Smt. T.Suhasini

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:Smt T. Suhasini, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC: I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

KARIMNAGAR.

Wednesday, the 3rd day of August, 2018

CALENDAR CASE NO. 1592 OF 2015

Between:

The state through Sub Inspector of Police, Karimnagar II town (Crime No. 176 of 2015). ….Complainant.

And

Banoth Ravi S/o Hussain, aged 30 years, Lambada, Occ: Driver, R/o Ursugutta, Warangal, N/o Singareni Colony, Ellandu of Khammam District. ….Accused.

This case coming on before me on 01­8­2018 for final hearing in the presence of learned Sr. APP for the State and Sri Mandala Avinash Reddy, Counsel for accused having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

:J U D G M E N T:

The SHO PS Karimnagar II Town has laid the charge sheet against accused Cr.No.176/2015 seeking to punish him for the offence under Section 382 of Indian Penal Code. 

2.The grave charges leveled against the accused are:­ The complainant viz.,

Boorla Anuradha stating that, the Lw­1 is the resident of Sainagar, Karimnagar.

On 12­5­2015 evening at about 1700 hrs, the Lw­1 went Ganesh Nagar to her relatives house, where she chit chatting with her relatives. After completion of

Lw­1 personal work boarded auto at Ganeshnagar, at about 20.30 hrs, got down at Doctors street at about 20.45 hrs. Later, she while proceeding towards her house by walk, meantime the accused Banoth Ravi came to her rear side, suddenly snatched her gold pusthelathadu along with pustelu from her neck ran some distance and boarded motorcycle fled away. The committed theft gold pustelathadu wg about 25 grams, its about worth Rs.37,500/­.

3.On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the Sub­Inspector of

Police, Karimnagar II town P.S., registered it as a case in Crime No.176 of 2015 under Sections 382 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of 2 investigation, he examined the complainant and recorded his statement. Later, he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and prepared rough sketch in the presence of two mediators. On 03­11­2017 the accused was arrested at Theegalaguttapalli, Karimnagar while moving under suspicion circumstances. On interrogation, the accused confessed the offence. In pursuance of his confession, the S.I of Police, Karimnagar recovered a carry bag containing some gold and silver ornaments from his possession and he has also confessed to have committed the theft pertaining to some other cases, he further stated that he has kept some of the stolen property at Elagandal fort. After completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet. 

4.The case was taken on file against sole accused for the offences under

Sections 382 IPC.

5.On production of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6.The Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the charge sheet allegations. He denied his involvement in the said offences.

Hence, charges under sections 382 IPC was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed that he be tried, for the said offences.

7.During trial, in support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Ex.P.1 to P.4 and Mo.1. 

8.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence found against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same, reported no defence and stated that the he has falsely implicated in this case by the police for statistical purpose.

 9.Heard the AP.P.O and the counsel for the sole accused.

3

10.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under section 382 of IPC?

11.P O I N T

 The accused is charged for the offences under sections 382 IPC alleging that on the 12­5­2015 at 20.45 hrs, at Sainagar, Karimnagar, the accused snatched away gold pustelathadu and pustelu wg about 25 gms, from the neck of the Lw­1. 

12.The learned APP would contended that the prosecution has establish its case by examined Pws 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and further contended that the documents which are filed by the prosecution i.e., Ex.P1 to P4 are supporting the case of the prosecution and establishes the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He further contended that recovery of Mo.1 from the possession of Accused establishes the guilt against the accused. 

13.The counsel for the accused would contended that though the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4. He further contended that the witnesses cited by the prosecution for which they had supported the case of the prosecution.

14.As seen from the evidence of Pw­1 deposed that on 12­5­2015 at about 8.00 to 8.30 pm himself and his daughter were coming from her relatives house, when she reached near to their house, then one person pressed her neck from her back side, due to which she was unconscious for some second. After some time, she became normal then she observed that said person took away her gold pusthelathadu from her neck. Immediately, herself and her daughter followed that person by shouting. One two wheeler came on which the said person fled away from the spot. Immediately, her daughter made phone call to the police to general number. On the next day morning herself and her husband went to the police station and she gave complaint to the police. Ex.P1 is the complaint. 

15.As seen from the evidence of Pw­2 deposed that on 14­9­2015 Lw­8 called him and Lw­6 Syed Shakir Hussain to Hunter Road in front of Orugallu petrol 4 bunk. Accordingly, they went there by 1.15 pm. There they observed the police people and one male and female who was in the custody of police, he stated that he is native of Illandu of Khamman district, Singareni Colony and his father was working in Bjupalapalli Singareni Colony. He married the daughter of colleague of his father and living in Usuguttagami of Warangal in a rented house, due to poor financial condition, we addicted to committing thefts, though police caught hold him two times. He confessed that he committed total 82 thefts at

Mancherial, Khamma, Karimnagar and Warangal areas. He also confessed that he used to sold out some gold theft property for their expenses and they kept some property the police caught hold them. In their presence the police recovered gold and silver ornaments from the possession of the accused. 

16.As seen from the evidence of Pw­3 deposed that he conducting vehicle checking at Hunter Road, infront of Orgallu Petrol bunk on 14.09.2015 at 13.50 hrs, at that time one couple was coming on their motorcycle on the Main road from Orushu gutta side proceeding towards Hanmakonda bus stand, on seeing the police party suddenly the couple who were on bike took the U­Turn, then he along with his staff chased them and apprehended and on their checking they found one plastic bag with them and it was containing gold ornaments, later he secured panchas Pw­3 and Lw­6 in their presence they interrogated that couple and they reveal their identity as Banothu Ravi/accused and Erram Rajeshwar and confessed that they have committed thefts at various places and also accused confessed to have committed offence pertaining to this crime and in pursuance to confession of accused he has recovered Mo.1 and also some other properties pertaining to 81 crimes from their possession under cover of confession and recovery panchanama. Ex.P2 is the confession and recovery panchanama. 

17.As seen from the evidence of Pw­4 deposed that on 13­5­2015, he received a complaint from Pw­1, basing on that he registered a case in Cr.No. 176/2015 for the offence under section 382 of IPC, and issued FIR, Ex.P3 is the FIR, and took up the investigation, during the course of investigation he examined and 5 recorded the statements of Pw­1 and Lw­1 on the same day he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and prepared CDF.

18.As seen from the evidence of Pw­5 deposed that on 14­9­2015 he has received information from Lw­9 Inspector of Police, Subhedari police station regarding the apprehension of the accused and recovery of case property. Then he collected the copies of confession and recovery of panchanama and took the case property of this case i.e., Mo.1, after that he deposited the case property

before the Court. After completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet.

