Sri. T Kanhya Lal

1 of 15 CC 271 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

:: AT HYDERABAD ::

PRESENT:SRI T.KANHYA LAL,

XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Thursday, the 03rd day of November, 2022

C.C. No.271 / 2017

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad …… Complainant

And

Bipin Jain, S/o Sunil Jain, Age: 36 Years, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No.101, Shreya Mansion Apartments, H.no.6-3-1099/1/4 & 5, Somajiguda, Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad. …… Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Vishal Kedia, Advocate for the accused, and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:-

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

1.Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

That on 07.12.2016 at Somajiguda, Hyderabad the Accused no.1 has been running a Shri Karma Jewels, H.No.6-3-680, Flat No.301, Sri

Venkatarama Apartments, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and A1 used to purchase the diamonds and diamond studs gold jewellery from various firms/shops and incurred huge loss in the said business and hatched a plan to induce other businessman who gives jewellery on credit basis and in the month of

October, 2016 the accused no.1 placed an order with Sri Rakesh Surana of

Divine Jewells, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and need diamonds of 2 carats on which the said Rakesh Surana delivered 2.02 carat diamonds worth about 2 of 15 CC 271 of 2017

Rs.9.99 Lakhs and after receiving the same, A1 avoided payment to the complainant firm and fled away from Hyderabad and went to Kochi and met with Accused no.2 of Aravind Jewelleries and sold him total 4 solitaries of 1 carat each to said A2 and returned back to Hyderabad and spent the money lavishly for your wrongful gains. On the report of Lw1/S.Roop Kishore Varma, the police registered a case against the accused in Crime No.883/2016 u/s 406 and 420 of IPC.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, PS. Panjagutta, Hyderabad filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Secs.406 and 420 of

IPC.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under Secs.406 and 420 of IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused copies of documents relied by the prosecution were furnished to him as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused is examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and Charges for the offences under Secs.406 and 420 of IPC are framed, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language. He denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution had examined the five witnesses i.e., Pw1 to Pw5 and got marked ExP1 to ExP10. The learned APP had given up the evidence of

Lw5.

3 of 15 CC 271 of 2017

7.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the incriminating material put to him and he did not propose to examine any defence witness.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could able to

prove the guilt of the accused for the

offences punishable under sections 406

and 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt or not ?”

POINT:

10.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused ordered Diamond of 2.02 carats worth of Rs. 9.99 lakhs with a false promise to pay the amount with in two to three days and fled away with diamond and sold the same to

Accused no2 and spent the amount for his levishment.

11.To prove the offence the prosecution cited eight witnesses but got examined only five witnesses that is Pw1 to Pw5. Pw1 was the employee of defacto complainant, who gave the complaint / Exibit P1. Pw2 was the defacto complainant. Pw3 was the punch for confession and seizure punchanama/Exibit P5 and P6. Pw4 was the investingation officer and pw5 was the investingation officer in another Crime no.228 /2016 of P.S.

Charminar who arrested the accused in his case and while recording his 4 of 15 CC 271 of 2017 confession in ExP10 where the accused also admitted his guit relaing to this case.

12.Pw1 who was the employee of Pw2 and working in Divine jewellers for ten years , deposed that on 18-10-2016 Pw2 told him to deliver 2.2 carrot two diamonds to accused worth of Rs. 9.99 lakhs. He further deposed that for ten days they tried to contact A1 through cell but it was switched off. Then the owner sent them to the acccused’s home and the home was locked.

Therefore he went to the police station and lodge the report. He further said that along with the complaint he submitted Tax invoice, certificate of registration of firm. Authorization letter. In cross examination he said he saw the accused when went to his home for deliver of diamonds. He admitted that he did not have personal knowledge about the order given by the accused . He also admitted that he did not file any document at the time of filing complaint. He also admitted that he did not mentioned in his complaint regarding authorization letter issued by Pw2. He admitted that he did not file

GST returns. He denied the suggestion that accused no 1 never received any

Diamond that is why GST returns was not filed. He denied that there was a delay of nearly one month for lodging the complaint.

13.Pw2, who the owner of the shop depose that pw1 , was his employee and they deals in loose diamonds and diamond jewelleries in the name and style of ‘Divine Jewellers‘ they supplies the diamonds to rest of the hyderabad . On 18-10-2016. the Bipin Jain (accused no.1) enquired for loose diamonds and they negotiated on the same day and on 22-10-2016 they supplied the loose diamonds in his office at flat no 301, venkatramana

Apartment, somajuguda vide invoice no 201, dated 22-10-2016 after delivery 5 of 15 CC 271 of 2017 the accused promised to pay the amount within one week and after one week when they went to the office of the accused, they came to know that the accused fled away with all the stock and cheated many jewellery shop in hyderabad. There was a paper clipping also about the accused. On 7-12-2016 they presented a complaint in P.S. Panjagutta.

14.In cross, he said he did not file partnership deed of the complainant firm. He said he and one Rajkumar surana are the partners of Divine jewellers. He said he was the managing partner of the company as such there is no need for him to obtain authorisation from other partners. He admitted that he did not file any document to show he was the managing partner of the company. He also admitted that he didnot file any document that the accused order diamonds from them. He also admitted that he did not file any acknowlement that the accused received diamond from them. But added that they got the seal of the office of the accused on Invoice Exibit P2 .

He admitted that he knew the accused and his brother and dealt with them several times and accused made payments to all the previous transactions .

He admitted that Exibis P2 ‘s severals columns were blank. He did not know whether the signature on Exibits p2 was of accused or not.

15.Pw3 deposed that on 4-1-2017 at 7.15 am when he was proceeding near NIMS, the SI of police asked him to act as punch witness and he gave his consent and the accused confessed before him about the commission of this offence along with another offence of ps charminar and took the police to

Karma jewellers and there the police seized the one Hard disk and two receipt books. After that police took his signature on the punchamana. In the cross he said he was resident of raidurgam and he does not resides in the limits of punjagutta. He did not have any prior acquitance with the SI of 6 of 15 CC 271 of 2017 police . He further said he did not received any summons from the police but received a phone call. He denied that he was a stock witness to the police .

He failed to tell the address of Karma jewellers even though as per his evidence he went to the office of accused no.1 (Karma Jewellers).

16.Pw4, who was the investigating officer deposed that on 7-12-2016 at 9:30pm, he received the complaint of pw1 and registered a case and issued

FIR/Exibit p7 and took up the investigation and proceeded to the shop and found it locked . He did not find any information of accused. Later he receive information that the accused was arrested by LW7 in crime no:228/2016 of PS charminar and obtain the case paper and produce the accused by PT warrant on 21-12-2016. he got the custody of the accused for two days in which the accused confessed the commission of the offence in the presence of mediators. Later he made efforts to arrest Accused no 2 but could not . Then he filed the chargesheet against Accused no 1 only by showing Accused no2 as absconding.

17.In cross examination he wrongly stated that the complaint was filed by

Karma jewellers and by Bipin jain owner of Divine jeweller. He also admitted that he did not investigate whether the Divine jewellers is a partnership concerned or proprietaty concerned. He also admitted that the complainant did not submit him any documents to proof that diamonds were handed over to the accused. He also admitted that the complainant did not hand over any authorisation given to pw1 by Divine jewellers. He admitted that the confession of the accused recorded by LW7 did not contain any crime number . He also admitted that he did not visited Kerala. He said he did not get any information about Accused no.2 (Ravi proprietor of Arvind Jewellers). He denied that there is no such person. He admitted that the pw1 didnot state 7 of 15 CC 271 of 2017 the reason for the delay in his complaint or 161 statement. He admitted that he did not collect the stock register and GST of the complainant company. He admitted that he did not investigate from whom the complainant precured the material.

18.Pw5 was the investigating officer in crime no 228/2016 of ps charminar and who arrested the accused. He deposed that on 11-11-2016 he received a complaint from one Mukesh Ranka and register a case against accused and apprehended the accused and recorded the confession statement of the accused in the presence of LW3 and LW4 where the accused confessed the present case . In cross examination he admitted that he did not mentioned the crime no in the said punchanama. He denied that the punch were the stock witness of the police.

Appreciation of evidence:-

19.The case of the prosecution is based on the initial confession of the accused in another case that is crime 228/2016 before the pw5. But the prosecution did not examine any one of the panch witness in Crime

No.228/2016 before whom the accused alleged to have confessed the said offence. The said punchama was marked as Exibit P-10. After perusing the said punchanama it is abserved that it did not contain the crime number. As per the said panchanama the accused confessed that he committed the similar offences relating to the complainant’s shop and on the strength of the same the accused was arrested on P.T.Warrant in the present case. Later the

Pw4 took the police custody of the accused for two days and recorded another confession of the accused in which the accused confessed that he received diamonds from the complainant company and fled away with the 8 of 15 CC 271 of 2017 same and sold the same to the accused no.2 in Kerala. But police failed to recover any property from the possession of accused no.2. Even the police also failed to arrest A2 in this case.

20.The defence counsel argued that Pw1 without any authority had filed the complaint before the police, therefore basing on the sole ground the prosecution case has to be set aside. The defence has relied on the judgment cited in “1997 (1) ALD (Crl) 745 AP Between Satish and Company Vs

S.R.Traders and Others”. But the fact of the said case are different from the present case. That case was filed on behalf of a company u/s 138 of N.I.

Act in which the Hon’ble High Court discussed the Section 142 i.e., a complaint by a company and against a company. The present case is filed u/s 420 and 406 of IPC and they are cognizable offences as per schedule (1) of the Cr PC. Therefore, it is necessary to look into “Section 154 of Cr PC

which says about institution of a criminal case relating to cognizable

offence. Every information relating to the commission of

cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police

station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction,

and be read over to the information; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

21.After perusing the Section 154, it used the word “informant” and there is no rule that every such information should be given by the defacto complainant. Even the third person can give an information to the police to 9 of 15 CC 271 of 2017 set the criminal law into motion. In this case, Pw1 was the employee of Pw2, therefore he was competent to lodge a complaint before the police. Pw1 was the employee of the defacto complainant and as per the Section 154 of Cr PC he was competent to initiate the action against the accused. But Pw1 did not state the reason for the delay for lodging FIR. As per the evidence of Pw1 after delivery the diamonds to the accused and waiting for 10 days, they came to know that the accused fled away. That means they came to know on 04-11-2016 but ExP1 complaint was lodged on 07-12-2016. Even at the time of registration FIR, the reaons for the delay is not mentioned. How could the defacto complainant commit delay of so many days when the alleged property was worth of Rs.9.99 Lakhs. The prosecution has not explained even at the time of trial, the reason for the delay. ExP1 does not contain the date and the column of the date was left blank. As per the Pw1, the diamond was handed over to the accused over phone order dated 18-10-2016. There is no such call record. Pw1 is an interested witness being employee of Pw2.

Therefore, the evidence of Pw1 has to be evaluated under the light of the independent or cogent evidence.

22.Pw2, who was the Managing Partner of the Divine jewellers also failed to prove that he handed over these diamonds to the accused. He admitted that he did not file any document to show accused placed order from them.

According to Pw2 he gave the call record to the police, in which the accused put his order for the diamond but no such call record has been produced

before this court. That means, there is no such call records and only to cover

the gap, the Pw2 stated about call record. Pw2 admitted that he did not file any acknowledgment that the accused received the diamond but he relied on seal of the office of the accused on invoice/ExP2. There are no such 10 of 15 CC 271 of 2017 documents except ExP2 which shows accused received the diamonds from the Pw2. ExP2/Invoice which contains the seal of the office of the accused, but why it does not contain the signature of the accused when it pertaining to diamond worth of Rs.9.99 Lakhs. The defence argued that ExP2 is created one. Before this court no such seal was admitted into evidence even though seized which also create a doubt. There is possibility that ExP2 was created and the seal was put by someone else but not by accused as the seal was seized in the absence of A1 from his office.

23.Pw3, who was the panch for confession of the accused deposed that the accused confessed about the alleged offence but as per his admission he was not local to the PS Panjagutta and did not have any acqaintance with the

Investigating Officer. Eventhough, he received a phone call from the

Investigating officer to act as mediator. He admitted that he did not receive any summons to act as mediator. He failed to tell the address of office of A1.

Therefore his evidence is also not trustworthy.

24.Pw4 who was the Investigating Officer and after going through his evidence, it is observed that his entire investigation was incomplete investigation as he failed to recover the diamonds under the strength of confession panchanama, even though, he got police custody of the accused.

He failed to ascertain about A2 who was alleged to be the purchaser of the diamond from A1. He never visited the place of A2 i.e., Kerala. His first and foremost duty was to receive material evidence to show that A1 received diamonds from Pw2 but in cross examination he admitted that complainant did not submit any document in proof of handing over of diamond to the accused. His entire investigation is based on the confession of the accused.

11 of 15 CC 271 of 2017

But admittedly no property has been recovered from the accused and the said confession is hit by section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act says that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

Section 26 of Indian Evidence Act says that Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him:- No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of the police Officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.

25.Pw5 who was the Investigating Officer in Crime No.228/2016 and who recorded the initial confession of the accused before Lw3 Mohd Irfan and Lw4

Mohd Wajid admitted in cross examination that he did not mention the crime number in the said panchanama. In this case, Lw3 and Lw4 were not examined and non mentioning of Crime number by Pw5 is also against the prosecution. The evidence of Pw5 is not of much important as the accused never confessed before him about this alleged offence.

26.That means, the confession before the police officer or in the custody of the police officer cannot be proved against the accused. The entire case of the prosecution is relying on the confession of the accused but as per the above said sections, the confession before the police has no value before the court of law except under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, which says.......

Section 27: How much of information received from accused may be proved:- Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it 12 of 15 CC 271 of 2017 amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

According to Section 27, if the content of the confession of the accused lead to a discovery of fact, then the prosecution is permitted to prove the said fact even though, it was mentioned in the custody of the police. In this case, it was alleged that the accused confessed that he fled away with the diamond and sold the said diamond to Accused no.2 by name Mahaveer Jain and spent the amount for his lavishment. But the prosecution failed to prove that the accused indeed went to Kerala alongwith the diamond and sold the same to A2 and spent the said amount for his lavishment. Therefore the prosecution could not able to prove that the accused received the diamonds from Pw2 and defrauded its payment.

27.It is admitted by the defacto complainant/Pw2 that he and accused were indulge in may transactions and the accused paid amount for the previous transactions. The defence took the plea that by taking the advantage of Crime no.228 of 2016 of PS Charminar, accused was falsely implicated for collecting the interest of previous transaction.

28.As per prosecution it was a business transaction and accused received the diamond as per their business. If it is so, then the prosecution should prove that the accused had intention at the begining of the transaction. Mere breach of contract or failure to pay due amount in business does not amount to cheating.

29.If the accused would have fled away with the diamond then it can be said that he had the intention of cheating and at the inception of the contract but here the prosecution has failed to prove the main ingredients of cheating 13 of 15 CC 271 of 2017 or criminal breach of trust that the accused had received diamond from defacto complainant and fled away. Even the contents of confession also not proved as police failed to arrest so called A2 who purchased the diamond.

There is no independant witnesses in this case nor any substantial material to prove accused received diamonds from the defacto complainant and sold the same to A2 except ExP2. But the prosecution had failed to prove ExP2 beyond doubt.

30.The learned counsel for the accused has filed the following citations:- (1) Rekha Jain Vs The State of Karnataka & Anr in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468, (2) Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors Vs The State of West Bengal &

Others in Crl Appeal No.463 of 2022, (3) Anil Mahajan Vs Bhor industries Ltd and Another (2005) 10

Supreme Court Cases 228, (4) Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs State of Uttaranchal and Others in (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 and (5) Adorn Jewellers, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat and Others Vs

State of Andhra Pradesh and another ALD (Crl) 2019(2).

....To point out the necessary ingredients of Section 420 and 406 of IPC.

But under the present circumstances it is not proved beyond the doubt that the accused no.1 had received diamonds from the Pw2. Therefore, there is no purpose to discuss the principle laid down in the above said citations.

31.The Investigation Officer seized one hard disk and receipt book from the Office of the Accused no.1. But no such material are produced by the prosecution at the time of trial. Even no document from the Office or accused no.1 relating to receipt of the diamond by the accused and no call record has 14 of 15 CC 271 of 2017 been produced at the time of trial. As per Section 114 of Indian Evidence

Act, the court may presume under illustration (g) that the evidence

which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be

unfavourable to the person who withholds it. Therefore, it is infered that the prosecution intentionally did not produce the above said material as it will be unfavourable to his case.

32.The evidence of Pw1 to 5 are not reliable as there are material omissions in their evidence as discussed above and when there are no independent witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution could not able to prove the alleged offence beyond all reasonable doubt.

33.In the result the accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr PC for the offence

Under Section 406 and 420 of IPC and bail bonds, if any shall be cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The case property seized by the police i.e., one computer hard disk and two receipt books shall be disposed off, after expiry of appeal time.

 Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 03 rd day of November, 2022.

XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

Pw1. S.Roop Kishore Varma (Complainant)­Nil­

Pw2 Rakesh Surana (Witness and victim)

Pw3 B.Sridhar (Panch witness)

Pw4 K.Gurunath (Investigating Officer)

Pw5 V.Eshwar Rao (Investigating Officer) 15 of 15 CC 271 of 2017

EXHIBITS MARKED 

Ex.P1 Complaint

Ex.P2 Original tax invoice

Ex.P3 Mee Seva copy of certificate of Registration of firms

Ex.P4 Authorization letter

Ex.P5 Two signatures on confession statement of the accused

Ex.P6 Signature on seizure report

Ex.P7 First Information Report

Ex.P8 Confession statement of the accused

Ex.P9 Seizure report

ExP10 Attested copy of Confession panchanama.

XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1 of 10 CC No.4264 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: SRI T.KANHYA LAL,

XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Thursday, the 03rd day of November, 2022

C.C. No.4264/2019

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad …… Complainant

And

1. Vairal Prem Kumar @ Prem, S/o V.Shivaji, Age: 34 Years, R/o H.No.8-2-613/75/L/270, Uday Nagar, Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

2. Mohammed Juwer Jalal @ Md. Zubair, S/o Mohammed Jalauddin, Age: 24 Years, R/o Plot No.176/A/A/1, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

3. M.Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh, S/o Mekala Srinivas Rao, Age: 29 Years, R/o H.No.8-2-269/19/571/A, Indira Nagar, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

4. Mohammed Junaid Jalal @ Md. Adnani, S/o Mohammed Jalauddin, Age: 26 Years, R/o Plot No.176/A/A/1, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

5. Mohammed Abdul Samad @ Md.Sameer, S/o Mohammed Abdul Waheed, Age: 22 Years, R/o H.no.6-2-400, Chintal Basthi, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

2 of 10 CC No.4264 of 2019

6. T.Poornachandra Chary @ Chandra, S/o Tipparthy Ranga Chary, Age: 31 Years, R/o H.No.8-2-293/82/PLN/203, Ambedkar Nagar, Film Nagar, Hyderabad.

7. Pendyala Srikanth @ Chinna, S/o Pendyala Shankaraiah, Age: 32 Years, R/o H.No.8-2-293/82/PLN/199, Ambedkar Nagar, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

…… Accused No.1 to 7

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of theAssistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri K.Narender, Advocate for the accused no.1 to 7, and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:-

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

1. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:-

On 13.11.2018 at 14.30 hours Lw1: Sri E.Narsimha Naik, Sub

Inspector of Police, PS Panjagutta stated that some TRS party workers i.e., accused no.1 to 7 went at the top of the building at

Khairtabad, Hyderabad and climbed the advertisement hoarding and threatened with dire consequences by saying that “If MLA ticket is not given to Manne Goverdhan Reddy” the accused no.1 to 7 would jump from the hoarding and thus created nuisance and caused inconvenience to the public. Later the complainant lodged a report before the PS Panjagutta and the police registered a case against the accused no.1 to 7 for the offence punishable u/s 309, 506, 341 of IPC.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 7 in Crime No.554/2018 3 of 10 CC No.4264 of 2019 for the offences punishable under sections 309, 506, 341 of the

Indian Penal Code, after completing the investigation.

3.This court had taken cognizance for the offences under sections 309, 290 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused no.1 to 7.

4.Copies of documents were furnished to the accused no.1 to 7 contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C., on their production

before the Court.

5.The accused no.1 to 7 were examined under section 251

Cr.P.C. and read over and explained the accusations levelled against them under sections 309, 290 of the Indian Penal Code, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2.

7.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 to 7 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused no.1 to 7 denied the incriminating material put to them and they did not propose to examine any defence witness.

8.Heard both sides.

4 of 10 CC No.4264 of 2019

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could able

to prove the guilt of the accused no.1

to 7 for the offences punishable

under sections under sections 309,

290 of the Indian Penal Code beyond

all reasonable doubt or not ?”

POINT:

10.It is the case of the Prosecution that all the accused climbed a hoarding and threatened that they would jump from there if MLA ticket is not given to Manne Govardhan Reddy and they were party workers of TRS

Party and thereby committed the offence of attempt to commit suicide, public nuisance and liable for punishment under section 309 and 290 of

IPC.

11.The complainant in this case is a police officer, who was working as sub Inspector of police in the same Police station. The Eye witnesses and the investigation officer were also from the same police station. Therefore their evidence has to be seen carefully without any scope of doubt. In this case the prosecution got examined Pw1 to 4, Pw1 and 2 were said to be eye witnesses and Pw3 was said to be the complainant, who gave complaint/ExP-1 and Pw4 was the SHO, who issued FIR/Ex-P2. The prosecution failed to examine the investigation officer LW5 B.Bhasker Rao even though sufficent time was given. Now in this case whether the prosecution could able to prove the alleged offence with the evidence of

Pw1 to 4 beyond all reasonable grounds is the point to be decided.

12.The prosecution got examined one of the constable of the P.S.

Punjagutta as Pw1 who was claimed to be the eye witness of the incident.

I am reflecting the only material evidence from the evidence of PWs 5 of 10 CC No.4264 of 2019 which is relevent to this point. Pw1 deposed that on 13/11/2018 afternoon he received a phone call from Sub inspector of Police E.Narsimha

Nayak(Complainant) that 5 to 6 persons climbed the advertisement hoarding at Khairtabad cross road and demanding MLA seat to one

Goverdhan Reddy. There after the wife of the Goverdhan Reddy came there and compromised the matter and they got down from the hoarding.

The names of the said persons were Rakesh, Sameer, and Adnan. He did not remember the names of other persons. He identified all the accused as the same persons who climbed the hoardings. In the cross examination he denied that he did not state in his 161 statement that he can identify the accused persons.

13.Pw2 who was the second eye witness and a home guard of the same police station deposed that on 13/11/2018 afternoon he received a phone call from Sub inspector of Police E. Narsimha Nayak(Complainant) asking him to come to the Khairtabad Cross roads and after going there they found 5 to 6 persons climbed and threatening and demanding MLA seat for one Goverdhan Reddy. They were there till 5pm and later the wife of the Goverdhan Reddy came there and compromised the matter and they got down from the hoarding. He also told 3 names among the said persons as Zubair, Chinna and Sameer. He did not remember the names of the remaining persons. He claimed that he could identify two persons as Zubair and Sameer.

14.PW3 who was the complainant deposed that on 13/11/2018 at 2.30Pm when he was in the police station he received an information that some TRS party workers came to Khairtabad Cross roads and raising slogans and demanding MLA ticket to one Manne Goverdhan Reddy. He also came to know that some of the workers climbed advertisement 6 of 10 CC No.4264 of 2019 hoarding. Immeditely he along with one Police Constable and Home guard proceed there and found a huge public gathering and also noticed TRS party workers climbed advertisement hoarding threatening and demanding MLA ticket for one Manne Goverdhan Reddy. At about 5.30 Pm wife of the Goverdhan Reddy came there and convinced them to get down from the hoarding. He said he can identify those 7 persons and he told 3 names as Zubair, Rajesh and Chinna. He identified the accused as the same persons who climbed the advertisement hoarding. In cross examination he admitted that he did not filed any document to show he was on the duty. He also admitted that he did not mentioned in Ex-P1 from whom he received the information. He also admitted that he did not mentioned in Ex-P1 the names of the staff who accompanied him.

15.Pw-4 only deposed that he registered a case that is Ex-P2 on the complaint of Pw3. In cross examination he admitted that he did not received any proof to show Pw3 was on duty. He also admitted that he did not obtained the signature of Pw3 in column No.14 of FIR/ Ex-P2.

Appreciation of Evidence Pw-1 to 4.

16.Pw1 in his evidence never said that those persons were threatening to commit suicide as alleged. Pw1 identified all the accused as the same persons who climbed the hoarding board. But in his 161 statement he never said that he can identify the persons who climbed the hoarding board. Even the prosecution has not filed any document to show Pw1 was on duty at the alleged place of offence. Pw1 was also failed to state how many persons exactly climbed the hoarding because as per the prosecution 7 persons alleged to climb the hoarding and Pw1 even did not know the actual number by saying 5 to 6 members. When Pw1 did not 7 of 10 CC No.4264 of 2019 know the names and exact number of the persons then is it possible to identify all the accused after more than 2 years.

17.Pw2 who was also second eye witness deposed the same way that they were 5 to 6 persons who climbed the hoarding. Pw2 claimed that he could identify 2 persons but stated the wrong names before this court.

Pw2 also did not say that all the persons threatened that they will jump from the hoarding. He pretended that he can identify all the persons but failed to identify before this court. Prosecution also did not produced any document to show Pw2 was also on the duty at the alleged place of offence.

18.Pw3 who is the complainant in this case did not mentioned either in his complaint, 161 statement or in his evidence that from whom he got the information. He said that all the accused were 7 in numbers and they themselves got down on the request of the wife of the Manne Goverdhan

Reddy. That means the said persons got down from the hoarding themselves on the request of the wife of the Goverdhan reddy but not stopped by any person or police from jumping. That means the said persons were not attempting any suicide and they were only at the stage of preparation that is why they withdraw themselves and got down. It is settled law that an act shall be considered as an attempt when a person commits the said act but fails. When there is ample opportunity to withdraw from the said act then the said act shall be at the stage of preparation. There is no provision in law to punish a person for preparation for committing suicide.

8 of 10 CC No.4264 of 2019

19.Pw3 admitted that he did not filed any document while giving complaint to show he was on duty. Even he did not mentioned the names of Pw1 and 2 in his complaint that they accompanied him.

20.Pw4 evidence is not much important to decide the point as he only registered the FIR on the complaint of Pw3 but he admitted that FIR does not contain the signature of Pw3 in Column no.14. It could be possible that Pw4 without any complaint issued FIR and later collected the complaint copy from Pw3 that is why there is no signature of Pw3 on Ex-

P2.

21.All the witnesses mentioned above are police personels. It does not mean that police witnesses are not reliable but when the alleged offence is occurred in the day light among the public then not making any person from the public a witness create a doubt. As per the fact of the prosecution case it involves the name of political party people and there is every possibility that the police might have acted on the behest of ruling party. Therefore under such circumstances non examination of individual public is fatal to the prosecution case. The alleged offence took place on a busy road and the police could have secured even a CC TV footage or mobile video to show that some person climbed the hoarding and the same persons are the accused. It is out of understanding that even after more than 2 years, Pw1 to 3 identifying the accused in the court hall when they did not see the accused in between. Even if it presumed for a moment that they were having very good memory then also they gave only 3 names and claimed that accused were the same persons without stating in their 161 statement that they shall identify the persons if shown to them. There is every possibility that the accused were shown to Pw1 to 3 by the prosecution in the court hall otherwise 9 of 10 CC No.4264 of 2019 generally it is not possible to identify all the accused persons even after laps of more than2 years.

22.There are no other material except the evidence of police officials to prove that all the accused were the same miscreants who did the alleged offence. The evidence of Pw1 to 3 are not trust worthy due to the contradictions and omissions mentioned above and in the absence of evidence of investigation officer it cannot be said that all the accused persons did the alleged offence. The evidence of investigation officer was very important to come to the conclusion that how he concluded that the accused persons were the same persons who did the alleged offence.

23.Therefore the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged offence comes under the purview of 309 of IPC and also failed to prove that the accused were the persons who climbed the hoardings and created public nuisance as defined under 290 of IPC.

24.In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 309, 290 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted in terms of section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall, if any stand cancelled, after expiry of appeal time.No case property is filed before this court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 03rd day of November, 2022.

XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

10 of 10 CC No.4264 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1 – Shafi Mohinuddin (Eye Witness)- Nil -

PW2 – Khasimaiah (Eye Witness)

PW3 – E.Narasimha Naik (Complainant)

PW4 – B.Srinivasulu (Investigating Officer)

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – Complaint- Nil -

Ex.P2 – First Information Report

XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1 of 7 CC 984 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ::

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT:SRI T.KANHYA LAL,

XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Thursday, the 03rd day of November, 2022

C.C. No.984 / 2016

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad …… Complainant

And

A2. Smt. Upadi Saraswati, W/o Upadi Niranjan, Age: 25 Years, Occ: Rag Picker, R/o H.No.10-5-492/B, Lalaguda, Tukaramgate, Secunderabad.

A3. Upadi Niranjan, S/o Late U.Thimanna, Age: 27 Years, Occ: Band Master, R/o H.No.10-5-492/B, Lalaguda, Tukaramgate, Secunderabad.

A4. Ayub Khan @ Ayub, S/o Late Sultan Khan, Age: 47 Years, Occ: Scrab Business, R/o H.no.12-14-155, Vinobha Nagar, Lalapet, Secunderabad.

A5. Manthuri Rajaiah, S/o Late Bhoomaiah, Age: 40 Years, Occ: Scrap Business, R/o H.No.7-101/114-A, Raghavendra Nagar, Nacharam, Uppal, R.R.District. …… Accused nos.2 to 5

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Mohd Vaseeuddin, Advocate for the accused, and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:-

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

1.Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

That on 17-04-2015 at about 07.20 hours, Lw1: Smt. Shalini Mishra, resident of Quarter No.1, Panjagutta Officers Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad stated that she is residing in the said house since 1996. Lw1/Smt.Shalini

Mishra kept one big bras Ganesha Idol alongwith a brass table (small) and 2 of 7 CC 984 of 2016 brass bowl of water on the eastern side and on western side there were two

Docra Art Tribal Figures on the either side of stone idol and when the

Lw1/Smt.Shalini Mishra went there and found the above mentioned 8 items were missing, hence Lw1/Smt.Shalini Mishra lodged a report before the police and the police registered a case against the accused in Crime No.314/2015 u/s 380 r/w 411 of IPC.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad filed charge sheet against accused no.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Secs.380 r/w 411 of IPC and the Investigation Officer undertook to file a separate charge sheet against Accused no.1.

3.This court has taken cognizance for the offence under Secs. 380 r/w 411 of IPC against the accused nos.2 to 5.

4.On appearance of the accused nos.2 to 5 copies of documents relied by the prosecution were furnished to them as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The Accused nos.2 to 5 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and

Charges for the offences under Secs.380 r/w 411 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language. Accused nos.2 to 5 denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution has examined four witnesses i.e., Pw1 to Pw4. Basing on the report of police, the evidence of Lw1, 8`, 9 and 11 was closed by this court. Further the evidence of LW12 and 13 has been given up by the learned

APP.

3 of 7 CC 984 of 2016

7.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.2 to 5 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused Nos.2 to 5 denied the incriminating material put to them and they did not propose to examine any defence witness.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under

Secs.380 r/w 411 of IPC or not?”

POINT:

10.It is the case of the prosecution that when the defacto complainant was not present at home and the door was locked then A1 to A3 entered into her lawn and commited the theft of some Brass Idols and items and some of them were sold to Accused No.4 and 5. Therefore A1 to A3 were liable for theft and punishable under Section 380 of IPC and A4 and A5 were liable for receiving stolent property and punishable under section 411 of IPC.

11.The prosecution got examined Pw1 to 4. Pw1 was the circumstantial witness who alleged that he saw the thieves. Pw2 also shown as circumstantial witness who saw the thieves. Pw3 was the panch for scence of offence panchnama and Pw4 was the panch for confession cum seizer panchnama of A1 to A5. The prosecution failed to examine the defacto complainant and investigation officer even though sufficient time was given.

Now the only evidence availbale in the hand is Pw1 to 4 and has to be appreciated in the absence of evidence of defacto complainant and 4 of 7 CC 984 of 2016 investigation officer. Even there are no eye witnesses in this case. Therefore there is heavy burden on the prosecution to prove the case with the evidence of Pw1 to 4.

12.Pw1 who was a milk vendor deposed that on 17/04/2015 at 4.30 AM he noticed 2 ladies came at the scene of offence and they were sent away. He cannot identify those 2 ladies. In the cross examination he said he was examined by the police after 2 days of the incident.

13.Pw2 also deposed that on 17/04/2015 at 4.30 AM he noticed 2 ladies near the scene of offence and he scolded them. He cannot identify those 2 ladies. In the cross examination he said he was examined on the same date of incident but the police recorded his statement in telugu in police station on the next day.

14.Pw3 who was the panch for scene of offence was declared hostile as he denied the scene of offence panchnama and his signature. He said he was called to the police station and there police obtained his signature. Nothing was revealed in the cross examination by the APP to prove that PW3 was resiled from his previous statement.

15.PW4 who was panch for confession and recovery panchnama was also declared hostile. Nothing was revealed in his cross examination to prove that he is deposing false to support the accused.

Appreciation of Evidence of Pw1 to 4

16.As per the prosecution case the theft was commited by some unknown persons and the entire case of the prosecution is basing upon the circumstantial evidence. Pw1 and 2 evidence shows that they noticed 2 5 of 7 CC 984 of 2016 ladies on the date of alleged incident that is why they were shown as circumstantial witness but Pw1 and 2 never said to the police that they can identify those ladies if shown to them.

17.Pw1 said he was examined by the police after 2 days of the incident but as per the record Pw1 was examined on the same date of incident. Pw2 testified that he was examined on the next date of the incident and his statement was recorded in telugu where as the record shows he was also examined on the same date of incident. Pw2 specifically mentioned in his 161 statement that he saw the 2 ladies but no such test identification parade was conducted by the police which draw a inference against the prosecution case.

18.Pw3 and 4 were turned hostile therefore the prosecution also failed to prove that the police visited the scene of offence and the police recovered the stolen articles from the possession of the accused and the accused confessed to have committed the said offence.

19.In this case the defacto complainant is not examined and the source of information that A1 to A3 were the culprits is also not revealed and the accused were not identified and no material object has been produced before this court. The entire case is depend on the source of information received by the police during the investigation that the stolen property was withheld by the A3 at Lalapet but failed to explain how they got the said information.

There are no eye witnesses to say accused no.1 to 3 committed the theft.

The complainant was an IAS officer and being in such a high post there is every posibility that the police might have implicated the accused to complete the investigation otherwise why the panch witness did not support the prosecution case. There is also contradictions between the prosecution case and the evidence of Pw1 and 2. As per the Pw1 and 2 they saw 2 ladies 6 of 7 CC 984 of 2016 but as per the prosecution A1 to A3 entered into the house of LW-1 (Defacto

Complainant). The prosecution also failed to establish beyond doubt that the material recovered was the same material which was stolen from the house of LW-1. It is very easy for some one to secure the same items from the market. Under such untrusty evidence of PW1 and 2 and in the absence of evidence of Lw-1 and Investigation officer it is not prudent to say A1 to A3 committed the alleged offence of theft and A4 and A5 received the same knowing them as stolen property. Therefore the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

20.In the result the accused nos.2 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 380 r/w 411 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property i.e., One Brass Art Tribal

figure given to the defacto complainant towards interim custody,

shall be made absolute. 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 03 rd day of November, 2022.

XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW1– K.Adithya (Circumstantial witness)- None -

PW2– M.Madhu (Circumstantial witness)

PW3 – D.Naveen Kumar, (Panch witness for Scene of offence panchanama)

PW4 – K.Mahesh (Panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama) 7 of 7 CC 984 of 2016

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1

CC. No. 1976 of 2018

Dated 04-04-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : SRI. T. KANHYA LAL,

XIV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 04th day of April, 2024

C.C. No. 1976 of 2018

Between:-

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, PS. Panjagutta, Hyderabad. ..… Complainant.

AND

A1. Koti Venkat Rao, S/o. K.V. Kameshwar Rao, Aged 36 yrs, Occ. Regional Sales Manager of

M/s Esanda Finance and leasing limited...... Accused .

Note :- Case against 2 and 3 was split up vide CC.No. 3462/2024 and

the case against A4 to A6 is Acquitted vide CC.No. 859/2003 dated

25-07-2019.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Counsel for the accused, and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this court has made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS. Panjagutta, Hyderabad filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 498, 471, 506 r/w 120 (b) of Indian penal code (referred as IPC).

2

CC. No. 1976 of 2018

Dated 04-04-2024

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that:-

(i)The complainant M/s Yeses Engineers and Contractors, a Registered

Partnership firm represented by its Managing Partne Sri. S. Subramanyam

Naidu lodged a private complaint before this Court under section 200 Cr.P.C., in which he stated that in the year 1999 the complainant booked TATA Indica car with TATA Engineering and Locomotives company Limited, Mumbai and on 12.03.199 the complainant received a letter of allotment of TATA Indica car and then he approached the Sales Manager M/s Esanda Finance,

Hyderabad for providing finance for purchase of TATA Indica car and on 09.08.1999 M/s Esanda Finance sent a letter sanctioning loan amount of Rs.

2,64,000/ repayable in (24) equal installments of Rs.12,902/ per month and on 28.10.1999 the vehicle TATA IndicaCar was delivered to the complainant by M/s Jasper Industries Limited with Engine No. 475 IDI 01 KQQP 27185 and chassis No. 60613 IQQP 26417 along with the original sale invoice, sales certificate (Form No.21) and Form No.22. The complainant after taking over the vehicle applied for the insurance from United India Insurance bearing policy No.132650 dated 19.11.1999 and the complainant after taking possession of the vehicle, due to some reasons he did not get it register the vehicle at RTA, but paid the installments to the accusedA1 firm regularly for a period of fifteen months to the tune of Rs. 1,57,091/ towards the loan amount either in cash or in demand draft and after that the complainant defaulted some installments and on 20.12.2000 the complainant approached

A1 with a sum of Rs. 80,000/ to clear the balance installments due to the car finance and A1 to A3 refused to accept the amount of Rs.80,000/ and seized the vehicle without any right and no notice was served on the complainant for nonpayment of installments by A1 to A3. The complainant filed a civil suit vide O.S. 2269/2001 on the file of Hon’ble VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad and obtained injunction on 04.05.2001 directing A1 not to 3

CC. No. 1976 of 2018

Dated 04-04-2024

dispose or sell the above car. In spite of the Court orders A1 to A3 filed duplicate invoices and forged documents as if complainant signed on them and got the vehicle registered on 27.02.2001 at RTA Hyderabad Central zone and the vehicle was assigned the number as AP9AJ1644 without his knowledge. The complainant approached RTA authorities that he is in possession of original documents of the vehicle and requested to furnish the documents. Lw.4N.T. Narayana Chary furnished the documents of the vehicle which are forged and not genuine prepared by A1 to A3 by producing a forged Police Certificate about the missing of original documents. Lw.3Mohd.

Altaf Hussain, HC5084 of P.S. Bowenpally denied having issued any such certificate from P.S. Bowenpally and the signature and the stamp are forged and not genuine and accused No.1 to 3 after registering the vehicle on the name of the complainant with forged documents sold the vehicle to the accused No.4 representing A.R.K. Enterprises through Rahul Motors represented by the accused No.5 with the connivance of A6 who gave second finance knowing fullywell that the 1st finance

Agreement/Hypothecation of the vehicle is not cleared.

(ii) The accused No.1 to 3 prepared two insurance policies for the vehicle which are valid for the same period for same transaction and Lw.2G. Subba

Rao, Development Officer of National Insurance Company confirmed vide letter dated 13.07.2001 that the cover note No. 121424 insures on the name of P.V. Ramana Kumar and stated that it is a forged document and Lw.5S.

Satyanarayana vide letter dated 16.07.2001 that the cover note No. 312269 covers vehicle No. AP9AC5426 of Mrs. Sujatha Devi and the documents submitted for the vehicle TATA Indica is a fake document.

(iii) Basing on the complaint which was referred to P.S. Panjagutta, Lw.9N.S.

Venugopal Rao, Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No. 713/2001 4

CC. No. 1976 of 2018

Dated 04-04-2024

under sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with 120B of IPC against the accused persons. During investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded by the police. After completion of investigation and after collection of all relevant documents, the Inspector of Police,

P.S.Panjagutta filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 6 for the offences under sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with 120B of

IPC.

3.This court had taken cognizance for the offences punishable under

Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 506 r/w 120 (b) of I.P.C, against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 506 r/w 120 (b) IPC a charge has been framed against the accused, read over, and explained to him in his vernacular language.

The accused denied the accusation leveled against him and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, for the said charge.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.2.

7.The accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by reading out the incriminating evidence against him in his vernacular language and after understanding the same the accused has denied the evidence and reported No defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments of both sides.

5

CC. No. 1976 of 2018

Dated 04-04-2024

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences punishable underSection 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 506 r/w 120 (B) of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 to 3 seized one TATA

Indica car from the possession of LW1 without serving any notice for default of payment of installment and got it registered in the name of A4 by creating forged document with the connivance of A5 and A6. Therefore the accused had committed the above said alleged offence.

11.In this case the prosecution got examined only two witnesses ie., PW1 and

2. the evidence of other witnesses were closed on police report as whereabouts were not known.

12.PW1 was one of the circumstantial witness and Superintendent of RTA

Khairtabad, but he was declared hostile and he deposed that he did not remember the fact of the case and he failed to depose even after he was permitted to refresh his memory by going through his statement. In the cross examination also he said he did not remember whether the detective inspector came to him regarding TATA indica car and asked him to furnish the documents pertaining to the said vehicle.

13.PW2 was the inspector of police at the time of alleged incident and deposed 6

CC. No. 1976 of 2018

Dated 04-04-2024

that on 15-09-2001 he received a court referred case and registered a Crime vide 713/2001.

14.In this case both the witnesses examined by the prosecution did not deposed anything against the accused and the other witnesses were not examined for the reason mentioned above. It is a split up case against A1 and the main case was ended into acquittal against A4 to A6 vide CC.No. 859/2003. As there is no incriminating evidence in the prosecution case against the accused therefore the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 506 r/w 120 (b) of I.P.C and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

Bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

No case property is deposited in this case.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 04th day of April, 2024.

XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

1. PW1 - WT Narayana Chary.

7

CC. No. 1976 of 2018

Dated 04-04-2024

2. PW2 – M.S Venugopal Rao.

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Nil.

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil.

XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

1

CC. No. 11161/ 2021

Dated 04-04-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : SRI. T. KANHYA LAL,

XIV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 04th day of April, 2024

C.C. No. 11161 of 2021

Between:-

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, PS. Panjagutta, Hyderabad. ..… Complainant. AND

Chunchu Praveen Kumar @ Teja @ Kalyan @ Samba Shiva @ Abhiram @ Prabhu Kumar, S/o. Ch. Sunil Kumar, age 32 yrs, Occ. Artist, R/o. Flat No. 202, H.No. 1-6-39/78, Sree Residency, Dinakar Nagar, West Venkatapuram, Lothkunta, Hyderabad, N/o. Door No. 2-157/B, SN Puram, Jeevakona Road, Tirupati, A.P. State – 517501.

..... Accused .

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Counsel for the accused, and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this court has made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS. Panjagutta, Hyderabad filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 379 of

Indian penal code (referred as IPC).

2

CC. No. 11161/ 2021

Dated 04-04-2024

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that:- 2(i) On 14.08.2021 at 1630 hrs, Station House officer PS Panjagutta received a complaint from P Venkatesh S/o P Roshaiah, Age 23 years, stating that as "on 08-03-2021 one person by name Praveen Kumar called him on his cell phone and informed that, he is a crime & Bureau reporter in Jai

Bheem TV and he has requirement for Camera man job and also asked him to come to Khairatabad RTA office along with one camera for job purpose. By believing his version complainant went to RTA office, Khairatabad with his

Cannon 200-D II camera, where he meet Mr. Praveen Kumar and he showed his Reporter ID Card of Jai Bheem TV and taken his camera and asked complainant to go inside the RTA office to meet his assistant, after few minutes when he returned back he was not there and he fled away with complainant’s camera. Therefore he request to take necessary action.

Basing on the complaint a case was registered vide Cr. No. 384/2021 U/s.

379 IPC against the accused.

2(ii)During the course of investigation accused was apprehended and the the accused confessed to have committed the said offence and the case property was seized from his possession and the accused for sent to Hon’ble court for Judicial remand.

3.This court had taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C, against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s 3

CC. No. 11161/ 2021

Dated 04-04-2024

379 of IPC a charge has been framed against the accused, read over, and explained to him in his vernacular language. The accused denied the accusation leveled against him and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, for the said charge.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P 4.

7.The accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by reading out the incriminating evidence against him in his vernacular language and after understanding the same the accused has denied the evidence and reported No defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments of both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences punishable underSection 379 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.Pw1 deposed that on 08-03-2021 one person called him and revealed his name as Praveen Kumar and offered him a job of camera man and asked him to come to RTO office Khairtabad. In the RTO office the said person fled away with the camera on false pretext. Therefore he made a report to the police. The report was marked a Ex.P1.

4

CC. No. 11161/ 2021

Dated 04-04-2024

11.In the cross he admitted that he did not mentioned the cell number of the said person and there is delay of five months in giving report to the police.

12. PW2 is the investigation officer who deposed that on 14-08-2021 a 04:30pm LW8 received a complaint from LW1 and registered a case vide

Cr.No.384/2021 and hand over the file to him for investigation. During the course of investigation he examined PW1 and recorded his statement, visited the scene of offence ie., RTO office, Khiartabad and secured two mediators LW2 and 3 and after observing the scene of offence, prepared scene of offence panchanama and also drew rough sketch and after reading out the content of the panchanama took the signature of both the mediators.

13.PW2 Further deposed that on 16-08-2021, he got the information of the accused and immediately he went to chinthal Jeedimetla along with his staff and caught the accused. He further deposed that the accused was in a mood of confession therefore he secured two mediators ie., LW4 and5 and recorded the confessional statement of the accused, where the accused confessed that he used different names for committing the alleged offence and under the cover of confession many cameras including the camera of the present case was recovered. Apart from the camera one Laptop, ID card and two cellphones were also seized by PW1.

14.In the cross examination PW2 admitted that there is delay in giving the report and the reason for delay is not mentioned in the complaint.

15.It is the duty of the investigating officer to bring the best evidence on record to prove their case but the investigating officer relied on the confession statement 5

CC. No. 11161/ 2021

Dated 04-04-2024

of the accused and oral statement of Pw1 to file the charge sheet against the accused.

16.As per pw1 the accused took the camera under the pretext of providing a job and asked pw1 to come to RTO office, Khairtabad but there is no other evidence to show PW1 been to RTO office along with accused and no such witnesses are examined and both the mediators for the scene of offence were also not examined.

17.As per prosecution the alleged incident took place on 08-03-2021 but the case was registered on 14-8-2021 and the delay was not explained by the prosecution and by PW2, who is the investigation officer in his charge sheet which create a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution even though the alleged offence was a theft.

18.As per the prosecution there were so many cases pending against the accused but no such witnesses were examined by the investigating officer to corroborate with pw1 that accused committed the alleged offence against them also.

19.In this case the prosecution brought pw1 as only eye witness to the alleged incident but admittedly there is delay in registration of FIR and there is no other proof that pw1 met accused as deposed by him and even though they had phone conversation and met in RTO office but no such proof is produced like CCTV footage or call record etc.

20.As per prosecution accused stolen the camera from the possession of pw2 6

CC. No. 11161/ 2021

Dated 04-04-2024

but the recovery of the same is also not proved by the prosecution as the mediator for the seizure panchanama were never produce to give support to the seizure and even though PW1 who was alleged to be the owner of the camera did not produce the alleged camera before the court.

21.Therefore in the absence of any corroboration to the evidence of pw1 and 2 and in the admitted fact about the delay in lodging the complaint, this court does not have enough confidence in the evidence of pw1 and 2 to believe the case of the prosecution

22. Hence the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 379 of I.P.C and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The case property deposited vide P.I.No. 92/2021, which was given for interim custody shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 04th day of April, 2024.

XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

7

CC. No. 11161/ 2021

Dated 04-04-2024

FOR PROSECUTION:

1. PW1 - P. Venkatesh.

2. PW2 – B. Vijay Bhaskar Reddy.

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

1. Ex.P1 – Complaint.

2. Ex.P2 – FIR.

3. Ex.P3 – Crime detail form along with Rough sketch.

4. Ex.P4 – Confession cum seizure panchanama.

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil.

XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.