.00 a.m., he received Ex.P1/report from

PW1 and he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.274/2017 under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code and issued Ex.P3/FIR, examined PW1 and recorded his statement.

21. The evidence of PW3 further shows that immediately, he visited the scene of offence and had drawn Ex.P4/rough sketch and examined L.Ws.

2 to 4 and recorded their statements. His evidence further shows that on 23.12.2017 at about 11 noon he received reliable information and rushed to burial ground near cattle sandy of Appanaveedu village along with PW2 –

N.Chandrahas/LW7 and his staff members and found two persons who tried to run away by looking at them and then he caught A1 and another and enquired them and that they disclosed their identity and confessed that they have stolen away M.Os. 1 to 9 from the house situated at Pedapadu and based on their confessional statement, he seized M.Os. 1 to 9 from the possession of A1 and another and arrested them under the cover of Ex.P2/mediators report and sent them to the court for judicial custody and later after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

22. The gist of his evidence shows that he found A1 and another(as case against A2 was dismissed for default) at burial ground near cattle shandy and seized MOs.1 to 9 from their possession under the cover of

Ex.P2/mediators report in the presence of PW2 and LW7.

12

23. The evidence of PW2/Shaik Babu Saheb/VRO of Sakala

Kothapalli shows that on 23.12.2017 at the instance of PW3, he proceeded to cattle market centre along with LW7 and at about 12.00 noon A1 and A2 tried to run away by looking at police and then the SI of Police apprehended A1 and

A2 and that they disclosed their identity particulars and based on their confessional statements, PW3 seized M.Os. 1 to 9 from the possession of A1 and another(As case against A2 is dismissed for default) in their presence under the cover of Ex.P2.

24. In the cross-examination, he made a crucial admission by stating that the cattle market is surrounded by the residential houses on all streets.

He further admitted that nearby the cattle market, there is no burial ground. He also admitted that cattle market area/Santha area is a busy locality and his evidence is quite contrary to the evidence of PW3, who stated that he found

A1 and A2 at burial ground near cattle shandy. There is any amount of inconsistency showing the place of recovery of M.Os.1 to 9 in between the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3.

25. Similarly, PW2 stated in the cross-examination that the contents of Ex.P2 were dictated by the ASI of Police. Though the learned Public

Prosecutor argued that it is not the case of the prosecution that the ASI of

Police accompanied PW3, there is no force in his contention since the evidence of PW2 shows that the police official (leaving about his designation) gave dictation for preparation of Ex.P2/mediators report.

26. Had PW2 stated in his evidence that the confessional statement made by A1 and another was reduced into writing in the form of

Ex.P2/mediators report to their say, certainly, the Court could have considered that based on their confessional statement alone M.Os. 1 to 9 were recovered 13 from the possession of A1 and another(As case against A2 is dismissed for default). The evidence of PW2 is not convincing to show that the confessional statement made by A1 and another person lead to the recovery of M.Os. 1 to 9.

27. The charge under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, can be proved by the prosecution only when the prosecution proves that A1 along with another person(as the appeal was dismissed for default against 2nd respondent/A2) were in possession of M.Os. 1 to 9, soon after the theft knowing or having reason to believe that they are stolen properties.

28. In the instant case, there is a discrepancy regarding the place of seizure of M.Os. 1 to 9 from the possession of A1 and another(As case against A2 is dismissed for default). Even as per Ex.P2/mediators report, it shows that on 23.12.2017, A1 and another(as the appeal was dismissed for default against 2nd respondent/A2) were apprehended at burial ground near cattle shandy on a road. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 is not in corroboration to the evidence of PW3, whose evidence is in corroboration to the contents of Ex.P2/mediators report. Since, the evidence of PW2 who is an independent witness shows that to the dictation of police official, Ex.P2 was prepared, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that A1 and another person(as the appeal was dismissed for default against 2nd respondent/A2) are the receivers of M.Os. 1 to 9 stolen properties.

Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered against the prosecution holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges under Sections 457, 380 or 411 of

Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt.

14

Point No.2:

29. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned

Trial Court.

In the result, the Criminal appeal is dismissed confirming the calendar and Judgment passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First

Class(Excise)-cum-IV Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Eluru, in

C.C.No.127/2018, dated 05-03-2019.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 22nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-S.Sreedevi

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral and documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Id/-S.S.D P.D.J., W.G., Eluru. Copy to:

The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Excise), Eluru -cum-IV

Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Eluru(Along with entire material

part of Lower Court record) 15 //T.C.B.O//

Chief Administrative Officer, Prl.District Court, W.G., Eluru

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

WEST GODAVARI: AT ELURU.