Reasons:

19.As seen from the testimony of the Pw­1 deposed that on 12.5.2015 at about 8.00 to 8.30 pm he along with her daughter returned from her relative house when she reached near to their house one person came back side of her pressed her neck, due to which she was unconscious for some time. Later she noticed that the person has snatched away her gold pustelathadu and pustelu from her neck, she and her daughter raised hues and cries and followed that person. Meanwhile Lws 1 and 2 came and the said person fled away. Later she lodged Ex.P1 complaint. As seen from the evidence of the Pw­2 who is confessional panch deposed that on 14.9.2015 Lw­8 called him and Lw­6 to

Hunter road in front of Orugallu petrol bunk, where they observed one male person and female person in custody of police. On the direction of the

Investigation Officer he enquired the male person who was in custody of police, he stated that he is native of Illandu of Khamman District, Singareni Colony and he used to commit thefts, subsequently police recorded the confessional panchanama. He further deposed that the accused confessed in his presence and that he was involved in 82 crimes and he committed thefts in that 82 crimes at various places at Mancherial, Khammam, Karimnagar and Warangal areas and he further contended that he used to sell stolen property and same property was kept in the bank for loan. The confessional pancha deposed that the police 6 has also recovered the property from his possession of the accused. The Police scribed their signatures and Ex.P2 is the confession and recovery panchanama.

As seen from the evidence of Pw­3 who is the another confessional panch deposed that the police has seized bike from the possession of the accused. The

Pw­4 who is the scene of offence panch also supported the case of the prosecution about the Investigation Officer conducting the scene of offence panchanama near their house and drafted CDF. As seen from the evidence of

Pw1 he clearly stated that one person has stolen the pusthelathadu and pustelu from her neck, the evidence of this witness supported with the evidence of confessional panchas who deposed that police has recovered Mo.1 recorded and recorded the confessional panchanama of the accused and recovered property.

Both the confessional panchas identified the accused has the said person who confessed in their presence. As seen from the evidence of Investigation Officer who deposed that investigation done by him in chronological way and recovered property from the possession of the accused. 

20.The learned APP would contended that the accused is a habitual offender he is involved in so many cases. He further contended that the accused has not only committed offences in Karimnagar, he committed offences in Mancherial

Warangal district. As seen from the evidence of all the witnesses and recovery of the property clearly shows that the accused is involved in many cases. The learned APP also contended that as many as cases are pending against the accused he cleverly and strategically committed the offences and put the property in banks and borrowed loans and further contended that this Court should not show any mercy on the accused, if so, he will commit more offences.

Since many years he is involved in many cases there is no change in the attitude of the accused. Due to the attitude of the accused many victims in whose houses he committed theft had suffered. Hence prays the court to impose more punishment to the accused. He also filed a petition to impose per the section 75 of IPC: Whoever, having been convicted: by a Court in India, of an offence punishable under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII of this Code with imprisonment of 7 either description for a term of three years or upwards, shall be guilty of any offence punishable under either of those Chapters with like imprisonment for the like term, shall be subject for every such subsequent offence to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.

21.On analysis of the evidence carefully to see whether the accused has committed the offence and committed theft of gold ornaments and silver articles.

In the instant case, the case of the prosecution rest upon the testimony of (Pw­1 to 5).

The prosecution witnesses were cross examined by defence counsel however nothing came on record to shatter their testimonies. Both the confessional panchas Pws 2 and 3 identified the accused person. 

22.The Defence Counsel argued that there are material contradiction in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. 

The Defence counsel for the accused also argued that accused was falsely implicated in the present case. Accused in his statement under section 313 of

CrPC stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case. However accused has not led any evidence in support of his statement explanation given by the accused is also with sufficient. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case Yadav Vs

Reena. It must be born in mind that the statement of the accused under section 281 of Cr.P.C as under section 313 of Cr.P.C is not evidence of the accused and it cannot be read as part of evidence. The accused has an option to examine himself as a witness, where the accused does not examine himself as a witness his statement under section 281 of Cr.P.C or 313 of Cr.P.C cannot be read as evidence of the accused and it has to be looked into only as an explanation of the incriminating circumstances and not as evidence. There is no presumption of law that explanation given by the Accused was truthful. 

23.No doubt it is a basic principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that in criminal cases the burden of proof is always on prosecution and prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it cannot deserve any benefit whatsoever from the weakness 8 if any in the defence of the accused. However, Section 103 of Evidence Act lays down that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie or any particular person.

Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act casts duty on the accused to prove the particular fact to avail the benefit of that fact. In the instant case accused opted not to lead defence evidence despite opportunity being given.

The accused has also not led any evidence to dislodge the testimony of prosecution of witnesses there is no reason to falsely implicate the accused. It is not the case of the accused had harbored any ill feeling towards the accused. I have no reason to dis behave the testimony of witnesses which is consistent and corroborates the testimony of each other.

The prosecution has clearly established the fact that accused has committed lurking house trespass and committed theft of gold ornaments and silver articles.

During the examination of 313 Cr.P.C also the accused has maintained silent nor he denied about the alleged theft. 

24.From the ocular evidence of Pws 1 to 5 and documentary evidence of

Ex.P1 to P4 the prosecution has clinchingly established the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. After careful scanning of both the oral and documentary evidence the prosecution has established the guilt of the CCL beyond all reasonable doubt and clearly established the accused has committed the alleged offence.

25.This court is not inclined to apply the Probation of Offenders Act, since the alleged offences are heinous in nature against the accused and he is a habitual offender and previously he convicted in some other cases. 

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under section 382 of IPC and accordingly, he is convicted under section 248 (2) of Cr.PC. 

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

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of August, 2018. 

 Prl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC: I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar. 

9

32.Heard, the accused on question of sentence. He submitted that he is having old aged father and he is not keeping good health and no one is there to look after his father and he is the sole bread winner of the family.Basing upon the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is convicting the accused for the offence under section 382 of IPC. 

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences under section 382 IPC and accordingly, he is convicted of the said offences under section 248 (2) Cr.PC. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two and half years (2 ½)  and also pay a fine of Rs. 1000/­ in default to suffer SI for two months for the offence under section 457 of IPC and further the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two and half years (2 ½)  and also pay a fine of Rs. 1000/­ in default to suffer SI for two months for the offence under section 380 of IPC. Both the sentences shall run consecutively. The remand period, if any shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The Interim custody of Mos.1 to 16 which was given to PW­1 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time. Accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal and services provided by District Legal Services

Authority.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of August, 2018.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC: I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE ­NIL­ PW.1B. Anuradha PW.2Ch. Venu PW.3L. Adinarayana PW.4K. Venkateshwara Rao PW.5P. Chandrashekar

EXHIBITS MARKED

1

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE ­NIL­

Ex.P.1is the complaint. Ex.P.2is the confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P.3is the FIR Ex.P.4is the CDF

M.Os MARKED

Mo.1).Gold Pustelathadu 

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC: I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar.

1 1

JCC 10/2017

As seen from the testimony of Pw­1 deposed that CCL is their adjacent neighbour when his daughter was studying 7th class CCL also studied in the same school and CCL used to follow his daughter Pw­2, wherever she goes. Sometimes the CCL used to pell stones in their house with an intention to communicate the Pw­1. He inform the same to CCL parents as there was no change in the attitude, he gave complaint to the police. Pw­2 deposed in the same line, and testified that CCL used to follow her and expressed his love. When she refused, he didn’t change his attitude. 

As seen from the testimony of Pws 1 and 2 the alleged incident occurred in the year, 2012. both the witnesses stated that the CCL father came with a knife and tried to bet Pw­1. In the cross­examination both Pw­1 and 2 admitted that on 11.09.2016 a small clash took place in between them. Then the parents of CCL filed a complaint against them on 12.09.2016 and the same is registered as under SC/ST Act.

As seen from the evidence of Pw­3 who is daughter of Pw­1 she too deposed CCL used to teased Pw­2 and used to follow her, then Pw­1 gave complaint to the police against the CCL. 

As seen from the eivdence of Pw­4 who deposed that he admonished the CCL for teasing Pw­2.

As seen from the evidence of Pw­6 supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the police conducted scene of offence panchanama.

As seen from the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 who deposed the CCL who is their adjacent neighbour used to follow Pw­2 and teased her. From the evidence of these witnesses it is clear that alleged incident occur in the year, 2016 and they gave complaint to the police on 01.10.2016. Pw­1 to 3 in their cross examination admitted the parents of CCL gave a complaint against them on 12.09.2016 and case is registered under SC/ST Act. The Pw­1 to 3 did not gave the specific date when the CCL teased Pw­2.

From their evidence it is elicited a small clash took place in between them on 11.09.2016 and on 12.09.2016 CCL parents gave complaint against them. And they gave complaint to thepolice on 01.08.2016. after two weeks of lodging complaint of CCL. From this it is clear that the CCL parents gave complaint to the police the Pw­1 gave the complaint as a counter blast. From the evidence………….

1

JCC 167/2016

As seen from the evidence of Pw­1 deposed that on one day Lw­4 went to college but didn’t return home, they search for her in the relatives house, subsequently they gave complaint. As seen from 2…. As seen from the Pw2 who is the victim depsoed that CCL since her 10th class even she was studying inter first year, on 04.09.2015 at about 08.30 am CCL came to her college and asked her sit in his bike accordingly she went along with the CCL. Both of them roam on the bike 5 min and she was aligned from the bike CCL caught hold her hand and kissed her cheek. CCL told her that he loves her and promised her to marry. From their they went to Sircilla at A2’s house and stayed there for two days. From there they went to Venkatapuram and married in a Temple. From there they went to Nirmal. Subsequentlyshe came to known thourgh A2 her phone was tapping 1

CC 1023/2013

as seen from the evidence Pw­1 deposed that 19 years ago they purchased a house plot and erected a house with tin shades and used to stay there. As her husband was not well she went to Rachapalli village and returned to her house which was dismantle on enquiry she came to konw the A1 and A2 dismantle the hosue. In her cross she admitted that whether they purchased the hosue by simple or REGISTERED sale deed and she cannot say in which survey number our house is situated. Pw­2 is the none other than brother of Pw­1, he too deposd about Pw­1 purchasing the house erecting house with tin roofs and the said house was dismantle by the A1 and A2. Pws 3 and 4 cited by eye witness cited by the prosecution and resiled from earlier stand and denied stating before the police as per their 161 cr.p.c statement. The Pw­4 who is the photographe deposed that he has taken the three photographs of the scene of offence and gave the same to Police along with the CD. The scnene of ofence panch Pw­6 not supported the case of the prosecution and deposed polcie did not conduct any panchana in his presence. 

As seen from the evidence of the Pws 1 and 2 deposed through Lw­4 and 5 they came to know the A1 to A3 has dismantle the house of Pw­1. When it comes to the evidence of Pws 3 and 4 whio were cited as eye witnesses by the prosecution not supported the case of the prosecution. There is varition and contradiction in the eivdence of Pws 1 2 and 4 and 5. though Pw­1 and 2 stated through Pws 3 and 4 only they came to kwno that the accused dismantle the house of Pw­1. But both Pws 3 and 4 denied the same. Though Pw­1 stated the house belongs to her, but she didn’t file any document such as sale deed or other document to show the said house belongs to her. Though the photographer/Pw­4 supported the case of the prosecution about taking of photos his evidence did not establish that the accused has dismantle the house of Pw­1. As seen

1 J.C.C. No. 30 of 2018

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD : AT : KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:­ Smt T. Suhasini, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC: I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class cum­Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board,

K A R I M N AG A R.

Friday, the 3 nd day of August, 2018

JCC. No. 30 of 2018

Between: The Sub­Inspector of Police, PS Kothapally (Crime No. 135 of 2017)

...Complainant.

AND

Md. Sk Salman @ Mahaboob S/o Moosa Khan, aged 16 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ:Worker in Pariwar bakery (MM Thota), R/o Salampura, Karimnagar.

...Child in Conflict with Laws No.1.

The case against the CCL.No.2 Mohammed Abdul Shoieb @ Zubair was split up.

This case is coming before me on 30­7­2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A Ram Reddy, Senior A.P.P., for the state and of SD. Mobin, Legal Aid Counselfor the CCLs, having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: FINAL ORDER ::

The Sub­Inspector of Police, PS Kothapally has laid Charge Sheet against the Child Conflict with Law seeking to punish him for the offence under section 457, 380 r/w 75 of Indian Penal Code .

2.The brief allegations in the Charge sheet are that on 9­9­2017 at 21.30 hrs, the Lw­1 lodged a complaint stating that, he is resident of Vinayakanagar,

Chinthakunta village and eking his livelihood by doing driver work. They have installed Lord Ganesh Idol in their colony for Navarathri Usthavalu and on 31.08.2017 at about 19.00 hrs, during Pooja time they have kept 3 currency note garlands to Lord Ganesh Idol and the devotees have kept a Hundi also in the pandal and during the night hours, 2 volunteers slept in the pandal. On 01.09.2017 at about 05.30 hrs, when they went to perform Pooja, the 3 currency note garlands of Lord Ganesh Idol, Hundi and 3 mobile phones were committed theft by some unknown offenders. The amount in the Hundi was approximately

Rs.1,000/­ currency garlands worth of Rs.1,500/­ and 3 mobile phones 01­

Samsung phone worth of Rs.2,000/­, 01­Lava Phone worth of Rs.1,500/­ and 01

Nokia phone worth of Rs.800/­ all are worth of Rs.6,800/­ were committed theft by some unknown offenders. Then the complainant gave a complaint to the police, basing on it police registered a case in Cr.No. 135/2017 for the offence under section 457 and 380 r/w 75 of IPC.

2 J.C.C. No. 30 of 2018

3.The Juvenile Justice Board took cognizance against the CCLs for the offences punishable Under Section 457 and 380 r/w 75 of IPC.

4.After the appearance of the CCLs No.1 and 2, the copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 of Cr.P.C. 

5.The CCLs were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C with regard to the charges leveled against them, which they denied, charges under section 457 and 380 r/w 75 of IPC were framed and the contents were read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and preferred a trial. 

6.In order to establish its case the prosecution examined Pw­1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5.

7.After the closure of evidence of prosecution, the CCL.No.1 was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, and explaining him in vernacular language the incriminating material available against them. Contents read over and explained for which he denied and stated no defence.

8.Heard both sides and perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the CCLs for the offences Under Section 457 and 380 r/w 75 of IPC?

10. P O I N T:

The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that occurred on the intervening night of 31­08­2017 to 01­9­2017 at 05.30 hrs, at Vinayakanagar,

Chinthakunta village, the CCLs along with other accused have committed theft of garland of Lord Ganesh Idol, Hundi and 3 mobile phones.

11.The learned APP would contended that the prosecution has establish the case by examined Pws 1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 and further contended that the documents which are filed by the prosecution i.e., Ex.P1 to P5 are supporting the case of the prosecution and establishes the guilt of the CCLs No.1 and 2.

12.The counsel for the CCLs would contended that though the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 and further contended that there is a variation and contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. He further contended that the witnesses cited by the prosecution for which they had supported the case of the prosecution. 

3 J.C.C. No. 30 of 2018

13.As seen from the evidence of Pw­1 deposed that he is the president of

Vinayakanagar, Welfare Association and on behalf of their association they installed Lord Ganesh Idol in their colony for Navaratri Utsavalu. On 31.08.2017 devotees presented three currency note garlands to Lord Ganesh Idol. One garland is of Rs.10/­ currency notes worth of Rs.1,000/­ and two garlands are

Rs.50/­ currency notes each worth of Rs.500/­, on 1­9­2017 in the early morning hours some un­known offenders stolen away those three currency notes garlands and a Hundi having approximately Rs.1,000/­ and his Nokia cell phone and other cellphones, then he gave complaint to the police. 

14.As seen from the evidence of Pw­2 and 3 deposed that Pw­1 is the president of Vinayakanagar, Welfare Association and on behalf of their association they installed Lord Ganesh Idol in their colony for Navaratri Utsavalu and he worked as a volunteer. On 31.08.2017 devotees presented three currency note garlands to Lord Ganesh Idol. One garland is of Rs.10/­ currency notes worth of Rs.1,000/­ and two garlands are Rs.50/­ currency notes each worth of

Rs.500/­, on 1­9­2017 in the early morning hours some un­known offenders stolen away those three currency notes garlands and a Hundi having approximately Rs.1,000/­ and Pw­1’s Nokia cell phone and other cellphones, then

Pw­1 gave complaint to the police.

15.As seen from the evidence of Pw­4 deposed that police conducted CDF in their presence at Ganesh Vinayaka Mandapak, at Vinayaka nagar, Chintakunta, in the month of September, 2017 as theft took place in the Vinayaka mandapam and also police obtained their signatures on Ex.P2.

16.As seen from the evidence of Pw 5 deposed that in the month of September, 2017 near Rekurthi bus stop police interrogated the CCL and A1 and on interrogation both the CCL and A1 confessed to have committed the offence in pursuance of their confession police seized DVD player, three mobile phones and three thousand rupees from their possession, he cannot specifically say that what property is recovered from the CCL from the above mentioned recovered property.

In his cross­examination he admitted that the Ex.P3 prepared in his presence by the police and it took nearly one hour. There were no public at the beginning of the preparation of Ex.P3. 

17.As seen from the evidence of Pw­6 deposed that on 09.09.2017 at 21.30 hrs, he received Ex.P1 complaint from Pw­1, basing on it he registered a case in

Cr.No. 135/17 for the offence under sections 457 and 380 of IPC and issued FIR, during the course of investigation he visited the scene of offence and there he 4 J.C.C. No. 30 of 2018 recorded the statements of Pw1, Lws 2 and 3 and prepared CDF. On 11­9­2017 at 09.00 hrs, he apprehended the CCL and A1 and recovered material objects pertaining to other crime. On 27­12­2017 CCL No.2 came to police station and surrendered before him and he voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. After completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet. 

Reasons:

18.As seen from the evidence of Pw­1 to 3 deposed they are the members of the Vinayaka nagar Welfare Association and on behalf of their association they installed Lord Ganesh Idol in their colony for celebrating Navarathri Ustalavalu.

On 31.08.2017, the devotees presented three currency notes, garlands to Lord

Ganesh one Garland is of Rs.10/­ currency notes worth of Rs.1000/­ and two garlands are Rs.50/­ currency notes, worth of Rs.500/­ each. On 01.09.2017 in the early morning hours, some unknown persons has stolen the same and a

Hundi having Rs1000/­ approximately and Pw­1 cellphone they gave complaint to the police. 

As seen from the evidence of Pw­4 is the panch for scene of offence supported the case of prosecution about the police conducting panchanama at

Vinayaka Mandapam, Vinayak nagar Chinthakunta and drafted Ex.P2 CDF.

19.As seen from the evidence of Pw­5 who is the crucial witness i.e., confessional pancha supported the case of the prosecution deposed that in the month of September, 2017 at Rekurthi Bus stop Police interrogated the CCL after that the CCL confessed in his presence he along with one Imran/A1 committed this offence and Police seized a DVD player and three cell phones from their possession and Ex.P3 is the confessional panchanama.

20.As seen from the evidence of the Pw­6/IO who deposed about the registering of the case and issuing of FIR Ex.P4 and conducting scene of offence panchanama in presence of Pw­4.

From the evidence of Pws 1 to 3, it is clear a theft took place in the

Ganesha Mandapam, Vinayak nagar and some unknown person has stolen the garlands of Pw1 and the evidence of Pw4 supported the case of prosecution about his conducting scene of offence panchanama at the shop of Pw­1. 

 Pw­6 Investigation Officer deposed that he apprehended the CCL and the accused confessed in the presence of Pw­3 about his guilt and he recovered some

Material Objects pertaining to other crime from the possession of CCL.

5 J.C.C. No. 30 of 2018

The evidence of IO Pw­6 is supported with the evidence of confessional pancha with regard to CCL confessing the offence and the Investigation Officer recovered the property from his possession.

During the examination of 313 Cr.P.C also the CCL has maintained silent nor he denied about his involvement in the alleged theft. 

22.From the ocular evidence of Pws 1 to 6 and documentary evidence of Ex.P1 to P5 the prosecution has clinchingly established the case beyond all reasonable doubt. After careful scanning of both the oral and documentary evidence and the prosecution has established the guilt of the CCL beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, CCL.No.1 is found guilty for the offences under sections 457 and 380 IPC and accordingly, he is convicted of the said offences under section 248 (2) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the Juvenile shall stand canceled. The unmarked case property is returned to its original owner after expiry of appeal time.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 03rd day of August, 2018.

 I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class cum­Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board,

K A R I M N AG A R.

6 J.C.C. No. 30 of 2018

31.On hearing of sentence, the CCLs No.1 reported that he is pursuing studies, if any stringent order is passed, it will effect his life and requested to take a lenient view as it is his first act which conflicting with law. [ Hence by considering his request and the age of the CCL, this Board passing an order under Sec. 15(1) (g) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that the CCL has to be sent to Special Home, Hyderabad for a period of two (03) years for the offence under section 457 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/­ each (Rupees five hundred only) in default to suffer SI for a period of one month and further sentenced for a period of one (01) year for the offence under section 380 of IPC and pay a fine of Rs.500/­ each, in default to suffer SI for a period of one month.

All sentences shall run concurrently. After completion of the term in the Special

Home, the Special Home authorities are hereby directed to remove all the relevant records of this conviction as per Sec. 19 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTIONFOR THE DEFENCE : NONE PW­1A Parsharam PW­2V. Manichandu PW­3N. Sai chandu PW­4B. Naresh PW­5M.Naveen PW­6M. Ramesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTIONFOR THE DEFENCE : NONE Ex.P­1Is the Complaint Ex.P­2Is the signature on CDF by Pw­4 Ex.P­3Is the confession and recovery panchanama of CCL.No.1. Ex.P­4Is the FIR Ex.P­5Is the CDF M.Os MARKED ­NIL­

I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class cum­Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board,

K A R I M N AG A R.

1 J.C.C. No. 28 of 2018

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD : AT : KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:­ Smt T. Suhasini, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC: I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class cum­Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board,

K A R I M N AG A R.

Friday, the 3 rd day of August, 2018

JCC. No. 28 of 2018

Between: The Sub­Inspector of Police, PS Kothapally (Crime No. 136 of 2017)

...Complainant.

AND

Md. Sk Salman @ Mahaboob S/o Moosa Khan, aged 16 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ:Worker in Pariwar bakery (MM Thota), R/o Salampura, Karimnagar.

...Child in Conflict with Laws No.1.

The case against the CCL.No.2 Mohammed Abdul Shoieb @ Zubair was split up.

This case is coming before me on 30­7­2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A Ram Reddy, Senior A.P.P., for the state and of SD. Mobin, Legal Aid Counselfor the CCLs, having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: FINAL ORDER ::

The Sub­Inspector of Police, PS Kothapally has laid Charge Sheet against the Child Conflict with Law seeking to punish him for the offence under section 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code .

2.The brief allegations in the Charge sheet are that on 10­9­2017 at 11.00 hrs, the Lw­1 lodged a complaint stating that, he is resident of Asifnagar,

Hyderabad and from the past 6 months onwards he is residing at Chinthakunta village by running Ms furniture shop and staying in the shop only and along with him 5 workers also living with him. On 14­8­2017 at about 21.00 hrs, all of them had their supper and slept in the shop, on 15­8­2017 at 05.00 hrs, they woke up and observed that his Moto G turbo cell phone worth of Rs.10,000/­ his worker

Faisal Samsung J5 cell phone worth of Rs.10,000/­ and another worker sanjay

LYF mobile worth of Rs.4,000/­ and one LG DVD player worth of Rs.800/­ and net cash of Rs. 3,000/­ from his small bag were committed theft by some unknown persons all worth of Rs.28,800/­. Then the complainant gave a complaint to the police, basing on it police registered a case in Cr.No. 136/2017 for the offence under section 457 and 380 of IPC.

2 J.C.C. No. 28 of 2018

3.The Juvenile Justice Board took cognizance against the CCL for the offences punishable Under Section 457 and 380 of IPC.

4.After the appearance of the CCLs No.1 and 2, the copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 of Cr.P.C. 

5.The CCLs were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C with regard to the charges leveled against them, which they denied, charges under section 457 and 380 of IPC were framed and the contents were read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and preferred a trial. 

6.In order to establish its case the prosecution examined Pw­1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and Mos. 1 to 4. 

7.After the closure of evidence of prosecution, the CCL No.1 was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, and explaining him in vernacular language the incriminating material available against him. Contents read over and explained for which they denied and stated no defence.

8.Heard both sides and perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the CCL No.1 for the offences Under Section 457 and 380 of IPC?

10. P O I N T:

The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that occurred on the intervening night of 14/15­08­2017 at MS furnitures near Sampradaya Garden,

Chinthakunta village, the CCLs along with other accused have committed theft of

Cell phones all are worth of Rs.28,800/­.

11.The learned APP would contended that the prosecution has establish the case by examined Pws 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and further contended that the documents which are filed by the prosecution i.e., Ex.P1 to P4 are supporting the case of the prosecution and establishes the guilt of the CCLs No.1 and 2.

12.The counsel for the CCLs would contended that though the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and further contended that there is a variation and contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. He further contended that the witnesses cited by the prosecution for which they had supported the case of the prosecution. 

3 J.C.C. No. 28 of 2018

13.As seen from the evidence of Pw­1 deposed that on 14­8­2017 after having dinner himself, he slept in their shop along with some others. On the following day when they woke up they found missing of three cell phones, one DVD player and cash of Rs.3,000/­ from a bag, as such he gave complaint to the police.

14.As seen from the evidence of Pw­2 deposed that on 14­8­2017 after having dinner, he slept in their shop along with Pw­1 and some others. On the following day when they woke up they found missing of three cell phones, one DVD player and cash of Rs.3,000/­ from a bag, as such Pw­1 gave complaint to the police.

15.As seen from the evidence of Pw 3 deposed that in the month of September, 2017 near Rekurthi bus stop police interrogated the CCL and A1 and on interrogation both the CCL and A1 confessed to have committed the offence in pursuance of their confession police seized DVD player, three mobile phones and three thousand rupees from their possession, he cannot specifically say that what property is recovered from the CCL from the above mentioned recovered property.

In his cross­examination he admitted that the Ex.P2 prepared in his presence by the police and it took nearly one hour. There were no public at the beginning of the preparation of Ex.P2. 

16.As seen from the evidence of Pw­4 deposed that on 10.09.2017 at 11.00 hrs, he received Ex.P1 complaint from Pw­1, basing on it he registered a case in

Cr.No. 136/17 for the offence under sections 457 and 380 of IPC and issued FIR, during the course of investigation he visited the scene of offence and there he recorded the statements of Pw1, Lws 2and 3 and prepared CDF. Later he handed over the CD file to Pw­5.

17.As seen from the evidence of Pw­5 he deposed that on 11­9­2017 at 09.00 hrs, he took up further investigation in this case from Pw­4, he apprehended the

CCL No.1 and A1 at Rekurthy bus stop and during the investigation they confessed to have committed the offence, in pursuance of their confession he recovered cell phone from the possession of CCL. After completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet. 

Reasons:

18.As seen from the evidence of Pw­1 and 2 deposed on 14.08.2017 after having dinner they along with Lw­2 and two other were slept in his furniture shop on the next day he woke up and found three cells missing, Mos 1 to 3 I.e,.

Cell phone, DVD player and Cash.

4 J.C.C. No. 28 of 2018

19.As seen from the evidence of Pw­3 who is the crucial witness i.e., confessional pancha supported the case of the prosecution deposed that in the month of September, 2017 at Rekurthi Bus stop Police interrogated the CCL after that the CCL confessed in his presence he along with one Imran committed this

Offence and Police seized a DVD player, three cell phones from their possession and Ex.P2 is the confessional panchanama.

As seen from the evidence of the Pw­4/IO who deposed about the registering of the case and issuing of FIR Ex.P3 and conducting scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4.

21.From the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 it is clear a theft took place in the furniture shop of Pw1 and the evidence of Pw4 supported the case of prosecution about his conducting scene of offence panchamaa at the shop of Pw­1. Pw­5 IO deposed that he apprehended the CCLs and the CCLs confessed in the presence of Pw­3 about their guilt and he recovered Mos.1 to 4 from the possession of

CCLs.

The evidence of IO Pw­5 is supported with the evidence of confessional pancha with regard to CCL confessing the offence and the IO recovered the property from his possession.

The CCL is habitual offender he is involved in so many cases once he was brought to the Board during trial he escaped from Board after that police apprehended him and produced before the Court. He was again sent to Home at

Velichala Boys, at Karimnagar. After one or two weeks the CCL instigated other two CCLs in the Home and there to escape from the home and committed another one theft in the house and another case has registered. On the intimation of the

DPO this Board sent him to Special Home, Hyderabad. On seeing the attitude of the CCL is habitual offender.

During the examination of 313 Cr.P.C also the CCL has maintained silent nor he denied about his involvement in the alleged theft. 

22.From the ocular evidence of Pws 1 to 5 and documentary evidence of Ex.P1 to P4 and the Mos. 1 to 4 the prosecution has clinchingly established the case beyond all reasonable doubt. After careful scanning of both the oral and documentary evidence and the prosecution has established the guilt of the CCL beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, CCL.No.1 is found guilty for the offences under sections 457 and 380 IPC and accordingly, he is convicted of the said offences under section 5 J.C.C. No. 28 of 2018 248 (2) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the Juvenile shall stand canceled. The unmarked case property is returned to its original owner after expiry of appeal time.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 03rd day of August, 2018.

 I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class cum­Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board,

K A R I M N AG A R.

31.On hearing of sentence, the CCL No.1 reported that he is having old aged mother, he is the only person to lookafter his mother, if any stringent order is passed, it will effect his life and requested to take a lenient view. [ Basing on the facts and circumstances of the case and considering his request and the age of the CCL, this Board passing an order under Sec. 15(1) (g) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that the CCL has to be sent to Special Home,

Hyderabad for a period of one (01) year for the offence under section 457 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/­ (Rupees five hundred only) in default to suffer SI for a period of one month and further sentenced for a period of one (01) year for the offence under section 380 of IPC and pay a fine of Rs.500/­, in default to suffer

SI for a period of one month. All sentences shall run concurrently. After completion of the term in the Special Home, the Special Home authorities are hereby directed to remove all the relevant records of this conviction as per Sec. 19 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTIONFOR THE DEFENCE : NONE PW­1Md.Kaleem PW­2Md. Faizal PW­3M. Naveen PW­4N. Damodara Chary PW­5M.Ramesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P­1Is the Complaint Ex.P­2Is the confession and recovery panchanama of CCL.No.1 Ex.P­3Is the FIR Ex.P­4Is the CDF

M.Os MARKED

Mo.1:is the Moto­G Cell phone Mo.2:is the DVD player Mo.3:is the cash of Rs.3,000/­ Mo.4:is the Samsung J­5 Cellphone. 

6 J.C.C. No. 28 of 2018

I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class cum­Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board,

K A R I M N AG A R.

7 J.C.C. No. 28 of 2018

The CCL is habitual offender he is involved in so many cases once he was brought to the Board during trial he escaped from Board after that police apprehended him and produced before the Court. He was again sent to Home at

Velichala Boys, at Karimnagar. After one or two weeks the CCL instigated other two CCLs in the Home and there to escape from the home and committed another one theft in the house and another case has registered. On the intimation of the

DPO this Board sent him to Special Home, Hyderabad. On seeing the attitude of the CCL is habitual offender.

1 J.C.C. No. 184 of 2017

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD : AT : KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:­ Smt T. Suhasini, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC: I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class cum­Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board,

K A R I M N AG A R.

Friday, the 3 rd day of August, 2018

JCC. No. 184 of 2017

Between: The Sub­Inspector of Police, PS Ramagiri (Crime No. 85 of 2016)

...Complainant.

AND

Yerram Raj Kumar S/o Saraiah, aged 17 years, R/o ST2­1500, Centenary colony, h/o Rathnapur village. ...Child in Conflict with Law.

This case is coming before me on 30­7­2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A Ram Reddy, Senior A.P.P., for the state and of SD. Mobin, Legal Aid Counselfor the CCLs, having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: FINAL ORDER ::

The Sub­Inspector of Police, PS Ramagiri has laid Charge Sheet against the Child Conflict with Law seeking to punish him for the offence under section 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code .

2.The brief allegations in the Charge sheet are that on 14­6­2016 at 15.00 hrs, the Lw­1 lodged a complaint stating that, he is the resident of Centenary colony and working as General Mazdoor inSCCL OCP­II. On 12­6­2016 he along with his wife Uma, son Swaraj, daughter Anusha went to Badhrachalam for visiting by locking his house. On 14­6­2016 at around 7.30 am when they returned back to house, opened the door and found the lock of almirah in bed room was broken. They found the rear side door also found broken. When they checked the almirah (1) sada gold chain with Laxmi Devi locket wg 6 gms (2) one pair kammalu with red stones and mutyam stones two wg 2 ½ grams (3) one pair kammalu black colour stones wg 2 ½ grms. (4) one pair Kammalu with pujalu wg 2 ½ grams (5)one gram ammalu,wg 1 gms, were committed theft by unknown offenders, its total wg 14 ½ grams and its worth of Rs.21,500/­. Then the complainant gave a complaint to the police, basing on it police registered a case in Cr.No. 85/2016 for the offence under section 457 and 380 of IPC.

3.The Juvenile Justice Board took cognizance against the CCL for the offences punishable Under Section 457 and 380 of IPC.

2 J.C.C. No. 184 of 2017

4.After the appearance of the CCL, the copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 of Cr.P.C. 

5.The CCL was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C with regard to the charges leveled against him, which he denied, charges under section 457 and 380 of IPC were framed and the contents were read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and preferred a trial. 

6.In order to establish its case the prosecution examined Pw­1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and Mo.1. 

7.After the closure of evidence of prosecution, the CCL was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C, and explaining him in vernacular language the incriminating material available against him. Contents read over and explained for which they denied and stated no defence.

8.Heard both sides and perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the CCL for the offences Under Section 457 and 380 of IPC?

10. P O I N T:

The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that occurred in between 12­ 6­2016 to 14­6­2017 at Centenary colony, the CCL broke open the doors of the

Lw­1’s house and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments worth of

Rs.21,500/­ and decamped with booty. 

11.The learned APP would contended that the prosecution has establish the case by examined Pws 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and further contended that the documents which are filed by the prosecution i.e., Ex.P1 to P4 are supporting the case of the prosecution and establishes the guilt of the CCL.

12.The counsel for the CCL would contended that though the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and further contended that there is a variation and contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. He further contended that the witnesses cited by the prosecution for which he had supported the case of the prosecution. 

13.As seen from the evidence of Pw­1 deposed that on 14­6­2016 at 7.30 am they returned and found that the Almarah was broke open and back side of door was also broke open, some unknown offenders stolen away (1) sada gold chain with Laxmi Devi locket wg 6 gms (2) one pair kammalu with red stones and mutyam stones two wg 2 ½ grams (3) one pair kammalu black colour stones wg 2 3 J.C.C. No. 184 of 2017 ½ grms. (4) one pair Kammalu with pujalu wg 2 ½ grams (5)one gram ammalu,wg 1 gms, were committed theft by unknown offenders, its total wg 14 ½ grams and its worth of Rs.21,500/­ and fled away. As such he gave police complaint. Later police recovered Sada gold chain with Laxmi devi locket wg.6 gms given to him for interim custody and the same is marked as Mo.1.

14.As seen from the evidence of Pw­2 deposed that about two years back police conducted panchanama near the house of Pw­1 as unknown offenders committed theft in his house and police obtained his signature. 

15.As seen from the evidence of Pw 3 deposed that about one year back, police interrogated the CCL in his presence at Centenary colony and CCL confessed in their presence about the offence that he has committed theft at Centenary colony and stolen one gold chain as his parents didn’t gave money to him for consuming alcohol. Police recorded the confession and recovery panchanama which is marked as Ex.P3.

16.As seen from the evidence of Pw­4 deposed that on 14­6­2016 at 15.00 hrs, the Lw­10 received Ex.P1 complaint from Pw­1, basing on it he registered a case in Cr.No. 85/16 for the offence under sections 457 and 380 of IPC and issued

FIR, during the course of investigation he visited the scene of offence and there he recorded the statements of Lw 1 and 3 and prepared CDF. Subsequently, he handed over the CD file to him. On 6­10­2017 in the morning hours he apprehended the CCL at Telangana Chowrasta and on interrogation he confessed to have committed the offence. After completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet. 

Reasons:

17.As seen from the evidence of Pw­1 deposed that he along with his family members went to Bhadrachalam and they returned and found that the Almirah was broke open and back side of door was also broke open.

18.As seen from the evidence of Pws­2 and 3 who are the crucial witness i.e., panch for CDF and confessional pancha supported the case of the prosecution

Pw­2 deposed that the police conducted panchanama in his presence and prepared CDF and Pw­3 deposed that about one year ago at Centenary Colony police interrogated the CCL in his presence and he confessed in their presence about the commission of offence and Police seized a one gold chain and marked as Mo.1.

As seen from the evidence of the Pw­4/IO who deposed about the registering of the case and issuing of FIR Ex.P4 and conducting scene of offence panchanama Ex.P2.

4 J.C.C. No. 184 of 2017

19.From the evidence of Pws 1 it is clear a theft took place in the house of Pw1 and the evidence of Pw2 supported the case of prosecution about his conducting scene of offence panchanama. Pw­4 Investigation Officer deposed that he apprehended the CCL and the CCL confessed in the presence of Pw­3 about his guilt and he recovered Mos.1 from the possession of CCL.

The evidence of Investigation Officer Pw­4 is supported with the evidence of confessional pancha with regard to CCL confessing the offence and the

Investigation Officer recovered the property from his possession.

During the examination of 313 Cr.P.C also the CCL has maintained silent nor he denied about his involvement in the alleged theft. 

20.From the ocular evidence of Pws 1 to 4 and documentary evidence of Ex.P1 to P4 and recovery of Mo.1 from the possession of CCL, the prosecution has clinchingly established the case beyond all reasonable doubt. After careful scanning of both the oral and documentary evidence and the prosecution has established the guilt of the CCL beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, CCL is found guilty for the offences under sections 457 and 380 IPC and accordingly, he is convicted of the said offences under section 248 (2) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the Juvenile shall stand canceled. The unmarked case property is returned to its original owner after expiry of appeal time.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 03rd day of August, 2018.

 I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class cum­Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board,

K A R I M N AG A R. 

21.On hearing of sentence, the CCL reported that he is a poor person and his parents eking his livelihood by doing coolie work and he appearing before this

Board since one year, if any stringent order is passed, it will effect his life and requested to take a lenient view, as it is his first act which conflicting with law. [ Hence by considering his request and the age of the CCL, this Board passing an order under Section 15(1) (g) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that after due admonition, the CCL is placed under the supervision of the District Probation

Officer, Karimnagar for a period of one (01) year for the offence under section 457 of IPC and further for a period of one (01) year for the offence under section 380 of IPC, both sentences shall run concurrently. The CCL is also directed to attend

before the District Probation Officer, Karimnagar on first Thursday of every

5 J.C.C. No. 184 of 2017 month upto One year and that he has to sign in the register before DPO,

Karimnagar and the DPO is hereby directed to file a report on the way that she conducted counseling and details of changes brought in the attitude of the CCL.

After completion of appeal period and after completion of one year the benefit under section 19 of JJ Act – 2000 shall be attracted to the CCL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTIONFOR THE DEFENCE : NONE PW­1Dasi Sathaiah PW­2M. Raji Reddy PW­3V. Sampath PW­4T. Shankaraiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTIONFOR THE DEFENCE : NONE Ex.P­1Is the Complaint Ex.P­2Is the CDF Ex.P­3Is the confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P­4Is the FIR

M.Os MARKED

Mo.1:is the Sada Gold Chain wg. 6 gms. 

I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class cum­Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board,

K A R I M N AG A R.

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT ::KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:- SMT.T.SUHASINI,

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

O.S.NO. 11 OF 2013.

Between:

1.Santhapuri Shakunthala, W/o. Joseph, Age: 45 years,Occ. House-wife, R/o. Krishna Colony of Srirampoor Village of Mancherial Mandal of Adilabad Dist.

2. Chathala Manikya, W/o. John, Age: 55 years,Occ. House-wife, R/o. Mandamarri Village and Mandal of Adilabad Dist.

…Plaintiffs.

AND

1. Thammidi @ Gaddameedi Gangamma @ Gangavva, W/o. Lasmaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: House-Wife, R/o. H.No.7-62, R/o. Arnakonda Village of Choppadandi Mandal of Karimnagar Dist.

2. Ashoda Laxmi, W/o. Rajaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: House-Wife, R/o. Mallapur Village of Choppadandi Mandal of Karimnagar Dist.

…Defendants.

:: D O C K E T O R D E R ::

Date: 20.06.2018.

Memo filed by the counsel for the Plaintiffs not pressing the suit. In view of the said memo, the suit is dismissed as no pressed.

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar.

IN THE COURT OF I SPL. JUDL. MAGiSTRATE.

SECOND .CLASS. AT :: KARIMNAGAR

C.C.No.635 of 2018.

Between:

The State through S.H.O.,Karimnagar P.S III Town., C.No. 77/2018. ...complaint.

AND

R1.Baraju Rathnakar, S/o. Sanjeeva Reddy, Aged: 32 Years, Occ; Contractor,R/o.H.No.10-2-706/1.Vidyanagar, Karimnagar. R2.Baddam Ajay Reddy, S/o. Ragupathi Reddy, Aged: 21 Years, Occ; Student,R/o.Kummariwada, Karimnagar. R3.Gujjala Srinivas Reddy@ Kranthi, S/o. Durareddy, Aged: 28 Years, R/o.Gundareddipalle,Karimnagar.

...Respondents.

:: D O C K E T O R D E R ::

Date: 22-10-2018.

The accused is present. Copies of case documents furnished to them, as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and he is examined U/sec.251 of Cr.p.c., for the offence punishable u/Sec., 290 and 504 of IPC for which he pleaded guilty voluntarily and found guilty of the said offences. Hence the sole accused is convicted U/Sec252 of Cr.p.c., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50/- each for the offence u/Sec.290 of IPC in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.i. for a period of 2 days each and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each for the offence U/Sec.504 of IPC in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I for a period of 1 month.

(Total fine of Rs.1050/-)

Sd/-

I SPL. Judl. Magistrate.S.C.,

Karimnagar.

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT :: KARIMNAGAR.

O.S.NO. 123 OF 2001.

Between:

Gammadi Kankaiah, S/o. Veera Mallaiah, Age: 63 years,Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Nizaithigudem H/o. Chenjerla Village of Manakondur Mandal of Karimnagar Dist. …Plaintiff.

AND

1. Bolla Srinivas, S/o. Late Bolla Komrelli, Age: 39 years Occ: Agriculture,

2. Bolla Muralidhar @ Murali, S/o. Late Bolla Komrelli, Age: 33 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. Bolla Venu Gopal, S/o. Late Bolla Komrelli, Age: 29 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4. Bolla Raju, S/o. Late Bolla Komrelli, Age: 20 years Occ: Agriculture, 5.Bolla Anjamma, S/o. Late Bolla Komrelli, Age: 56 years Occ: Agriculture, All are R/o.Nizaithigudem H/o. Chenjerla Village of Manakondur Mandal of Karimnagar Dist.

…Defendants.

:: D O C K E T O R D E R ::

Date: 31-03-2004.

Judgment pronounced. Vide separate typed one.

In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs, declaring that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of suit property ad measuring Ac.1-12 guntas in

Sy.No.245 and Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.246 of Nizyithigudem H/o. Chengerla Village of

Manakondur Mandal within the boundaries shown in the schedule, and also the suit is decreed by granting a permanent injunction infavour of plaintiff restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the the suit schedule property.

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar.

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT :: KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT. KSHAMA DESHPANDE

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

O.S.NO. 35 OF 2008.

Between:

Gaddam Anurudh Reddy, S/o. Mahender Reddy, Age: 04 years a minor r/by his next friend Gaddam Maheshwari, W/o. Mahender Reddy, R/o.Narayanpur Village of Gangadhara Mandal of Karimnagar Dist. …Plaintiff.

AND

1. Gaddam Parsharam Reddy @ Parshaiah @ parsharam, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Maddulapalli Village of Pegadapalli Mandal of Karimnagar Dist.

2. Gaddam Padma D/o. Parsharam Reddy, Age: 25 years Occ: House Hold, R/o.Maddulapalli Village of Pegadapalli Mandal of Karimnagar Dist.

3. Gaddam Mahender Reddy S/o. Parsharam Reddy, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Maddulapalli Village of Pegadapalli Mandal of Karimnagar Dist.

…Defendants.

:: D O C K E T O R D E R ::

Date: 06.02.2013.

Plaintiff not ready. No representation suit is dismissed for default.

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar.

 IN THE COURT OF II.ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE 

AT :: KARIMNAGAR

O.S.NO. 427 OF 2009.

Between:

Bonala Laxminarayana, S/o. Rajaiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o.H.No.13-32, Elgandal village of Karimnagar Mandal and District.

…Plaintiff.

AND

1. Assia Sulthana, W/o. Meer Afzal Ali, Age: 58 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.7-2-822, Kashmeergadda locality of Karimnagar proper.

2. Syed Saidani Pasha, W/o. Mohd.Mumtaz, Age: 53 years, Occ: Housewife,R/o. H.No.7-3-206, Kashmeergadda locality of Karimnagar proper.

3. Khaisar Sulthana, W/o. Khaja Zakeeruddin, Age: 33 years, Occ: Housewife,R/o. H.No.7-2-822, Kashmeergadda locality of Karimnagar proper.

4. Regulapai Madhusudhan Rao, S/o. Sridhar Rao, Age: 44 years, Occ: Business,R/o. H.No.10-4-1/1, Vavilalapalli locality of Karimnagar proper.

5. Gurrala Chandramouli, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ:Agriculture , R/o. H.No.15-29, Elgandal village of Karimnagar Mandal and District.

…Defendants.

:: D O C K E T O R D E R ::

Date: 03.01.2014.

D3 not present. Exparte. call call on 11-04-2014.

Sd/-

II.Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar.

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE 

AT :: KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT. KSHAMA DESHPANDE

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

O.S.NO. 9 OF 2007.

Between:

Syed Khaja Fasiuddin, S/o. Syed Vazeeruddin, Age: 63 years, Occ: Retd. Govt. Employee, R/o. H.No.9-4-470, Sapthagiri Colony locality of Karimnagar Town proper. …Plaintiff.

AND

1. Gulam Mahaboob Ali, S/o. Vali HYder, Age: 55 years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o. H.No.3-5-127, Azmathpura locality of Karimnagar Town.

2. Mohd. Yousuf Baba, S/o. Mahaboob Ali, Age: 38 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. H.No.3-5-127, Azmathpura locality of Karimnagar Town proper.

…Defendants.

:: D O C K E T O R D E R ::

Date: 04.03.2013.

PNR No representation suit dismissed for default.

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar.

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE 

AT :: KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:­ Smt. P.Sai Sudha,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

KARIMNAGAR.

I.A.NO. 795 OF 2019.

IN

O.S.NO. 894 OF 1985.

Between:

Chinthireddy Thirupathi Reddy, S/o. Hanmantha Reddy(Died) his sole Legal heir I,e., Adopted son by name Ch. Jayaprakash Reddy , Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kakaguda, Secunderabad.

….Petitioner/Defendant.

AND

1. Bhagavanth Kishtaiah, S/o. Janiki Ramaiah, Age: 78 years, Occ: Agriculture,Dharma Shala Street, Boiwada, Karimnagar.

2. Sardar Laxman Singh, S/o. Teja Singh, Age: 62 years, Occ: Trade,R/o. Karimnagar.

…Respondents/Plaintiffs.

Ch. Jayaprakash Reddy,S/o.Thirupathi Reddy, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kakaguda, Secunderabad.

:: D O C K E T O R D E R ::

Date: 23.10.2019.

Order pronounced (VSO).

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE 

AT :: KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:­ SRI. MOHD. AFROZ AKHTAR,

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

KARIMNAGAR.

I.A.NO. 604 OF 2016

IN

O.S.NO. 184 OF 2015

Between:

Chilkunuri @ Chilkuri Rama Swamy, S/o. Lingaiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture and Carpender, R/o. H.No.4-32, Choppadandi village and Mandal of Karimnagar district. …Petitioner/Plaintiff.

AND

1. Onetela Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o. Kishta Reddy, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Peddi Reddy Ganapathi Reddy, S/o. Not known to Plaintiff, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. Peddi Reddy Manjula, W/o. Ganapathi Reddy, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, All are R/o. Gumlapur village, Choppadandi mandal of Karimnagar district.

…Respondents/Defendants.

:: D O C K E T O R D E R ::

Date: 28.10.2016.

Counsel for the respondent reported no counter. Heard, Considering the reasons stated in this petition, petition is allowed as prayed for.

Sd/-

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar.