Sri T.Venkateswarlu, Spl.JFCM for Rlys, GTKL

In the court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways),

Guntakal.

Present:- Sri T.Venkateswarlu, Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

Wednesday, the 22nd day of January, 2020

C.C.No.205/2017

BETWEEN:

State represented by Assistant Sub-Inspector, Chitradurga Railway Protection Force.

….. Complainant.

AND

Eriswamy, S/o Thimmanna, age 28 years, resident of Neralakunte, Near Ganesh Temple, Chellakere Taluq, Chitradurga District, Karnataka State.

…... Accused.

This case has come before me on 08-01-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri S.Younus Ahammed, counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon perusing the material on record, this court has delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Assistant Sub-Inspector, Chitradurga Railway Protection Force has filed this complaint against the accused in Crime No.104/2017 under Sections 159 and 160(2) of Railway Act 1989.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: On 12-07-2017 at about 21.35 hours the accused being the driver of Lorry bearing registration

No.KA-34-7740 drove the same with rash and negligent manner and dashed against railway level crossing gate No.94 at KM No.127/7-8 situated between

Molakalmuru and Rayadurga Railway Stations when the said gate was closed for passage of Goods Train No.EBCN resulting the said LC gate's barrier was broken and damaged towards Rayadurga side and further the said LC gate's barrier bend and damaged at the meeting point of the boom connected to the said LC gate towards Veerapura side resulting unable to close the said LC gate for road traffic. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 13.07.2017 the LW9

N.Guruswamy, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Chitradurga RPF and his staff were reached the spot and enquired the matter with on duty -2- gateman/LW.1/S.Subramanyam and taken complaint from him and registered this case as in Cr.No.104/2017 under Sections 159 and 160(2) of Railways Act 1989.

It is further alleged in the complaint that on 14-07-2017 the LW.9 has arrested the accused and seized the said Lorry and recorded his confession statement and forwarded him for Judicial remand and after completion of enquiries he filed compliant against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 159 and 160(2) Railways Act 1989. Hence, the complaint.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 159 and 160(2) of Railways Act 1989 and on appearance of the accused before this court copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

4.When the accused was examined under section 246(2) of Cr.P.C., he denied the substance of accusation. After perusing the entire material available on record and on hearing the both sides charge under Sections 159 and 160(2) of

Railways Act 1989 is framed against the accused and read over and explained its contents in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

5. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has listed 9 witnesses, examined the 8 witnesses as Pws.1 to 8, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17.

The LW.8 Devarajappa E.S., Inspector Motor Vehicle, Chitradurga is closed based on the death certificate filed by the RPF on 12.06.2019. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6. On perusal of the entire material available on record, it is found that the

Pws.1, 4 and 8 (S.Subramanyam, Gateman at LC gate No.94 at KM.No.127 situated between Mulakalacheruvu and Rayadurgam Railway Stations, Nikesh

Kumar Roshan, Station Master at Molakalacheruvu and Shobhnath, SSE/P.Way,

Molakacheruvu) are the railway officials. Pws.2, 3 and 5 (Eswar Naik, Anand and

T.Anjaneya) are the confession, arrest and seizure of the property mahazarnama.

Pws.6 and 7 (N.Guru Swamy, Assistant Sub-Inspector, RPF, Chitradurga and

C.K.Nasir, Contstable, SW. Railways, Chitradurga) are the Enquiry officers in this case.

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

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and explained the incriminating material appearing from -3- the prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

9. Now the point for consideration is, whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 159 and 160(2) of Railways Act 1989 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10.The Public prosecutor has contended that the evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused and prays to convict the accused according to

Law. On behalf of the defence the counsel for the accused has contended and focused the defects in the case of the prosecution and prays to acquit the accused in the ends of Justice.

11.As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he has testified that on 12.07.2017 at 21:30 hours while he was on duty on information of the PW.4 he closed the LC gate No.94 situated between Molakalamuru and Rayadurga Railway stations at

KM.No.127 for passage of EBCN goods train and while so at 21:35 hours one lorry bearing registration No.KA 34 7740 has came there speedily and dashed the said LC gates and pass through towards Gummanuru side resulting the said

LC gates booms barriers and their posts broken for which he stopped the said

Lorry and parked the same by the side of the road and informed the same to the

Pws.4 and 8 for which on 13.07.2017 the Pws.6 and 7 were came there and enquired the matter and the PW.6 has received the complaint from him and prepared the seizure panchanama and the PW.6 has arrested the accused and brought him to Chitradurga RPF Post along with the said lorry.

12.PW.2 has testified that on 23.07.2017 at about 09:30 pm., the accused was hit the LC gate situated near Shivalayam temple with lorry and breaking the same for which he stopped the accused and caught hold him and informed the same to his villagers and Rayadurgam police for which they came there and caught hold him and brought him to the Gateman along with the lorry and enquired the matter and booked the case and recorded his(PW.2) statement and prepared panchanama.

13.PW.3 has testified that at about one and half years back on one day between 09:00 pm., and 09:30 pm., while he proceeded to his village through the -4- railway gate he witnessed that one lorry has hit the same and proceeded to Dam side and he was examined by somebody and recorded his statement.

