1
IN THE COURT OF THE I- ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:
WARANGAL
Dated: 27th day of July, 2012.
Present: Sri T. NARSI REDDY, M.A., LL.M.,
IV Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, FAC.I-Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate.
C.C. NO: 274 OF 2011
Between: The State of A.P., rep., by Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Athmakur, Warangal district.…Complainant
AND A1 - Thallapally Rajender, s/o. Sadaiah, 28 yrs, Occ: Toddy Tapper & Auto driver, r/o.Katakshapur village of Athmakur mandal. A2 – Pallakonda Pochalu,s/o. Mallaiah, 48 yrs, r/o. Balajinagar, Enumamula, Warangal. …Accused
This case coming for final hearing and disposal on this day, in the presence of A.P.P., for the State and of Sri. M. Sahodar Reddy, Advocate for Accused and the matter stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Athmakur, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/S.379 IPC in Cr.No.135 of 2011.
2.The brief averments of the case of prosecution are that on 23-7-2011 at 20.45 hrs the LW.1 namely L. Sanjeeva Reddy, came to PS and lodged a written report stating that on 20-7-1 at night some unknown offenders have broken his electric motor and committed theft of copper wire, 4-brass walls and 1-sitter, all worth of Rs.5350/-, at his agricultural land at Athmakur village.
On the above said report a case in Cr.No.135/2011 is registered and investigated into and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused.
3.After considering the material papers on record, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/S.379 of IPC against the accused.
2
4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished
U/s.207 Cr.P.C., and the accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., and the accusation for the offence U/S.379 of IPC is read over and explained to them for which the pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5.The prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P- 9 and M.O. 1.
6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined
U/S. 313 Cr.P.C., and incriminating evidence is read over and explained to them. Having understood the same, the accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.
7.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has
proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence
punishable U/S.379 of IPC?
8.To substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined
Pws.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-9 and M.O.1.
9.The learned prosecutor argued that the accused is the habitual offender and committed theft in and around area of P.S. Athmakur, and he further argued that the police apprehended the accused and seized the case property pertaining to this case and other cases under cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama.
10.The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of PW-1 is quite corroborate with the contents of Ex.P-1 report and the evidence of PW.2 who is panch for Crime Details Form (CDF) is also clearly corroborate with the contents of Ex.P2 /CDF and though Pws.3 & 4 who are the panch for confession and seizure did not support the case of prosecution, but they admitted their signatures on panchnama proceedings and the evidence of
PW.5 is corroborated in all material aspects with regard to registering FIR, conducting CDF, seizure of case property and arrest of accused and as such the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 coupled with Ex.P1 to P9 have established the guilt of accused and the prosecution have established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays the court to convict the accused as per law.
3
11.On the other hand, the learned Defence counsel vehemently argued that though the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 to substantiate their case, but on perusal of evidence on the record, according to PW.1 some unknown offenders committed theft of brass walls from his agricultural fields, as such the
PW.1 is not a material witness and even the PW.2 who is the witness for CDF also not a prime witness to the prosecution case and though the Learned
Prosecutor relied on the evidence of PW.5 who is the Investigating Officer, his evidence may be corroborate with regard to the registering FIR, conducting
CDF, arrest of accused, including recording of confession panchanama, but the evidence of PW.5 is not supported by any independent witness, as such the prosecution utterly failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence he prays the court to acquit the accused.
12.Heard both sides, Perused the case record.
13.It is the case of prosecution that the accused is habitual offender and committed theft of brass walls and other properties in and around the area of the Athmakur PS. On 12-8-2011 the police apprehended the accused ad seized the case property of this case and other cases in the presence of mediators Pws.3 & 4.
14.Though the Learned prosecutor relied on the evidence of Pws.1 to 5, but on perusal of the evidence of PW.1, according to him some unknown offenders committed theft of brass walls from his agricultural field, as such the
PW.1 is neither the eye witness nor the material witness and though the
Learned prosecutor very much relied on the evidence of PW.5 who is the
Investigating Officer, his evidence may be corroborated with regard to the registering FIR, conducting CDF including recording panchanama, at the same time the evidence of PW.5 is not supported by any independent witness i.e.,
Pws.3 & 4 and even the confession made before PW.5 who is the Investigating
Officer is inadmissible and the same is hit by sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act.
15.After considering the material evidence of Pws.1 to 5 coupled with
Exs.P1 to P9 the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
4
16.IN THE RESULT, the Accused A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence U/S.379 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/S.248 (1) of Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. MO.1 shall be given to
PW.1 after expiry of appeal time.
(Dictated to Personal Assistant, after transcription corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 27 th day of July, 2012)
FAC.I ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW-1: L. Sanjeeva Reddy.- NONE – PW-2:T. Kiran Kumar PW-3:N. Samuel. PW-4:T. Jampaiah. PW.5:T. Satish babu.
EXHIBITS MARKED
Ex.P-1: complaint Ex.P-2: Crime Details Form, Ex.P-3: signature of PW.3 on CC of Confession & recovery panchanama of A1. Ex.P-4: signature of PW.3 on CC of Confession & recovery panchanama of A2. Ex.P-5: signature of PW.4 on CC of Confession & recovery panchanama of A1. Ex.P-6: signature of PW.4 on CC of confession & recovery panchanama of A2. Ex.P-7: First Information Report. Ex.P-8: CC of panchanama of A1. Ex.P-9: CC of panchanama of A2.
MATERIAL OBJECTs:
M.O-1 - three brass walls.
FAC.I ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
WARANGAL