Sri T.Narsi Reddy

1

IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

: SECUNDERABAD :

Present :Sri T.NARSI REDDY, XIV Addl. Judge-cum-XVIII ACMM FAC XXII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

Dated 07th day of September, 2018.

C.C. No.203 of 2017

Between:

The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Lallaguda Police Station, Hyderabad. …Complainant

And

Chinthala Raj Shekar, S/o C.Thirumalesh, Age: 27 Years, Occ: Laundry Shop, R/o Near Water Tank, Vijaypuri Colony, South Lallaguda, N/o.H.No.1-63, Indiryala Village, Bhodan Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri District.

...Accused

This case coming before me on 07-09-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Asst., Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri M.Vijay Kumar Goud, Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Lallaguda police Station,

Secunderabad has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C.

2. The brief averments of the case of prosecution is that on 21-05- 2016 at about 19.00 hours LW1: Sri N.Anil Kumar, lodged a written report stating that on 24-04-2016, at 17.30 hours went to attend function by parking his two wheeler Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing No.AP09 BQ 8094 at Senior citizen function hall,

Mettuguda, Secunderabad and after completion of his work, he found

2

missing of his two wheeler and later came to know that some unknown person committed theft of his two wheeler and on the said report, the police registered a case in Crime No.104/2016 and during the course of investigation the police arrested the accused and seized the case property from the accused, after completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.After the appearance of accused, copies of the case documents was furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Thereafter, the accused was examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C., by framing the charges and also by explaining the accusation for the offence punishable u/s 379 of IPC for which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

4.After the closure of the evidence of the Prosecution, the accused was examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating evidence was put to him for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard arguments from both sides. Perused the case record.

Now, the point for consideration is “Whether the prosecution

is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt?”.

6.To substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution cited as many as 11 witnesses in the charge sheet but examined only 04 witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, and on the other hand the accused has examined one Krishna Goud as

DW-1 and got marked Ex.D-1 to D-3.

7.The learned prosecutor argued that the accused is the habitual offender and he is native of Indriyal Village, Bhoodan, Pochampally

3

and he is the habitual offender of committing theft of motor bikes and accordingly he committed theft of motor bikes in and around area of twin cities and Cyberabad and to earn easy money and also to pay the chit amounts run by his family members, having bad vices, the accused committed theft of motor bikes. During the course of investigation, the accused was caught hold by the Police Medipally on 25-11-2016 at Chengicherla Cross Roads and the accused confessed his guilt before the panchayatdars under Ex.P2 and accordingly the police seized motor bikes in different cases under

Ex.P3.

8.The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of PW1 is quiet corroborated with regard to the Ex.P1 report and even the evidence of PW2, who said to be a panch for confession and seizure of case property under Ex.P2 and P3 and the evidence of PW3 and 4, who arrested the accused and recorded the panchanama proceedings and who filed charge sheet in this case, are corroborated in all material aspects, and the evidence of PW1 to 4, coupled with

Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, clearly established the guilt of accused, hence he prays the court to convict the accused as per law.

9.Whereas the learned defence counsel vehemently argued that though the prosecution cited as many as 11 witnesses in the charge sheet but examined only 04 witnesses and though the learned prosecutor relied on the evidence of PW1 to 4. But the so called prosecution failed to examine other witness i.e., Lw2, 3, 5 to 9, who are the circumstantial witness and panch for scene of offence, confession panchanama. Though the prosecution relied on the

4

evidence of PW1 to 4, But the evidence of PW1, who is the Defacto

Complainant, and his evidence may be corroborated with regard to the lodging report under Ex.P1 but according to him some unknown offenders committed theft of his motor bike, as such his evidence is not directly connected to the accused in the present case, as the

PW1 is not the eye witness to the incident.

10.Though the learned prosecutor mainly relied on the evidence of

PW2, who said to be a confession cum seizure panch witness under

Ex.P2 and P3, but the so called PW2 did not depose the entire descriptive particulars of the vehicles seized from the accused and even the so called PW2 also failed to depose the registration numbers of the vehicle seized from the possession of the accused or the vehicle seized at his residence. As such, the evidence of PW2 cannot be taken into consideration and he also further argued that, if at all the police seized about the 23 bikes at the house of accused but the so called PW2 have not deposed the house number of the accused at Indriyal Village and even the PW3 also failed to depose about the particulars of the house of the accused, where the alleged bikes were seized and the PW2 is a stock witness to the police concerned and he himself admitted that he acted as panch witness in other theft cases and deposed the evidence in the court.

11.And the learned defence counsel further argued that the so called PW4, who apprehended the accused prepared entire panchanama including seizure report under Ex.P2 and P3 by sitting in the Police Station and later he obtained the signature of PW2 and

LW5 (Smt.Sumalatha) and if at all the police recorded seizure

5

panchanama at the house of accused at Indriyal Village for which the

PW4 have not collected any documents stating that the House

No.1-63 belongs to accused and even the police have not filed any photographs stating that they found 23 bikes at the house of accused and the same was seized under Seizure report under Ex.P3.

According to the prosecution the police seized the motor vehicles at the House No.1-63, which belongs to accused but whereas, the DW-1, who is the Sarpanch of the said village, he deposed that the House

No.1-63 of Indriyal Village belongs to one Panuganti Satyamma, for which the Ex.D1 and D2 also marked on behalf of accused.

12.Lastly the defence counsel vehemently argued that the evidence of PW1 to 4, have not established the guilt of accused and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays the court to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against the accused.

13.It is the specific case of prosecution that the accused is the native of Indriyal Village of Bhoodan Ponchampally Mandal, and he is the habitual offender of committing theft of motor bikes and accordingly the accused committed theft of 23 motor bikes in and around area to Medipally, Lallaguda, Hayatnagar, Osmania University

PS limits and during the course of investigation, on 25-11-2015 the accused was apprehended by the Inspector of Police, Medipally and recorded confession pancahnama under Ex.P2 of the accused by PW4 and in pursuance of the confession panchanama of the accused the police and the panch witness went to the House of accused at

Indriyal Village and seized 23 motor bikes under Ex.P3 Seizure report in the presence of PW2 and LW5 Smt. Sumalatha. Since the

6

evidence of PW1 to 4, coupled with Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, established the guilt of accused, hence prays for conviction.

14.On perusal of the case record and evidence on record, coupled with Ex.P1 to P5. The learned prosecutor mainly relied on the evidence of Pw-1 to 4 and in particular the prosecutor stressed on the evidence of Pw-2 at whose presence accused confessed about the commission of motor bikes and also at whose instance the other 23 motor bikes were seized at the house of accused at Indriyal

Village, but whereas, the learned defence counsel strongly contended that the entire panchanama recorded in the presence of

Pw-2 and Lw-5 under Ex.P2 including seizure of case property under

Ex.P3 at the house of accused is false and fabricated and same was prepared by the Pw-4 by sitting in the Police Station Medipally.

