Ms. Shaik Rahana

1

CC.No.26 of 2018, dated 27.12.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

AT KHAMMAM

Thursday, the 27th day of December, 2018

PRESENT: SMT.SHAIK REHANA I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Khammam.

CC.No.26 of 2018

Between:-

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Khammam II Town P.S …Complainant

And

Kallepalli Sampath, S/o Narasimha Rao, 22 years, Auto Driver, R/o Ramana Gutta, Khammam. …Accused -*-

This case is coming on 17.12.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P for the State-complainant and Sri Ravula Venkat, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers available on record; having been heard arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Khammam II Town police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.6/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case as per charge sheet are as follows :-

On 06.01.2018 at 1700 hours, Pw.1 came to police station and lodged a report stating that, on 05.01.2018 at 1030 hours, he parked his auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-20TB-8320 in front of his house. On 06.01.2018 at 6.00 A.M, he found that his sound box is missing from his auto rickshaw. Some unknown offenders committed theft of his sound box from his auto worth Rs.25,000/-.

2

CC.No.26 of 2018, dated 27.12.2018

He searched for his sound box, but in vain. So, he filed report for necessary action.

Basing on the report, Pw.3 registered a case in Cr.No.6/2018, U/Sec.379

IPC. He issued F.I.R. He examined and recorded the statement of Pw.1.

Later, he visited the scene of offence, there he examined Pw.4 and recorded her staement and incorporated CDF panchanama in the presence of Lw.3/T.Srinivas and Lw.4/M.Vinay Kumar. On 08.01.2018 at 1000 hours, Pw.3 arrested the accused at Mayuri center, Khammam and interrogated him in the presence of

Pws.2 and 5. He confessed his guilt of offence and recovered sound box from the possession of accused under cover of panchanama. After completion of investigation, Pw.6 laid charge sheet before this court.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence under Section 379 IPC against the accused and summons were served to him.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him in accordance with Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused is examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for the allegations in the charge sheet, to which he denied the same. Hence, charge under Section 379 IPC has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in telugu language, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P6 and MO.1.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances 3

CC.No.26 of 2018, dated 27.12.2018

appeared against him in the evidence for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

8. Heard the arguments and perused the material on record.

9. Now the Point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved this case against the accused for the offence under Section 379 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.POINT:- Out of (08) listed witnesses, prosecution has examined six (06) witnesses. LW.1/Kallepalli Vinay Kumar, who is defacto-complainant and victim is examined as Pw.1; Lw.5/Gunja Gopi, who is panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama is examined as Pw.2;

Lw.7/V.Hanumantha, who is investigation officer is examined as Pw.3; Lw.2/Mola

Ramulamma, who is circumstantial witness is examined as Pw.4;

Lw.6/Bachalakuri Ajith Kumar, who is panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama is examined as Pw.5 and Lw.8/B.Rama Rao, who is another investigation officer is examined as Pw.6. Exs.P.1 to P.6 are marked. Ex.P.1 is report, Ex.P.2 is signature of Pw.2 on confession and seizure panchanama,

Ex.P3 is F.I.R, Ex.P4 is CDF panchanama, Ex.P5 is confession and seizure panchanama and Ex.P6 is signature of Pw.5 on confession and seizure panchanama.

11. The story of prosecution has unfolded testimony of witnesses. In this case PW1 is defacto-complainant. He deposed that on 05.01.2018 at about 10.30 P.M, he parked his auto bearing No.AP-20TB-8320 infront of his house.

4

CC.No.26 of 2018, dated 27.12.2018

On the next day morning at 6.00 AM, he found the sound box of said auto was missed. He searched for the same, but in vain. Then, he went to police station and lodged a report. Ex.P1 is report. MO.1 is sound box and the same was given to him. Pw.4 is neighbour of Pw.1. Her evidence is corroborated with the evidence of Pw.1. Pws.2 and 5 are projected as panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama of accused. But, they are not supported the prosecution version. With the request of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, they declared as hostile witnesses, instead of their cross-examination, learned

APPO nothing elicited to inspire the confidence of this Court.

12. Pw.3 is investigation officer, who registered the case, examined and recorded the statements of Pws.1 and 4, visited the scene of offence and incorporated CDF panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e.,

Lw.3/T.Srinivas and Lw.4/M.Vinay Kumar. Ex.P4 is CDF panchanama. On 08.01.2018 at 1000 hours, he went to Mayuri center and apprehended the accused, there he secured the presence of Pws.2 and 5 and conducted confession and seizure panchanama in their presence and seized MO.1 from the possession of accused. Ex.P5 is confession and seizure panchanama. After completion of investigation, Lw.6/B.Rama Rao filed charge sheet before this

Court.

13. Pw.6 who is another investigation officer in this case. He deposed that on 09.01.2018, he took up investigation in this case. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet before this Court.

5

CC.No.26 of 2018, dated 27.12.2018

14.By going through the above evidence, it is clear that, PW.1 is complainant in this case. As per his evidence on 05.01.2018 at about 10.30 P.M, he parked his auto bearing No.AP-20TB-8320 infron of his house.

Next day morning at 6.00 A.M, he found his auto was missing. Pw.4 who is neighbour of Pw.1 also deposed the same lines on Pw.1. So, as per the evidence of Pws.1 and 4, some unknown offenders committed theft of sound box of auto. Thus, they are not ocular witnesses for the said offence.

Pws.2 and 5 are panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of accused. Their evidence is very crucial to prove the guilt of the accused person.

But, they did not support the prosecution’s case in the said regard. As per the evidence of Pw.3, basing on the report of Pw.1, he registered a case and issued

F.I.R, examined and recorded the statements of Pws.1 and 4, visited the scene of offence and incorporated CDF panchanama in the presence of mediators.

Further as per the evidence of Pw.3, he apprehended the accused on 08.01.2018 at 1000 hours at Mayuri Center, Khammam and conducted confession and seizure panchanama of accused and seized sound box from the possession of accused in the presence of mediators i.e., Pws.2 and 5. But, the panch witnesses (Pws.2 and 5) for confession and recovery panchanama did not support the version of prosecution and turned hostile. Further as per the testimony of Pw.6, after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet before this Court. Solely relying on the evidence of investigation officers, it is not safe to convict the accused in this case. Strict rule of corroboration needed in the case of investigation officer evidence. In the above case, except investigation 6

CC.No.26 of 2018, dated 27.12.2018

officers nobody supported the prosecution version. Hence, whatever oral and documentary evidence adduced on record did not inspire the confidence of this court.

15.In these circumstance, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, which is an essential requisite base a conviction against the accused and as such he is entitled for an acquittal on benefit of doubt.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.379 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted for the same

U/sec.248(1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after appeal time is over. MO.1-Sound box is already returned to Pw.1 vide orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.12 of 2018, dated 18.01.2018 shall be made absolute after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of December, 2018.

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the Prosecution For the Defence

Pw.1-K.Naveen Kumar -None-

Pw.2-G.Gopi

Pw.3-V.Hanumantha Rao

Pw.4-M.Ramulamma

Pw.5-B.Ajith Kumar

Pw.6-B.Rama Rao 7

CC.No.26 of 2018, dated 27.12.2018

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:For the defence

Ex.P.1 : Report -None-

Ex.P.2 : Signature of Pw.2 on confession and seizure panchanama

Ex.P.3 : First Information Report

Ex.P.4 : Crime details form along with rough sketch

Ex.P.5 : Confession and seizure panchanama

Ex.P.6 : Signature of Pw.5 on confession and seizure panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1-Sound Box

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

TSKH030001742018

Presented on : 31-01-2018 Registered on : 31-01-2018 Decided on : 23-12-2018 Duration : 0 years, 10 months, 23 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile Court), Khammam

AT KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM

(Presided Over by Smt. Rajani Bekkam)

CC/200024/2018

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): SI of Police, Khammam IITown Through Police Station Officer Khammam II town 489, The Sub Inspector of Police, Khammam II Town PS

KHAMMAM URBAN KHAMMAM

SI of Police, Khammam IITown VERSUS : Kolli Harikrishna Reddy Age: 45 Occupation : Occ. Granite Supervisor, R/o Indiranagar, Khammam.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APP, Advocate for appearing for Kolli Harikrishna Reddy Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under :

279 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 23-12-2018)

ORDER

The matter placed before the national Lok adalath bench. The accused is called present and examined U.sec. 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence U.sec. 279 of IPC and 181 of MV Act. the accused is voluntarily admitted his guilty, hence the court feels that the accused is voluntarily admitted the guilty. Hence, the accused is found guilty for the offence Sec. 181 of IPC and 181 of MV act. The accused is convicted each U/sec. 252 of Cr.P.C and sentenced to a pay of fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence U/sec. 279 of IPC and sentenced to a pay of fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence U/sec. 181 of MV Act in default simple imprisonment for a period of one month for each offence. Total fine amount is Rs. 1500/-.

Date : 23-12-2018 (Smt. Rajani Bekkam)

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- Special

Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile Court), Khammam

KHAMMAM URBAN KHAMMAM

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Smt. Rajani Bekkam) I Additional Junior Civil Judge -

cum- Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Juvenile Court), Khammam

KHAMMAM URBAN

KHAMMAM

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSKH030003962016

Presented on : 03-02-2016 Registered on : 08-02-2016 Decided on : 04-12-2018 Duration : 2 years, 10 months, 1 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Khammam AT KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM Presided Over by SMT. DEEPA KASARAGADDA

OS/100063/2016

Exhibit No.:

: Morrimekala Yadaiah Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Age. 70 years, Occu. Agril, Ro. H.No. 13-85, Kothagudem Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

VERSUS : Morrimekala Mangaiah and 4 others Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Age. 55 years, Occu. Agril, Ro. Kachirajugudem Village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District.

2:Morrimekala Venkata Narasamma Age: 60 Occupation : Occu. House hold Ro. H.No. 4-105 Gokinepalli Village Mudigonda Mandal Khammam District.

3:J. Sarojini Age: 58 Occupation : Occu. Household Ro. Ramachandrapuram Village N.K Pally Mandal Khammam District.

4:Morrimekala Venkateswarlu Age: 30 Occupation : Occu. Pvt. Employee Ro. Kothagudem Village Khammam Urban Mandal Khammam District.

5:D. Swapna Age: 25 Occupation : Occu. Household Ro. Kothagudem Village Khammam Urban Mandal Khammam District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : M.K. Jaleel Advocate for : appearing for Morrimekala Mangaiah and 4 others: Advocate , appearing for 2, 3, 4, 5 respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 04-12-2018 )

ORDER

Plaintiff called present and filed not press memo submitting that, this matter is settled out side of the court before elders. Hence, pray the Honourable Court to dismiss the suit against the Defendant as not pressed. Hence, record the same. Hence, this suit is dismissed against the defendant as not pressed in view of compromised.

Date : 04-12-2018 (SMT. DEEPA KASARAGADDA)

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSKH030020962018

Presented on : 16-07-2018 Registered on : 16-07-2018 Decided on : 04-12-2018 Duration : 0 years, 4 months, 19 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Khammam AT KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM Presided Over by SMT. DEEPA KASARAGADDA

OS/100442/2018

Exhibit No.:

: Bingi Nageswara Rao Age: 58 Occupation : Address: H.No.1-9-35/48/45/1, bokkalagadda bazar, Khammam City and District

VERSUS : Gajula Lalitha and others Age: 42 Occupation : Address: Both are resident of H.no.11-11-229/2A, OPP. C.P.I. Office Road, Sriramgiri By pass road, Khammam City and District.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : M.Hanumantha Rao Advocate for : appearing for Gajula Lalitha and others: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 04-12-2018 )

ORDER

IA /18 is allowed. This suit is advanced from 06.12.2018 to 04.12.2018. Plaintiff called present and filed full satisfaction memo, submitting that , the matter is settled out side of the court before the elders and the pray the

Honourble court to dismiss this suit against the defendant as not pressed.

Record the same. Hence, this suit is dismissed against the defendant as not pressed in view of compromised.

Date : 04-12-2018 (SMT. DEEPA KASARAGADDA)

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSKH030043452018

Presented on : 12-11-2018 Registered on : 12-11-2018 Decided on : 12-12-2018 Duration : 0 years, 1 months, 0 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Khammam AT KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM Presided Over by SMT. DEEPA KASARAGADDA

OS/100693/2018

Exhibit No.:

: Nethi Mahesh Kumar Age: 42 Occupation : Address: H.No.3-1-122/1, Mohan Road, Khammam City and District

VERSUS : Avasarala Shanrthij Age: 55 Occupation : Address: Tailoring work, R/o. H.No.4-5-56, Bajjalavari Thota, Khammam City and District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : SRINIVASU KANDIBANDA Advocate for : appearing for Avasarala Shanrthij: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 12-12-2018 )

ORDER

Plaintiff called present and filed not pressed memo submitting that, the matter is settled out side of the court before the elders and the prayed the

Honourble court to dismiss this suit against the defendant as not pressed.

Record the same. Hence, this suit is dismissed against the defendant as not pressed in view of compromised.

Date : 12-12-2018 (SMT. DEEPA KASARAGADDA)

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS