Sri Suribhatla Srinivasu

III A.C.J. (Jr Division),Ctr 1 Judgment in C.C.No.619/2019

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

CHITTOOR.

Present: Sri S.Srinivasu,

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Chittoor

Friday, the Twenty Eight (28th) day of March, 2025

C.C.No. 619 of 2019

BETWEEN:

The State, Through its rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Mahila Police Station, Chittoor.

....Complainant

AND 1.A.Manikanta, age 26 years, S/o A.Raja Reddy,

2. Anuradha, age 48 years, A.Raja Reddy,

3. A.Raja Reddy, age 64 years, S/o Pedda Appaiah All are R/at Akkimvaripalle Village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor and District.

...Accused

This case came up for final hearing before me on 18-02-2025 in the presence of Smt C.Swathi, Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri M.Papaiah,counsel for Accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of all relevant records this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Chittoor Woman Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.3 of 2019 for the offences under sections 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after called as I.P.C.) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (herein after called as D.P. Act)

2.The brief allegations of the charge sheet are as follows :-

III A.C.J. (Jr Division),Ctr 2 Judgment in C.C.No.619/2019

(a)The marriage of L.W.1/G.Hymavathi performed with A1 on 04.06.2017 at TTD Kalyanamandapam, Punganur as per Hindu rites and customs.

(b) It is further case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage

L.W.1/G.Hymavathi’s parents gave Cash of Rs.1,00,000/-, 200 grams of gold ornaments and also gave two wheeler to A1. A1 started suspecting her fidelity. At the time of her marriage as per demand of the A1 to A3, her parents presented Rs.2,00,000/- cash, two wheeler as dowry, they presented golden ornaments worth about 200 grams to A1, she joined the conjugal life of A1, they lived happily for six months only, whenever L.W.1 received phone calls from her parents and her brother, the accused suspected her fidelity and thereby caused mental agony to her.

(c) It is the further case of the prosecution A1 to A3 harassed the

L.W.1 to bring additional dowry amount from her parents house, due to which she used to bring money from her parents house and handed over the same to her to the accused. Thereafter they lived happily for some days again the accused started similar harassment. The accused/A1 suspected her fidelity, beat her twice or thrice for which she sustained injuries. A2, A3 also did not obstruct the harassment of A1 and instigated the A1. A1 did not provide basic needs to her. Since the accused increased the harassment for additional dowry amount L.W.1 expressed her parents inability.

(d) It is the further case of the prosecution that A1 increased harassment by saying that to execute her parents ancestral property of

Ac.2.00 in his name but L.W.1 did not inform the same to her parents with fond of hope the A1 would change his attitude in future. On 21.02.2018 while L.W.1 carrying fifth month pregnancy she went to her parents house. Her in laws/A2, A3 asked the L.W.1 to handed over her golden ornaments to them but she refused. Though L.W.1 was staying at her

III A.C.J. (Jr Division),Ctr 3 Judgment in C.C.No.619/2019 parents house, A1 never turn up, he denied his paternity of the child, he suspected her fidelity and abused her over phone.

(e) It is the further case of the prosecution that her parents placed the matter before the village elders/L.W.4 to 9 namely G.Subramanyam.

G.Venu, G.Eswaraiah, Manjula, P.Narasimhulu, Kumar, they held mediation between them but the accused did not heed their words, A1 beat her with stick then the village elders rescued her from the hands of the accused and finally A1 accepted L.W.1 to take in his conjugal life. On 12.04.2018 again L.W.1 joined the conjugal life of A1, on the next day A1 beat the L.W.2, kicked her and demanded her for Rs.2,00,000/- as

additional dowry, necked out the L.W.1, L.W.2 from his house. Though

L.W.2 had convinced A1 but he did not heed her words as there is no other option L.W.1 took shelter at her parents house.

(f) It is the further case of the prosecution that her parents, village elders made several effects to reunion of conjugal life but the accused did not heed their words, A1 got issued registered legal notice with false allegations to L.W.1, on 21.08.2018 she blessed with baby boy but the accused did not turn-up. On 29.01.2019 as she came to know that A1 is going to marry another girl, she went to Mahila Police station and gave report.

(g) Basing on the report, L.W.12/B.Sudhakar, Sub-Inspector of

Police/Investigating Officer registered case in crime number 3 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of

I.P.C.,and under Sections 4 of D.P.Act. During the course of

Investigation, he examined the L.W.1 to 11, recorded their statements and seized wedding card and five photos under cover of police proceedings, visited the scene of offence, drawn the rough sketch and served section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused, handed over the Case

Diary file to his superior officer, he filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

III A.C.J. (Jr Division),Ctr 4 Judgment in C.C.No.619/2019

3.This case was taken cognizance on file against the accused/A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.,and under Sections 4 of D.P.Act and issued summons to the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents have been furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined u/section 239 of Cr.P.C a charge under sections 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. is framed read over and explained to them in Telugu language,for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, P.W.s.1 to 7 were examined and

Exs.P.1 to P.4 were got marked. Among them P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1, P.W.3 is sister of P.W.1,

P.W.4, P.W.5 is close relative of P.W.1, P.W.6 is independent witness,

P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer. The learned A.P.P.given up the evidence of L.W.3, L.W.4 and L.W.13 namely S.Narayana,

G.Subramanyam and B.Kalakar Babu.

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined Under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which, they denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.The learned A.P.P. for the state would argued that the P.W.1 evidence is consistent and corroborated with the Ex.P1 report about the harassment of the accused both physically and mentally. She further argued that the evidence of P.W.1 is consistent and corroborated with her own report and also her statement recorded by the police and there were no discrepancies and contradictions in her evidence and she clearly deposed before the court about the harassment of the accused. She

III A.C.J. (Jr Division),Ctr 5 Judgment in C.C.No.619/2019 further vehemently argued that P.W.2 to P.W.6 also supported the prosecution case,and the Investigating Officer/P.W.7 who did prompt investigation by registering the crime and recorded the statement of witnesses, therefore the accused is liable to be punished.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the evidence of P.W.1 is neither supported in her own report nor her statement recorded by the police,she made several omissions in her evidence, which are neither stated before the

Investigating Officer nor mentioned Ex.P1 and the Investigating Officer did not make fair investigation. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that there is no ingredients of section 498-A,323 and 506 I.P.C. attracted in the present case and the Investigating officer/P.W.7 has not conducted the Investigating in correct lines and therefore, he contended that the prosecution failed to prove their case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and he is entitled for acquittal.

10.Heard Arguments of learned Asst Public prosecutor for the state and learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

11. Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.498-A, 323, 506 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt ? POINT :-

Taking the respective contentions into consideration it is pertinent to say that the initial onus is undoubtedly on the prosecution to clinchingly establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under the charged sections. It is to be observed as to how far the prosecution had succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused

III A.C.J. (Jr Division),Ctr 6 Judgment in C.C.No.619/2019 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under the charged sections.

12.This is an offence under the section 498-A of I.P.C. would generally occurs within four walls i.e. in laws house or in the house where the victim and accused resided together and therefore no independent witness will have an opportunity to know the marital disputes between the wife and husband. At best, they will know the same through the victim or relatives of the victim being the neighbors. So taking the above principles into the consideration this court proceeded to appreciate the evidence on the record. So Before going into the appreciation of the evidence it is necessary to notice the statutory provision of 498-A of I.P.C. which makes cruelty by husband or his relative is punishable one. A careful perusal of the above statutory provision,it provides a new dimension to the word ‘cruelty’ is defined (a) of explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C. postulates that any willful conduct which is as such nature as is likely to drive woman to commit suicide which was constitute cruelty. Such willful conduct, which is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, health (whether mentally or physically of the woman) also amounts to cruelty. Clause (b) of the explanation provides that harassment of the woman where such harassment with a view of coercing her or any person relating to meet her any unlawful demand for any property or any valuable security or failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand would also constitutes cruelty for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. The definition stipulates that the harassment has to be with a definite object of coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand. In order to prove that the accused is guilty for the offence under the section 498-A of I.P.C. the prosecution has to prove that the accused had subjected P.W.1 to such kind of cruelty as defined under the section 498-

A of I.P.C. This court is relying upon the decision reported by the Hon’ble

III A.C.J. (Jr Division),Ctr 7 Judgment in C.C.No.619/2019 supreme court in State of A.P. Vs M. Madhusudhanrao (2008)15 scc 582 where in Hon’ble supreme court held that for the purpose of sec.498A harassment simpliciter is not cruelty and it is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a women or any other person related her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc.

that it amounts to cruelty punishable u/s 498A IPC. So the harassment caused by the accused must be of such a kind in order to coerce her to meet the unlawful demand of any property or valuable security.

13. The prosecution in order to prove guilt of the accused got examined the defacto complainant as P.W.1/Hymavathi, she deposed about her marriage with A1 and also presentation of dowry, she joined conjugal life of A1, lived happily for six months.

14.She further deposed that whenever she received phone call from her parents A1 suspected her fidelity. A1 used to harass her to bring

additional dowry from her parents, he also harassed her to bring her

share on her parents property. Though she informed the harassment of

A1 to her in laws but they did not hear her words. A1 used to suspect her fidelity, he used to harass her to bring amount from her parents also. She further deposed that on 21-02-2018 she came to her parents house, she asked A1, A2 to hand over her gold ornaments but they did not hand over to her. Though she stayed about one month at her parents house, A1 did not turn up to take his conjugal life. A mediation was held in the presence of P.W.3, P.W.4, L.W.4, L.W.6, L.W.7 at her parents house, A1 he did not hear their words. In the said mediation A1 attempt to beat her. A1 took her to his house at Akkimvaripalle village. On the next day, A1, A3 picked up quarrel with her and her mother, necked out her, her mother from their house. As there is no option she came to her parents house at Chittoor. She blessed with baby boy at Govt.

III A.C.J. (Jr Division),Ctr 8 Judgment in C.C.No.619/2019

Hospital, Chittoo but A1 did not turn-up to see her child. She further deposed that she came to know that A1 is going to marry another girl as she went to Mahila Police station and gave report. During her cross examination it was elicited that she has not filed any document to show that her parents presented golden ornaments and also receipts of two wheeler to the accused at the time of the marriage along with Ex.P1 report. Since 2018 year she has been taking shelter at her parents house. A1 got issued registered legal notice for restitution of conjugal rights, she gave reply by saying that she would join in his conjugal life after delivery. After birth of she child also she has been taking shelter at her parents house. She filed partition suit against the accused and their family before Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Punganur.

After birth of baby there is no mediation was held between them. She has not got issued any registered legal notice for restitution of conjugal rights to A1. Though A1 attempt to beat him in the mediation she has not approached the police station to give report. She denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

15. The mother of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.2, she deposed about the marriage of P.W.1, P.W.1 informed her A1 harassed her for want of Addl.

bring additional dowry from her house. She further deposed that village elders held mediation since A1 did not turn up to take the PW1 in his conjugal life, a mediation was held but A1 did not heed their words.

During her cross examination it was elicited that A1 got issued registered legal notice for dissolution of marriage to Pw1. P.W.1 got issued reply notice to A1.

16.The brother of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.3, he deposed about the marriage of P.W.1 with A1,as per the demand of A1 her parents gave

Rs.50,000/- on twice, mediation was held in which A1 heat her with stoud stick, P.W.1 informed her that A1 to A3 necked out her, attempted to bed

III A.C.J. (Jr Division),Ctr 9 Judgment in C.C.No.619/2019

P.W.1. During his cross examination it was elicited that though Pw1 informed him about the alleged harassment of the accused he has not gone to the house of Pw1. A1 got issued registered legal notice to Pw1.

He cannot say the names of the village elders who held mediation.He denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

17. The brother in law of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.4, he he deposed that P.W.1 informed him that A1 demanded her for an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-, the accused suspected her fidelity. During his cross examination it was elicited that PW1 informed him that A1 got issued legal notice to her for restitution of conjugal rights. He denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

18. The brother in law of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.5, he deposed that

P.W.1 informed over phone that A1 suspected her fidelity due to which she gave report. During his cross-examination it was elicited that PW1 informed him that A1 got issued legal notice to her for restitution of conjugal rights. He denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

19. One of the village elder was examined as P.W.6, he deposed that in the year 2018 he noticed that some quarrel took place between the accused and P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.2 gave Rs.50,000/- on twice to the accused. During his cross-examination it was elicited that he did not tell

before the police he noticed the quarrel within the P.W.1 and accused,

P.W.2 gave Rs.50,000/- on twice.

20. The Investigating officer was examined as P.W.7, he deposed about the registration of the crime and also examined the P.W.1 to P.W.6 and seized wedding card, marrige photos under cover of Police Proceedings.

He further deposed that he visited scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence and served section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. notice

III A.C.J. (Jr Division),Ctr 10 Judgment in C.C.No.619/2019 to A1 to A3. He handed over C.D. file to his superior officer/L.W.13/S.Kalalar Babu, he verified and found it on correct lines and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. During his cross examination it was elicited that he has not examined and recorded the statements of the neighbors of A1. P.w.1 did not state before him that her parents gave scooter to A1. P.W.1 lived at her parents house as on the date of filing Ex.P1. Pw1 did not state before him on which date and also the place the mediation was held. He denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

21.In this case, the accused is charged for the offence U/s 498-

A,323,506 I.P.C. and section 4 of D.P. Act. Now this court has to see the acts attributed to the accused amount to cruelty and it falls u/s 498-A of

I.P.C. Whether a particular act of the accused amounts to cruelty or not depends on the appreciation done in the light of other facts and circumstances. What may be an act of cruelty in one circumstance may not be so in another circumstance.

22. Ex.P-1 is the First Information Report which put the motion of the prosecution case by the investigating officer, hence it can be said that

Ex.P1 is crucial document to the case of the prosecution particularly for the offence under section 498-A I.P.C.

23. On keen perusal of Ex.P-1, the recitals in Ex.P-1 is not corroborated and consistent with the evidence of P.W.1.It seems that P.W.1 made improvements in her evidence. As seen from Ex.P-1 she made several allegations against the accused but she did not depose the same before this Court.

24. The main reason for lodging Ex.P1 report that the accused/A1 to A3 harassed the L.W.1 to bring additional dowry amount from her parents house. On keen perusal of the Ex-P1, it does not find that on which day,

III A.C.J. (Jr Division),Ctr 11 Judgment in C.C.No.619/2019 month, year the accused harassed the P.W1. for want of additional dowry.

In Natari Parvati Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 731 (AP).wherein the lordship held that Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498-A – Appeal against acquittal – Accused alleged to have demanded

additional dowry ten years after the marriage and started harassing the

complainant for not meeting his demand – At what point of time a demand was made not established – The evidence of Pws.1,2 is interested and also discrepant–In the circumstances the acquittal cannot be interfered.

Admittedly, marriage of Pw.1 with A1 was performed about two years ago prior to Ex.P.1 report. In the present case as per Ex.P1, Pw.1 complained of cruelty and harassment meted out in the hands of accused,but she did not alleged any specific incident and dates of harassment in the matrimonial home except the stray sentence by deposing that the accused demanded additional dowry.

25. According to P.W.1 her parents placed the matter before the village elders/L.W.4 to L.W.7, P.W.4 to P.W.6, the said village elders held mediation in which A1 attempt to beat her whereas P.W.4, P.W.6 did not speak that they held mediation between the P.W.1 and the accused, therefore the alleged mediation was held between them is unproved.

26. The evidence of P.W.2 is hearsay therefore her evidence does not much evidentiary value. According to P.W.3 the village elders held mediation in which A1 beat P.W.1 which stoud stick, A1 to A3 picked-up quarrel with P.W.1 for want of additional dowry, attempt to beat P.W.2, beat the P.W.1 and necked out them from their house, whereas P.W.2 did not speak that the accused attempt to beat her.

27. According to P.Ws.4,5, P.W.1 informed them over phone that A1 demanded her for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, P.W.2 dropped her at the house of A1, A1 suspected her fidelity, whereas P.W.1 did not speak that she informed the above alleged harassment to P.Ws.4,5 over phone.

III A.C.J. (Jr Division),Ctr 12 Judgment in C.C.No.619/2019

Therefore the evidence of P.Ws.4,5 has no much evidentiary value.

28. According to P.W.5, P.W.1 informed him that A1 suspected her fidelity, whereas P.W.1 did not speak that she informed the alleged harassment to

P.W.5.

This Court relied upon the decision delivered by the Hon’ble High

Court of A.P. in betweenSanga Sunitha Vs. State of Telangana,

through S.H.O,police station.,Karimnagar I Town, rep. by its public

prosecutor and another reported in 2017 (1) ALT (Crl.) 209 (A.P.),

wherein it was held that “P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, however, they are not corroborated each other with regard to how many days after the marriage A1 subjected P.W.1 to cruelty by demanding additional dowry.”

29.As discussed supra, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 is not corroborated and not consistent with each other with regard to material aspects about the case of the prosecution and moreover, there is no evidence to show that the accused harassed P.W.1 by subjecting her to cruelty and such cruelty is of a nature that it had driven her to commit suicide or caused any injury to her life or limb. In the light of the above discussion, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the above point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

30. As discussed supra, in the light of the above discussion, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the above point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution..

31.IN THE RESULT, accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the charges

U/Sec.498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. and they are acquitted of the same

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period

III A.C.J. (Jr Division),Ctr 13 Judgment in C.C.No.619/2019 of six months. As per the record no property is seized by the police hence no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 28th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- S.Srinivasu

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

P.W.1: G.Hymavathi, -None- P.W.2: G.Sarojamma, P.W.3: G.Venu, P.W.4: P.Narasimulu, P.W.5: N.Kumar, P.W.6: A.Narashimulu, P.W.7: B.Sudhakar, Sub Inspector of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION : Ex.P.1 : Report of P.W.1. Ex.P.2 : First Information Report, Ex.P.3 : Police Proceedings, Ex.P.4 : Rough Sketch, ACCUSED: -Nil- Id/- S.S. III ACJ (Jr. Dvsn)-cum-

JMFC, CTR

III A.C.J. (Jr Division),Ctr 14 Judgment in C.C.No.619/2019

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Chittoor, Calender of Case tried by Sri S.Srinivasu, III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) :: Chittoor Date of Explanati on of Oi8ffenceReport orApprehensionReleaCommencemClose of TrialSentence ofdelay

and

Complaintof accusedsedent of TrialOrder Remarks on bail (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) Prior to10.05.201904.02.2019--13.11.202420.03.202528.03.2025Due to non 29.01.2019 productio n of witnesse s Judgment in Calendar Case No: 619 of 2019 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court : Chittoor

Complainant: The State, Through its rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Mahila Police Station, Chittoor. Name of Age yearsFather’s NameReligionCallingResidenceTaluk accused (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) 1.A.Manikanta, age 26 years, S/o A.Raja Reddy,

2. Anuradha, age 48 years, A.Raja Reddy,

3. A.Raja Reddy, age 64 years, S/o Pedda Appaiah All are R/at Akkimvaripalle Village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor and District. Offence: U/Sec. U/Sec.498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. Finding: Found not guilty Sentence: IN THE RESULT, accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the charges U/Sec.498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. and they are acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months. As per the record no property is seized by the police hence no property order is passed.

Sd/- S.Srinivasu

III Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Chittoor.. Date of receipt From: Remarks of the Chief Judicial Magistrate To The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor. Calender Case No.619 of 2019 Date of Judgment: 28.03.2025 Date of dispatch of calender: Date of receipt:

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 1 Judgment in C.C.No.48/2023

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR

PRESENT: SRI S.SRINIVASU III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor.

Thursday, this the Twenty Third (23rd ) day of February, 2023.

C.C.No.48 of 2023

BETWEEN

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chittoor I town Police Station.

..Complainant.

AND

1.Vadivelu Raghupathi, age 35 years, S/o. S. Vadivelu, Bharathidasan Street, Edapalyam Village, Vanapadi Post, Walaja Taluka, Ranipet District, Tamilnadu State.

2.Munisamy Naveen @ Appu, age 24 years, S/o. M. Munaswamy, Ambedkar Nagar, Arun Tadiyar Colony, Vanapadi Village and Post, Walaja Taluka, Ranipet District, Tamilnadu State.

3.Settu Ayyappan, age 34 years, S/o. D. Settu, Ponniyamman Kovil Street, Lakshmipuram Village, Iran Thangal Post, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District, Tamilnadu State.

4.Kuppan Uday Kumar, age 24 years, S/o. G. Kuppan, Ambedkar Nagar, Arun Tadiyar Colony, Vanapadi Village and Post, Walaja Taluk, Ranipet District, Tamilnadu State.s

..Accused.

This case coming for final hearing before me on 22.02.2023 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri.K.C. Kishore Kumar, counsel for the accused No.1,2 and 3, Sri. V.R. Ramakrishna, counsel for accused No.4, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of all relevant records this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police,Chittoor one town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.339/2022 for the offences punishable U/sec.379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code (in short called as I.P.C.)

2. The gravamen of the Charge sheet is that:

(a) On 17.08.2022 at about 9.30 p.m., at Babuji Nagar, near Om Shakthi Temple,

Kongareddipalli, Chittoor Town some unknown culprits were followed complainant on motor cycle meantime the complainant/V.Sujatha also travelling on motor cycle after distributed marriage invitation cards along with her brother V.Thyagarajan,at that time the culprits attempted on complainant as they came from opposite direction and one from the culprit have pulled complainant

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 2 Judgment in C.C.No.48/2023 neck gold chain weight about 24 grams and fled away on motor cycle by covering their heads with

Helment, the stolen chain worth is Rs.75,000/-.

(b) Basing on the complaint of LW.1/V. Sujatha, LW.8/E. Prabhakar, H.C 3129 of Chittoor one

Town P.S registered a case in Cr.No.339 of 2022 U/Sec.379 of I.P.C. and submitted FIRs to all concerned officers and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation on 22.08.2022,

LW.8 secured the presence of Lws.1 to 4 and examined them U/Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C and recorded their statements and examined the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Later LW.9/Sub Inspector of Police verified investigation done by LW.8 and found it on correct lines and took up further investigation. He obtained attested copy of confession,arrest and seizure

Mahazarnama and accused/A1 to A4 were produced before this court and subsequently remanded to District Jail, Chittoor in Cr.No.221/2022 of Chittoor Taluq P.S., after ascertaining the record LW.9 prepared a memorandum to sanction of P.T. warrant against the accused/A1 to A4. During interrogation accused/A1 to A4 voluntarily confessed that the commission an offence pertaining to this crime and M.O. 1 i.e., gold chain weighing about 24 grams was recovered and accused were arrested and remanded them to Judicial custody. Hence, the charge sheet.

3.This case has been taken on file U/Sec.379 or 411 I.P.C. against the accused/A1 to A4 and on production of accused from District Jail, Chittoor they were furnished with copies of necessary documents in compliance with Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. and explained the charge under section 379 or 411 I.P.C leveled against them in Telugu language for which they pleaded not guilty for the offence and claimed to be tried.

4.During the trial the prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and

M.O.1. The learned A.P.P. has given up evidence of LWs.2,3,4,6 and 9.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused were examined U/sec 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witness, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf of.

6.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state would argue that the evidence of

P.W. 1 shows about commission of theft of M.O.1 and presentation of her reports at I town Police

Station, Chittoor. He further argued that the Mediator/P.W.2 supported the case of the prosecution in all aspects, the Investigating officers i.e.P.Ws.3 and 4 have done proper investigation and filed

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 3 Judgment in C.C.No.48/2023 charge sheet in this case. Therefore, he prayed this court to convict the accused according to law.

7.Per contra,the learned counsel for the Accused argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 cannot be taken into consideration,though the mediator was examined, but during his cross examination he admitted that he did not receive any written summons and he cannot say how many vehicles were checked by the police prior to incident, hence his evidence cannot be taken into consideration. So, the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prayed this court to acquit the accused.

8.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the accused. Perused the evidence.

9. The point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Sec.379 or 411 I.P.C. against the accused /A1 to A4?

10.The prosecution in order to prove guilt of the accused got examined the De-facto complainant as P.W.1, she deposed that on 17-08-2022 at about 9.30 p.m., she accompanied with her brother LW.2/Thyagarajan on his motor cycle returning to house after completion of distribution of wedding card and return home, while they reached on Om Shakthi Temple, near Babuji Nagar , by that time some unknown person over take them and turn around towards them by the way one person slapped on her cervical spine, then she fell on the ground and subsequently one person pulled her gold chain and escaped with booty, the weighing of her gold chain is 24 grams worth about Rs.75,000/- and after one week she went to the police station and lodged report/Ex.P1.

11. One of the mediator before whose presence the accused/A1 to A4 separately confessed the commission of offence and the Investigating officer/P.W.4 seized the M.O. 1 was examined as

P.W.2,he deposed that in his presence P.W.4 interrogated the accused/A1 to A4 separately, on such the accused confessed the commission of the offence under the cover of confession,arrest cum seizure the mahazarnama under Ex.P2,in pursuance of their confession,the accused/A1 lead them to his house situated at setti Thangal village,Jyothi Nagar,Walaja,Ranipeta District,the Investigating officer/P.W.4 seized Motor cycles pertaining to other crimes and also golden ornaments in other crimes under the cover of seizure mahazarnama under Ex.P3.

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 4 Judgment in C.C.No.48/2023

12.One of the Investigation officer who registered the Crime No.339/2022 was examined as

P.W.3,he deposed that on the report presented by the P.W.1 he registered a case U/sec.379 I.P.C.

and issued First information report/Ex.P4,he examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and

L.Ws 2 to 4,visited the scene of offence and observed the scene, drawn rough sketch of scene offence under Ex-P5 thereafter he handed over the case diary to L.W.9,who verified the case diary file and found it correct lines and he produced the accused/A1 to 4 on execution of the P.T. warrant and filed charge sheet against the accused.

13.One of the Investigation officer who arrested the accused in Cr.No.224 of 2022 of Chittor

Taluka Police station and recovered the M.O.1 concerned in this crime and other crimes was examined as P.W.4., he deposed that on 28.10.2022 at about 2:15 p.m, he received credible information about the accused, he secured the mediators/P.W.2 and L.W.6 went to Gopalapuram

Bus Stop situated at Chittoor-Vellore National High way road and conducted vehicle checking, at that time the accused/A1 to A4 came on two motor cycles and on seeing police staff the accused tried to escape and he caught hold them with the help of his staff and on enquiry and on enquiry the accused/A1 to A4 voluntarily confessed the commission of offence in different police stations and also commission of this offence under the cover of confession,Arrest cum seizure mahazarnama under Ex-P2. He further deposed that in pursuance of their confession, A1 lead them to his house situated at Setti Thangal village, Jyothi Nagar, Walaja, Ranipet District, on the eastern side of his house, he shown stolen property which were hide in the thorny bushes and he further confessed that he concealed the above theft items in the said bushes, there he brought golden ornament on which he seized M.O. 1 under the cover of seizure mahazarnama/Ex-P3.

14.The evidence of P.W.2 is very consistent and corroborating with the evidence of investigating officer/P.W.4. No ill-will or motivate or enmity is established against the prosecution witnesses/P.W.s.1 to 4 to depose false against the accused/A1 to A4. Likewise,nothing bizarre or adverse was elicited through their evidence. Furthermore,there are no any exaggerations and embellishments or improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Likewise there are no significant omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses/P.Ws.1 to 4. So evidence of prosecution witnesses can be accepted and safely relied up on.

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 5 Judgment in C.C.No.48/2023

15.The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the Mediator/P.W.2 is not the local mediator and his evidence cannot be taken into consideration and the police failed to secure the local mediator at the time of recording confession of the accused, seizure of the M.O. 1 and hence the prosecution miserably failed to prove their case. This court is unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused. In this regard,this court relied upon the decision delivered by the Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Gandumenu Siva and others vs State of A.P. reported in 2015 (01) A.L.D. (Crl) 547.,wherein the lord ship held that“Local Mediators not required for seizure under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872”.The said ratio is clearly applicable to the present facts of the case,therefore,the contention of the accused has no force.

16.Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case and foregoing reasons I hold that, the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused U/sec 411 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the point is answered accordingly.

17.In the result the Accused/A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 379

I.P.C. and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The accused/A1 to A4 are found guilty for the charge u/sec 411 I.P.C. and they are convicted U/sec 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed my dictation,corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of February, 2023.

Sd/- S. Srinivasu

III ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to invoke the provisions of sec 360 Cr.P.C. and I do not feel that it is fit case to extend the benefits of Probation of Offenders

Act. When the accused/A1 to A4 are heard on question of sentence separately on which

A1 submitted that he is married and having two children and he is the sole bread winner of his family.

A2 submitted that he has old aged parents and the entire family depends on him.

A3 submitted that he has old aged parents and the entire family depends on him.

A4 submitted that he is married and having one child and he is the sole bread winner of his family, and further they submitted that they have been in judicial custody since 03-11-2022 and prays take lenient to view.

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 6 Judgment in C.C.No.48/2023

The accused/A1 to A4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for EIGHT

MONTHS for the said charge. The period of detentionis already undergoneby the accused/A1 to

A4 during the course of investigation,inquiry and trail shall be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C against the accused. As per the record the accused/A1 to A4 were in judicial custody for a period of 113 days i.e., from 03.11.2022 to till this day i.e. (23.02.2023). The property marked as M.O.1 in CPR. No.281 of 2022 which was already given to the owner of the property shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The accused/A1 to A4 informed about their right to get free copy of Judgment and they have right to approach the Appellate Court and also legal assistance from the Legal Services

Authority, Chittoor if they entitled for Legal Aid to file Appeal. The sentence passed in C.C.No 49/2022 shall be run concurrently.

Typed my dictation,corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of February, 2023.

Sd/- S. Srinivasu

III ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: V. Sujatha -NIL- PW2: M. Sarath Kumar PW3: E. Prabhakar PW4: V. Ramakrishna

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION : Ex.P.1 : Report of PW1. Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of confession, arrest and property seizure mahazarnama, dt.28.10.2022 at about 3.00 p.m. Ex.P.3 :Certified copy of seizure mahazarnama, dt.28.10.2022 at about 7 p.m. Ex.P.4 :First Information Report Ex.P5 : Rough Sketch of the Scene of offence.

DEFENCE : Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1:- One gold chain weighing about 24 grams vide CPR No.281/2022.

Sd/- S. Srinivasu

III A.J.F.C.M,

FAC IV AJFCM, CTR.

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 7 Judgment in C.C.No.48/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: CHITTOOR

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.No.48 of 2023

Date of offenceCr.No.339/2022 17.08.2022 Date of filing22.08.2022 Date of taken of file11.01.2023 Date of apprehension (appearance)28.10.2022 Date of commencement of trial 31.01.2023 Date of close of trial 22.02.2023 Date of Judgment23.02.2023 ComplainantThe State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chittoor I town Police Station.

Name of the Father nameAge Calling ReligionResidenceMandal accused

1.Vadivelu Raghupathi, age 35 years, S/o. S. Vadivelu, Bharathidasan Street, Edapalyam Village, Vanapadi Post, Walaja Taluka, Ranipet District, Tamilnadu State.

2.Munisamy Naveen @ Appu, age 24 years, S/o. M. Munaswamy, Ambedkar Nagar, Arun Tadiyar Colony, Vanapadi Village and Post, Walaja Taluka, Ranipet District, Tamilnadu State.

3.Settu Ayyappan, age 34 years, S/o. D. Settu, Ponniyamman Kovil Street, Lakshmipuram Village, Iran Thangal Post, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District, Tamilnadu State.

4.Kuppan Uday Kumar, age 24 years, S/o. G. Kuppan, Ambedkar Nagar, Arun Tadiyar Colony, Vanapadi Village and Post, Walaja Taluk, Ranipet District, Tamilnadu State.s

Nature of offenceU/Sec.379 or 411 of I.P.C. Plea of accused Not guilty Finding of the courtGuilty Sentence or order: In the result the Accused/A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The accused/A1 to A4 are found guilty for the charge u/sec 411 I.P.C. and they are convicted U/sec 248(2) Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to invoke the provisions of sec 360 Cr.P.C. and I do not feel that it is fit case to extend the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act. When the accused/A1 to A4 are heard on question of sentence separately on which A1 submitted that he is married and having two children and he is the sole bread winner of his family. A2 submitted that he has old aged parents and the entire family depends on him. A3 submitted that he has old aged parents and the entire family depends on him. A4 submitted that he is married and having one child and he is the sole bread winner of his family, and further they submitted that they have been in judicial custody since 03-11-2022 and prays take lenient to view. The accused/A1 to A4 are sentenced to undergo

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 8 Judgment in C.C.No.48/2023 simple imprisonment for EIGHT MONTHS for the said charge. The period of detentionis already undergoneby the accused/A1 to A4 during the course of investigation,inquiry and trail shall be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C against the accused. As per the record the accused/A1 to A4 were in judicial custody for a period of 113 days i.e., from 03.11.2022 to till this day i.e. (23.02.2023). The property marked as M.O.1 in CPR. No.281 of 2022 which was already given to the owner of the property shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The accused/A1 to A4 informed about their right to get free copy of Judgment and they have right to approach the Appellate Court and also legal assistance from the Legal Services Authority, Chittoor if they entitled for Legal Aid to file Appeal. The sentence passed in C.C.No 49/2022 shall be run concurrently.

Sd/- S. Srinivasu

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor.

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 9 Judgment in C.C.No.48/2023

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 1 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2023

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR

PRESENT: SRI S.SRINIVASU III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor.

Thursday, this the Twenty Third (23rd ) day of February, 2023.

C.C.No.49 of 2023

BETWEEN

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chittoor I town Police Station.

..Complainant.

AND

1.Vadivelu Raghupathi, age 35 years, S/o. S. Vadivelu, Bharathidasan Street, Edapalyam Village, Vanapadi Post, Walaja Taluka, Ranipet District, Tamilnadu State.

2.Munisamy Naveen @ Appu, age 24 years, S/o. M. Munaswamy, Ambedkar Nagar, Arun Tadiyar Colony, Vanapadi Village and Post, Walaja Taluka, Ranipet District, Tamilnadu State.

3.Settu Ayyappan, age 34 years, S/o. D. Settu, Ponniyamman Kovil Street, Lakshmipuram Village, Iran Thangal Post, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District, Tamilnadu State.

..Accused.

This case coming for final hearing before me on 22.02.2023 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri. K.C. Kishor Kumar, counsel for the accused No.1,2 and 3; and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of all relevant records this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police,Chittoor I town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.353/2022 for the offences punishable U/sec.379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code (in short called as I.P.C.)

2. The gravamen of the Charge sheet is that:

(a) On 03.09.2022 at about 10.30 a.m., in en route between Sambaiah Kandriga and Gandhi

Statue, Puttur Road, Chittoor Town, complainant were travelled in auto meantime unknown offenders accompanied with her in the same auto and then committed theft and stolen gold ornaments weighing about 14 grams (Two rings, one butta kammalu, one Lakshmi kasu) and amount of Rs.12,000/- total stolen property worth is Rs.68,000/- and cell phone. After some time the complainant found that her purse was missed and searched in way but could not found.

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 2 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2023

(b) Basing on the report of LW.1/T. Vijayalakshmi, LW.8/R.P. Sujatha, WASI of Chittoor I Town

P.S registered a case in Cr. No.353 of 2022 U/Sec.379 of I.P.C. and submitted FIRs to all concerned officers and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation on 04.09.2022, LW.8 secured the presence of Lws.1 to 4 and examined them U/Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C and recorded their statements and examined the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Later LW.9/Sub Inspector of Police verified investigation done by LW.8 and found it on correct lines and took up further investigation. He obtained attested copy of confession, arrest and seizure

Mahazarnama and accused/A1 to A3 were produced before this court subsequently remanded to

District Jail, Chittoor in Cr.No. 221/2022 of Chittoor Taluq P.S., after ascertaining the record LW.9 prepared a memorandum to sanction of P.T. warrant against the accused/A1 to A3. During interrogation accused/A1 to A3 voluntarily confessed that the commission an offence pertaining to this crime and M.Os.1 to 3 i.e., one lakshmi kasu, two gold rings, Butta Kammalu(ear studs) total weighing about 14 grams was recovered and accused were arrested and remanded them to Judicial custody. Hence, the charge sheet.

3.This case has been taken on file U/Sec.379 or 411 I.P.C. against the accused/A1 to A3 and on production of accused from District Jail, Chittoor they were furnished with copies of necessary documents in compliance with Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. and explained the charge under section 379 or 411 I.P.C leveled against them in Telugu language for which they pleaded not guilty for the offence and claimed to be tried.

4.During the trial the prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and

M.Os.1 to 3. The learned A.P.P. has given up evidence of LWs.2,3,4,6 and 9.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused were examined U/sec 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witness, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf of.

6.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state would argue that the evidence of P.W.

1 shows about commission of theft of M.Os.1 to 3 and presentation of her report at one town Police

Station, Chittoor. He further argued that the Mediator/P.Ws.2 supported the case of the prosecution in all aspects, the Investigating officers i.e.P.Ws.3 and 4 have done proper investigation and filed charge sheet in this case. Therefore, he prayed this court to convict the accused according

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 3 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2023 to law.

7.Per contra,the learned counsel for the Accused argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 cannot be taken into consideration, though the mediator was examined, but during his cross examination he admitted that he did not receive any written summons and he cannot say how many vehicles were checked by the police prior to incident, hence his evidence cannot be taken into consideration. So, the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prayed this court to acquit the accused.

8.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the accused. Perused the evidence.

9. The point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Sec.379 or 411 I.P.C. against the accused /A1 to A3?

10.The prosecution in order to prove guilt of the accused got examined the Defacto complainant as P.W.1, she deposed that on 3.9.2022 at about 10:30 a.m. while she was boarding in an auto from her village to proceed to go to sold her gold ornaments at Chittoor by packing 14 grams of gold i.e. one lakshmi Kasu, Two gold rings, Butta Kammalu(ear studs) to mortgage the same at Pawn Broker and also to kept an amount of Rs.12,000/- and mobile phone kept into her purse. She further deposed that at the time also three male persons are also boarded in the said auto with her. She get down the auto at Gandhi Circle and entered into the Church street by walk.

While she reached the pawn broker shop, she noticed her purse was stolen by unknown person. On that she searched for the same here and there but in vain. On that 4.9.2022 she went to the

Chittoor I Town Police Station and lodged Report/Ex.P1.

11. One of the mediator before whose presence the accused/A1 to A3 separately confessed the commission of offence and the Investigating officer/P.W.4 seized the M.O.s 1 to 3 was examined as

P.W.2,he deposed that in his presence P.W.4 interrogated the accused/A1 to A3 separately, on such the accused confessed the commission of the offence under the cover of confession,arrest cum seizure mahazarnama under Ex.P2,in pursuance of their confession,the accused/A1 lead the

Investigation officer to his house situated at setti Thangal village,Jyothi Nagar,Walaja,Ranipeta

District,the Investigating officer/P.W.4 seized golden ornaments/M.O.s 1 to 3 under the cover of

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 4 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2023 seizure mahazarnama under Ex.P3.

12. One of the Investigation officer who registered the Crime No.353/2022 was examined as

P.W.3,he deposed that on the report presented by the P.W.1 he registered a case U/sec.379 I.P.C.

and issued First information report/Ex.P4,he examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and

L.Ws 2 to 4,visited the scene of offence and observed the scene, drawn rough sketch of scene offence under Ex-P5 thereafter he handed over the case diary to L.W.9,who verified the case diary file and found it correct lines and he produced the accused 1 to 3 on execution of the P.T. warrant and filed charge sheet against the accused.

13.One of the Investigation officer who arrested the accused in Cr.No.221 of 2022 of Chittoor

Taluka Town Police station and recovered the M.Os. 1 to 3 concerned in this crime and other crimes was examined as P.W.4.He deposed that on 28.10.2022 at about 2:15 p.m, he received credible information about the accused, he secured the mediators/P.W.2 and L.W.6 went to Gopalapuram

Bus Stop situated at Chittoor-Vellore National High way road and conducted vehicle checking, at that time the accused and another came on two motor cycles and on seeing police staff the accused tried to escape and he caught hold of accused with the help of his staff and on enquiry the accused/

A1 to A3 voluntarily confessed the commission of offence in different police stations and also commission of this offence under the cover of confession,Arrest cum seizure mahazarnama under

Ex-P2. He further deposed that in pursuance of their confession, A1 lead them to his house situated at Setti Thangal village, Jyothi Nagar, Walaja, Ranipet District, on the eastern side of his house, he shown stolen property which were hide in the thorny bushes and he further confessed that he concealed the above theft items in the said bushes, there he brought golden ornaments on which he seized M.O.s 1to 3 under the cover of seizure mahazarnama/Ex-P3.

14.The evidence of P.W.2 is very consistent and corroborating with the evidence of investigating officer/P.W.4. No ill-will or motivate or enmity is established against the prosecution witnesses/P.W.s.1 to 4 to depose false against the accused/A1 to A3. Likewise,nothing bizarre or adverse was elicited through their evidence. Furthermore,there are no any exaggerations and embellishments or improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Likewise there are no significant omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses/P.Ws.1 to 3. So evidence of prosecution witnesses can be accepted and safely relied up on.

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 5 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2023

15.The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the Mediator/P.W.2 is not the local mediator and his evidence cannot be taken into consideration and the police failed to secure the local mediator at the time of recording confession of the accused, seizure of the M.Os. 1 to 3 and hence the prosecution miserably failed to prove their case. This court is unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused. In this regard,this court relied upon the decision delivered by the Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Gandumenu Siva and others vs State of A.P. reported in 2015 (01) A.L.D. (Crl) 547.,wherein the lord ship held that“Local Mediators not required for seizure under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872”.The said ratio is clearly applicable to the present facts of the case,therefore,the contention of the accused has no force.

16.Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case and foregoing reasons I hold that, the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused U/sec 411 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the point is answered accordingly.

17.In the result the Accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 379

I.P.C. and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The accused/A1 to A3 are found guilty for the charge u/sec 411 I.P.C. and they are convicted U/sec 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed my dictation,corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of February, 2023.

Sd/- S. Srinivasu

III ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to invoke the provisions of sec 360 Cr.P.C. and I do not feel that it is fit case to extend the benefits of Probation of Offenders

Act. When the accused/A1 to A3 are heard on question of sentence separately on which

A1 submitted that he is married and having two children and he is the sole bread winner of his family.

A2 submitted that he has old aged parents and the entire family depends on him.

A3 submitted that he has old aged parents and the entire family depends on him, and further they submitted that they have been in judicial custody since 03.11.2022 and prays take lenient to view.

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 6 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2023

The accused/A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for EIGHT MONTHS for the said charge. The period of detentionis already undergoneby the accused/A1 to A3 during the course of investigation,inquiry and trail shall be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C against the accused.

As per the record the accused/A1 to A3 were in judicial custody for a period of 113 days i.e., from 03.11.2022 to till this day i.e. (23.02.2023). The property marked as M.Os.1 to 3 in CPR. No.283 of 2022 which was given to the P.W.1 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The accused/

A1 to A3 informed about their right to get free copy of Judgment and they have right to approach the Appellate Court and also legal assistance from the Legal Services Authority, Chittoor if they entitled for Legal Aid to file Appeal. The sentence passed in C.C.No.48/2023 shall be run concurrently.

Typed my dictation,corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of February, 2023.

Sd/- S. Srinivasu

III ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: T. Vijayalakshmi -NIL- PW2: M. Sarath Kumar PW3: R.P. Sujatha PW4: V. Ramakrishna

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION : Ex.P.1 : Report of PW1. Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of confession, arrest and property seizure mahazarnama, dt.28.10.2022 at about 3.00 p.m. Ex.P.3 :Certified copy of seizure mahazarnama, dt.28.10.2022 at about 7 p.m. Ex.P.4 :FIR Ex.P5 :Rough Sketch of the Scene of offence.

DEFENCE : Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1:- One Lakshmi kasu M.O.2:- Two gold rings M.O.3:- Butta Kammalu (ear studs) total weighing about 14 grams vide CPR.No.283/2022.

Sd/- S. Srinivasu

III A.J.F.C.M,

FAC IV AJFCM, CTR.

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 7 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: CHITTOOR

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.No.49 of 2023

Date of offenceCr.No.353/2022 03.09.2022 Date of filing04.09.2022 Date of taken of file11.01.2023 Date of apprehension (appearance)28.10.2022 Date of commencement of trial 31.01.2023 Date of close of trial 22.02.2023 Date of Judgment23.02.2023 ComplainantThe State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chittoor I town Police Station.

Name of the Father nameAge Calling ReligionResidenceMandal accused

1.Vadivelu Raghupathi, age 35 years, S/o. S. Vadivelu, Bharathidasan Street, Edapalyam Village, Vanapadi Post, Walaja Taluka, Ranipet District, Tamilnadu State.

2.Munisamy Naveen @ Appu, age 24 years, S/o. M. Munaswamy, Ambedkar Nagar, Arun Tadiyar Colony, Vanapadi Village and Post, Walaja Taluka, Ranipet District, Tamilnadu State.

3.Settu Ayyappan, age 34 years, S/o. D. Settu, Ponniyamman Kovil Street, Lakshmipuram Village, Iran Thangal Post, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District, Tamilnadu State.

Nature of offenceU/Sec.379 or 411 of I.P.C. Plea of accused Not guilty Finding of the courtGuilty Sentence or order:In the result the Accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The accused/A1 to A3 are found guilty for the charge u/sec 411 I.P.C. and they are convicted U/sec 248(2) Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to invoke the provisions of sec 360 Cr.P.C. and I do not feel that it is fit case to extend the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act. When the accused/A1 to A3 are heard on question of sentence separately on which A1 submitted that he is married and having two children and he is the sole bread winner of his family. A2 submitted that he has old aged parents and the entire family depends on him. A3 submitted that he has old aged parents and the entire family depends on him, and further they submitted that they have been in judicial custody since 03.11.2022 and prays take lenient to view.

The accused/A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for EIGHT MONTHS for the said charge. The period of detentionis already undergoneby the

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 8 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2023 accused/A1 to A3 during the course of investigation,inquiry and trail shall be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C against the accused. As per the record the accused/A1 to A3 were in judicial custody for a period of 113 days i.e., from 03.11.2022 to till this day i.e. (23.02.2023). The property marked as M.Os.1 to 3 in CPR. No.283 of 2022 which was given to the P.W.1 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The accused/A1 to A3 informed about their right to get free copy of Judgment and they have right to approach the Appellate Court and also legal assistance from the Legal Services Authority, Chittoor if they entitled for Legal Aid to file Appeal. The sentence passed in C.C.No.48/2023 shall be run concurrently.

Sd/- S. Srinivasu

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor.

IV A.J.C.J.Chittoor 9 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2023

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Chittoor 1 Judgment in C.C.No.1524 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

CUM SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR EXCISE ::

CHITTOOR.

Present: Sri S.Srinivasu,

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) FAC VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chittoor

Friday, this the Twenty Eighth (28th) day of March, 2025.

C.C. No.1524/2022

Between:

State, Through its rep by: The Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Chittoor Urban. .. Complainant

And

D.Diwakar, age 34 years, S/o G.Damodaram, R/o D.No.6-443/2, Durga Kovil Street, Chittoor District.

...Accused

This case came up on 26-03-2025 before me for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri V.Murugan, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the record, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

The Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau

Station, Chittoor Urban, has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 34(1) r/w 34(a), 14(2) of A.P. Excise (Amendment)

Act, 2020.

2)In brief the case of the prosecution as set out in the Charge sheet is stated as follows ;-

(a) On 16.06.2021 at about 05.00 p.m. as per the instructions of Asst.

Superintendent of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau, Chittoor, during raids conducted by the Enforcement Inspector, Enforcement Sub

Inspector/L.W.3/N.Shreedhar, Special Enforcement Bureau, Chittoor Urban along with L.W.1/G.Shobha Rani, L.W.2/T.Venkarathanam and other staff at infront of the house bearing D.No.6-443/2, Durga Koil Street, Santhapeta,

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Chittoor 2 Judgment in C.C.No.1524 of 2022

Chittoor Town, found one male person standing by keeping one white colour bag in his right hand, on seeing the uniform officials he tried to escape. On suspicion, L.W.3/N.Shreedhar, Enforcement Sub-Inspector detained him, enquired about the bag, he revealed that the bag contains with liquior bottles.

(b) It is the case of the prosecution that, L.W.3/N.Shreedhar, Special

Enforcement Sub-Inspector deputed L.W.2/T.Venkarathanam, Head

Constable to nearest Sachivalayam for securing mediators. After some time he came and revealed that the voluntary, Sachiavalayam Staff are not available and other elders are not willing to act as mediators in this case.

(c) It is the case of the prosecution that L.W.3/N.Shreedhar,

Enforcement Sub-Inspector verified the bag found one white colour bag containing with 35 Nips of Amrut’s Silver Cup VSOP brandy each 180 ml each worth of Rs.70.26/- for sale in Karnataka, then he seized the said contraband after drawing one Nip of Amruths Silver-Cup Indian Brandy for analysis,arrested the accused brought to the Chittoor Urban Police station along with the seized property.

(c) Based on the Special Report, PW2/N.Sridhar, SEB, Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in crime No.194/2021 under Section 34(1) r/w 34(a), 14(2), 42 of A.P. Excise Act (Amendment) Act, 2020 and issued F.I.R

Copies to all concerned and sent the Original F.I.R before this Court and the accused was sent to the Court for judicial custody and sent the sample bottle to chemical analysis after receipt of analysis report, after completion of Investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance on file against the accused under

Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act 1968.

4.The accused appeared before this court on receipt of Summons and copies of documents are supplied to him as required under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 and explained the contents in Charge sheet for which,he denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to

P3 and M.O.1 were marked. P.W.1 is the Head Police Constable, who

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Chittoor 3 Judgment in C.C.No.1524 of 2022 assisted the P.W.2. P.W.2 is Sub-Inspector of Police, who detected the offence and registered the case and filed charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the Special

Report. Ex.P2 is the First Information Report. Ex.P3 is the Chemical Analysis

Report.

7. After closure of evidence on the side of Prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defense evidence.No witnesses were examined, and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the points that arise for determination are:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT NO.1 :

10. In order to make out an offence under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P.

Excise Act 1968, the prosecution shall prove that an accused is found in importing, exporting, transporting, manufacturing,collecting, or possessing or selling any intoxicant without any license or permit in that regard and the same is seized from his possession as per the procedure laid down under law.

11. It is admitted fact that the M.O.1 sample is “Indian made liquor”. That aspect was deposed by P.W.s1,P.W.2 and same was not disputed by the accused. The same was supported by recitals in the analysis report in

Ex.P3. Therefore, the prosecution established their case to that extent. But, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the M.O.1 sample is lifted from the seized property from the accused and more particularly the seizure of the property from the accused.

12.One of the police Head constable, who assisted the sub-Inspector was examined as P.W.1, he deposed in similar lines that of P.W.2 about the arrest of the accused and seizure of the property. During his cross examination he

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Chittoor 4 Judgment in C.C.No.1524 of 2022 admitted that the place of offence is under the corporation limits. The scene of offence is a busy area and public moment area. He denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

13. The Investigating officer was examined as P.W.2, he deposed that on on 16.06.2021 at about 05.00 pm during the raids conducted by him, along with his staff of Chittoor Urban near Santhapeta, Chittoor Town, detected a case and found one person was standing by keeping one white colour bag in his right hand and he tried to escape after leaving the bag, on suspicions the raid party surrounded and detained him and PW2 enquired him, he revealed that the white bag containing with Non duty paid liquor bottles. He deputed

P.W.1/T.Venkatarathna to Santhapeta of Chittoor town for securing mediators, after some minutes P.W.1/T.Venkatarathnam came and revealed that none were come forward to act as mediators in this case. He verified the property found one white bag containing 35 Nips of Amruths Silver Cup

VSOP Brandy each 180 ml and he took sample brand from the property and sent it for chemical analysis he seized the remaining contraband under cover of Special Report. During investigation he brought the accused and the contraband to the police station. He register the case in Cr.No.194/2021

U/Sec. 34(1) R/w 34(a), 14(2), 42 of A.P. Excise Act and sent the accused to

Judicial Custody on 16.06.2021. After receipt of chemical analysis report, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet .

14.During the course of cross-examination of P.W.2, he stated that the scene of offence is busy locality. There are some petty shops near to the scene of offence. He denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

15. In view of the above said admissions in the cross examination of

P.W.s1,2, it is quite clear that no fruitful effort taken by the Investigating

Officer to secure the presence of mediators for arrest of accused and the seizure of the property. Furthermore it is evident from the evidence that drafting of special report by P.W.2 is not according to law.

16.It is well settled principle of law that a police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public who is legally bound to assist

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Chittoor 5 Judgment in C.C.No.1524 of 2022 him, such police officer can take action against such a person under the law for declining to assist him. In this case apparently no such action is initiated against the persons who allegedly refused to act as mediators. It is therefore very doubtful whether really P.W.2 sent P.W.1 to secure the presence of independent mediators once the case property was alleged to have been found in the possession of the accused. Even otherwise, P.Ws.1,2 are

Special Enforcement Bureau Officials and their evidence manifestly demonstrates that they did not make any sincere efforts to secure the presence of independent mediators they stated in the evidence before the

Court that the scene of offence is a busy locality.

17.This Court relied upon Judgment reported in [2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P) between the parties MUDAVATH MOTHIA v. STATE OF A.P. wherein our Hon'ble High Court of A.P.inter alia held at para-5 as follows:

“Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the A.P.

Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version, The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the BAR under Section 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, and

Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt.”

18.In the light of the discussion made herein-above and in view of the aforementioned decisions, non-examination of the independent mediators/witnesses in this case from the locality where the property is said to have been seized, is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

19.From the above, it is crystal clear that except the evidence adduced by the Special Enforcement Bureau Officials- PWs.1 and 2, who are very much interested in the outcome of the case no independent witnesses were examined in support of their case. Thus, the case of the prosecution that the

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Chittoor 6 Judgment in C.C.No.1524 of 2022 accused was found in possession of 35 Nips of Amruths Silver-Cup VSOP

Indian Brandy each 180 ml and the same was seized from the possession of the accused at the scene of offence is highly doubtful in as much as the evidence of Prohibition and Excise official does not inspire the credibility and confidence of the Court in the absence of corroboration from any independent witnesses. It is well established principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions or on mere surmises and conjectures. Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict an accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, Point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

20.IN THE RESULT, accused found not guilty for the charge under

U/Sec. 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in

C.P.R.No.472/2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 28 th day of March, 2025.

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) FAC VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chittoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution :Accused : P.W.1: T.Venkatarathnam -None- P.W.2: N.Sridhar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution :Accused :

Ex.P1: Special Report -NIL- Ex.P2 : First Information Report. Ex.P3: Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 – Sample Bottle of Amruth’s Silver Cup VSOP 180 ml

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Chittoor 7 Judgment in C.C.No.1524 of 2022

III A.C.J (J. D),

VI A.C.J (J. D)

Chittoor.

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Chittoor 8 Judgment in C.C.No.1524 of 2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Chitto or, Calender of Case tried by Sri S.Srinivasu, III Additional

Civil Judge, (Junior Division) FAC VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) ::

Chittoor Date of Explanation of delay and OffenceReport orApprehensiRelCommencClose ofSentenc Remarks Complainton ofeasement ofTriale of accusededTrialOrder on bail (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) 16.06.2021 12.07.2022 16.06.2021--27.07.2023 26.3.202528.3.202Due to non production of 5 witnesses Judgment in Calendar Case No:1524 of 2022 on the file of VI Additional

Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court : Chittoor

Complainant: State, Through its rep by: The Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Chittoor Rural.

Name of Age Father’s NameReligionCallinResidenceTaluk accusedyearsg (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)

D.Diwakar, age 34 years, S/o G.Damodaram, R/o D.No.6-443/2,Durga Kovil Street, Chittoor District.

Offence: U/Sec. 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act Finding: Accused found not guilty for the offence U/s 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act Sentence: IN THE RESULT, accused found not guilty for the charge under U/Sec. 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in C.P.R.No.472/2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) FAC VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chittoor

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Chittoor 9 Judgment in C.C.No.1524 of 2022

Date of receipt From: Remarks of the Chief Judicial Magistrate To The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor. Calender Case No.1524/2022 Date of Judgment: 28.03.2025 Date of dispatch of calender: Date of receipt:

// True Copy //

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) FAC VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chittoor

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Ctr 1 Judgment in C.C.No.1659 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

CUM SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR EXCISE ::

CHITTOOR.

Present: Sri S.Srinivasu,

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) FAC VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chittoor

Friday, this the Twenty Eighth (28 th ) day of March, 2025.

C.C. No.1659/2022

Between:

State, Through its rep by: The Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Chittoor Urban.

.. Complainant

And

L.Adikesavulu, age 43 years, S/o Lakshmanna, R/o D.No.10-542, Amman Kovil Street, Chittoor Town,Mandal and District.

...Accused

This case came up on 26-03-2025 before me for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri M.Prasad, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the record, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Chittoor Urban, has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 34(1) r/w 34(a), 14(2), 42 of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2)In brief the case of the prosecution as set out in the Charge sheet is stated as follows ;-

(a) On 07.10.2021 at about 07.10.2021 at about 10.30 a.m. during the raids by the Enforcement Sub-Inspector/L.W.3, Special Enforcement

Bureau, Chittoor Urban along with L.W.1/H.Venkateswarlu, L.W.2/M.Babu,

Constables and other staff near Amman Koil temple, Peddaharijanawada,

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Ctr 2 Judgment in C.C.No.1659 of 2022

Chittoor Town, found one male person standing by keeping one white colour bag in his right hand, on seeing the uniform officials he tried to escape. On suspicion, L.W.3/N.Sridhar, Enforcement Sub-Inspector detained the person and enquired about the bag, he revealed that the bag contains liquor bottles.

(b) It is the case of the prosecution that, L.W.3/N.Shreedhar, Special

Enforcement Sub-Inspector deputed L.W.2/T.Venkarathanam, Head

Constable to 39 Ward Sachivalayam for securing mediators. After some time he came and revealed that V.R.O. Women Constable were not available and other elders are not willing to act as mediators in this case.

(c) It is the case of the prosecution that L.W.3/N.Shreedhar,

Enforcement Sub-Inspector verified the bag found one white colour urea bag containing 25 Nips of Amrut’s Silver Cup VSOP brandy each 180 ml each worth of Rs.70.26/- for sale, then he seized the said contraband after drawing one Nip of Amruths Silver-Cup Indian Brandy for analysis,arrested the accused brought to the Chittoor Urban Police station along with the seized property.

(d) Based on the Special Report, L.W.3./N.Sridhar, SEB, Sub-Inspector of

Police registered a case in crime No.322/2021 under Section 34(1) r/w 34(a), 14(2), 42 of A.P. Excise Act (Amendment) Act, 2020 and issued F.I.R

Copies to all concerned and sent the Original F.I.R before this Court and the accused was sent to the Court for judicial custody and sent the sample bottle to chemical analysis after receipt of analysis report, after completion of Investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance on file against the accused under

Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act 1968.

4.The accused appeared before this court on receipt of Summons and copies of documents are supplied to him as required under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 and explained the contents in Charge sheet for which,he denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to

P3 and M.O.1 were marked. P.W.1 is the Police Constable, who assisted the

P.W.2. P.W.2 is Sub-Inspector of Police, who detected the offence and

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Ctr 3 Judgment in C.C.No.1659 of 2022 registered the case and filed charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the Special Report.

Ex.P2 is the First Information Report. Ex.P3 is the Chemical Analysis Report.

7. After closure of evidence on the side of Prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defense evidence.No witnesses were examined, and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the points that arise for determination are:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT NO.1 :

10. In order to make out an offence under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P.

Excise Act 1968, the prosecution shall prove that an accused is found in importing, exporting, transporting, manufacturing,collecting, or possessing or selling any intoxicant without any license or permit in that regard and the same is seized from his possession as per the procedure laid down under law.

11. It is admitted fact that the M.O.1 sample is “Indian made liquor”. That aspect was deposed by P.W.s1,P.W.2 and same was not disputed by the accused. The same was supported by recitals in the analysis report in

Ex.P3. Therefore, the prosecution established their case to that extent. But, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the M.O.1 sample is lifted from the seized property from the accused and more particularly the seizure of the property from the accused.

12.One of the police constable, who assisted the sub-Inspector was examined as P.W.1, he deposed in similar lines that of P.W.2 about the arrest of the accused and seizure of the property.He denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Ctr 4 Judgment in C.C.No.1659 of 2022

13. The Investigating officer was examined as P.W.2, he deposed that on 17.10.2021 at about 10.30 am during the raids conducted by him, along with his staff of Chittoor Urban near Amman Koil temple, Peddaharijanawada,

Chittoor Town, detected a case and found one person was standing by keeping one white colour bag in his right hand and he tried to escape after leaving the bag, on suspicions the raid party surrounded and detained him and PW2 enquired him, he revealed that the white bag containing with Non duty paid liquor bottles. He deputed P.W.1 to secure mediators but in vain.

He verified the property found one white bag containing 25 Nips of Amruths

Silver Cup VSOP Brandy each 180 ml and he took sample brand from the property and sent it for chemical analysis he seized the remaining contraband under cover of Special Report. During investigation he brought the accused and the contraband to the police station. He register the case in

Cr.No.322/2021 U/Sec. 34(1) R/w 34(a), 14(2), 42 of A.P. Excise Act and sent the accused to Judicial Custody. After receipt of chemical analysis report, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet .

14.During the course of cross-examination of P.W.2, he stated that the scene of offence is busy locality. He has not obtained the signatures of the accused and on the seizure of the property. He denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

15. In view of the above said admissions in the cross examination of

P.W.s1,2, it is quite clear that no fruitful effort taken by the Investigating

Officer to secure the presence of mediators for arrest of accused and the seizure of the property. Furthermore it is evident from the evidence that drafting of special report by P.W.2 is not according to law.

16.It is well settled principle of law that a police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public who is legally bound to assist him, such police officer can take action against such a person under the law for declining to assist him. In this case apparently no such action is initiated against the persons who allegedly refused to act as mediators. It is therefore very doubtful whether really P.W.2 sent P.W.1 to secure the presence of independent mediators once the case property was alleged to have been found in the possession of the accused. Even otherwise, P.Ws.1,2 are

Special Enforcement Bureau Officials and their evidence manifestly

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Ctr 5 Judgment in C.C.No.1659 of 2022 demonstrates that they did not make any sincere efforts to secure the presence of independent mediators they stated in the evidence before the

Court that the scene of offence is a busy locality.

17.This Court relied upon Judgment reported in [2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P) between the parties MUDAVATH MOTHIA v. STATE OF A.P. wherein our Hon'ble High Court of A.P.inter alia held at para-5 as follows:

“Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the A.P. Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version, The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the BAR under Section 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, and Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt.”

18.In the light of the discussion made herein-above and in view of the aforementioned decisions, non-examination of the independent mediators/witnesses in this case from the locality where the property is said to have been seized, is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

19.From the above, it is crystal clear that except the evidence adduced by the Special Enforcement Bureau Officials- PWs.1 and 2, who are very much interested in the outcome of the case no independent witnesses were examined in support of their case. Thus, the case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of 25 Nips of Amruths Silver-Cup VSOP

Indian Brandy each 180 ml and the same was seized from the possession of the accused at the scene of offence is highly doubtful in as much as the evidence of Prohibition and Excise official does not inspire the credibility and confidence of the Court in the absence of corroboration from any independent witnesses. It is well established principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions or on mere surmises and conjectures. Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict an accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Ctr 6 Judgment in C.C.No.1659 of 2022 evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, Point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

20.IN THE RESULT, accused found not guilty for the charge under

U/Sec. 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in

C.P.R.No.515/2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 28 th day of March, 2025.

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) FAC VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chittoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution :Accused : PW.1: H.Venkateshwarlu -None- Pw.2: N.Sridhar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution :Accused :

Ex.P1: Special Report -NIL- Ex.P2 : First Information Report. - Ex.P3: Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 – Sample Bottle of Amruth’s Silver Cup VSOP 180 ml

III A.C.J (J. D),

VI A.C.J (J. D)

Chittoor.

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Ctr 7 Judgment in C.C.No.1659 of 2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Chitto or, Calender of Case tried by Sri S.Srinivasu, III Additional

Civil Judge, (Junior Division) FAC VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) ::

Chittoor Date of Explanation of delay and OffenceReport orApprehensiRelCommencClose ofSentence Remarks Complainton ofeasement ofTrialof Order accusededTrial on bail (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) 07.10.2021 15.7.2021207.10.2021--19.3.2025 24.3.2025 28.3.2025Due to non production of witnesses Judgment in Calendar Case No:1659 of 2022 on the file of VI Additional

Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court : Chittoor

Complainant: State, Through its rep by: The Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Chittoor Rural.

Name of Age Father’s NameReligionCallinResidenceTaluk accusedyearsg (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)

L.Adikesavulu, age 43 years, S/o Lakshmanna, R/o D.No.10-542,Amman Kovil Street,Chittoor Town,Mandal and District.

Offence: U/Sec. 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act Finding: Accused found not guilty for the offence U/s 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act Sentence: IN THE RESULT, accused found not guilty for the charge under U/Sec. 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in C.P.R.No.515/2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) FAC VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chittoor

VI ACJ (Jr. Division) Court, Ctr 8 Judgment in C.C.No.1659 of 2022

Date of receipt From: Remarks of the Chief Judicial Magistrate To The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor. Calender Case No.1659/2022 Date of Judgment: 28.03.2025 Date of dispatch of calender: Date of receipt:

// True Copy //

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) FAC VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chittoor