1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
DHONE
PRESENT: SMT. SAKE JYOTHI,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
DHONE
Tuesday, the 10 th day of March, 2026
CALENDAR CASE No.1581/2025
Between:
State: Represented by Inspector of Police, Veldurthy Circle. . . . Complainant
A N D
1. Shahid @ Mohammad Shahid, age 35 years, S/o Rashid @ Abdul Rasheed, near Bilaal Mosque, Sabdaipur village Sabdaipur Rehra post., Akbarpur, Shiyapoor Mandal Bijnor District, Chandpur, Uttar pradesh (A1)
2. Suheb, aged 20 years, S/o Mohammad Shameem, near Government School, Sabdaipur vlillage, Sabdaipur Rehra post, Akbarpur, Shiyapoor mandal, Bijnor District, Chandpur, Uttar Pradesh (A2) . . . Accused
This case coming before me on 02-03-2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the prosecution and of Sri P. Aleem Basha and Sri S. Mohammad Rafi Advocates for the Accused no.1 and 2 and after hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
Judgment
1. The Inspector of Police, Veldurthy circle laid charge sheet against accused in crime No. 116/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 305(b) or 317(2) of
Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita(herein after referred as BNS) of Krishnagiri police station with the following allegations: The defacto complainant LW1/Pravin R.
Rawal is a native of Nagini village, Siroy District of Rajasthan State, Presently, he is living in Takara Basthi Market Street, Secunderabad city, Telangana state.
LW1/Pravin R. Rawal and his family members are living by doing wholesale 2 business of silver ornaments. LW1/ Pravin R. Rawal used to buy silver ornaments from Bangalore city for his business purpose and selling the same to the retail traders in Hyderabad and Secunderabad cities. LW1/ Pravin R. Rawal has being carried huge cash. So the LW1/ Pravin R. Rawal have boarded the buses at Hyderabad city that was carrying the huge amount. So it will be difficult for him if he fell into sleep. So LW1/ Pravin R. Rawal get off the buses in between
Hyderabad-Bangalore cities and boarding other buses and reached to Bangalore
City. As usually on 25-10-2025 at about 11:00 p.m., Lw1/ Pravin R. Rawal was left Hyderabad city with a view to buy silver ornaments in Bangalore city, by carrying an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from his house and reached to M.G.B.S,
Hyderabad at around 12:00 at midnight, then LW1/ Pravin R. Rawal boarded a bus and took a ticket up to Kurnool only, when the bus started which he boarded and when he reached to New Bus stand of Kurnool town. Then LW1/ Pravin R.
Rawal get down from the said bus and Immediately he was boarded another
APSRTC bus bearing Registration No. AP 02 Z 0589 belongs to Rayadurgam
Depot along with his cash of Rs.25,00,000/-. But he took a ticket up to Gooty only with a view to meet with LW4/Niranjan Lal Sree Kumar Karwa who is resident of
Guntakal town with an intention that both should decided to go Bangalore city by train from Guntakal R.S. Then LW1/ Pravin R. Rawal has put his cash bag containing 25 lakhs, on the luggage carrier which is available upon his seat in the said bus, in which LW1/ Pravin R. Rawal was boarded and when left Kurnool town at around 4:00 a.m., and the said bus was passed Kurnool town, then LW1/
Pravin R. Rawal was felt asleep, while the said bus proceeding towards Gooty at about 5:00 a.m., the LW3/Kundhu Mallesh Reddy who is the driver of the said bus have being alerted to all the passengers in the bus and 3 asked to be checked their personal belongings of the passengers, if anyone had lost of their personal belongings, while the said bus was reached near to
Amakathadu toll plaza, situated at the outskirts of Amakathadu village of
Krishnagiri mandal whereas Accused no.1 and 2 are get down from the said bus under suspicious circumstances along with the bag in their hands. Actually
Accused no.1 and 2 did not have any bags in their hands at the time of they boarded the bus., LW3/Kundhu Mallesh Reddy have anticipated that he was suspicious upon the Accused no.1 and 2. Then LW1/Pravin R. Rawal woke up and found that his cash bag which was kept in the luggage carrier of the said bus was not found. Then LW1/Pravin R. Rawal informed the same to LW3/Kundhu
Mallesh Reddy that his cash bag was committed theft by the offenders. Then
LW3/Kundhu Mallesh Reddy advised him to go to Krishnagiri PS to lodge his complaint about theft of money i.e. Rs.25,00,000/-. On that LW1/ Pravin R.
Rawal get down the bus and searched for the accused no.1 and 2 at
Amakathadu Toll plaza on NH-44, on that process LW1/ Pravin R. Rawal met with LW2/Mogali Chandrasekhar who is the driver of high way Mobile-2 and both of them searched for the accused no.1 and 2 but in vain. Then LW1/ Pravin R.
Rawal rushed to Krishnagiri PS and lodged a complaint regarding Accused no.1 and 2 have committed theft of Rs.25,00,000/- and get down from the bus at the scene.
Basing on the Telugu typed report of LW1/ Pravin R. Rawal , LW10/G.
Krishnamurthy, Sub Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri P.S had registered a case in crime no.116/2025 under section 305(b) BNS of Krishnagiri P.S. During the course of investigation LW11/B.Madhusudhan Rao, the then Inspector of Police examined the witnesses i.e. LWs 1 to 4, visited the scene of offence along with 4 panchayatdars and drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence. On 27-10-2025 at 13:45 hours, LW11/B. Madhusudhan Rao, the then Inspector of Police had arrested Accused no.1 and 2 at the outskirts of Kurnool town in the presence of mediators and recovered the stolen cash of Rs.25,00,000/- from the possession of Accused no.1 and 2 under cover of Mahazar and sent them for judicial custody.
2.cognizance of case against accused NO.1 AND 2 for offences punishable under Section 305(c) or 317(2) of BNS.
3. On production of accused no.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to him under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha Sanhita,2023 (herein after referred as BNSS).
4. On 10.12.2025, both accused were examined under Section 239 of
Criminal Procedure Code in Telugu. charges for the offences punishable under
Sections 305(b) and an alternative charge for the offences punishable under section 317(2) of BNS were framed against both accused. The said charges were read over and explained to them in the vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to PW11 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 besides Mo1. The learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW12/V.Yugandar,Inspector of police,Veldurthy circle as he laid charge sheet only
6. On 28.01.2026 after closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was 5 examined under Section 351 of BNSS by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in question form, in vernacular language, for which they denied and reported that there is no defence evidence.
7. At the stage of arguments, Learned APP filed a petition under section 239 of BNSS for alteration of charges from section 305(b) BNS to 305(c) BNS,the petition was allowed as per orders in crlmp.no.114 of 2026 dated 19.02.2026 and on 23.02.2026 both accused were produced before the court and they were re-examined for the charges framed for an offences under sections 305(c) or 317(2) BNS, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Afterwards, the learned APP filed a memo stating that substance of charges not changed, as such recall of all prosecution witnesses not required at this stage, this court verified the evidence of prosecution witness, the content of charges remained unchanged as such memo was considered and proceeded with arguments.
8. Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. Perused the entire record.
9.Now, the points for determination are as follows:
(i)Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 for offence punishable Under Sections 305(c) of BNS beyond all reasonable doubt?
(ii)Whether prosecution able to establish that M.O.1 cash stolen from the bus on possession of PW1 or not ?
(iii) Whether the prosecution is able to establish that MO.1 were recovered from the possession of accused no.1 and 2, beyond the reasonable beyond the reasonable doubt?
(iv) Whether the prosecution is able to establish that accused had dishonestly received or retained the said stolen property, i.e., MO.1 by knowing or having reason to believe that those items are stolen properties beyond the reasonable doubt?
6
(v) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused no.1 and 2 for offence punishable under Section 317(2) of BNS, beyond the reasonable doubt?
POINT NO.1
10.On careful perusal of the entire evidence available on record in the present case admittedly P.W.1, P.W.2 not witnessed at the time of occurrence of offence, they had not caught hold the offender who committed the theft of cash
Rs.25,00,000/-.
11. The learned A.P.P. argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses
P.W.1 to P.W.11 coupled with Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and MO.1 sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prays the court to convict the accused according to law. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.11 coupled with Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.15 and MO.1 are not at all sufficient to convict the accused and there were several contradictions and omissions in the evidence of material witnesses, on perusal of evidence of prosecution, as per evidence of PW1 and Pw2, they did not witness at the time of commission of theft and evidence of PW9 and EX.P3
TIP proceedings shows that PW2 identified suspect no.1 by name shahid@ mohammad shajid and unable to identify the suspect no.2/A2 by suheb.
Whereas admittedly PW1 and Pw2 did not witness the persons at the time of occurrence of theft. The contents of Ex.P.1/report is also silent about the details of accused as thief. Thus, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to establish the connectivity of accused with the alleged theft. Further, the alleged recovery was not so immediate to the said commission of theft and it is not the stand of the prosecution that accused were found in possession of the stolen property near the scene of offence..On careful perusal of the entire evidence available on record in the present case admittedly no one was personally witnessed occurrence of alleged offence and not caught hold the offender who committed the theft red handedly Therefore, the court finds no evidence to hold that accused no.1 and 2 had committed committed theft of MO.1 from the 7 possession of PW.1. Hence, the court has hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for offences punishable under section 305(c) of
BNS, beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.
12. Point No.(ii): Whether the prosecution is able to establish that on
25.10.2025, MO.1 cash was stolen from the bus or possession of PW1 or
not?
Herein the case, the evidence of PW1, the defacto complainant deposed he used to purchase the Silver from Bangalore City and sell the silver to the retail shops in and around Secunderabad and Hyderabad and travel by different buses from Hyderabad to Bangalore as he used to carry huge amount. On 25- 10-2025 at around 11.00 pm, he started from his house, by carrying cash of Rs.
25 lakhs in an Auto to reach Mahatma Gandhi bus station, Hyderabad, from there at around midnight 12.00 am he boarded bus to come to Kurnool, the said bus reached to the bus station, Kurnool in the early morning at 4-00 am., there he boarded the bus belongs to Rayachoti Depot which travels through Gooty and he kept his bag on the luggage carrier which locates upside of his seat, When the bus reached Veldurthy Toll Plaza, the bus Driver directed the passengers to check their respective luggage, then he checked for his bag at 5.00 am, but his cash bag was not found. Later the bus driver informed to the passengers that two persons were get down from the bus at Toll plaza. Later he informed to the bus driver about the missing of my bag, then we get down from the bus and informed to the police, who were available near the Toll Plaza, then they enquired the person in the Hotel, they informed us, two persons went towards Kurnool in yellow colour bus. After the above said incident, he dailed to his cousin by name 8
Niranjan Lalsree Kumar/LW4 and narrated the above incident. Later the bus left from Toll Plaza. Afterwards Sub inspector of Police, Krishnagiri came to the Tolla
Plaza after information received by the police available near the Toll Plaza and he advised me to file report in the Police Station. From Toll Plaza, he went to
Krishnagiri bus stand in an Auto, there he got typed the report in Telugu
Language and the said report was filed in the Police Station. During inquiry, he handed over two bus tickets to the police. In the cross-examination, he stated that he does not own Silver shop in Secunderabad and he sell the Silver. Further he stated that he borrowed an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs from my relatives on execution of promissory notes and he did not know whether he said to the police that he borrowed the amount from his relatives and he did not mention the denomination of the said 25 lakhs in the EX.P1 report. Further stated that he did not know whether said amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was shown in IT returns or not and he do not know exact distance between Amakathadu Toll Plaza to Krishnagiri
Village. He reached to the Police Station at 7.30 am and he did not know the shop name where the report was typed and the scribe who translated the contents of EX.P1 in Telugu language was not signed in it. He denied the suggestions that he did not keep the bag in the luggage carrier of the bus and he did not state in the statement that he enquired the person in the hotel and sub inspector of police came to the Toll Plaza based on information given by the constable. He denied the suggestion that he had lost the cash somewhere else when he changed the different buses, but not in the alleged bus.
13. PW2 deposed that On 24-10-2025, the bus started at about 5-00 pm., from
Rayadurgam to Vijayawada, Vannur Swamy and he were the drivers of the said bus and the bus reached to Vijayawada at about 9.00 am., on the same day, in the evening hours at 7-00 pm., the bus started from Vijayawada to Rayadurgam.
9
Vannur Swamy drove the said bus from Vijayawada to Atmakur, from then he drove the said bus up to Kurnool bus station, the bus reached to Kurnool bus station at 3.45 pm, after five minutes the bus was started from there, when the bus reached to Bellary circle at Kurnool ,two persons boarded into the bus, then bus proceeded to Rayadurgam. When the said bus crossed the Veldurthy
Village, one of the passengers who boarded at Bellary circle asked him to stop the bus, Then he stopped the bus at Dhone Toll plaza, there two passengers who boarded the bus at Bellary circle were got down from the bus. The said passengers took the ticket from Anantapur, but they departured at Tolla Plaza of
Dhone, so he suspected them and he switched on the lights of the bus and informed the passengers of the said bus, to check their respective luggage, as two passengers were departured from the bus. Then one of the passengers informed him that he lost his money. Later they informed the same to PW3 who was on duty at High way, after that he informed the same to the Depot Manager, on his advise they reported to the police and left that place. Further he deposed that he did not enquire about the two passengers who departure at Toll Plaza. On 26-10-2025, at around 4.30 am., the said amount was lost. S.I. of Police asked to produce the SR and Reservation chart, accordingly he handed over Ex.P3 statistical and Ticket Accountal Record issued by the Depot Manager, APSRTC,
Rayadurgam Depot, Ex.P4APSRTC Reservation chart, dt. 24-10-2025 issued by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rayadurgam Depot and Ex.P5 APSRTC
Reservation chart, dt. 25-10-2025 issued by the Depot Manager, APSRTC,
Rayadurgam Depot. During cross-examination he admitted that he did not switch on the lights in the bus when both suspects departured from the bus and he cannot identify the person clearly as it was dark.
10
14.PW3 corroborated with the evidence of PW1 and PW2 about information with regard to the commission of theft of cash Rs.25 lakhs in the bus Registration bearing No. AP 02 Z 0589, which was travelled Afterwards we searched surrounding places and then he informed the same to the PW10 who inturn informed to PW11. Then S.I. of Police, Krishnagiri Police Station came to the spot and enquired about the incident.
15.The evidence of PW10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Police station, goes to show about the receiving of report (Ex.P1) from PW1 on 26.10.2025 at 5.10 A.M., registration of the same as First Information Report (Ex.P14) in crime No.116/2025 under Section 305(b) of BNS and visited
Amakathadu toll plaza. The evidence of P.W.3 and PW4 also corroborates the version of PW1 and PW2 regarding the commission of theft in the bus.
16.In view of the above discussion, the court holds that the evidence of PW1 and P.W.2 clinchingly establishes that on 25.10.2026 MO1-cash was stolen from the bus registration bearing number AP 02 Z 0589 beyond the reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution has established that MO1 cash was stolen property. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered in favour of the prosecution.
17. Point No.(iii):-
Whether the prosecution is able to establish that MO.1 were recovered from
the possession of accused no.1 and 2, beyond the reasonable beyond the
reasonable doubt?
For the offence punishable under section 317(2) ofBNS, the Prosecution needs to prove that:
1. That the was theft of some movable property.
11
2. That the accused no.1 and 2 were found in possession of the said movable property.
3. That the accused no.1 and 2 failed to submit proper explanation for its possession and
4. That the accused no.1 and no.2 retained or detained it knowing it to be stolen property.
Now, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish that the said stolen cash i.e., MO. 1 was recovered from the possession of the accused as alleged. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined P.W.7,
PW8 and PW11 and got exhibited Ex.P7. Among them, P.W.7 is Village revenue officer,PW8 is VRA. P.W.11 is the investigation officer. According to P.W.11, the
Inspector of Police, Veldurthy circle, while he was engaged in another case duty,
On 26-10-2025, at about 8-15 hrs, Sub Inspector of Police/PW10 contacted him over phone call and informed about the registration of the case, in the evening hours, he received EX.P14 FIR from PW10 and examined PW1 and recorded his statement, afterwards he visited the Amakathadu Toll plaza and prepared Ex.P6 scene observation panchanama in the presence of PW5 and 6 and also also prepared Ex.P15 rough sketch. Later he sent requisition to the Rayadurgam
Depot Manager, to furnish Statistical and accountal record of the bus bearing No.
AP 02 Z 0589 and also reservation chart. When he examined PW1, he handed over the bus tickets to him. On 27.10.2025 he received credible information about the presence of accused and served notices to panchaytdars PW7 and 8, then they went to Vengannabhavi area situated near Dinnedevarapadu Village, where they apprehended A1 and A2 in the presence of PW7 and PW8, then he seized the cash of Rs. 15 lakhs from the possession of A1/Sahid and cash of
Rs.10 lakhs from the possession of A2,and arrested both the accused under 12 cover of panchanama. On 29-10-2025, he received statistic and accountal record as well as reservation chart from the bus driver, afterwards he filed requisition before the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool to nominate the
Magistrate to conduct the Test Identification Parade. On 07-11-2025, he handed
over the CD file to LW12 who filed charge sheet after completion of Test
Identification Parade and further investigation case. In the cross-examination he deposed that he along with staff members, and PW10 counted the seized cash of Rs. 25 lakhs within 20 minutes. He admitted that he did not seize the bags.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that PW3 stated in the statement that the bus travelled from Kurnool to Anantapurm side was the Rayadurgam Depot bus and PW2 stated in the statement he can clearly identity the faces of both persons because they argued with him to get down from the bus. The witness denied the suggestions that he did not arrest both accused at Vengannabhavi.
PW5 and PW6 corroborates the version of PW11 regarding observation of scene of offence at Amakathadu Toll Plaza and preparation of Ex.P6 in their presence.
18.The evidence of PW7 and PW8 is that as per the directions of Tahsildar, they accompanied the police to Vengannabavi near Dinnedevarapadu village, where the police apprehended accused no.1 and 2 and seized cash (M.O.1) from their possession and the said accused no.1 and 2 confessed that cash was stolen from the passenger in the bus and then the PW11 seized cash of
Rs.25,00,000/- then arrested accused no.1 and 2 under cover of confession- cum-seizure panchanama report (Ex.P7).
19.The evidence of PW7 and PW8 who are the mediators corroborates the version of P.W.11 as well as the contents of EX.P7 in all the material aspects.
They identified both accused before the court and gave the identity particulars of 13 the accused. During the cross-examination, they denied the suggestions that as per instructions of police they identified the accused and they did not went to the
Vengannabavi the accused But, no serious infirmity or inconsistency was elicited by the learned defence counsel in the evidence of PW7 and PW8 affecting the credence of their testimony in the material aspects such as time, date and place of arrest of both accused and also with regard to the cash seized from the possession of accused no.1 and 2 as well as preparation of Ex.P7 report.
20. It is the core contention of the learned defence counsel that P.W.11 did not serve notices to PW7 and PW8 and failed to follow the procedure as required under Section 103 of BNSS and the same is fatal to the prosecution case. It is a fact that the place of seizure of M.O 1 is situated in a busy locality. However, it is to be noted that P.W.11 went to the said place of seizure of M.O1 on receiving credible information. So, it is quite probable and natural to accompany with the mediators to the said place. Further, the said seizure was not made in the closed premises. Thus, it is not mandatory to secure the mediators of that locality.
Moreover, the P.W.11 was accompanied with the PW7 and PW8 by the time of apprehended the accused and (Ex.P7) contains the signatures of the PW7 and
PW8 as well as the accused. Hence, it is crystal clear that the P.W11 took all necessary steps as the matter of prudence as well as the law and procedure, while seizing the property. So, viewed from any angle, the court finds no reason to doubt the version of PW7 and P.W.8 with regard to the recovery of M.O 1 from the possession of accused no.1 and 2. As discussed above, no infirmity or inconsistency was elicited in the evidence of P.W.7 and PW8, which creates doubt with regard to their presence at the time of arrest and seizure. Further, they 14 identified the accused and also gave all the particulars of the accused, seized cash and the date, place of arrest and seizure. Therefore, the court finds no reason to disbelieve their evidence.
21.On summing up of the entire evidence, the evidence of P.W.11 supported and corroborated by the mediators i.e P.W.7 and PW8 coupled with the contents of EX.P7 panchanama clinchingly reveals that A1 and A2 had dishonestly retained the M.O 1 in their possession. As discussed above, the evidence of
P.W.7 and P.W.8 is convincing, cogent, credible and reliable with regard to the recovery of M.O 1 from the possession of both accused. Therefore, the court holds that the prosecution is able to establish that cash of RS.15 lakhs the possession of mohammad sahid and RS.10 lakhs the possession of suheb totally 25 lakhs (MO.1) was recovered from A1 and A2 beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point No. (iii) is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused no.1 and 2.
22. Point No. (iv): Whether the prosecution is able to establish that both
accused had dishonestly retained MO1 by knowing or having reason to
believe that cash was stolen property or not?
As discussed in point No.(iii), the prosecution proved that the stolen cash (MO1) was recovered from the possession of both accused.
It is pertinent at this stage to mention the provisions of Section 119(a) of
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam which reads as follows:
Section119 Court may presume existence of certain facts:- 15 The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
illustration(a) of Section 119 : The Court may presume- 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.
23. Therefore illustration (a) of Section 119 of The Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam casts a duty upon the court to presume a fact that when the accused is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen property unless he/she is accounted for it. Further the said presumption is discretion conferred on the court which cannot be exercised by the court against the accused unless the cogent evidence is produced by the prosecution establishing that the case property recovered from the conscious possession of the accused soon after the commission of theft. As per evidence of PW7 and PW8, Mo1 was seized by
PW11 on 27.10.2025 from the possession of both accused. Therefore, in the instant case, prosecution proved that the case property M.O.1 was stolen and the same was recovered from conscious possession of the both accused soon after the commission of theft. Here in the case, the accused no.1 and 2 did not make any effort to account for the possession and also failed to rebut the prosecution evidence with regard to the recovery of stolen property from their possession.
The both accused failed to establish that they had no knowledge that the said property was stolen property. Therefore, as per the presumption provided under illustration (a) of Section 119 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam that the both accused have knowledge that MO1 is stolen property and retained M.O.1 with them. Accordingly, point No.(iv) is answered in favour of prosecution and against the accused.
24. Point No.(V):- Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of 16
accused for the offence punishable under Section 317(2) of BNS beyond
reasonable doubt?
In view of the above discussion and findings in points (iii) and (iv), the prosecution is able to establish that MO1 was stolen from the bus and that both accused dishonestly retained MO1 cash by knowing that cash was stolen property and both accused failed to account for the possession. Hence, the Court holds that the prosecution is able to establish all the ingredients of Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, to prove the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 for the said offence. Accordingly, point No.(v) is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused no.1 and 2.
25.In the result, accused no.1 an2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 305(C) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita . Therefore, both accused are acquitted under section 271 (1) BNSS for the said offence.
But the accused no.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence
punishable under section 317(2) of BNS. Therefore, the accused no.1 and 2
are convicted under section 271 (2) BNSS for the said offence.
Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of March 2026.
Sd/-Smt Sake Jyothi
Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Dhone
When the both accused are questioned about the sentence, A1 stated that he is having four children and his family members depend on his income and A2 stated that he is completed intermediate second year and he is a kabadi player and his mother underwent major surgery and he is having children and they depends on him thus, they pleaded mercy in imposing sentence and to set off the detention period.
On considering the facts of the case, the court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. However, in view of 17 the submissions of the accused with regard to condition of his family, the court is inclined to take balanced view in imposing sentence.
Therefore, accused no.1 and 2 are sentenced to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for a period of Two years for the offence punishable Under Section 317(2) of BNS.
The detention period undergone by accused no.1 and 2 for the period from 27.10.2025 to till date i.e., 10.03.2026 (both days inclusive) shall be set off under Section 468 BNSS against their sentence of imprisonment.
As per orders of this Court in Crl.MP.No.1171/2025 dated 16.12.2025 MO.
1 was already given to the interim custody of P.W.1 Hence, the said interim custody of case property shall holds good and becomes absolute and MO.1 vide
CPR No.32/2025 is ordered to be retained by P.W.1, after expiry of appeal time.
Accused no.1 and 2 are informed of their right to prefer an appeal against the Calendar and Judgment of this court. When they asked about their means to prefer an appeal, they stated that they have means to engage counsel and not required legal aid. The free copy of Judgment is furnished to the accused as per section. 392(4) of BNSS
Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of March, 2026.
Sd/-Smt Sake Jyothi
Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Dhone
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
PW1 : Praveen R. Rawal None PW2 : K. Mallesh Reddy PW3 : M. Chandra Sekhar PW4 : N. Lal Sree Kumar Karwa 18 PW5 : Talari Hanumanna PW6 : Talari Maddaiah PW7 : M. Narayana PW8 : Talari Shaik Hussain PW9: Sri S. Anil Kumar PW10:G. Krishnamurthy PW11:B. Madhusudhan Rao
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Report. Ex.P2 : Bus tickets 2 in number Ex.P3 : Statistical Ticket Accountal Record issued by the Depot Manager APSRTC, Rayadurgam Depot. Ex.P4 : APSRTC Reservation chart dated 24-10-2025 Ex.P5 : APSRTC Reservation chart dated 25-10-2025 Ex.P6 : Scene Observation Panchanama dated 26-10-2025. Ex.P7 : Confession cum arrest seizure panchanama dated 27-10-2025 Ex.P8 : Proceedings of Hon’ble CJM, Kurnool in Dis.No.751/2025
Dt. 31-10-2025.
Ex.P9 : Official Memo issued by PW9, Vide Dis.No.876/2025 dt.17-11-2025 Ex.P10: Statement of PW2 in Annexure No.1 Ex.P11: Statement of Suspect No.1/A1 in Annexure No.2 Ex.P12: Statement of Suspect No.2/A2 in Annexure No.2 Ex.P13: The proceedings of Test Identification parade. Ex.P14: F.I.R. Ex.P15: Rough Sketch FOR DEFENCE:
Nil
M.Os. MARKED
M.O.1: Cash of Rs.25,00,000/-
Sd/-Smt Sake Jyothi
JFMC/DHONE // True Copy//
Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Dhone 19
JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
DHONE
CALENDER CASE NO.1581/2025
1. Date of offence prior to: 26-10-2025
2. Date of complaint or report: 26-10-2025
3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 27-10-2025
4. Date of release on bail of Accused : A1 and A2 are in Judicial Custody
5. Date of commencement of trial: 16-12-2025
6. Date of close of trial: 24-02-2026
7. Date of sentence or Order: 10-03-2026
8. Explanation of delay if any:Police failed to produce the witnesses in time and petition under section 239 BNSS filed on behalf of prosecution on 11-2-2026 at the stage of arguments COMPLAINANT:
State: Represented by the Inspector of Police, Veldurthy Circle in Crime No.116/2025
ACCUSED:
1. Shahid @ Mohammad Shahid, age 35 years, S/o Rashid @ Abdul Rasheed, near Bilaal Mosque, Sabdaipur village Sabdaipur Rehra post., Akbarpur, Shiyapoor Mandal Bijnor District, Chandpur, Uttar pradesh (A1)
2. Suheb, aged 20 years, S/o Mohammad Shameem, near Government School, Sabdaipur vlillage, Sabdaipur Rehra post, Akbarpur, Shiyapoor mandal, Bijnor District, Chandpur, Uttar Pradesh (A2)
Offences :- Dishonestly receiving stolen property; theft committed from any means of transport of goods or passengers
Section of Law :- Under Sections 305( C) & 317(2) of BNSS Finding of Court :- Found guilty
Sentence/Order:
In the result, accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 305(C) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Therefore, both accused are acquitted under section 271 (1) BNSS for the said offence.
But the accused no.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence
punishable under section 317(2) of BNS. Therefore, the accused no.1 and 2
are convicted under section 271 (2) BNSS for the said offence.
When the accused is questioned about the sentence, A1 stated that he is having 20 four children and his family members depend on his income and A2 stated that he is completed intermediate second year and he is a kabadi player and his mother underwent major surgery and he is having children and they depends on him, thus, they pleaded mercy in imposing sentence and to set off the detention period.
On considering the facts of the case, in the court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. However, in view of the submissions of the accused no.1 and 2 with regard to condition of his family, the court is inclined to take balanced view in imposing sentence.
Therefore, accused no.1 and 2 are sentenced to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for a period of Two years for the offence punishable Under Section 317(2) of BNS.
The detention period undergone by accused no.1 and 2 for the period from 27.10.2025 to till date i.e., 10.03.2026 (both days inclusive) shall be set off under Section 468 BNSS against their sentence of imprisonment.
As per orders of this Court in Crl.MP.No.1171/2025 dated 16.12.2025 MO.
1 was already given to the interim custody of P.W.1 Hence, the said interim custody of case property shall holds good and becomes absolute and MO.1 vide
CPR No.32/2025 is ordered to be retained by P.W.1, after expiry of appeal time.
Accused no.1 and 2 are informed of their right to prefer an appeal against the Calendar and Judgment of this court. When they asked about their means to prefer an appeal, they stated that they have means to engage counsel and not required legal aid. The free copy of Judgment is furnished to the accused as per section. 392(4) of BNSS . Sd/-Smt Sake Jyothi
Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Dhone.
// True Copy //
Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Dhone.
Copy submitted to the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool 21 22