On this aspect, this court carefully gone through the evidence of Pw-2 and the evidence of Pw-2 reveals that the police Medipally called him and Sumalatha (LW5) to the Police Station, Medipally, where the accused was present in the Police Station and the accused confessed before him and recorded panchanama under Ex.P2 and in pursuance of panchanama, they went to Indriyal Village and there the police seized 23 bikes. But, on careful perusal of the confession cum recovery panchanama in the first page itself got mentioned that the so called panchanama under Ex.P2 was recorded on 25-11-2016 at 08.00 hours at Chengicherla Cross Roads, Medipally. Here, there is a clear contradiction with regard to the conducting panchanama in the presence of PW2.

As the Ex.P2 reveals that the panchanama was conducted at

7

Chengicherla Cross Roads and where PW2 deposed that the entire panchanama was conducted at Police Station, Medipally.

15.The learned prosecutor vehemently argued that the accused is a habitual offender and committed theft of motor bikes in and around area of twin cities including Cyberabad and the police seized one motor bike from the possession of accused, in the presence of mediators and other 23 bikes were seized at the house of accused at

Indriyal Village and the evidence of PW2, who acted as a panch for confession and seizure of case property under Ex.P2 and P3 is clearly corroborated, since the prosecution established the confession and seizure of case property in this case, as such the accused is liable for punishment as per law.

16.Whereas, the learned defence counsel strongly contended that the accused never committed any offence including theft of motor bikes in this case and also other cases, if at all, the accused confessed about the theft of motor bikes and if it was written in the panchanama proceedings under Ex.P2 and under Ex.P3 seizure report, the so called PW2 failed to depose even single number of the any one of the motor bikes, as such the alleged confession cum seizure panchanama is false and fabricated by the police concerned.

17.On this aspect, this court is carefully perused on the evidence of PW2 and also the panchanama proceedings under Ex.P2 and P3. It is noticed to this court that though the panchanama proceedings under Ex.P2 and P3 got mentioned about the number of motor bikes but the so called Pw-2, who said to be a prime witness and material witness in this case, has not deposed even any single number of the

8

motor bike or its descriptive particulars such as Hero Honda, TVS

Bike or Activa Bike, which alleged to be seized from the possession of accused under confession panchanama as well as seizure panchanama.

18.The learned defence counsel specifically pointed out and argued that no prudent man can keep the thefted property i.e., 23 motor bikes in his house premises and the entire seizure report under

Ex.P3 is false and fabricated for the purpose of this case. ---

Whereas, the learned prosecutor argued that the PW2 is a independent witness and in his presence the police seized 23 motor bikes under Ex.P3 seizure report from the house of accused, as such the evidence of PW2 is a trustworthy and same can be considered, as his evidence is supported by Ex.P2 confession panchanama of the accused and also seizure panchanama of the accused under Ex.P3.

19.Upon which, this court carefully gone through the evidence of

PW2 coupled with Ex.P2 and P3 --- though the Ex.P3 reveals that the police seized 23 bikes at the house of accused at Indriyal Village, but on careful consideration on evidence of PW2 with regard to the seizure of 23 bikes at the house of accused is doubtful, it can be presumed that no person including a thief never kept 23 motor bikes in his house premises. Here, the version of Pw2 and the seizure of case property under Ex.P3 is not at all believable, for which the prosecution have not placed any cogent and reliable evidence on this aspect. As such, this court of the considered view that the alleged seizure of 23 bikes from the house of accused is doubtful and there is a cloud about the seizure of 23 bikes from the house of accused and the prosecution failed to remove such ambiguity by examining the other panch witness, though cited LW5 (Sumalatha) and not placed any acceptable evidence before this court.

20.The learned defence counsel argued and pointed out that if at all the 23 bikes were seized at the house of accused under Ex.P3

9

(Seizure report) in the presence of PW2 and LW5 Sumalatha, then who prevented the investigating Officer to draw a rough sketch at the time of seizure report and who prevented him to collect the house documents of the accused by substantiating their contention that the above said bikes were seized from the house of accused.

21.On this aspect, this court carefully verified the entire case record including seizure report under Ex.P3, though the seizure report under Ex.P3 got mentioned that place of panchanama was conducted at house No.1-63, Indriyal Village, Bhoodan, Pochampally

Mandal. But to that effect the so called investigating agency failed to collect any ownership document stating that the House No.1-63 of

Indriyal Village belongs to accused or belongs to his parents, as such the version of the prosecution about seizure of case property under

Ex.P3 is ambiguity and the prosecution failed to substantiate the alleged house belongs to accused and nor examined any one of the neighbour of the Indriyal Village.

22.Added to that, the accused has examined one Defence Witness by name B.Krishna Goud and he deposed that the above said house is not belongs the accused and the said house belongs to one

Panuganti Sathemma, for which the defence also got marked Ex.D1 to D3 House Tax receipts, other documents by mentioning the house numbers. Contrary to the evidence of Dw-1, the prosecution is not put forth any reliable evidence that the above said house i.e., 1-63, belongs to accused or his parents nor Investigating Officer also failed to draw any rough sketch where the 23 bikes seized.

10

23.After consideration of the material evidence on record and on perusal of the evidence of prosecution witness i.e., PW1 to PW4 coupled with Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 379 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt.

24.In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec.379 of I.P.C, and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stands cancelled after appeal time. The case property i.e., MO1, which was given to the PW1 as interim custody, shall be made absolute, after appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 07 th day of September, 2018.

FAC XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Pw­1: Sri N.Anil Kumar….ComplainantDw­1: Krishna Goud Pw­2: Sri Shaik Waheed.....Panch for confession panchanama Pw­3: Sri K.Chandrashekar…. Investigating Officer Pw­4: Sri M.Muni…. Detective Inspector /Investigating Officer 

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Written reportEx.D­1: Property Tax report Ex.P2: Confession­cum­recovery panchanamaEx.D­2: 3 photos with CD Ex.P3: Seizure report Ex.P4: First Information Report Ex.P5: Scene of offence panchanama M.Os MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

MO1: Motor Bike­Nil­

 FAC XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

: SECUNDERABAD :

Present :Sri T.NARSI REDDY, XIV Addl. Judge-cum-XVIII ACMM FAC XXII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

Dated 07th day of September, 2018.

C.C. No.205 of 2017

Between:

The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Lallaguda Police Station, Hyderabad. …Complainant

And

Chinthala Raj Shekar, S/o C.Thirumalesh, Age: 27 Years, Occ: Laundry Shop, R/o Near Water Tank, Vijaypuri Colony, South Lallaguda, N/o.H.No.1-63, Indiryala Village, Bhodan Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri District.

...Accused

This case coming before me on 07-09-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Asst., Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri M.Vijay Kumar Goud, Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Lallaguda police Station,

Secunderabad has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C.

2. The brief averments of the case of prosecution is that on 24-04- 2016 at about 11.45 hours LW1: Sri T.Santosh Kumar, lodged a written report stating that on 11-04-2016 at about 23.00 Hours, parked his two wheeler Passion Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP09 CC 2285 at Sheshasai Apartment, Vijaypuri Colony, Secunderabad and after completion of his work, he found missing of his two wheeler and

2

later came to know that some unknown person committed theft of his two wheeler and on the said report, the police registered a case in

Crime No.16/2015 and during course of investigation the police arrested the accused and seized the case property from the accused, after completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.After the appearance of accused, copies of the case documents was furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Thereafter, the accused was examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C., by framing the charges and also by explaining the accusation for the offence punishable u/s 379 of IPC for which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

4.After the closure of the evidence of the Prosecution, the accused was examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating evidence was put to him for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard arguments from both sides. Perused the case record.

Now, the point for consideration is “Whether the prosecution

is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt?”.

6.To substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution cited as many as 11 witnesses in the charge sheet but examined only 04 witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, and on the other hand the accused has examined one Krishna Goud as

DW-1 and got marked Ex.D-1 and D-2.

7.The learned prosecutor argued that the accused is the habitual offender and he is native of Indriyal Village, Bhoodan, Pochampally

3

and he is the habitual offender of committing theft of motor bikes and accordingly he committed theft of motor bikes in and around area of twin cities and Cyberabad and to earn easy money and also to pay the chit amounts run by his family members, having bad vices, the accused committed theft of motor bikes. During the course of investigation, the accused was caught hold by the Police Medipally on 25-11-2016 at Chengicherla Cross Roads and the accused confessed his guilt before the panchayatdars under Ex.P2 and accordingly the police seized motor bikes in different cases under

Ex.P3.

8.The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of PW1 is quiet corroborated with regard to the Ex.P1 report and even the evidence of PW2, who said to be a panch for confession and seizure of case property under Ex.P2 and P3 and the evidence of PW3 and 4, who arrested the accused and recorded the panchanama proceedings and who filed charge sheet in this case, are corroborated in all material aspects, and the evidence of PW1 to 4, coupled with

Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, clearly established the guilt of accused, hence he prays the court to convict the accused as per law.

9.Whereas the learned defence counsel vehemently argued that though the prosecution cited as many as 11 witnesses in the charge sheet but examined only 04 witnesses and though the learned prosecutor relied on the evidence of PW1 to 4. But the so called prosecution failed to examine other witness i.e., Lw2, 3, 5 to 9 and 11, who are the circumstantial witness and panch for scene of offence, confession panchanama. Though the prosecution relied on

4

the evidence of PW1 to 4, But the evidence of PW1, who is the

Defacto Complainant, and his evidence may be corroborated with regard to the lodging report under Ex.P1 but according to him some unknown offenders committed theft of his motor bike, as such his evidence is not directly connected to the accused in the present case, as the PW1 is not the eye witness to the incident.

10.Though the learned prosecutor mainly relied on the evidence of

PW2, who said to be a confession cum seizure panch witness under

Ex.P2 and P3, but the so called PW2 did not depose the entire descriptive particulars of the vehicles seized from the accused and even the so called PW2 also failed to depose the registration numbers of the vehicle seized from the possession of the accused or the vehicle seized at his residence. As such, the evidence of PW2 cannot be taken into consideration and he also further argued that, if at all the police seized about the 23 bikes at the house of accused but the so called PW2 have not deposed the house number of the accused at Indriyal Village and even the PW3 also failed to depose about the particulars of the house of the accused, where the alleged bikes were seized and the PW2 is a stock witness to the police concerned and he himself admitted that he acted as panch witness in other theft cases and deposed the evidence in the court.

11.And the learned defence counsel further argued that the so called PW4, who apprehended the accused prepared entire panchanama including seizure report under Ex.P2 and P3 by sitting in the Police Station and later he obtained the signature of PW2 and

LW5 (Smt.Sumalatha) and if at all the police recorded seizure

5

panchanama at the house of accused at Indriyal Village for which the

PW4 have not collected any documents stating that the House

No.1-63 belongs to accused and even the police have not filed any photographs stating that they found 23 bikes at the house of accused and the same was seized under Seizure report under Ex.P3.

According to the prosecution the police seized the motor vehicles at the House No.1-63, which belongs to accused but whereas, the DW-1, who is the Sarpanch of the said village, he deposed that the House

No.1-63 of Indriyal Village belongs to one Panuganti Satyamma, for which the Ex.D1 and D2 also marked on behalf of accused.

12.Lastly the defence counsel vehemently argued that the evidence of PW1 to 4, have not established the guilt of accused and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays the court to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against the accused.

13.It is the specific case of prosecution that the accused is the native of Indriyal Village of Bhoodan Ponchampally Mandal, and he is the habitual offender of committing theft of motor bikes and accordingly the accused committed theft of 23 motor bikes in and around area to Medipally, Lallaguda, Hayatnagar, Osmania University

PS limits and during the course of investigation, on 25-11-2015 the accused was apprehended by the Inspector of Police, Medipally and recorded confession pancahnama under Ex.P2 of the accused by PW4 and in pursuance of the confession panchanama of the accused the police and the panch witness went to the House of accused at

Indriyal Village and seized 23 motor bikes under Ex.P3 Seizure report in the presence of PW2 and LW5 Smt. Sumalatha. Since the

6

evidence of PW1 to 4, coupled with Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, established the guilt of accused, hence prays for conviction.

14.On perusal of the case record and evidence on record, coupled with Ex.P1 to P5. The learned prosecutor mainly relied on the evidence of Pw-1 to 4 and in particular the prosecutor stressed on the evidence of Pw-2 at whose presence accused confessed about the commission of motor bikes and also at whose instance the other 23 motor bikes were seized at the house of accused at Indriyal

Village, but whereas, the learned defence counsel strongly contended that the entire panchanama recorded in the presence of

Pw-2 and Lw-5 under Ex.P2 including seizure of case property under

Ex.P3 at the house of accused is false and fabricated and same was prepared by the Pw-4 by sitting in the Police Station Medipally.

On this aspect, this court carefully gone through the evidence of

Pw-2 and the evidence of Pw-2 reveals that the police Medipally called him and Sumalatha (LW5) to the Police Station, Medipally, where the accused was present in the Police Station and the accused confessed before him and recorded panchanama under Ex.P2 and in pursuance of panchanama, they went to Indriyal Village and there the police seized 23 bikes. But, on careful perusal of the confession cum recovery panchanama in the first page itself got mentioned that the so called panchanama under Ex.P2 was recorded on 25-11-2016 at 08.00 hours at Chengicherla Cross Roads, Medipally. Here, there is a clear contradiction with regard to the conducting panchanama in the presence of PW2.

As the Ex.P2 reveals that the panchanama was conducted at

7

Chengicherla Cross Roads and where PW2 deposed that the entire panchanama was conducted at Police Station, Medipally.

15.The learned prosecutor vehemently argued that the accused is a habitual offender and committed theft of motor bikes in and around area of twin cities including Cyberabad and the police seized one motor bike from the possession of accused, in the presence of mediators and other 23 bikes were seized at the house of accused at

Indriyal Village and the evidence of PW2, who acted as a panch for confession and seizure of case property under Ex.P2 and P3 is clearly corroborated, since the prosecution established the confession and seizure of case property in this case, as such the accused is liable for punishment as per law.

16.Whereas, the learned defence counsel strongly contended that the accused never committed any offence including theft of motor bikes in this case and also other cases, if at all, the accused confessed about the theft of motor bikes and if it was written in the panchanama proceedings under Ex.P2 and under Ex.P3 seizure report, the so called PW2 failed to depose even single number of the any one of the motor bikes, as such the alleged confession cum seizure panchanama is false and fabricated by the police concerned.

17.On this aspect, this court is carefully perused on the evidence of PW2 and also the panchanama proceedings under Ex.P2 and P3. It is noticed to this court that though the panchanama proceedings under Ex.P2 and P3 got mentioned about the number of motor bikes but the so called Pw-2, who said to be a prime witness and material witness in this case, has not deposed even any single number of the

8

motor bike or its descriptive particulars such as Hero Honda, TVS

Bike or Activa Bike, which alleged to be seized from the possession of accused under confession panchanama as well as seizure panchanama.

18.The learned defence counsel specifically pointed out and argued that no prudent man can keep the thefted property i.e., 23 motor bikes in his house premises and the entire seizure report under

Ex.P3 is false and fabricated for the purpose of this case. ---

Whereas, the learned prosecutor argued that the PW2 is a independent witness and in his presence the police seized 23 motor bikes under Ex.P3 seizure report from the house of accused, as such the evidence of PW2 is a trustworthy and same can be considered, as his evidence is supported by Ex.P2 confession panchanama of the accused and also seizure panchanama of the accused under Ex.P3.

19.Upon which, this court carefully gone through the evidence of

PW2 coupled with Ex.P2 and P3 --- though the Ex.P3 reveals that the police seized 23 bikes at the house of accused at Indriyal Village, but on careful consideration on evidence of PW2 with regard to the seizure of 23 bikes at the house of accused is doubtful, it can be presumed that no person including a thief never kept 23 motor bikes in his house premises. Here, the version of Pw2 and the seizure of case property under Ex.P3 is not at all believable, for which the prosecution have not placed any cogent and reliable evidence on this aspect. As such, this court of the considered view that the alleged seizure of 23 bikes from the house of accused is doubtful and there is a cloud about the seizure of 23 bikes from the house of accused and the prosecution failed to remove such ambiguity by examining the other panch witness, though cited LW5 (Sumalatha) and not placed any acceptable evidence before this court.

20.The learned defence counsel argued and pointed out that if at all the 23 bikes were seized at the house of accused under Ex.P3

9

(Seizure report) in the presence of PW2 and LW5 Sumalatha, then who prevented the investigating Officer to draw a rough sketch at the time of seizure report and who prevented him to collect the house documents of the accused by substantiating their contention that the above said bikes were seized from the house of accused.

21.On this aspect, this court carefully verified the entire case record including seizure report under Ex.P3, though the seizure report under Ex.P3 got mentioned that place of panchanama was conducted at house No.1-63, Indriyal Village, Bhoodan, Pochampally

Mandal. But to that effect the so called investigating agency failed to collect any ownership document stating that the House No.1-63 of

Indriyal Village belongs to accused or belongs to his parents, as such the version of the prosecution about seizure of case property under

Ex.P3 is ambiguity and the prosecution failed to substantiate the alleged house belongs to accused and nor examined any one of the neighbour of the Indriyal Village.

22.Added to that, the accused has examined one Defence Witness by name B.Krishna Goud and he deposed that the above said house is not belongs the accused and the said house belongs to one

Panuganti Sathemma, for which the defence also got marked Ex.D1 and D2 House Tax receipts, other documents by mentioning the house numbers. Contrary to the evidence of Dw-1, the prosecution is not put forth any reliable evidence that the above said house i.e., 1- 63, belongs to accused or his parents nor Investigating Officer also failed to draw any rough sketch where the 23 bikes seized.

10

23.After consideration of the material evidence on record and on perusal of the evidence of prosecution witness i.e., PW1 to PW4 coupled with Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 379 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt.

24.In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec.379 of I.P.C, and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stands cancelled after appeal time. The case property i.e., MO1, which was given to the PW1 as interim custody, shall be made absolute, after appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 07 th day of September, 2018.

FAC XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Pw­1: Sri T.Santosh Kumar….ComplainantDw­1: B.Krishna Goud Pw­2: Sri Shaik Waheed.....Panch for confession panchanama Pw­3: Sri K.Chandrashekar…. Investigating Officer Pw­4: Sri M.Muni…. Detective Inspector /Investigating Officer 

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: ReportEx.D­1: Property Tax report Ex.P2: Attested copies of Confession cum Ex.D­2: 3 photos with CD recovery panchanama Ex.P3: Seizure report Ex.P4: First Information Report Ex.P5: CDF panchanama M.Os MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

MO1: Honda Activa B.No.AP28 AR 9271­Nil­

 FAC XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

: SECUNDERABAD :

Present :Sri T.NARSI REDDY, XIV Addl. Judge-cum-XVIII ACMM FAC XXII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

Dated 07th day of September, 2018.

C.C. No.143 of 2017

Between:

The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Lallaguda Police Station, Secunderabad. …Complainant

And

Chinthala Raj Shekar, S/o C.Thirumalesh, Age: 27 Years, Occ: Laundry Shop, R/o Near Water Tank, Vijaypuri Colony, South Lallaguda, N/o.H.No.1-63, Indiryala Village, Bhodan Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri District.

...Accused

This case coming before me on 07-09-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Asst., Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri M.Vijay Kumar Goud, Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Lallaguda police Station,

Secunderabad has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C.

2. The brief averments of the case of prosecution is that on 29-06- 2016 at about 12.00 hours LW1: Sri Sirajuddin, lodged a written report stating that on 28-06-2016 at about 18.00 Hours, parked his two wheeler Hero Honda Passion Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP29

M 1754 Near Vanjari Apartments, Beside Axis Bank, Vijayapuri

Colony, Tarnaka, Hyderabad and after completion of his work, he found missing of his two wheeler and later came to know that some

2

unknown person committed theft of his two wheeler and on the said report, the police registered a case in Crime No.134/2016 and during course of investigation the police arrested the accused and seized the case property from the accused, after completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.After the appearance of accused, copies of the case documents was furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Thereafter, the accused was examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C., by framing the charges and also by explaining the accusation for the offence punishable u/s 379 of IPC for which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

4.After the closure of the evidence of the Prosecution, the accused was examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating evidence was put to him for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard arguments from both sides. Perused the case record.

Now, the point for consideration is “Whether the prosecution

is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt?”.

6.To substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution cited as many as 11 witnesses in the charge sheet but examined only 04 witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO1, and on the other hand the accused has examined one Krishna Goud as

DW-1 and got marked Ex.D-1 and D-2.

7.The learned prosecutor argued that the accused is the habitual offender and he is native of Indriyal Village, Bhoodan, Pochampally and he is the habitual offender of committing theft of motor bikes

3

and accordingly he committed theft of motor bikes in and around area of twin cities and Cyberabad and to earn easy money and also to pay the chit amounts run by his family members, having bad vices, the accused committed theft of motor bikes. During the course of investigation, the accused was caught hold by the Police Medipally on 25-11-2016 at Chengicherla Cross Roads and the accused confessed his guilt before the panchayatdars under Ex.P2 and accordingly the police seized motor bikes in different cases under

Ex.P3.

8.The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of PW1 is quiet corroborated with regard to the Ex.P1 report and even the evidence of PW2, who said to be a panch for confession and seizure of case property under Ex.P2 and P3 and the evidence of PW3 and 4, who arrested the accused and recorded the panchanama proceedings and who filed charge sheet in this case, are corroborated in all material aspects, and the evidence of PW1 to 4, coupled with

Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, clearly established the guilt of accused, hence he prays the court to convict the accused as per law.

9.Whereas the learned defence counsel vehemently argued that though the prosecution cited as many as 11 witnesses in the charge sheet but examined only 04 witnesses and though the learned prosecutor relied on the evidence of PW1 to 4. But the so called prosecution failed to examine other witness i.e., Lw2, 3, 5 to 9, who are the circumstantial witness and panch for scene of offence, confession panchanama. Though the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1 to 4, But the evidence of PW1, who is the Defacto

4

Complainant, and his evidence may be corroborated with regard to the lodging report under Ex.P1 but according to him some unknown offenders committed theft of his motor bike, as such his evidence is not directly connected to the accused in the present case, as the

PW1 is not the eye witness to the incident.

10.Though the learned prosecutor mainly relied on the evidence of

PW2, who said to be a confession cum seizure panch witness under

Ex.P2 and P3, but the so called PW2 did not depose the entire descriptive particulars of the vehicles seized from the accused and even the so called PW2 also failed to depose the registration numbers of the vehicle seized from the possession of the accused or the vehicle seized at his residence. As such, the evidence of PW2 cannot be taken into consideration and he also further argued that, if at all the police seized about the 23 bikes at the house of accused but the so called PW2 have not deposed the house number of the accused at Indriyal Village and even the PW3 also failed to depose about the particulars of the house of the accused, where the alleged bikes were seized and the PW2 is a stock witness to the police concerned and he himself admitted that he acted as panch witness in other theft cases and deposed the evidence in the court.

11.And the learned defence counsel further argued that the so called PW4, who apprehended the accused prepared entire panchanama including seizure report under Ex.P2 and P3 by sitting in the Police Station and later he obtained the signature of PW2 and

LW5 (Smt.Sumalatha) and if at all the police recorded seizure panchanama at the house of accused at Indriyal Village for which the

5

PW4 have not collected any documents stating that the House

No.1-63 belongs to accused and even the police have not filed any photographs stating that they found 23 bikes at the house of accused and the same was seized under Seizure report under Ex.P3.

According to the prosecution the police seized the motor vehicles at the House No.1-63, which belongs to accused but whereas, the DW-1, who is the Sarpanch of the said village, he deposed that the House

No.1-63 of Indriyal Village belongs to one Panuganti Satyamma, for which the Ex.D1 to D3 also marked on behalf of accused.

12.Lastly the defence counsel vehemently argued that the evidence of PW1 to 4, have not established the guilt of accused and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays the court to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against the accused.

13.It is the specific case of prosecution that the accused is the native of Indriyal Village of Bhoodan Ponchampally Mandal, and he is the habitual offender of committing theft of motor bikes and accordingly the accused committed theft of 23 motor bikes in and around area to Medipally, Lallaguda, Hayatnagar, Osmania University

PS limits and during the course of investigation, on 25-11-2015 the accused was apprehended by the Inspector of Police, Medipally and recorded confession pancahnama under Ex.P2 of the accused by PW4 and in pursuance of the confession panchanama of the accused the police and the panch witness went to the House of accused at

Indriyal Village and seized 23 motor bikes under Ex.P3 Seizure report in the presence of PW2 and LW5 Smt. Sumalatha. Since the evidence of PW1 to 4, coupled with Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, established the guilt of accused, hence prays for conviction.

6

14.On perusal of the case record and evidence on record, coupled with Ex.P1 to P5. The learned prosecutor mainly relied on the evidence of Pw-1 to 4 and in particular the prosecutor stressed on the evidence of Pw-2 at whose presence accused confessed about the commission of motor bikes and also at whose instance the other 23 motor bikes were seized at the house of accused at Indriyal

Village, but whereas, the learned defence counsel strongly contended that the entire panchanama recorded in the presence of

Pw-2 and Lw-5 under Ex.P2 including seizure of case property under

Ex.P3 at the house of accused is false and fabricated and same was prepared by the Pw-4 by sitting in the Police Station Medipally.

On this aspect, this court carefully gone through the evidence of

Pw-2 and the evidence of Pw-2 reveals that the police Medipally called him and Sumalatha (LW5) to the Police Station, Medipally, where the accused was present in the Police Station and the accused confessed before him and recorded panchanama under Ex.P2 and in pursuance of panchanama, they went to Indriyal Village and there the police seized 23 bikes. But, on careful perusal of the confession cum recovery panchanama in the first page itself got mentioned that the so called panchanama under Ex.P2 was recorded on 25-11-2016 at 08.00 hours at Chengicherla Cross Roads, Medipally. Here, there is a clear contradiction with regard to the conducting panchanama in the presence of PW2.

As the Ex.P2 reveals that the panchanama was conducted at

Chengicherla Cross Roads and where PW2 deposed that the entire panchanama was conducted at Police Station, Medipally.

7

15.The learned prosecutor vehemently argued that the accused is a habitual offender and committed theft of motor bikes in and around area of twin cities including Cyberabad and the police seized one motor bike from the possession of accused, in the presence of mediators and other 23 bikes were seized at the house of accused at

Indriyal Village and the evidence of PW2, who acted as a panch for confession and seizure of case property under Ex.P2 and P3 is clearly corroborated, since the prosecution established the confession and seizure of case property in this case, as such the accused is liable for punishment as per law.

16.Whereas, the learned defence counsel strongly contended that the accused never committed any offence including theft of motor bikes in this case and also other cases, if at all, the accused confessed about the theft of motor bikes and if it was written in the panchanama proceedings under Ex.P2 and under Ex.P3 seizure report, the so called PW2 failed to depose even single number of the any one of the motor bikes, as such the alleged confession cum seizure panchanama is false and fabricated by the police concerned.

17.On this aspect, this court is carefully perused on the evidence of PW2 and also the panchanama proceedings under Ex.P2 and P3. It is noticed to this court that though the panchanama proceedings under Ex.P2 and P3 got mentioned about the number of motor bikes but the so called Pw-2, who said to be a prime witness and material witness in this case, has not deposed even any single number of the motor bike or its descriptive particulars such as Hero Honda, TVS

Bike or Activa Bike, which alleged to be seized from the possession of

8

accused under confession panchanama as well as seizure panchanama.

18.The learned defence counsel specifically pointed out and argued that no prudent man can keep the thefted property i.e., 23 motor bikes in his house premises and the entire seizure report under

Ex.P3 is false and fabricated for the purpose of this case. ---

Whereas, the learned prosecutor argued that the PW2 is a independent witness and in his presence the police seized 23 motor bikes under Ex.P3 seizure report from the house of accused, as such the evidence of PW2 is a trustworthy and same can be considered, as his evidence is supported by Ex.P2 confession panchanama of the accused and also seizure panchanama of the accused under Ex.P3.

19.Upon which, this court carefully gone through the evidence of

PW2 coupled with Ex.P2 and P3 --- though the Ex.P3 reveals that the police seized 23 bikes at the house of accused at Indriyal Village, but on careful consideration on evidence of PW2 with regard to the seizure of 23 bikes at the house of accused is doubtful, it can be presumed that no person including a thief never kept 23 motor bikes in his house premises. Here, the version of Pw2 and the seizure of case property under Ex.P3 is not at all believable, for which the prosecution have not placed any cogent and reliable evidence on this aspect. As such, this court of the considered view that the alleged seizure of 23 bikes from the house of accused is doubtful and there is a cloud about the seizure of 23 bikes from the house of accused and the prosecution failed to remove such ambiguity by examining the other panch witness, though cited LW5 (Sumalatha) and not placed any acceptable evidence before this court.

20.The learned defence counsel argued and pointed out that if at all the 23 bikes were seized at the house of accused under Ex.P3 (Seizure report) in the presence of PW2 and LW5 Sumalatha, then who prevented the investigating Officer to draw a rough sketch at

9

the time of seizure report and who prevented him to collect the house documents of the accused by substantiating their contention that the above said bikes were seized from the house of accused.

21.On this aspect, this court carefully verified the entire case record including seizure report under Ex.P3, though the seizure report under Ex.P3 got mentioned that place of panchanama was conducted at house No.1-63, Indriyal Village, Bhoodan, Pochampally

Mandal. But to that effect the so called investigating agency failed to collect any ownership document stating that the House No.1-63 of

Indriyal Village belongs to accused or belongs to his parents, as such the version of the prosecution about seizure of case property under

Ex.P3 is ambiguity and the prosecution failed to substantiate the alleged house belongs to accused and nor examined any one of the neighbour of the Indriyal Village.

22.Added to that, the accused has examined one Defence Witness by name B.Krishna Goud and he deposed that the above said house is not belongs the accused and the said house belongs to one

Panuganti Sathemma, for which the defence also got marked Ex.D1 to D3 House Tax receipts, other documents by mentioning the house numbers. Contrary to the evidence of Dw-1, the prosecution is not put forth any reliable evidence that the above said house i.e., 1-63, belongs to accused or his parents nor Investigating Officer also failed to draw any rough sketch where the 23 bikes seized.

23.After consideration of the material evidence on record and on perusal of the evidence of prosecution witness i.e., PW1 to PW4 coupled with Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, this court is of the considered

10

opinion that the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 379 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt.

24.In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec.379 of I.P.C, and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stands cancelled after appeal time. The case property i.e., MO1, which was given to the PW1 as interim custody, shall be made absolute, after appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 07 th day of September, 2018.

FAC XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Pw-1: Md. Sirajuddin.....ComplainantDw-1: B.Krishna Goud

Pw-2: Shaikh Waheed…..Panch for Confession cum seizure panchanama

Pw-3: Sri K.Chandrashekar …. Investigating Officer

Pw-4: Sri M.Muni…. Detective Inspector /Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Written ReportEx.D1: Xerox copy of Property Tax Receipt

Ex.P2: Confession panchanamaEx.D2: Photographs

Ex.P3: Seizure panchanamaEx.D3: Photographs

Ex.P4: First Information Report

Ex.P5: CDF panchanama

M.Os MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

MO1: Motor bike -Nil-

 FAC XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF XV ADDL.JUDGE-CUM-XIX ADDL.CHIEF

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT SECUNDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

Present : Sri T.Narsi Reddy, XIV Addl.Judge-cum-XVIII ACMM, FAC XV Addl.Judge-Cum-XIX ACMM, Secunderabad.

C.C.NO.2757 OF 2018

Between:

The Station House Officer, Bowenpally PS, Hyderabad … Complainant

And

A1 Durga Lingeswar Rao S/o Syam Rao, Age: 36 years, Occ: Private Recovery Agent, R/o H.No.8-5-9, Vallaba Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. A2 Kum.B.Pooja D/o B.Ram Jyothi, Age: 20 years, R/o H.No.8-4-137, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. A3 Kum.B.Uma D/o B.Ram Jyothi, Age: 21 years, R/oH.No.8-4-137,OldBowenpally, Secunderabad. A4 B.Laxmi W/o B.Ram Jyothi, Age: 52 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o H.No.8-4-137, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. A5 B.Lalitha W/o B.Ram Jyothi, Age: 45 years, Occ: House wife, R/o H.No.8-4-137, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. A6 D.Bhavani W/o D.Lingeswar Rao, Age: 32 years, Occ: House wife, R/o H.No.8-5-9, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. … Accused

This case coming before me on 06.02.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri G.Rajashekar Reddy, Counsel for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bowenpally police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 6 for the offences punishable

U/secs.354, 448, 323, 506 R/w 34 IPC.

2 C.C.2757/2018

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that on 02.03.2015 the PW1 by name K.Amaravathi lodged a written report

before police Bowenpally stating that she got married about 20 years

back and on 25.01.2015 her second sister by name N.Anusha got engagement with one Raju, after 15 days she left with Sai Prasad and got married and stayed with him. In this junction both families are used to quarrel with each other. On 02.03.2015 at 5.45 P.M. she along with her sister and her mother were present at her residence, mean time

Sai Prasad’s sisters by name Pooja and Uma were passing to their residence and they abused her in filthy language for which she made objection, on that the brother of the Pooja by name D.Lingesh and his wife Bhavani, her mother Laxmi, Lalitha and others trespassed into her house and abused her in filthy language and outraged her modesty, upon which she went to police station and lodged the above said report for taking necessary action against the accused person.

3.On the strength of the above said report the police registered a case in Crime No.80/2014 and investigated into, after completion of investigation the police filed the charge-sheet against accused.

4.After the appearance of accused 1 to 6, copies of the case documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

Thereafter, the accused 1 to 6 were examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C., by framing charges and by explaining the accusation for the offences punishable U/secs.354, 448, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC for which they pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

3 C.C.2757/2018

5.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution though cited as many as twelve witnesses in the charge-sheet, but examined only eight witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.

6.After closure of the evidence of Prosecution, the accused 1 to 6 were examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence against them for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.The learned prosecutor argued that there is a dispute between family of PW1 and also accused family. In that connection on 02.03.2015 all the accused criminally trespassed into the house of the accused and abused PW1 in most filthy language and also beat her and even all the accused outraged the modesty of PW1. The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of PW1 is corroborated with the contents of Ex.P1 report and even the evidence of PW1 is also supported by other victim i.e. PW2 and also Pws 5 to 7 and even the evidence of Pws 3 and 4 also supports to the version of Pws 1 and 2 with regard to the conducting scene of offence panchanama at the place of offence and the evidence of PW5 who is the investigating officer his evidence also corroborated in all material accepts with regard to receiving report under Ex.P1 from PW1 and also recording of the statements of Pws 1 to 7 including conducting panchanama under

Ex.P2. Thus, the evidence of Pws 1 to 8 coupled with Exs.P1 to P12 clearly corroborated the involvement of the accused in the present case. Hence, he prays the Court to convict the accused as per law.

4 C.C.2757/2018

9. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that the prosecution very much relied on the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 who said to be the defacto-complainant and victim in this case. But the so called

PW1 admitted in cross-examination that though some galata took place in their house and the case was pending before the Court, the matter was amicably settled at the instance of elders, as such, the evidence of PW1 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution and even the other witnesses i.e., Pws 2 to 7 examined by the prosecution they are not supported to the version of Pws 1 and 2 and though the learned prosecutor declared the Pws 5, 6, 7 as hostile witnesses and though he marked the 161 statement of the said witnesses and cross- examined them at length, but nothing was elicited from them as alleged by the prosecution in the charge-sheet and when the Pws 1 and 2 who are the defacto-complainant and victim in the case are not supported to the case of the prosecution, the remaining evidence is no avail to the case of the prosecution and even the prosecution miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Sections 354, 448, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, prays the Court to acquit the accused from the accusation leveled against them.

10.Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the case record.

Now the point for consideration is “ Whether the prosecution

able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences U/secs.354,

448, 323, 506 R/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt” ?

5 C.C.2757/2018

11.In order to prove the case of the prosecution the so called prosecution examined Pws 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.

According to the prosecution there is a dispute between the family of

Pws 1 and 2 and accused with regard to the marriage affairs. In this connection on 02.03.2015 at about 9.00 PM all the accused criminally trespassed into the house of Pws 1 and 2 and beat them and also threatened them with dire consequences and including out raging the modesty of PW2. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 who said to be a defacto-complainant and victim. On careful perusal of the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 that they deposed some extent about the dispute between Pws 1 and 2 & accused including galata took place on 02.03.2015, but the so called Pws 1 & 2 admitted in cross-examination that the dispute between them was amicable settled at the instance of elders and well wishers and further they did not deposed that which particular accused beat them or abused them in filthy language and merely deposing that the accused trespassed into their house and beat them cannot be taken into consideration as there are no specific overt acts of each accused.

12.Though the learned prosecutor further examined other eye witnesses i.e. Pws 5, 6, 7 all the witnesses deposed at one voice that some galata took place in the house of Pws 1 and 2 and some quarrel took place at their house, even the so called witnesses also not deposed anything against the accused. The learned prosecutor declared the said witnesses as hostile witnesses, but nothing was 6 C.C.2757/2018 elicited from them even in the cross-examination. As such, their evidence is also no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

13.Coming to the evidence of Pws 3 and 4 who said to be a panch for scene of offence under Exs.P2 and P3, except admitting their signature they did not depose about the conducting panchanama, rather then they deposed that they went to police station about three years back and police obtained their signature on some written papers.

If it is so, it can be safely said that though the prosecution examined

Pws 3 and 4 as panch for CDF and the so called witnesses are also not supported to the case of the prosecution.

14.Coming to the evidence of PW8 who said to be a investigating officer in this case, his evidence may be corroborated with regard to the receiving the report under Ex.P1, registering the FIR under Ex.P9 including recording statements of material witnesses and also conducting panchanama of the scene of offence, but when the material witnesses i.e. Pws 1 & 2 who said to be a defacto-complainant and victim in this case, are not supported to the case of the prosecution.

The evidence of PW8 (Investigation officer) is even no way helpful to the prosecution case.

15.After foregoing discussion and on careful consideration of the evidence of Pws 1 to 8 coupled with Exs.P1 to P12, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the accused 1 to 6 are entitled for acquittal.

7 C.C.2757/2018

In the result, the accused 1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offences U/Secs.354, 448, 323, 506 R/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. and the bail bonds of the accused, if any shall stands cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of February, 2019.

Sd/-

XIV Addl.Judge–Cum-XVIII ACMM., FAC XV Addl.Judge-Cum-XIX ACMM., Secunderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW1 : K.Amaravathi (Defacto Complainant) - None -

PW2 : Anuradha (Victim)

PW3 : S.Pramod

PW4 : Ravi Pawan Kumar

PW5 : A.Akhila

PW6 : G.Santosh Kumar

PW7 : Shekar

PW8 : B.Srinivas (Investigation Officer)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 : Written report dated 02.03.2015

Ex.P2 : Signature of PW3 in scene observation panchanama

Ex.P3 : Signature of PW3 in seizure report

Ex.P4 : Signature of PW4 in scene observation panchanama

Ex.P5 : Signature of PW4 in seizure report 8 C.C.2757/2018

Ex.P6 : Marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement

Ex.P7 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6

Ex.P8 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW7

Ex.P9 : FIR No.80/2015 dated 02.03.2015

Ex.P10 : Rough sketch

Ex.P11 : Scene of observation panchanama

Ex.P12 : Medical certificate

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

Sd/-

XIV Addl.Judge–Cum-XVIII ACMM., FAC XV Addl.Judge-Cum-XIX ACMM., Secunderabad.

9 C.C.2757/2018

IN THE COURT OF XV ADDL.JUDGE-CUM-XIX ADDL.CHIEF

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT SECUNDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

Present : Sri T.Narsi Reddy, XIV Addl.Judge-cum-XVIII ACMM, FAC XV Addl.Judge-Cum-XIX ACMM, Secunderabad.

C.C.NO.2757 OF 2018

Between:

The Station House Officer, Bowenpally PS, Hyderabad … Complainant

And

A1 Durga Lingeswar Rao S/o Syam Rao, Age: 36 years, Occ: Private Recovery Agent, R/o H.No.8-5-9, Vallaba Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. A2 Kum.B.Pooja D/o B.Ram Jyothi, Age: 20 years, R/o H.No.8-4-137, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. A3 Kum.B.Uma D/o B.Ram Jyothi, Age: 21 years, R/oH.No.8-4-137,OldBowenpally, Secunderabad. A4 B.Laxmi W/o B.Ram Jyothi, Age: 52 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o H.No.8-4-137, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. A5 B.Lalitha W/o B.Ram Jyothi, Age: 45 years, Occ: House wife, R/o H.No.8-4-137, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. A6 D.Bhavani W/o D.Lingeswar Rao, Age: 32 years, Occ: House wife, R/o H.No.8-5-9, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. … Accused

This case coming before me on 06.02.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri G.Rajashekar Reddy, Counsel for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bowenpally police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 6 for the offences punishable

U/secs.354, 448, 323, 506 R/w 34 IPC.

2 C.C.2757/2018

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that on 02.03.2015 the PW1 by name K.Amaravathi lodged a written report

before police Bowenpally stating that she got married about 20 years

back and on 25.01.2015 her second sister by name N.Anusha got engagement with one Raju, after 15 days she left with Sai Prasad and got married and stayed with him. In this junction both families are used to quarrel with each other. On 02.03.2015 at 5.45 P.M. she along with her sister and her mother were present at her residence, mean time

Sai Prasad’s sisters by name Pooja and Uma were passing to their residence and they abused her in filthy language for which she made objection, on that the brother of the Pooja by name D.Lingesh and his wife Bhavani, her mother Laxmi, Lalitha and others trespassed into her house and abused her in filthy language and outraged her modesty, upon which she went to police station and lodged the above said report for taking necessary action against the accused person.

3.On the strength of the above said report the police registered a case in Crime No.80/2014 and investigated into, after completion of investigation the police filed the charge-sheet against accused.

4.After the appearance of accused 1 to 6, copies of the case documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

Thereafter, the accused 1 to 6 were examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C., by framing charges and by explaining the accusation for the offences punishable U/secs.354, 448, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC for which they pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

3 C.C.2757/2018

5.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution though cited as many as twelve witnesses in the charge-sheet, but examined only eight witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.

6.After closure of the evidence of Prosecution, the accused 1 to 6 were examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence against them for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.The learned prosecutor argued that there is a dispute between family of PW1 and also accused family. In that connection on 02.03.2015 all the accused criminally trespassed into the house of the accused and abused PW1 in most filthy language and also beat her and even all the accused outraged the modesty of PW1. The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of PW1 is corroborated with the contents of Ex.P1 report and even the evidence of PW1 is also supported by other victim i.e. PW2 and also Pws 5 to 7 and even the evidence of Pws 3 and 4 also supports to the version of Pws 1 and 2 with regard to the conducting scene of offence panchanama at the place of offence and the evidence of PW5 who is the investigating officer his evidence also corroborated in all material accepts with regard to receiving report under Ex.P1 from PW1 and also recording of the statements of Pws 1 to 7 including conducting panchanama under

Ex.P2. Thus, the evidence of Pws 1 to 8 coupled with Exs.P1 to P12 clearly corroborated the involvement of the accused in the present case. Hence, he prays the Court to convict the accused as per law.

4 C.C.2757/2018

9. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that the prosecution very much relied on the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 who said to be the defacto-complainant and victim in this case. But the so called

PW1 admitted in cross-examination that though some galata took place in their house and the case was pending before the Court, the matter was amicably settled at the instance of elders, as such, the evidence of PW1 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution and even the other witnesses i.e., Pws 2 to 7 examined by the prosecution they are not supported to the version of Pws 1 and 2 and though the learned prosecutor declared the Pws 5, 6, 7 as hostile witnesses and though he marked the 161 statement of the said witnesses and cross- examined them at length, but nothing was elicited from them as alleged by the prosecution in the charge-sheet and when the Pws 1 and 2 who are the defacto-complainant and victim in the case are not supported to the case of the prosecution, the remaining evidence is no avail to the case of the prosecution and even the prosecution miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Sections 354, 448, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, prays the Court to acquit the accused from the accusation leveled against them.

10.Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the case record.

Now the point for consideration is “ Whether the prosecution

able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences U/secs.354,

448, 323, 506 R/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt” ?

5 C.C.2757/2018

11.In order to prove the case of the prosecution the so called prosecution examined Pws 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.

According to the prosecution there is a dispute between the family of

Pws 1 and 2 and accused with regard to the marriage affairs. In this connection on 02.03.2015 at about 9.00 PM all the accused criminally trespassed into the house of Pws 1 and 2 and beat them and also threatened them with dire consequences and including out raging the modesty of PW2. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 who said to be a defacto-complainant and victim. On careful perusal of the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 that they deposed some extent about the dispute between Pws 1 and 2 & accused including galata took place on 02.03.2015, but the so called Pws 1 & 2 admitted in cross-examination that the dispute between them was amicable settled at the instance of elders and well wishers and further they did not deposed that which particular accused beat them or abused them in filthy language and merely deposing that the accused trespassed into their house and beat them cannot be taken into consideration as there are no specific overt acts of each accused.

12.Though the learned prosecutor further examined other eye witnesses i.e. Pws 5, 6, 7 all the witnesses deposed at one voice that some galata took place in the house of Pws 1 and 2 and some quarrel took place at their house, even the so called witnesses also not deposed anything against the accused. The learned prosecutor declared the said witnesses as hostile witnesses, but nothing was 6 C.C.2757/2018 elicited from them even in the cross-examination. As such, their evidence is also no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

13.Coming to the evidence of Pws 3 and 4 who said to be a panch for scene of offence under Exs.P2 and P3, except admitting their signature they did not depose about the conducting panchanama, rather then they deposed that they went to police station about three years back and police obtained their signature on some written papers.

If it is so, it can be safely said that though the prosecution examined

Pws 3 and 4 as panch for CDF and the so called witnesses are also not supported to the case of the prosecution.

14.Coming to the evidence of PW8 who said to be a investigating officer in this case, his evidence may be corroborated with regard to the receiving the report under Ex.P1, registering the FIR under Ex.P9 including recording statements of material witnesses and also conducting panchanama of the scene of offence, but when the material witnesses i.e. Pws 1 & 2 who said to be a defacto-complainant and victim in this case, are not supported to the case of the prosecution.

The evidence of PW8 (Investigation officer) is even no way helpful to the prosecution case.

15.After foregoing discussion and on careful consideration of the evidence of Pws 1 to 8 coupled with Exs.P1 to P12, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the accused 1 to 6 are entitled for acquittal.

7 C.C.2757/2018

In the result, the accused 1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offences U/Secs.354, 448, 323, 506 R/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. and the bail bonds of the accused, if any shall stands cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of February, 2019.

Sd/-

XIV Addl.Judge–Cum-XVIII ACMM., FAC XV Addl.Judge-Cum-XIX ACMM., Secunderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW1 : K.Amaravathi (Defacto Complainant) - None -

PW2 : Anuradha (Victim)

PW3 : S.Pramod

PW4 : Ravi Pawan Kumar

PW5 : A.Akhila

PW6 : G.Santosh Kumar

PW7 : Shekar

PW8 : B.Srinivas (Investigation Officer)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 : Written report dated 02.03.2015

Ex.P2 : Signature of PW3 in scene observation panchanama

Ex.P3 : Signature of PW3 in seizure report

Ex.P4 : Signature of PW4 in scene observation panchanama

Ex.P5 : Signature of PW4 in seizure report 8 C.C.2757/2018

Ex.P6 : Marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement

Ex.P7 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6

Ex.P8 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW7

Ex.P9 : FIR No.80/2015 dated 02.03.2015

Ex.P10 : Rough sketch

Ex.P11 : Scene of observation panchanama

Ex.P12 : Medical certificate

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

Sd/-

XIV Addl.Judge–Cum-XVIII ACMM., FAC XV Addl.Judge-Cum-XIX ACMM., Secunderabad.

9 C.C.2757/2018