Present: SMT. SIRIPURAPU SREEDEVI

Principal District Judge,

WEST GODAVARI: AT ELURU. Wednesday, on this the 22nd day of April, 2026

DIVORCE ORIGINAL PETITION No.257/2025

Between:

1. Thatipudi Kishor Kumar, S/o Thatipudi Ganga Raju, Aged 35 years, Christian, Male, R/o D.No.16a-2-250, Ambedkar Nagar,

Tangallamudi, Eluru, Eluru Mandal.

2. Smt. Thatipudi Mamatha Rani, W/o Tahtipudi Kishor Kumar, Aged 33 years, Christian, Female, R/o D.No. 13-01, SC.Colony,

Gundugolanu Village, Bhimadole Mandal, Eluru.

… Petitioners.

And

NIL … Respondent.

This petition is coming on 21.04.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Seela Jaya Babu, learned counsel for petitioners; respondent shown as NIL; upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

The petitioners filed this original petition under Section 10(A) of

Divorce Act seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent and the brief case of the petitioners is as follows:-

(a) On 28.09.2009 the marriage of the petitioners was performed at the house of the 1st petitioner situated at Tangallamudi, Eluru Mandal as per Christian rites and their caste customs and their marriage was consummated. They lived together happily till 02.02.2019. During their wedlock they were blessed with one female child and one male child by 2D.O.P. No.257/2025

PDJ Court, Eluru

name Thatipudi Divya Sri born on 02.07.2011 and Thatipudi Yesu Raju born on 15.04.2016 and they are studying 8th class and 5th class respectively. Subsequently, disputes arose in between them and the petitioners are not in a position to lead marital life. They placed the matter

before their elders to pacify their disputes, but their efforts turned futile.

Though, the elders and family members of the petitioners gave counseling to them, their issues were not pacified. The petitioners decided to settle their matter amicably before the elders and to get divorce by mutual consent through court.

b) The 1st petitioner agreed to look after his children by providing amenities to them. The 1st petitioner also agreed to send the minor children to the house of the 2nd petitioner, whenever the minor children get holidays. Both the petitioners agreed to get their paraphernalia, duly exchanged. They further agreed that all the properties owned by the 1st petitioner shall be transferred to his children for their enjoyment after his lifetime. The petitioners have been residing away from each other for the past 5 years.

2. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek

the relief of divorce by mutual consent?

2. To what relief ?

3. The petitioners got themselves examined as PW1 and PW2 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A5 on their behalf.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. Point No.1: P.Ws. 1 and 2 reiterated their respective contentions during the course of their evidence in all material particulars and the gist of their evidence shows that their marriage was performed on 28.09.2009 at the house of the 1st petitioner situated at Tangellamudi,

Eluru as per Christian rites and their caste customs and their marriage 3D.O.P. No.257/2025

PDJ Court, Eluru

was duly consummated. Ex.A1 – Wedding Card, Ex.A2- consisting photograph corresponding CD, EX.A3-Marriage Certificate proved that their marriage was performed at Tangellamudi.

6. Their evidence further shows that the 2nd petitioner joined the 1st petitioner to lead marital life and they were blessed with one female child and one male child namely as T. Divya Sri and T. Yesu Raju Teja. Their evidence further shows that disputes arose in between them and they have been residing away from each other for the past 5 years and the efforts made by their elders for their re-union turned futile. However, the elders of the petitioners advised them to settle their issues amicably and consequently, the 1st petitioner agreed to look after his two children and agreed to transfer all the properties acquired by him in the name of his children only for their enjoyment after his lifetime. PW.1 further stated that he has been taking care of his two children and that they are staying with him and agreed to send the minor children to the house of the 2nd petitioner, whenever minor children get holidays. The evidence of PW.2 also shows that her husband agreed to send the minor children to her house, whenever, the minor children get holidays. It clearly shows that the marital tie in between the petitioners had been irrevocably broken and there is no chance of their reunion. Hence, Point.No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners holding that the petitioners are entitled to seek the relief of dissolution of their marriage, dt 28.09.2009 by mutual consent.

7. Point No.2

In the result, the petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage between the petitioners dated 28.09.2009 by granting decree of divorce.

Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 22 nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-S. Sreedevi

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

4D.O.P. No.257/2025

PDJ Court, Eluru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENT

P.W.1 : Thatipudi Kishor Kumar -None-

P.W.2 : Thatipudi Mamatha Rani

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.A.1 / --- : Wedding Card

Ex.A.2 / --- : One positive photo along with Corresponding CD

Ex.A.3/ --- : Marriage Certificate Ex.A.4/ --- : Photostat copy of Aadhar card of PW1 (Compared with original)

Ex.A.5/ --- : Photostat copy of Aadhar card of PW2 (Compared with original)

FOR RESPONDENT: --Nil--

Sd/-S. Sreedevi

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

WEST GODAVARI: AT ELURU.

Present: SMT. SIRIPURAPU SREEDEVI

Principal District Judge,

WEST GODAVARI: AT ELURU. Tuesday, on this the 21st day of April, 2026

DIVORCE ORIGINAL PETITION No.242/2025

Between:

1. Smt. Songa Nagamani, W/o Hareesh Babu, D/o Epuri Krishna,

Christian, Female, Aged 32 years, Housewife, R/o D.No. 5-114,

Near Kranthi Transports, Chintalapudi Road, Kamavarapukota

Village and Mandal, Eluru.

2. Songa Hareesh Babu, S/o Laskhmanudu, Christian, Male, Aged:

32 years, Private Job, R/o D.No.7-218, Pathuru Village,

Kamavarapukoa Mandal, Eluru District.

… Petitioners.

And

NIL … Respondent.

This petition is coming on 20.04.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Ch. Nageswara Rao, learned counsels for petitioners; respondent shown as NIL; upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

The petitioners filed this original petition under Section 10(A) of

Divorce Act seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent and the brief case of the petitioners is as follows:-

(a) The marriage of the petitioners was performed on 20.02.2017 at

WME Church, Chintalapudi, W.G.District, duly solemnized by

Rev.P. Simon Samson as per Christian rites and their caste customs in 2D.O.P. No.242/2025

PDJ Court, Eluru

the presence of their parents, relatives, friends and elders and their marriage was duly consummated. After the marriage, the 1st petitioner joined the 2nd petitioner at his house situated at Pathuru Village,

Kamavarapukota Mandal and they were blessed with one female child by name as Songa Aanvika aged about 6 years.

(b) The petitioners lived together for one year and subsequently disputes arose in between them and they used to quarrel with each other quite often and unable to live together. Their parents, elders, relatives and well-wishers advised them to live together, but their efforts turned futile.

They developed eversion against each other and they have been residing away from each other since November 2021. The 1st petitioner filed a case under Section 498-A of IPC against the 2nd petitioner in C.C.No.

819/2022 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) cum Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Eluru. Later, the elders of the petitioners intervened and settled the matter in C.C.No.819/2022 and an award passed by the Lok Adalath on 05.07.2025. The 1st petitioner agreed to look after the welfare of the minor female child by name Songa Aanvika and he also agreed that the 2nd petitioner can see the minor female child and look after the welfare and other needs of the minor female child.

2. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek

the relief of divorce by mutual consent?

2. To what relief ?

3. The petitioners got themselves examined as PW1 and PW2 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A6 on their behalf.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. Point No.1: P.Ws. 1 and 2 reiterated their respective contentions during the course of their evidence in all material particulars and the gist of their evidence shows that their marriage was performed on 3D.O.P. No.242/2025

PDJ Court, Eluru

20.02.2017 at WME Church, Chintalapudi, W.G.District, duly solemnized by Rev.P. Simon Samson as per Christian rites and their caste customs in the presence of their parents, relatives, friends and elders and their marriage was duly consummated. During their wedlock they were blessed with one female child by name Songa Aanvika aged about 6 years..

Ex.A1 – Marriage Certificate, Ex.A2-Wedding Card, EX.A3 consisting one marriage photo corresponding CD show that their marriage was performed at WME Church, Chintalapudi, W.G.District.

6. Their evidence further shows that after one year some disputes arose in between them and they have been living separately since

November 2021. Their evidence further shows that the efforts made by their parents, friends, relatives and elders for their reunion, turned futile.

Their evidence further shows that at the instance of their elders, they settled the matter in C.C.No. 819/2022 filed by the 1st petitioner under Sec 498-A of IPC before Lok Adalat on 05.07.2025. It clearly shows that the marital tie in between them had been irrevocably broken and there is no chance of their reunion. Hence, Point.No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners holding that the petitioners are entitled to seek the relief of dissolution of their marriage, dt 20.02.2017 by mutual consent.

7. Point No.2

In the result, the petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage between the petitioners dated 20.02.2017 by granting decree of divorce.

Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 21 st day of April, 2026.

//Sd/- S.Sreedevi //

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

4D.O.P. No.242/2025

PDJ Court, Eluru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENT

P.W.1 : Songa Nagamani -None-

P.W.2 : Songa Hareesh Babu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.A.1 / --- : Marriage Certificate

Ex.A.2 / --- : Wedding Card

Ex.A.3/ --- : One positive photo along with Corresponding CD Ex.A.4/ --- : Photostat copy of in LA.No. 1298/2025 in C.C.NO.819/2022 passed by the Lok Adalat, Eluru Ex.A.5/ --- : Photostat copy of Aadhar card of 1st petitioner (Compared with original)

Ex.A.6/ --- : Photostat copy of Aadhar card of 2nd petitioner (Compared with original)

FOR RESPONDENT: --Nil--

//Sd/- S.Sreedevi //

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.