14.PW.4 has testified that on 12.07.2017 at about 09:40 pm., he received information through the PW.1 stating that one lorry bearing registration No.KA 34 7740 was hit the closed LC gate No.94 for passage of EBCN goods train resulting the same was damaged and the said train was suffered detention for a period of 35 minutes and the said train was proceeded towards Rayadurga side from Molakalamuru side and on the next day of the incident the RPF authorities were came to his office and enquired him and recorded his statement.

15.PW.5 has testified that on 12.07.2017 at night time, he received information through phone from Chitradurga RPF stating that his lorry has dashed the railway gate for which he reached there on 13.07.2017 and came to know the particulars of the incident and received the said lorry for his interim custody as per the orders of this court.

16.PW.6 has testified that on 12.07.2017 at 23:45 hours he received message from the PW.4 relating to the incident occurred at LC gate No.94 for which he reached there along with the PW.7 on 13.07.2017 and enquired the PW.1 for which the PW.1 has informed that on 12.07.2017 at 09:35 hours when he closed the said LC gate one Lorry bearing registration No.KA 34 7740 has came there and hit the said LC gate resulting the said LC gate's both sides booms were damaged and their meeting posts damaged and the said lorry's front side bumper damaged and its right side front portion crushing and head light of the said lorry broken for which he recorded the complaint of the PW.1 and prepared the observation mahazar in the presence of the Pws.2 and 3 and recorded the confession statement of the accused and received the damaged costs certificate for Rs.1,44,000/- for damage of LC gate No.94 and arrested the accused and brought him to Chitradurga RPF out post along with the said lorry and registered this case as in Cr.No.104/2017 under sections 159 and 160(2) of Railways Act and forwarded him for judicial remand and the LW.8 has inspected the said lorry and issued report and recorded the statements of the Pws.1 to 3, 5, 7 and 8 and the PW.5 has came to the RPF Post, Chitradurga and received the said lorry and on the as per the orders of this court and after completion of the enquiry he filed complaint in this case against the accused under section 159 and 160(2) of

Railways Act.

17.PW.7 has testified that on 13.07.2017 at 09:30 hours he and the PW.6 were -5- reached the LC gate No.94 and found the same was damaged and broken condition and on enquiry of the PW.6, the PW.1 was informed that on 12.07.2017 at about 21:30 hours he closed the said LC gate for passage of EBCN goods train while so at 21:35 hours one Lorry bearing registration No.KA 34 7740 was came there and hit the said LC gate resulting the same was damaged and was broken for which he gave complaint and statement to the PW.6 and the PW.6 was took the photographs of the scene of incident in the presence of Pws.2 and 3 and prepared observation mahazar and recorded the confession statement of the accused and arrested him and seized the said lorry and brought the same to

Chitradurga RPF Post.

18.PW.8 has testified that on 12.07.2017 he received information from SM,

Challakere through phone stating that one lorry has hit the LC gate No.94 resulting the said LC gate was damaged for which he reached there and observed the both the LC gate's booms were damaged and fallen across the track for which he removed the same and replaced the new LC gate's booms in the place of the said damaged LC gate's booms on 13.07.2017 and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of incident and issued damage costs certificate for

Rs.1,44,000/- to the RPF and gave the statement to the RPF.

19.On perusal of the evidence of the Pws.1 to 8 that they are clearly and clinchingly spoken about the incident occurred at KM.No.127/7-8 situated between Molakalamuru and Rayadurga railway stations being the accused was hit the LC gate No.94 with the lorry bearing registration No.KA 34 7740 being the said LC gate was in closed condition by the PW.1 for passage of EBCN goods train. The evidence of the Pws.1 to 8 is corroborated with each other with respect of the occurrence of the aforesaid incident. In the cross-examination of the Pws.1 to 4 and 6 to 8 also there are no material contradictions and nothing has been elicited in favour of the case of the accused. Even though the PW.5 was turned hostile but he supported the case of the prosecution by marking his statement under Ex.P.9 through the PW.5. So, the evidence is on record is sufficient to record the finding that the accused is responsible for the occurrence of the aforesaid incident. The testimonies of the Pws.1 to 8 were cogent, consistent, reliable and inspiring confidence of this court. Hence, the evidence of the Pws.1 to 8 coupled with the Exs.P.1 to P.17 are clearly and clinchingly established this case about the occurrence of the incident against the accused.

The decision submitted by the Public Prosecutor reported (2012) 2 Supereme

Court Cases (Crl) 905 between Ramesh Harijan and State of Uttar Pradesh is suported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the Prosecution Agency has -6- successfully brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 159 and 160(2) of Railways Act 1989.

Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

20.When this court has questioned the accused about the quantum of sentence provided under Sections 159 and 160(2) of Railways Act 1989 after duly explaining its contents, the accused has pleaded thatJarimana kattukogalanu, chinna pillalunnaru, cooli naali chesukoni brathukunnanu.

Typed my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 22nd day of January, 2020.

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu.

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

21.In view of the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to invoke the benevolent provisions contemplated under section 360 of Cr.P.C., and probation of offenders Act 1958 in favour of the accused but keeping in view of the submissions made by the accused, this court has come to conclusion that it is just and proper that the accused shall be convicted under section 248(2) of

Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under sections 159 and 160(2) of Railways Act 1989.

22.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under

Sections 159 and 160(2) of Railways Act 1989 and thereby the accused is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 159 of Railways Act 1989 and further convicted and setenced to under go Simple

Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 160(2) of Railways Act 1989. The above sentences which were awarded to the accused under Sections 159 and 160(2) of Railways Act 1989 shall run concurrently. The unmarked case property that is one lorry bearing registration

No.KA 34 7740 which was already returned to the PW.5 is made absolute after expiry of Appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437A of Cr.P.C., and thereafter in the absence of Appeal it shall be discharged. This court has duly explained to the accused about his right of Appeal and providing free Legal Aid before the

Hon'ble Appellate court.

-7- Typed my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 22nd day of January, 2020.

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu.

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate

(Railways,) Guntakal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:Defence: PW.1: S.Subramanyam, Gateman at LC gate No.94. -None - PW.2: Eswar Naik. PW.3: Anand. PW.4: Nikesh Kumar Roshan, Station Master at Molakalamuru. PW.5: T.Anjaneya. PW.6: N.Guru Swamy, Assistant Sub-Inspector, RPF, Chitradurga. PW.7: C.K.Nasir, Constable, SW. Railways, Chitradurga PW.8: Shobhnath, SSE/P.Way, Molakalamuru.

Exhibits Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1: Complaint of the PW.1 dated 13.07.2017.-Nil - Ex.P2: Statement of the PW.1 dated 16.07.2017. Ex.P3: Seizure panchanama dated 13.07.2017 at 12:00 hours. Ex.P4: Photographs of the Lorry and the scene of incident 15 in number and its CD. Ex.P5: Statement of the PW.2 dated 16.09.2017. Ex.P6: Statement of the PW.3 dated 16.09.2017. Ex.P7: Statement of the PW.4 dated 23.08.2017. Ex.P8: CD containing the photographs of Lorry bearing registration No.KA 34 7740. Ex.P9: Statement of the PW.5. Ex.P10: Confession statement of the accused/lorry bearing registration No.KA 34 7740. Ex.P11: Damage costs certificate. Ex.P12: Rough sketch of the scene of incident dated 13.07.2017. Ex.P13: Occurrence Report dated 14.07.2017. Ex.P14: MVI Report issued by the LW.8 dated 17.07.2017. Ex.P15: Statement of the PW.7. Ex.P16: Statement of the PW.8. Ex.P17: Written message issued by the PW.4 to Chitradurga RPF Out Post Office.

Material Objects Marked for

Prosecution: Defence: -Nil- -Nil-

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu.

Spl.J.F.C.M.(Rlys), Guntakal.

In the court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways),

Guntakal.

Present:- Sri T.Venkateswarlu, Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

Friday, the 07th day of February, 2020

C.C.No.179/2017

BETWEEN:

State represented by The Sub-Inspector, Dhone Railway Protection Force.

….. Complainant.

AND

Sulam Govinda Rajulu, S/o Sulam Venkataiah, age 56 years, resident of Karim Bagh, Banaganapalli village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

…... Accused.

This case has come before me on 29-01-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor Sri N.S.Sreenivasulu for the Prosecution and of Sri

V.Nagaraju, counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon perusing the material available on record, this court has delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector, Dhone Railway Protection Force has filed complaint against the accused in Crime No.573/2017 under sections 160(2) and 174(c) of

Railways Act 1989.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: On 08-07-2017 at about 08.20 hours the LW1 A.Koteswara Rao, SIPF, Dhone post has received the information from the LW4 D.Ramu, Deputy Station Superintendent, Dhone

Railway Station stating that after closure of the L.C gate No.150 at KM

No.332/2-3 and after giving signal for passage of train No.57327 one bus bearing Registration No.AP 21 TY 1940 has hit the said L.C gate for which the

LW1 and his staff were reached there and found the said L.C gate boom was damaged and bent and found the accused along with the said bus for which on enquiry the LW3 S.Jakeer Hussain on duty gate man stated that at about 7.30 hours when he closed the said L.C gate for passage of the train No.57327 that said bus was hit the Auto and dragged the same up to gate boom and hit the gate -2- boom resulting the same was bent and damaged for which the LW1 has prepared the joint observation along with the LW9 S.Vazeer Babu, SSE signals

Dhone and on enquiry the accused has admitted his guilt and recorded his statement and prepared panchanama and arrested him and registered this case as in Cr.No.573/2017 Under Sections 160(2) and 174 (c) of Railways Act, 1989 and forwarded him for judicial remand and after completion of enquiry the LW1 has filed the complaint in this case Under Section 160 (2) and 714 (c) of Railways

Act, 1989. Hence, the complaint.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 160(2) and 174(c) of Railways Act 1989 and on appearance of the accused before this court copies of documents furnished to him Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.When the accused was examined under section 246(2) of Cr.P.C., he denied the substance of accusation. After perusing the entire material available on record and on hearing the both sides a charge Under Sections 160(2) and 174(c) of Railway Act 1989 is framed against the accused and read over and explained it's contents in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

5. In order to establish the guilt of the accused the prosecution has listed 11 witnesses, examined the 10 witnesses as Pws.1 to 10, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17.

The evidence of the LW.2 T.Krishna Mohan, ASIPF/Dhone is given up by the

Public Prosecutor on 27.06.2019. On behalf of the defence none were examined and no documents were marked.

6. On perusal of the entire material available on record, it is found that the

PW.1 A.Koteswara Rao, Sub-Inspector, Dhone RPF is the hearsay witness cum enquiry officer in this case. PW2 Shaik Jakeer Hussain is Points man/Railway official cum hearsay witness to the occurrence of the incident. Pws3,6 to 9 (M.E.Suhasini, G.V.Nagaraju, K.Guruswamy and S.Nagaraju) are the APS RTC employees cum hearsay witnesses to the occurrence of the incident, Pws7 and 10 (Syed Vazeer Babu and D.Ramu) are the Railway Officials cum hearsay witnesses to the occurrence of the incident. Pws4 and 5 (P.Khajavali and Chinna Kabulla) are the panchayathdars for confession, arrest and seizure of the property panchanama dated 8.7.2017 at 9.00 am., 7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under -3- section 313 of Cr.P.C., and explained incriminating material appearing from the prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

9. Now the point for consideration is, whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under sections 160(2) and 174(c) of Railway Act 1989 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10.The Public prosecutor has filed written arguments where in he submitted that the evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused and prays to convict the accused according to Law. On behalf of the defence the counsel for the accused has contended and focused the defects in the case of the prosecution and prays to acquit the accused in the ends of Justice.

11.As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he has testified that on 08.07.2017 at 08:20 hours he received a information from the PW.10 stating that the LC gate

No.150 at KM.No.332/2-3 Dhone and Malkapuram is closed for passage of passenger train No.57327 Dhone to Guntur by the PW.2 at about 07:30 am., by that time one Auto bearing registration No.AP 21 TY 1940 is stationed by the

PW.2 the APSTRC bus bearing registration No.AP 21 Z 0506 is stationed behind the said Auto by keeping its gear is in working condition by the accused and he get down from the said bus to check the water falling from the radiator for which suddenly the said bus gear changed into neutral and moving ahead resulting the same was pushed the said Auto resulting the said bus and the Auto were dashed the said L.C. gate resulting the L.C. gate's boom is damaged and causing difficulty to open and to close the same and the accused is entered into the said bus and bring the same to back from the said LC gate and at 8.40 am., he, LW2 and L.Sreenivasulu HC No.9300192 of Dhone RPF were reached the spot and enuqired the particulars of the occurrence of the incident through the accused, PWs.4 and 2 and on his (PW1) instructions the LW.2 has prepared panchanama and handed over the said bus to the PW8 and arrested the accused and brought him to the RPF post Dhone and registered this case as in

Cr.No.573/2017 under section 160(2) and 174(c) of Railways Act and forwarded him for Judicial remand and after completion of enquires he filed complaint in this case.

-4-

12.PW.2 has testified that on 08.07.2017 at 7.20 am., while he was on duty on the instructions of the PW.10 he closed the L.C gate No.150 for passage of train

No.57327 while so at 7.30 am., he heard the cries of some peoples at the ksaid

L.C gate for which he reached there and found the damage of the L.C gate's boom hit by the Auto bearing registration No.AP. 21 TY 1940 being the same was touched by APS RTC bus bearing registration No. AP 21 Z 0506 for which he informed the same to the PW10 and later the PW1 has came there and taken the said bus and accused.

13.PW4 has testified that on 8.7.2017 he came to Gooty road at Dhone near railway gate and stopped his Auto and found the vehicle stopped behind his Auto and the same was pushed his Auto for which his Auto hit the said railway gate resulting the said railway gate and his Auto were damaged.

14.PW.6 has testified that on 03.10.2017 he issued the certificate to the accused and as per the said certificate the accused is an authorized driver to the bus bearing registration No.AP 21 Z 0506 on 8.7.2017 from Banaganapalli to

Kurnool belongs to Banaganapalli Depot of APS RTC.

15.PW.7 has testified that on 08.17.2017 he received information from the

PW.10 stating that the LC gate No.150 was damaged due to hit by the RTC bus at about 07.30 am., for which he along with his staff reached there, and he and the were observed the said LC gate and the PW1 has prepared the joint observation report and he repaired and replaced the said LC gate for passage of road traffic and on 22.7.2017 he gave the first information report/damage costs for

Rs.38,000/-.

16.PW.8 has testified that in the year 2017 on one day on the instructions of the PW6 he reached the RPF Post Dhone and received the bus bearing

Registration No. AP 21 Z 0506 from the PW1 and handed over the same to APS

RTC Depot Authorities Banganapalli in good condition.

17.PW.9 has testified that on 13.07.2017 he issued certificate relating to the condition of the vehicle bearing registration No.AP 21 Z 0506 and as per the said certificate the said vehicle outgoing and incoming times is good on 08.07.2017 and from 1.7.2017 to 7.7.2017 the said vehicle condition is good as per their office records.

-5-

18.PW.10 has testified that on 08.07.2017 at 07.30 am., on his instructions the PW2 was closed the L.C gate No.150 for passage of passenger train

No.57327 and he heard the cries from the said L.C gate for which he reached there and found that the said L.C gate's boom was damaged being it was hit by one Auto and he observed that one RTC bus bearing registration No.AP 21 Z 0506 has stopped behind the said Auto and he gave all concerned message to

Control office situated at Guntakal due to the said incident the said passenger train has suffered detention for a period of 10 minutes and to that effect he issued the train detention particulars and he was examined by the PW1 and recorded his statement.

19.On perusal of the entire material available on record it is found that no independent witnesses/local inhabitants of the scene of incident were examined by the Prosecution Agency even though the scene of incident is busy locality to support the case of the prosecution. Further the Pws3 to 5 who are the crucial and material witnesses to the occurrence of the incident that they are turned hostile and they did not testify the case of the prosecution. Further at the time of cross-examination of the Pws3 to 5 by the Public Prosecutor nothing is elicited in favour of the case of the prosecution. Further the Prosecution Agency has failed to submit either photographs or videos of the scene of incident to support the case of the prosecution. Coming to the evidence of the Pws.1, 2, 6 to 10 that they are neither eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident nor they are independent witnesses to the occurrence of the incident to support the case of the prosecution but they are only the Official witness cum hearsay witnesses to the occurrence of the incident in this case.

20. Except the self serving statements of the Pws.1, 2, 6 to 10 none of the prosecution witnesses were supported the case of the prosecution. In addition to that the PW2 has categorically testified and admitted in his cross examination that he is not the eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident. Further the

PW6 has categorically testified and admitted in his cross examination that he do not know that when the accused incoming from the service on 8.7.2017. Further the PW7 has categorically testified and admitted in his cross examination that he is not the eye witness to the occurrence of the incident of the incident being he was not witnessed the occurrence of the incident. Further when there are no any eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident it is not safe to convict the accused only basing on the evidence of the hearsay witnesses/official witnesses/PWs 1, 2, 6 to 10. On perusal of the entire material available on -6- record it is seems that the Prosecution Agency has created the false story and foisted this case against the accused even though the accused is no way concerned with this case. So, it seems that the false case has been foisted against the accused by the prosecution Agency. The decision submitted the

Public Prosecutor reported in 2001 CRL. L.J.58 (Hon'ble Bombay High Court) between Saleem Mohammed Babul Miniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra is not supported the case of the prosecution since the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has discussed about the offence punishable under sections 3 (a) and 8 (1) of Unlawful possession of Railway Property Act but not the offence punishable under sections 160 (2) and 174 (c )of Railway Act. 1989 and further the facts of the said decision and the facts of the present case are completely different.

21.Thus, from the foregoing discussion this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under section 160(2) and 174(c) of Railways Act 1989 and thereby the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered infavour of the accused and against the prosecution.

22.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

Under Sections 160(2) and 174 (c) of Railways Act 1989 and thereby the accused is acquitted Under Section 248(1) of Cr.PC. Since the Prosecution Agency did not produce any kind of property as such there is no order for the case property. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated Under Section 437A of Cr.P.C., and thereafter in the absence of

Appeal it shall be discharged.

Typed my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 07th day of February, 2020.

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu.

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: A.Koteswara Rao, Sub-Inspector/RPF/ -None - Dhone. PW.2: Shaik Jakeer Hussain, Pointsman/Gateman at B-Cabin, Dhone. PW.3: M.E.Suhasini, RTC Conductor, APSRTC Banaganapalli Depot.

-7-

PW.4: P.Khaja Vali. PW.5: D.Chinna Kabulla. PW.6: G.V.Nagaraju, Assistant Manager (Traffic), APSRTC Depot at Banaganapalli. PW.7: Syed Vazeer Babu, SSE/Signal, Dhone. PW.8: K.Guru Swamy, RTC Driver, Banaganapalli Depot. PW.9: S.Nagaraju, Deputy Mechanical Superintendent, Banaganapalli Depot. PW.10: D.Ramu, Deputy Station Superintendent, Dhone Railway Station.

Exhibits Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1: Panchanama dated 08.07.2017. -Nil - Ex.P2: Statement of the PW.2 dated 08.07.2017. Ex.P3: Statement of the PW.4 dated 08.07.2017. Ex.P4: Joint observation report dated 08.07.2017. Ex.P5: Statement of the accused dated 08.07.2017. Ex.P6: Statement of the PW.6 dated 13.07.2017. Ex.P7: Statement of the PW.3 dated 13.07.2017. Ex.P8: First Information Report/damage costs of the LC gate's boom for Rs.38,000/- Ex.P9: Statement of the PW.5 dated 26.08.2017. Ex.P10: Statement of the PW.10 dated 26.08.2017. Ex.P11: Statement of the LW.2 dated 01.09.2017. Ex.P12: Certificate of the driver issued by Assistant Manager, APSRTC, Banaganapalli depot

dated 03.10.2017.

Ex.P13: Statement of the PW.8 dated 03.10.2017. Ex.P14: All concern message issued by the PW.10

dated 08.07.2017.

Ex.P15: Train detention certificate issued by the PW.10 dated 08.07.2017. Ex.P16: Rough sketch of the scene of incident dated 08.07.2017. Ex.P17: Information given to Traffic Inspector K.Venkatanna belongs to Banaganapalli APSRTC depot with regard to the offence committed by the accused with the bus bearing registration No.AP 21 Z 0506.

Material Objects Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

-Nil- -Nil-

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu.

Spl.J.F.C.M.(Rlys), Guntakal.

In the court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways),

Guntakal.

Present:- Sri T.Venkateswarlu, Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

Friday, the 24th day of January, 2020

Calender Case No.81/2019

BETWEEN:-

State represented by The Assistant Sub-Inspector, Dharmavaram Railway Protection Force.

..….. Complainant.

AND

Gujjala Ramakrishna, S/o Late Venkataramudu, age 35 years, resident of Agadotlapalli village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

…... Accused.

This case has come before me on 22-01-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor Sri N.S.Sreenivasulu for Prosecution and of Sri

V.Nagaraju, Counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon perusing the material on record, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Assistant Sub-Inspector, Dharmavaram Railway Protection Force has filed complaint against the accused in Crime No.04/2019 under Section 3(a) of

R.P.(UP) Act 1966.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: On 22.05.2019 at about 05:30 am., the LW.1 L.Sreenivasulu, Assistant Sub-

Inspector/R.P.F/Dharmavaram along with the LW.5/B.Anjinappa, RPF. HC.No.710,

Dharmavaram RPF while they are making rounds at Dharmavaram Railway station yard they apprehended the accused while he was carrying the object wrapped in white colour polythene cover at KM.No.178/53-55 for which he enquired the accused in the presence of the mediators/LWs.2 and 3 (M.Venkatramudu and M.Victor Immanial) and he examined the said polythene cover and found 02 numbers of Railway BG fish plates and he seized the same and prepared the seizure list and recorded his confession statement and arreted -2- him under the cover of panchanama and reached the Dharmavaram RPF Post along with the accused and the case property and registered this case as in

Cr.No.04/2019 under Section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act 1966 and forwarded him for judicial remand and after completion of enquiry he filed complaint in this case.

Hence, the complaint.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act, 1966 and on appearance of the accused

before this court copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under

section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.When the accused was examined under Section 246(2) of Cr.P.C., he denied the substance of accusation. After perusing the entire material available on record and on hearing the both sides a charge under Section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act, 1966 is framed against the accused, read over and explained its contents in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

5. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has listed 5 witnesses, examined three witnesses as Pws.1 to 3, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and

MO.1. The evidence of Lws.2 and 5 (M.Venkatramudu and B.Anjaneppa, RPF

Head Constable No.710, Dharmavaram RPF) is given up by the Public Prosecutor on 07.11.2019. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6. On perusal of the entire material available on record, it is found that the

PW.1 L.Srinivasulu, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Dharmavaram RPF is the complainant/enquiry officer in this case. PW.2 M.Victor Immanial is the

Panchayatdar for seizure of property Panchanama. PW.3 T.Ramprasad, Senior

Section Engineer, P.Way, Ananthapuramu is the Railway official in this case.

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

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and explained the incriminating material appearing from the prosecution witnesses in Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

9.Now the point for consideration is, whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of

R.P.(UP) Act, 1966 beyond all reasonable doubt?

-3-

POINT:-

10.The Public prosecutor has contended that the evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused and prays to convict the accused according to

Law. On behalf of the defence, the counsel for the accused has contended and focused the defects in the case of the prosecution and prays to acquit the acused in the ends of Justice.

11.As seen from the evidence of the PW.1, he has testified that on 22-05-2019 at 05:30 am., while he along with his staff making rounds at Dharmavaram

Railway yard he found the accused along with the material wrapped in polythene bag for which on suspicion he stopped the accused and enquired him in the presence of LW.2 and PW.2 and when he checked the said polythene bag he found 2 Brad Gage fish plates for which the accused did not reveal lawful authority for possessing the same in his custody for which the PW.1 has arrested him and seized the said fish plates from his possession under the cover of panchanama and prepared seizure list by acknowledging the same to him and recorded his confession statement and returned to Dharmavaram RPF post along with the seized property and the accused and registered this case as in Cr.No.4/2019 under Section 3(a) of R.P(UP) Act 1966 and forwarded him for judicial remand on 22.05.2019 and examined and recorded the statements of the LW.2 and PW.2. On 31.05.2019 and 09.06.2019 respectively and received the case property certificate and theft report on 12.06.2019 and 13.06.2019 respectively from the

PW.3 relating to missing of 2 fish plates at KM.No.178/53-55 and after completion of the enquiry he filed complaint in this case.

12.PW.2 has testified that on 22.05.2019 at about 05:30 am., he and the LW.2 were found the accused along with the 2 iron fish plates who were in the custody of the PW.1 for which the PW.1 has seized the same from the possession of the accused under the cover of panchanama and seizure list and the PW.1 has examined the accused and recorded his confession statement and the PW.1 examined him(PW.2) statement and recorded his statement.

13.PW.3 has testified that on 12.06.2019 he issued theft report to

Dharmavaram RPF authorities relating to missing of 2 numbers of BG fish plates at KM.NO.178/53-55 at Dharmavaram Railway station yard and he attended the

Dharmavaram RPF office for certify the case property and the PW.1 has produced the said BG fish plates before him for which he examined the same and certified the same that the same is belongs to Railways used in Engineering -4-

Department for fixing the same for Railway track and are in serviceable condition and are not available in the open market and are not actionable by

Railways being those are exclusively designed for Railways.

14.On perusal of the evidence of the Pws.1 to 3 that they are clearly and clinchingly testified about the occurrence of the incident. The evidence of the

Pws.1 to 3 is corroborated with each other with respect of the occurrence of the incident at the scene of incident. In the cross-examination of the Pws.1 to 3 also there are no material contradictions and nothing has been elicited in favour of the case of the accused. Mere minor discrepancies, contradictions or variations would not be justified to reject the testimonies of the Pws.1 to 3 as some discrepancies and contradictions or variations were bound to occur because of sociological back ground of the witnesses and time gap between the date of occurrence of the incident and the date on which they give their evidence in the court. So, the evidence on record is sufficient to record the finding that the accused is responsible for the occurrence of the incident for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act 1966. When the testimonies of the

Pws.1 to 3 were cogent, consistent, reliable and inspiring confidence of the court, it cannot be discarded mere on the minor discrepancies and contradictions or variations on which the counsel for the accused is depends. Hence, the evidence of the Pws.1 to 3 coupled with the Exs.P.1 to P.8 and MO.1 are clearly established this case about the occurrence of the incident against the accused and hence the prosecution agency has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of R.P.

(UP) Act 1966. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

15.When this court has questioned the accused about the quantum of sentence provided under Section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act 1966 after duly explaining its contents, the accused has pleaded that Sanna pillolundaru, musali thalli thandrulu vunnaru, vallanu nene posinchali, fine kattukuntanu.

Typed my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 24th day of January, 2020.

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu.

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

16.In view of the gravity of the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of R.P.

(UP) Act 1966, this court has not inclined to invoke the benevolent provisions -5- contemplated under Section 360 of Cr.P.C., and probation of offenders Act 1958 in favour of the accused but keeping in view of the submissions made by the accused, this court has come to conclusion that it is just and proper that the accused shall be convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act, 1966 by imposing fine to the accused to meet the ends of Justice.

17.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act, 1966 and thereby the accused is convicted under

Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,300/- (Rupees thirteen hundreds only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act 1966.

The Dharmavaram Railway Protection Force authorities are directed to return the MO.1/02 numbers of Railway BG fish plates to the concern Railway authorities after expiry of Appeal time and file an acknowledgement to that effect

before this court. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of

six months as contemplated under section 437A of Cr.P.C., and thereafter in the absence of Appeal it shall be discharged.

Typed my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 24th day of January, 2020.

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu.

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate

(Railways), Guntakal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW.1: L.Srinivasulu, Assistant Sub-Inspector, -None - Dharmavaram Railway Protection Force. PW.2: M.Victor Immaniel. PW.3: T.Ram Prasad, Senior Section Engineer, P.Way, Ananthapuramu.

Exhibits Marked:

For Prosecution:For Defence:

Ex.P.1: Panchanama. -Nil - Ex.P.2: Seizure list. Ex.P.3: Confession statement of the accused. Ex.P.4: Statement of the LW.2. Ex.P.5: Statement of the PW.2. Ex.P.6: Statement of the LW.5. Ex.P.7: Case property certificate. Ex.P.8: Theft report.

-6-

Material Objects Marked:

For Prosecution: For Defence:

MO.1: 02 numbers of Railway BG fish plates. -Nil-

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu.

Spl.J.F.C.M.(Rly’s), Guntakal.

In the court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways),

Guntakal.

Present:- Sri T.Venkateswarlu, Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

Wednesday, the 12th day of February, 2020

C.C.No.123/2019

Between:

State represented by: The Sub-Inspector, Guntakal Railway Protection Force.

….. Complainant.

AND

1)A.Narasimhulu (A1) S/o A.Venkatramudu, age 21 years, residing at D.No.01/09, Nagasamudram village, Guntakal Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

2)Y.Suresh (A2), S/o Chinnaswamy, age 27 years, resident of Nagasamudram village, Guntakal Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

3)K.Chand Basha (A3), S/o Late K.Vannur Sab, age 43 years, residing at D.No.1/104, OC colony, Nelagonda village, Guntakal Mnadal, Ananthapuramu District.

4)N.Venkatapathi Raju (A4), S/o N.Nagappa, age 24 years, residing at D.No.2/116, BC colony, Nagasamudram village, Guntakal Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

…... Accused.

This case has come before me on 06-02-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor Sri N.S.Sreenivasulu, for the Prosecution and of

Sri S.Younus Ahammed, counsel for the A1 to A4 and the matter having stood -2- over for consideration till this day, upon perusing the material on record, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector, Guntakal Railway Protection Force has filed complaint against the A1 to A4 in Crime No.10/2018 under section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act 1966.

2.The case of the complaint briefly are as follows: On 10-12-2018 at about 04.50 hours while the LW.1 V.Bhaskar, Sub-Inspector/R.P.F/Guntakal along with his staff making confidential watch at KM.No.280/0-1, at the end of platform

No.1, Adoni end of Guntakal Railway station and noticed the A1 and A2 near the

Diesel Fuel point in the middle of the two Railway tracks on suspicious manner for which detained the A1 and A2 and enquired them in the presence of mediators for which they are revealed their names and address particulars as mentioned in the complaint and further the A1 has stated that he along with the

A2 were came from Nagasamudram to Guntakal on the night of 09.12.2018 by

A2 two wheeler motor cycle bearing No.AP 02 AS 1767 Red/Black Appachi made at Guntakal the A1 and A2 were meet with the A3 and A4 and A1 to A4 were came to Guntakal Railway station by Motor cycle Black colour Honda Shine bearing registration No.AP 02 AB 9416 and they were entered in Guntakal

Railway station while roaming and they noticed that some Railway employees filled Diesel oil to Railway engine and after the A3 told the A1 and A2 are take the diesel oil in plastic cans while Railway men filling oil to Engines for which the A3 was assured to give some money to the A1, A2 and A4 and then the A3 and A4 were went to Guntakal town by motor cycle and after some time they were bring the 04 plastic cans of which 02 plastic cans gave to A1 and A2 by standing the A3 and A4 motor cycle and further the A1 and A2 are took the plastic cans from the A3 and break the lock which was fixed to the box and took the hosepipe from the said box and put in the plastic cans and they removed bolt and nut which was fixed to the valve and opened the valve and waited some time for release of diesel oil. On 10.12.2018 at about 04:45 am., when the Railway officials opened the motor to fill the diesel oil to locos, the diesel oil was flow in the pipes meanwhile they filled diesel oil in 02 plastic cans and while they tired to hand over the filled plastic cans to A3 and A4 with an intention to taken the remaining to empty plastic cans to fill the same with diesel oil for which the A1 and A2 caught hold by the RPF officials and then the A3 and A4 seeing the RPF personnel and ran away from the spot for which the RPF has found the the said -3-

Appache motor cycle and on checking in side Rexene bag it was found to contain 20 numbers of pendrol clips for which the LW.2/Shaik Basha, ASIPF/CIB/GTL has arrested the A1 and A2 and seized 02 numbers of plastic cans filled with each 25 liters of diesel oil and 20 numbers of the said pendrol clips from their possession in which they were admitted their guilt and the LW.1 has registered this case as in Cr.No.10/2018 under section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act, 1966 and forwarded the A1 and A2 for judicial remand. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 05.01.2019 at about 08:00 hours, the LW.1 along with his staff were found one motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 02 AB 9416 along with the A3 and A4 under the newly constructed bridge at Guntakal – Donimukkala road and the

LW.1 has enquired with them in the presence of the mediators from the aforesaid offence and they admitted their guilt for which the LW.1 has arrested the A3 and

A4 and the said motor cycle and recorded their confession statements and forwarded them for judicial remand and after completion of the enquiry the LW.1 has filed complaint in this case. Hence, the complaint.

3.The case was taken on file against the A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of R.P. (UP) Act and on appearance of the A1 to A4 before this court copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.When the A1 to A4 examined under section 246(2) of Cr.P.C., they denied the substance of accusation. After perusing the entire material available on record and on hearing the both sides a charge under section 3(a) of R.P. (UP) Act is framed against the A1 to A4 and read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they voluntarily pleaded guilty. In this connection when this court questioned and explained about the quantum of sentence provided under section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act 1966, the A1 is replied that he was doing coolie work and he is having old aged father and three unmarried sisters and he is only the person to look after his family and he would not commit any offences in future and praying the court to take lenient view for awarding punishment and further the

A2 is replied that he was doing coolie work and he is having wife, children and old aged parents and he is only the person to look after his family and he would not commit any offences in future and praying the court to take lenient view for awarding punishment and further the A3 is replied that he was doing coolie work and he is having wife, children and old aged mother and he is only the person to look after his family and he would not commit any offences in future and praying the court to take lenient view for awarding punishment and further the A4 is -4- replied that he was doing coolie work and he is having old aged parents and he is only the person to look after his family and he would not commit any offences in future and praying the court to take lenient view for awarding punishment.

5. Heard and perused the entire material available on record.

6. In the result, the A1 to A4 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act 1966 and thereby they are convicted under section 246(3) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees fifteen hundreds only) each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act 1966.

(Total fine amount of Rs.1,500X4=6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only). The unmarked case property that is 1) 02 plastic cans containing 25 liters of Railway

Diesel oil containing in each can total 50 liters worth of Rs.3,500/- and 2) 20 numbers of Railway pendrol clips worth of Rs.2,000/- which are in the custody of

Guntakal R.P.F.Post, Authorities shall be ordered to be returned to the concerned

Railway Authorities after expiry of appeal time and further the unmarked case property that is one black/Red colour TVS Appache Motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 02 AS 1767 which was already returned to the A2 for his interim custody as per the orders of the Hon'ble VI Additional District Judge,

Gooty at Ananthapuramu vide orders in Crl.R.P.No.7/2019 dated 12.06.2019 and one black colour Honda Shine Motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 02 AB 9416 which was already returned to the A3 for his interim custody as per the orders of the Hon'ble VI Additional District Judge, Gooty at Ananthapuramu vide orders in Crl.R.P.No.20/2019 dated 26.07.2019 shall be made absolute after expire of Appeal time. The bail bonds of the A1 to A4 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated Under Section 437A of Cr.P.C., and thereafter in the absence of Appeal it shall be discharged.

Typed my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 12th day of February, 2020.

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu.

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate

(Railways), Guntakal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence:

-Nil- -None - -5-

Exhibits Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

-Nil- -Nil -

Material Objects Marked for

Prosecution:- Defence:

-Nil- -Nil-

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu.

Spl.J.F.C.M.(Rly’s), Guntakal.

In the Court of :Spl.Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways

Case No. :CC/0000139/2019 SI of Police, Kurnool RPS Vs Pathan Imran (A1)

Date : 04-01-2020

Business: A1 is produced from Sub-Jail, Dhone. A2 is present. Judgment pronounced in the open court (VSJ). In the result, the A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 384 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC and thereby the A1 and A2 are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The MO.1 consisting in CPR.No.14/2019 shall be returned to the PW.1 after expiry of Appeal time. The bail bonds of the A2 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437A of Cr.P.C., and thereafter in the absence of Appeal it shall be discharged. The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Dhone is directed to release the A1 immediately if his presence is not required in any other cases. Nature of : ACQUITTAL Disposal Disposal Date: 04-01-2020 Spl.Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways