Smt V.Deepthi

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

Guntakal.

Present:- Smt. E.Prathiba,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu

FAC/ Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

Monday, the 13th day of February 2023

Calendar Case.No.20/2022

BETWEEN:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Gooty Railway Police Station.

…... Complainant.

AND

Umed Ali Jinat Ali Samnani, aged about 33 years, S/o Jinat Ali Samnani, R/o D.No.4-1-261, Hanuman Tekdi, Abids, Hyderabad, Now residing near side of D-Mart, Saleem Nagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad City, Telangana State.

…. Accused

This case has come before me on 13-02-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri N.Hemadri, 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 delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gooty Railway Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.30/2021 under section 411 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: On 16.07.2021 at about 02:30 hours, while the PW.1 Hymavathi along with her family members/LWs.2 to LW.4 have been travelling from Jadcherla to Tirupathi in train No.02797 Venkatadri

Express in S1 coach in berth Nos.66 to 69 and the said train has reached nearer to Gooty

Railway station and when they wake up and when some unknown offenders have committed theft of her gold chain weighing about 50 grams worth of Rs.2,50,000/- from the neck of the PW.1 and jumped from running train and escaped with booty and PW.1 lodged the report before the Gooty RPS, based on the same was the PW.4 has registered a case as in Cr.No.30/2021 U/Sec.379 IPC and investigated this case. During the course -2- of investigation that on 07.12.2021 the PW.5/Inspector of police, Guntakal RPS has arrested the accused at platform No.2 located on the eastern side of Guntakal Railway station in the presence of mediators and seized the said gold chain weighing about 50 grams worth of Rs.2,50,000/- from the possession of the accused under the cover of panchanama and Pw.5 forwarded him for judicial remand and after completion of entire investigation the PW.6 Sub-Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC and on appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.When the accused was examined under section 239 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 411 of IPC was framed, read over and explained its contents to him 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 8 witnesses, examined 5 witnesses as Pws.1 to 6, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and

MO.1. The evidence of remaining witnesses is given up by the A.P.P on 27.04.2022.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing from the prosecution witnesses in Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

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

-3-

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

9.Among the prosecution witnesses, PW.1 is the defacto complainant, Pws.4 to 6 are the investigating agency, Pws.2 and 3 are the mediators in this case.

Ex.P.1 is the report, Ex.P.2 is the signature of the Pw.2, Ex.P.3 is the signature of the Pw.3, Ex.P.4 is the memo No.05/2021/TPTY/RPS/2021, dt.17.07.2021, Ex.P.5 is the FIR in Cr.No.30/2021 in this case, Ex.P.6 is the Certified copy of confession cum seizure and arrest mahazar dt.07.12.2021 at 02:00 pm. MO.1 is the one gold chain weighing about 50 grams worth of Rs.2,50,000/- is belongs to PW.1.

10.POINT: In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC, it is the prime duty of the prosecution to establish the following basic aspects.

a) that some property was stolen;

b) that the accused received or retained such property with a dishonest intention;

c) that the property in possession of the accused was a stolen property.

11.Unfolding the case of the prosecution PW.1 is the defacto complainant deposed that on 16.07.2021 herself along with her family members boarded at 09:40 pm., at Jadcherla in TrainTirupathi Special Express to go to Tirumala in S- 1 coach at berth Nos.65 to 69 and the said train has reached Gooty Railway station and then they sleeping in their berth and then the accused pulled her chain and went away and she raised cries and she was told that he jumped out of the train and then she continued her journey and thereafter he lodged the report

before police and they informed that her gold ornaments were recovered.

12.The testimony of PW2 M.Prasad has deposed that he is running a stall in

Railway station at Guntakal and he saw the accused in Railway police station,

Guntakal and that the police recovered gold ornaments from the possession of -4- the accused under the cover of mahazar, in his presence and he signed on the mahazar dt.07.02.2021.

13.The testimony of PW.3 A.Gopal has deposed that he is running a stall in

Railway station at Guntakal and he saw the accused in Railway police station,

Guntakal and that the police recovered gold ornaments from the possession of the accused under the cover of mahazar, in his presence and he signed on the mahazar dt.07.02.2021.

14.The testimony of PW.4 S.K.Nasar Vali is the Head Constable deposed that on 17.07.2021 while he was on duty he received a memo with complaint from

Railway police station, Tirupathi and he registered the said complaint and memo as a case in Cr.No.30/2021, U/Sec.379 IPC and during the course of investigation he examined the mediators and recorded their statements and further investigation was done be his successor in his office as he was transferred.

15. The testimony of PW.5 is the Inspector of police deposed that on 07.12.2021 at about 01:00 pm., he received a information about the accused that he secured the presence of mediators along with his staff he proceeded to platform No.2 of

Guntakal Railway station towards east side and there on seeing the accused and then he tried to ran away, caught hold of him with the assistance of his staff and he enquired him in the presence of mediators and he revealed his name and address particulars mentioned in the charge sheet and then he confessed that he is involved in other crimes and further he confessed that he was committed theft of the said offence and and on further interrogation he produced 30 items of properties including this property one gold black beed chain, one pair of gold ear studs, one gold ring and the same was seized and he arrested the accused under the cover of mahazar dt.07.12.2021 and he forwarded him for judicial remand.

-5-

16.The testimony of PW.6 is the Sub-Inspector of police deposed that on 15.12.2021 after obtaining PT Warrant against the accused and he produced him

before this court for judicial remand in this case and he submitted the case

property to this court and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

17.However, none including accused, either disputed that PW1 is the complainant of MO1, or claimed the said property, as their own. In such circumstances, the Court is of the view that the evidence of PW1 supported by

PW5 coupled with the contents of Ex.P1/report establishes that MO1 of PW1, and the same was stolen from his possession, prior to the alleged recovery made on 07.12.2021, beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution.

18. Point No. 2:-

On coming to the charge for the offence punishable under section 379 of

Indian Penal Code, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish that accused has committed committed theft of MO1, as alleged.

Admittedly, PW1 did not identify accused as the person who committed theft and there is no positive evidence showing that accused has committed the offence of theft of MO1 belonging to PW1. But PW1 has not the eye witnesses to the incident. Therefore, no witness has seen that accused is committed the offence and moreover, no Test Identification Parade of accused was conducted and no incriminating material found against accused at the scene of offence. Further,

PW5 also admitted that the case was registered against unknown offenders. As such, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered against the prosecution.

19.Point No.3 and 4:-

Now, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish that the said stolen properties were recovered from the possession of accused.

Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Whoever dishonestly receives or -6- retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”.

In order to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish the following aspects:

Whether MO1 is the stolen property of PW1?

As per the discussion in point No.1, the prosecution has successfully proved that MO1 is the stolen property of PW1 and though PW.1 was cross examined on that aspect that he lost MO1 somewhere else and gave false report, but nothing could be elicited in his cross examination, except denying the suggestions. On considering the above, the Court is of the opinion that MO.1 was the stolen property of PW1 and according the point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

20.To prove this aspect, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to 6. Among them,

PW2 and PW3 are the independent mediators and PW5 is the investigation officer.

According to PW.5, on receiving credible information on 07.12.2021, he arrested the accused at platform No.2 located on the eastern side of Guntakal Railway station and seized the gold chain pertaining in Crime No.30 of 2021 under Ex.P5 and lead to Guntakal Railway station and seized the MO.1 in the presence of PW2 and PW3.

21.Whether MO1 was recovered from the possession of accused?

The alleged seizure was made platform No.2 located on the eastern side of

Guntakal Railway station and that too in a busy locality, where the public are moving frequently. It is not the contention of PW5 that when he tried to secure the local respectable persons nearby the scene of offence, none were available or come forward to act as mediators from the distant place. So, there is no support of independent mediators to the prosecution case.

-7-

22.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW5 establishes the recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused, need not be discarded for the reason of non-support of mediators. Though there is some force in the said contention.

23.If a person is found to be in possession of stolen property, soon after commission of theft, it is presumed under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, that he is a theft or as a person keeping the stolen properties knowing fully well that it is a stolen property. No doubt, the confession made before the police is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but the confession leads to recovery of the property is admissible under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

24.In the present case, even though, PW5 deposed about the arrest of accused and seizure of case property under cover Ex.P4, but his evidence cannot be looked into, due to lack of corroboration from the independent witnesses i.e., PW2 and PW3. Further recovery of case property upon the confession of accused is also doubtful and in the absence of supporting evidence of PW2 and PW3 and further it is to be noted that the alleged recovery of some of the properties was not made subsequent to confession alleged to be made by accused. So, the contents of the above are not even admissible under Section 27 of Indian

Evidence Act. Since, there is no support of independent mediators, the contents of the said mediator report are hit by Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act and the same cannot be considered. No reason was assigned by the PW5 for non- securing the local inhabitants of the alleged first place of arrest and seizure or the second place of seizure. In such circumstances, when there is no support of independent mediators, the Court feels that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW5.

At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the decision in Botcha Raju and

State represented by the Inspector of police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle

-8- reported in 1994(2) ALT (Crl.) 69 (AP), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh held in para 2 as follows:

“… The evidence of PW6, who is police officer, cannot be easily believed without proper corroboration by disinterested witnesses. As such, the Courts below fell in error by accepting the version of police officers without the corroboration of disinterested witnesses mentioned above. No particular motive is made out against the above witnesses, who turned hostile, so as to say, that they are specially interested in the petitioner to bail him out of the offence”.

25.In the light of the above decision, in the absence of support of independent mediators, the Court is of the view that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW5 with regard to the recovery of MO1 from the possession of accused.

26. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds no convincing and satisfactory evidence to hold that on 07.12.2021, PW5 arrested the accused at platform No.2 located on the eastern side of Guntakal Railway station and seized the said gold chain in Crime No.30 of 2021, in the presence of PW2 and PW3. When the prosecution failed to establish the alleged recovery of stolen property from the possession of accused, the question as to whether the accused had knowledge that the said MO.1 was stolen properties or not, does not arise. Accordingly, points Nos.3 and 4 are answered against the prosecution and in favour of accused..

27.Point No.(5):-

In view of the above discussion and findings in point no.(1) to (3), though the prosecution is able to establish that MO.1 was stolen from the possession of

PW1 without her consent, the prosecution failed to establish that accused dishonestly retained or received the said property, by knowing that the said property was stolen property Therefore, the Court holds that the prosecution -9- failed to establish all the essential ingredients of Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, to bring home the guilt of accused for the said offence, beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point no.(5) is answered against the prosecution and in favour of accused.

28.In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under

Section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

MO1 was already given to PW1 for interim custody and the same shall holds good and becomes absolute and so, MO1 was ordered to be retained by PW1, after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13 th day of February 202 3).

Sd/- E.Prathiba

Addl.Judl Magistrate of 1st Class, Ananthapur FAC/Special Judicial First Class Magistrate

(Railways), Guntakal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: P.V.Hymavathi. -None - PW.2: M.Prasad. PW.3: A.Gopal. PW.4: S.K.Nasar Vali. PW.5: B.V.Nagesh Babu, (IO). PW.6: A.Nagappa. (IO)

Exhibits Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1: Report of Pw.1. -Nil - Ex.P2: Signature of the Pw.2. Ex.P.3: Signature of the Pw.3. Ex.P.4: Memo No.05/2021/TPTY/RPS/21 dt.17.7.2021. Ex.P.5: FIR in Cr.No.30/2021 of Gooty RPS. Ex.P.6: Certified copy ofconfession cum seizure and arrest mahazar dt.07.12.2021 at 02:00 pm.

-10-

Material Objects Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

MO.1: One gold chain. -Nil-

Sd/- E.Prathiba

A.J.F.C.M/ATP FAC/Spl.J.F.C.M.(Rly’s), Guntakal.

Calendar and Judgment

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

C.C.No.20 of 2022

Date of Offence: 16.07.2021 Date of Report: 17.07.2021 Date of apprehension of the accused: 17.12.2021 Date of release on bail: 30.04.2022 Date of Commencement of Trial: 27.04.2022 Date of Close of trial: 12.07.2022 Date of Judgment: 13.02.2023

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.30/2021 on the file of Special Judicial

First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

BETWEEN:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Gooty Railway Police Station.

…... Complainant.

AND

Umed Ali Jinat Ali Samnani, aged about 33 years, S/o Jinat Ali Samnani, R/o D.No.4-1-261, Hanuman Tekdi, Abids, Hyderabad, Now residing near side of D-Mart, Saleem Nagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad City, Telangana State.

…. Accused

Offence: Under section 411 of IPC. Finding: Found not guilty.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under Section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. MO1 was already given to PW1 for interim custody and the same shall holds good and becomes absolute and so, MO1 was ordered to be retained by PW1, after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay and remarks if any:- This case was taken on file on 05-03-2021. Copies of documents were furnished to the accused on 22-03-2022 and he was examined Under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and a charge was framed on 04-04-2022, PW.1 was examined on 27- 04-2022, prosecution evidence is closed on 12-07-2022, after closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined Under section 313 of Cr.P.C., on 19-07-2022, heard the arguments by the both sides on 06-02-2023, Judgment delivered on 13-02-2023. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- E.Prathiba

Addl.Judl Magistrate of 1st Class, Ananthapur FAC/Special Judicial First Class Magistrate

(Railways), Guntakal.

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

Guntakal.

Present:- Sri K.V.Ramakrishnaiah,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal

FAC/Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Guntakal.

Wednesday, this the 12th day of January, 2022

Calender Case No.55/2021

Questioning of the accused under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Name of the accused:

1.Lokeshwar, age about 27 years, S/o Venkataramana, R/o Gollapalli, Beechaganipalli, Parigi Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. Now at Teachers Colony, Near RK Function Hall, Hindupur Town.

2.Uduguru Abhishek, Aged about 18 years, S/o Ramanjinappa, R/o Pulamathi Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. ………. A1 and A2.

Q: You are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. What do you say with regard to the quantum of sentence provided under section 411 of IPC?

Ans:

Signature of the accused. Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

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

Guntakal.

Present:- Smt. E.Prathiba,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu

FAC/ Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

Thursday, the 18th day of May 2023

Calendar Case.No.11/2021

BETWEEN:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu Railway Police Station.

…... Complainant.

AND

Komali Vinay Kumar Reddy, aged about 20 years, S/o Late K.Ramana Reddy, R/o D.No.1/16-A, Kalagallu Village, Kuderu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

…. Accused

This case has come before me on 16-05-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri K.Raja Sekhar, 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 delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu Railway Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.64/2019 under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code (herein after to be referred as IPC for the sake of convenience and brevity) .

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: On 11.11.2019 in between 02:00 hours to 03:00 hours while the defacto complainant/LW.1

Simona Niznanska has been traveling in train No.16592 Hampi Express in S1 coach at berth No.50 during her journey she slept on her berth and she woke up and noticed that her mobile phone belongs to Samsung Galaxy S8, IMEI

No.351717102639162 worth of Rs.50,000/- and further she continued her journey up to her destination and later she preferred a online complaint through -2- gmail on 16.11.2020 at 12:50 hours and based on the report of LW.1, the LW.4

M.Sathyanarayana, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu Railway police station registered this case as in Crime No.64/2019 under section 379 IPC of

Ananthapuramu RPS and investigated in this case. It is further alleged that on 16.11.2019 at about 14:00 hours the S.I., of police along with his staff arrested the accused at General waiting hall, platform No.1, Anantapuramu Railway station and seized the stolen property i.e., OPPO A-35, worth of Rs.10,000/- connected to

Cr.No.63/2019, U/Sec.379 IPC of Ananthapuramu RPS and seized the said

Samsung Galaxy S8 mobile phone in this case from the possession of the accused in the presence of mediators and forwarded him for judicial remand and after completion of all formalities, the Sub-Inspector of police has laid charge sheet against Accused under section 379 or 411 of IPC. Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under section 379 or 411 of IPC and on appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.When the accused was examined under section 239 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 379 or 411 of IPC was framed, read over and explained its contents to him 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 3 witnesses as Pws.1 to 3, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and

MO.1. The evidence of remaining witness is given up by the learned Assistant prosecutor on 23.01.2023.

-3-

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing from the prosecution witnesses in Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.The stand of Accused is of total denial.

8.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW3, coupled with the contents of Exs.P3 and 4 establishes that MO1 i.e., Samsung

Galaxy S8 mobile phone, IMEI No.351717102639162 worth of Rs.50,000/- belong to defacto complainant and accused was stolen from the possession of PW1 and further had dishonestly retained the said stolen property for wrongful gain and therefore, Accused is liable for conviction under Section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal

Code.

9.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel filed written arguments that there is no direct evidence to establish that Accused committed theft of MO1 i.e.,

Samsung Galaxy S8 mobile phone, IMEI No.351717102639162 worth of

Rs.50,000/- belong to defacto complainant and further, there is no support of the independent mediators i.e., PW1 and PW2 to the prosecution case and furthermore, PW3 failed to secure local inhabitants as mediators and as, he failed to follow the procedure laid under law at the time of arrest and seizure, and further more defacto complainant did not examine by the prosecutor as such

Accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

10. Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. Perused the entire record.

11. Now the points that arise for determination are as follows :-

1. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that Defacto complaint is in possession of MO1 i.e., Samsung Galaxy S8 mobile phone, IMEI

-4-

No.351717102639162 worth of Rs.50,000/- and the same was stolen

from her possession, prior to the alleged recovery , beyond the

reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that Accused

committed theft of MO1 i.e., Samsung Galaxy S8 mobile phone, and

committed an offence punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal

Code, beyond the reasonable doubt?

3. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that MO1 i.e.,

Samsung Galaxy S8 mobile phone, were recovered from the possession

of Accused, beyond the reasonable doubt?

4. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that Accused had

dishonestly received or retained MO1 by knowing or having reason to

believe MO1 i.e., Samsung Galaxy S8 mobile phone, were stolen

properties, beyond the reasonable doubt?

5. Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of Accused

for an offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code,

beyond the reasonable doubt?

6. In the result?

12.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined PWs1 to 3 out of 5 listed witnesses Among the prosecution witnesses, PW.1 and 2 are the mediators in this case, Pw3 is the investigating Officer. Ex.P.1 is the signature of the Pw.1. Ex.P.2 is the signature of the Pw.2, Ex.P.3 is the FIR in Cr.No.64/2019 in this case and Ex.P.4 is the arrest, confession and seizure mahazrnama

Dt.16.11.2019. MO.1 is the one Samsung Galaxy S8 mobile phone, IMEI

No.351717102639162 worth of Rs.50,000/-.

13.In view of rival contentions, the entire evidence is perused.

-5-

14.Point No.(1):-

(a)And as could be seen from the record the evidence of defacto complainant is closed on 21.07.2022 on the letter received from the complainant that she is in foreign and she cannot attend the court. As such the prosecution relied on the the evidence of PW3 who is the investigating officer and his evidence shows that on 16.11.2019 he received mail to the Station mail ID containing the complaint of LW.1/Simona Niznanska having recitals that she travelled in train No.16592

Hampi Express on 11.11.2019 in S1 coach at berth No.50 and during her journey she slept by charging her mobile phone at about 3:00 hours she woke up and noticed that her mobile Samsung Galaxy S8 was found missing and thereafter, based on the same he registered a case as in Cr.No.64/2019 U/Sec.379 IPC of

Ananthapur RPS .

16.However, none including Accused claimed the said property, as their own. In such circumstances, the Court is of the view that the evidence of PW5 coupled with the contents of Ex.P3, Ex.P4 / reports clinchingly establishes that MO1 belongs to defacto complainant, and the same were stolen from her possession, prior to the alleged recovery made, beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution.

18. Point No. 2:-

On coming to the charge for the offence punishable under section 379 of

Indian Penal Code, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish that accused has committed theft of MO1, as alleged. Admittedly, no one identify accused as the person who committed theft and there is no positive evidence showing that accused has committed the offence of theft of MO1 belonging to Complainant. And moreover, no Test Identification Parade of accused was conducted and no incriminating material found against accused at the scene of offence. Further, PW3 also admitted that the case was registered against unknown offenders. As such, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

-6-

Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered against the prosecution.

19.Point No.3 and 4:-

Now, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish that the said stolen properties were recovered from the possession of accused.

Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”.

In order to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish the following aspects:

Whether MO1 is the stolen property of complainant?

As per the discussion in point No.1, the prosecution has successfully proved that MO1 is the stolen property of Complainant. On considering the above, the

Court is of the opinion that MO.1 was the stolen property of complainant and according the point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

20.To prove this aspect, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to 3. Among them,

PW1 and PW2 are the independent mediators and PW3 is the investigation officer.

According to PW.3, on 16.11.2019 SI of police along with his staff proceeded to

Ananthapuramu Railway station platform No.1 General waiting hall and there they found the accused by watching cellphone on seeing them and he fled away and thereafter with the assistance of his staff caught hold of him and enquired his name and address particulars mentioned in the charge sheet and further the accused stated that he admitted his commission of the offence and SI arrested the accused and seized the said cellphone from the possession of him and forwarded him for judicial remand.

20.On coming to the evidence of independent mediators i.e., PW1 and

PW2, they did not support the prosecution version. Even though, they identified -7- their signatures i.e., Exs.P1 and P2 in mediator reports, they deposed that they do not know the contents of those papers. As PW1 and PW2 did not support the prosecution case, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared them as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the court. But nothing was elicited from their evidence which supports the prosecution case or they have any motive to save the accused. Admittedly, PW1 and PW2 are not the local inhabitants of the place of seizure.

21.Whether MO1 was recovered from the possession of accused?

The alleged seizure was made at General waiting hall, platform No.1,

Anantapuramu Railway station and that too in a busy locality, where the public are moving frequently. It is not the contention of PW3 that when he tried to secure the local respectable persons nearby the scene of offence, none were available or come forward to act as mediators from the distant place. So, there is no support of independent mediators to the prosecution case.

22.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW3 establishes the recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused, need not be discarded for the reason of non-support of mediators. Though there is some force in the said contention.

23.If a person is found to be in possession of stolen property, soon after commission of theft, it is presumed under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, that he is a theft or as a person keeping the stolen properties knowing fully well that it is a stolen property. No doubt, the confession made before the police is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but the confession leads to recovery of the property is admissible under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

24.In the present case, even though, PW3 deposed about the arrest of accused and seizure of case property under cover Ex.P3, but his evidence cannot be -8- looked into, due to lack of corroboration from the independent witnesses i.e., PW1 and PW2. Further recovery of case property upon the confession of accused is also doubtful and in the absence of supporting evidence of PW1 and PW2. Since, there is no support of independent mediators, the contents of the said mediator report are hit by Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act and the same cannot be considered. No reason was assigned by the PW3 for non-securing the local inhabitants of the alleged first place of arrest and seizure or the second place of seizure. In such circumstances, when there is no support of independent mediators, the Court feels that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW3.

At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the decision in Botcha Raju and

State represented by the Inspector of police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle

reported in 1994(2) ALT (Crl.) 69 (AP), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh held in para 2 as follows:

“… The evidence of PW6, who is police officer, cannot be easily believed without proper corroboration by disinterested witnesses. As such, the Courts below fell in error by accepting the version of police officers without the corroboration of disinterested witnesses mentioned above. No particular motive is made out against the above witnesses, who turned hostile, so as to say, that they are specially interested in the petitioner to bail him out of the offence”.

25.In the light of the above decision, in the absence of support of independent mediators, the Court is of the view that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW3 with regard to the recovery of MO1 from the possession of accused.

26. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds no convincing and satisfactory evidence to hold that on 16.11.2019, PW3 arrested the accused at General waiting hall, platform No.1, Anantapuramu Railway station and seized the said -9- gold chain in Crime No.64 of 2019, in the presence of PW1 and PW2. When the prosecution failed to establish the alleged recovery of stolen property from the possession of accused, the question as to whether the accused had knowledge that the said MO.1 was stolen properties or not, does not arise. Accordingly, points Nos.3 and 4 are answered against the prosecution and in favour of accused..

27.Point No.(5):-

In view of the above discussion and findings in point no.(1) to (3), though the prosecution is able to establish that MO.1 was stolen from the possession of

PW1 without her consent, the prosecution failed to establish that accused dishonestly retained or received the said property, by knowing that the said property was stolen property Therefore, the Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish all the essential ingredients of Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, to bring home the guilt of accused for the said offence, beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point no.(5) is answered against the prosecution and in favour of accused.

28.In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under

Section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

MO.1: One Samsung Galaxy S8 mobile phone shall be return to its original owner after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18 th day of May 202 3).

Sd/- Prathiba

Addl.Judl Magistrate of 1st Class, Ananthapur FAC/Special Judicial First Class Magistrate

(Railways), Guntakal.

-10-

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: G.Rajasekhar. -None - PW.2: K.Ramanjineyulu. PW.3: M.Sathyanarayan (IO).

Exhibits Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1: Signature of the Pw.1. -Nil - Ex.P.3: Signature of the Pw.2. Ex.P.3: FIR in Cr.No.64/2019 of Ananthapuramu RPS. Ex.P.4: Arrest, confession cum seizure mahazarnama dt.16.11.2019.

Material Objects Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

MO.1: One Samsung Galaxy S8 mobile phone. -Nil-

Sd/- Prathiba

A.J.F.C.M/ATP FAC/Spl.J.F.C.M.(Rly’s), Guntakal.

Calendar and Judgment

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

C.C.No.11 of 2021

Date of Offence:11.11.2019 Date of Report:16.11.2019 Date of apprehension of the accused:16.11.2019 Date of release on bail:23.11.2019 Date of Commencement of Trial:03.08.2022 Date of Close of trial:23.01.2023 Date of Judgment:18.05.2023

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.11/2021 on the file of Special Judicial

First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

BETWEEN:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu Railway Police Station.

…... Complainant.

AND

Komali Vinay Kumar Reddy, aged about 20 years, S/o Late K.Ramana Reddy, R/o D.No.1/16-A, Kalagallu Village, Kuderu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

…. Accused

Offence: Under section 411 of IPC. Finding: Found not guilty.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under Section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. MO1 to MO.3 are already given to PW1 for interim custody and the same shall holds good and becomes absolute and so, MO1 to MO.3 are ordered to be retained by PW1, after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay and remarks if any:- This case was taken on file on 05-03-2021. Copies of documents were furnished to the accused on 22-03-2022 and he was examined Under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and a charge was framed on 04-04-2022, PW.1 was examined on 27- 04-2022, prosecution evidence is closed on 12-07-2022, after closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined Under section 313 of Cr.P.C., on 19-07-2022, heard the arguments by the both sides on 06-02-2023, Judgment delivered on 18-05-2023. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Prathiba

Addl.Judl Magistrate of 1st Class, Ananthapur FAC/Special Judicial First Class Magistrate

(Railways), Guntakal.

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

Guntakal.

Present:- Smt. E.Prathiba,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu

FAC/ Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

Monday, the 13th day of February 2023

Calendar Case.No.19/2022

BETWEEN:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Gooty Railway Police Station.

…... Complainant.

AND

Umed Ali Jinat Ali Samnani, aged about 33 years, S/o Jinat Ali Samnani, R/o D.No.4-1-261, Hanuman Tekdi, Abids, Hyderabad, Now residing near side of D-Mart, Saleem Nagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad City, Telangana State.

…. Accused

This case has come before me on 13-02-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri N.Hemadri, 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 delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gooty Railway Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.07/2021 under section 411 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: On 16.03.2021 at about 04:45 hours, while the PW.1 R.Chinna Bojanna along with his daughter/LW.2

Dharani Devi have been travelling from Nizamabad to Dharmavaram in train No.09301 in

S4 coach in berth No.74 and the said train has reached Dhone Railway station and when he wake up and some unknown offenders have committed theft of his bag containing 1)

Gold black beads chain weighing about 35 grams, 2) Gold ear studs weighing about 8 grams, 3) one ring weighing about 5 grams, total 48 grams, and 4) one Samsung Galaxy

M01 mobile phone and one Nokia keypad mobile, all worth of Rs.1,54,000/-, and PW.1 lodged the report before the Gooty RPS, based on the same PW.4/RPHC has registered a -2- case as in Cr.No.07/2021 U/Sec.379 IPC and investigated this case. During the course of investigation on 07.12.2021 the PW.5 Inspector of police, Guntakal RPS has arrested you at platform No.2 located on the eastern side of Guntakal Railway station in the presence of mediators and seized the said ornaments 1) Gold black beads chain weighing about 35 grams, 2) Gold ear studs weighing about 8 grams, 3) one ring weighing about 5 grams, total 48 grams, all worth of Rs.1,44,000/- from yours possession under the cover of panchanama and SI of police forwarded you for judicial remand. Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC and on appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.When the accused was examined under section 239 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 411 of IPC was framed, read over and explained its contents to him 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 8 witnesses, examined 5 witnesses as Pws.1 to 6, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and

MO.1 to M03. The evidence of remaining witness is given up by the A.P.P on 27.04.2022.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing from the prosecution witnesses in Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

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

-3-

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

9.Among the prosecution witnesses, PW.1 is the defacto complainant, Pws.4 to 6 are the investigating agency, Pws.2 and 3 are the mediators in this case.

Ex.P.1 is the report, Ex.P.2 is the signature of the Pw.2, Ex.P.3 is the signature of the Pw.3, Ex.P.4 is the FIR in Cr.No.07/2021 in this case, Ex.P.5 is the Certified copy of confession cum seizure and arrest mahazar dt.07.12.2021 at 02:00 pm.

MO.1 is the Gold black bead chain, MO.2 is the Gold ring. MO.3 is the one pair of ear studs with hanging matees are belongs to PW.1.

10.POINT: In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC, it is the prime duty of the prosecution to establish the following basic aspects.

a) that some property was stolen;

b) that the accused received or retained such property with a dishonest intention;

c) that the property in possession of the accused was a stolen property.

11.Unfolding the case of the prosecution PW.1 is the defacto complainant has deposed that on 15.03.2021 himself and his wife boarded at 06:30 pm., at

Nijamabad in Train Yeswanthapur Special Express to go to Dharmavaram in S-4 coach and his wife hand bag hanging in the coach besides her berth and the said bag containing a gold black bead chain, gold ear studs with hanging matees and a gold ring of her wife, mobile phones of himself and his wife, keys of their almarah and other articles all worth of rs.1,50,000/- and after their slept on his berth and then he lodged the report before the police and then the police after nine months they informed that his gold ornaments were recovered.

-4-

12.The testimony of PW2 is the mediator has deposed that he is running a stall in Railway station at Guntakal and he saw the accused in Railway police station,

Guntakal and that the police recorded gold ornaments from the possession of the accused under the cover of mahazar, in his presence and he signed on the mahazar dt.07.02.2021.

13.The testimony of PW.3 is the another mediator has deposed that he is running a stall in Railway station at Guntakal and he saw the accused in Railway police station, Guntakal and that the police recorded gold ornaments from the possession of the accused under the cover of mahazar, in his presence and he signed on the mahazar dt.07.02.2021.

14.The testimony of PW.4 is the SI of police deposed that on 16.03.2021 at about 03:00 pm., while he was present in the police station PW.1 and his wife/LW.2 Dharani Devi came to police station and presented report and he registered the case as in Cr.No.07/2021 U/Sec.379 IPC of Gooty RPS and he submitted the copies of Original FIR to this court and copies of all other officers concerned and during the course of investigation he examined Pw.1 and his wife and recorded their statements and then further investigation was done by PW.6.

15. The testimony of Pw.5 in the Inspector of police deposed that on 07.12.2021 at about 01:00 pm., he received a information about the accused that he secured the presence of mediators along with his staff he proceeded to platform No.2 of

Guntakal Railway station towards east side and there on seeing them and then the accused is tried to ran away, caught hold of him with the assistance of his staff and he enquired him in the presence of mediators and he revealed his name and address particulars mentioned in the charge sheet and then he confessed that he is involved in other crimes and further he confessed that he was committed theft of the said offence and and on further interrogation he produced -5- 30 items of properties including this property one gold black beed chain, one pair of gold ear studs, one gold ring and the same was seized and he arrested him under the cover of mahazar dt.07.12.2021 and he forwarded him for judicial remand.

16.The testimony of PW.6 SI of police deposed that on 15.12.2021 after obtaining PT Warrant against him and he produced him before this court for judicial remand in this case and he submitted the case property to this court and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet

17.However, none including accused, either disputed that PW1 is the complainant of MO1 to MO3, or claimed the said property, as their own. In such circumstances, the Court is of the view that the evidence of PW1 supported by

PW5 coupled with the contents of Ex.P1/report establishes that MO1 to MO3 of

PW1, and the same was stolen from his possession, prior to the alleged recovery made on 07.12.2021, beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution.

18. Point No. 2:-

On coming to the charge for the offence punishable under section 379 of

Indian Penal Code, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish that accused has committed committed theft of MO1 to MO3, as alleged. Admittedly, PW1 did not identify accused as the person who committed theft and there is no positive evidence showing that accused has committed the offence of theft of MO1 to MO.3 belonging to PW1. But PW1 has not the eye witnesses to the incident. Therefore, no witness has seen that accused is committed the offence and moreover, no Test Identification Parade of accused was conducted and no incriminating material found against accused at the scene of offence. Further, PW5 also admitted that the case was registered against unknown offenders. As such, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered against the prosecution.

-6-

19.Point No.3 and 4:-

Now, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish that the said stolen properties were recovered from the possession of accused.

Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”.

In order to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish the following aspects:

Whether MO1 is the stolen property of PW1?

As per the discussion in point No.1, the prosecution has successfully proved that MO1 to MO.3 are the stolen property of PW1 and though PW.1 was cross examined on that aspect that he lost MO1 to MO.3 somewhere else and gave false report, but nothing could be elicited in his cross examination, except denying the suggestions. On considering the above, the Court is of the opinion that MO.1 to

MO3 were the stolen property of PW1 and according the point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

20.To prove this aspect, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to 6. Among them,

PW2 and PW3 are the independent mediators and PW5 is the investigation officer.

According to PW.5, on receiving credible information on 07.12.2021, he arrested the accused at platform No.2 located on the eastern side of Guntakal Railway station and seized the gold chain pertaining in Crime No.30 of 2021 under Ex.P4 and lead to Guntakal Railway station and seized the MO.1 to MO.3 in the presence of PW2 and PW3.

21.Whether MO1 was recovered from the possession of accused?

The alleged seizure was made platform No.2 located on the eastern side of

Guntakal Railway station and that too in a busy locality, where the public are -7- moving frequently. It is not the contention of PW5 that when he tried to secure the local respectable persons nearby the scene of offence, none were available or come forward to act as mediators from the distant place. So, there is no support of independent mediators to the prosecution case.

22.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW5 establishes the recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused, need not be discarded for the reason of non-support of mediators. Though there is some force in the said contention.

23.If a person is found to be in possession of stolen property, soon after commission of theft, it is presumed under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, that he is a theft or as a person keeping the stolen properties knowing fully well that it is a stolen property. No doubt, the confession made before the police is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but the confession leads to recovery of the property is admissible under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

24.In the present case, even though, PW5 deposed about the arrest of accused and seizure of case property under cover Ex.P4, but his evidence cannot be looked into, due to lack of corroboration from the independent witnesses i.e., PW2 and PW3. Further recovery of case property upon the confession of accused is also doubtful and in the absence of supporting evidence of PW2 and PW3 and further it is to be noted that the alleged recovery of some of the properties was not made subsequent to confession alleged to be made by accused. So, the contents of the above are not even admissible under Section 27 of Indian

Evidence Act. Since, there is no support of independent mediators, the contents of the said mediator report are hit by Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act and the same cannot be considered. No reason was assigned by the PW5 for non- securing the local inhabitants of the alleged first place of arrest and seizure or -8- the second place of seizure. In such circumstances, when there is no support of independent mediators, the Court feels that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW5.

At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the decision in Botcha Raju and

State represented by the Inspector of police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle

reported in 1994(2) ALT (Crl.) 69 (AP), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh held in para 2 as follows:

“… The evidence of PW6, who is police officer, cannot be easily believed without proper corroboration by disinterested witnesses. As such, the Courts below fell in error by accepting the version of police officers without the corroboration of disinterested witnesses mentioned above. No particular motive is made out against the above witnesses, who turned hostile, so as to say, that they are specially interested in the petitioner to bail him out of the offence”.

25.In the light of the above decision, in the absence of support of independent mediators, the Court is of the view that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW5 with regard to the recovery of MO1 to MO3 from the possession of accused.

26. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds no convincing and satisfactory evidence to hold that on 07.12.2021, PW5 arrested the accused at platform No.2 located on the eastern side of Guntakal Railway station and seized the said gold chain in Crime No.07 of 2021, in the presence of PW2 and PW3. When the prosecution failed to establish the alleged recovery of stolen property from the possession of accused, the question as to whether the accused had knowledge that the said MO.1 to MO.3 were stolen properties or not, does not arise.

Accordingly, points Nos.3 and 4 are answered against the prosecution and in favour of accused.

-9-

27.Point No.(5):-

In view of the above discussion and findings in point no.(1) to (3), though the prosecution is able to establish that MO.1 to MO.3 were stolen from the possession of PW1 without her consent, the prosecution failed to establish that accused dishonestly retained or received the said property, by knowing that the said property was stolen property Therefore, the Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish all the essential ingredients of Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, to bring home the guilt of accused for the said offence, beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point no.(5) is answered against the prosecution and in favour of accused.

28.In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under

Section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

MO1 to MO.3 are already given to PW1 for interim custody and the same shall holds good and becomes absolute and so, MO1 to MO.3 are ordered to be retained by PW1, after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13 th day of February 202 3).

Sd/- Prathiba

Addl.Judl Magistrate of 1st Class, Ananthapur FAC/Special Judicial First Class Magistrate

(Railways), Guntakal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: R.Chinna Bojjanna. -None - PW.2: M.Prasad. PW.3: A.Gopal. PW.4: P.Vijay Kumar. IO PW.5: B.V.Nagesh Babu, (IO). PW.6: A.Nagappa. (IO) -10-

Exhibits Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1: Report of Pw.1. -Nil - Ex.P2: Signature of the Pw.2. Ex.P.3: Signature of the Pw.3. Ex.P.4: FIR in Cr.No.07/2021 of Gooty RPS. Ex.P.6: Certified copy of confession cum seizure and arrest mahazar dt.07.12.2021 at 02:00 pm.

Material Objects Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

MO.1: One gold chain. -Nil-

Sd/- Prathiba

A.J.F.C.M/ATP FAC/Spl.J.F.C.M.(Rly’s), Guntakal.

// True copy // Attested //

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg.

Date of OffenceReportApprehensionReleased onCommence-Close ofSentence of Accusedbailment of trialtrial Prior to---- 10.5.201712.11.2018 10.5.201704.02.201928.06.2019

Judgment in C.C.No.321/2017 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg

Complainant :: Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanekal PS.

Cr.No:47/2017

Sl. Name of the AgeFather’s NameCallingReligionResidenceMandal No.Accused 1R.B.Yerriswamy30 R.P.Patnamaiah CultivationHinduHanakanahalKenekal years@ Patnamappa 2R.B.Vannurswamy39 R.P.Patnamaiah CultivationHinduHanakanahalKenekal years@ Patnamappa 3R.B.Chowdamma63 R.P.Patnamaiah CultivationHinduHanakanahalKenekal years@ Patnamappa 4R.P.Patnamaiah @66 R.P.Patnamaiah CultivationHinduHanakanahalKenekal Patnamappayears@ Patnamappa

Offence :- U/secs.498-A, 323 r/w 34 IPC. Finding :- Accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty.

Sentence:- In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence U/secs.498-A, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months from today.

SD/- KUM V.DEEPTHI

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KALYANDURG.

FAC JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RAYADURG.

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu Dis No. Dt.

2

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

RAYADURG

Present: Kum. V.Deepthi, Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kalyandurg,

FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rayadurg,

Friday, the 28th day of June, 2019

C.C.321/2017

Between: State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanekal P.S. … Complainant.

And

1. Renducherla Boya Yerriswamy, age 30 years S/o R.B.Patnamaiah @ Patnamappa, Cultivation, R/o Hanakanahal village, Kanekal mandal.

2. Renducherla Boya Vannurswamy, age 39 years S/o R.B.Patnamaiah @ Patnamappa, Cultivation, R/o Hanakanahal village, Kanekal mandal.

4. Renducherla Boya Chowdamma, age 63 years W/o R.B.Patnamaiah @ Patnamappa, Cultivation, R/o Hanakanahal village, Kanekal mandal.

4. Renducherla Boya Patnamaiah @ Patnamappa, age 66 years S/o late R.B.Siddappa, Cultivation, R/o Hanakanahal village, Kanekal mandal. …Accused.

This case came on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Y.H.Babu Rao, Advocate for the accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following Judgment.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanekal police station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.47/2017 for the offence punishable U/secs.498-A, 323 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos.1 to 4.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are that about 5 years back LW.1 Boya Yerramma marriage was performed with accused No.1 in the presence of respectable, LW.2 Boya Rampuram Hanumappa had performed marriage of LW.1 by 3 spending entire marriage expenditure and after marriage for one year LW.1 and accused

No.1 lead marital life amicably at Hanakanahal after that accused No.1 could not taking proper care of LW.1, altercating on every tiny issue, beat her and sent her to her parentage by the time LW.2, LW.3 Boya Nagaraju took LW.1 to Hanakanahal village and held panchayat with accused Nos.1 to 4 in the presence of village respectable LW.4 Boya

Gundlapalli Yerriswamy, LW.5 Kuruba Ramaswamy and made them to lead life jointly.

In this regard several panchayats held but the accused did not change their attitude. About 3 years back accused No.1 took an altercation with LW.1 and while beating her, mean time accused Nos.2 to 4 came to LW.1 and beat indiscriminately, abused in filthy language and harassed her mentally and physically and necked out her from their house.

On coming to know LW.2 took LW.1 to her house on the same day, since then LW.1 is staying with her parents. About six months back accused Nos.1 to 4 and LW.4, LW.5 went, held panchayat with LW.1, LW.2 and made them to compromise in Kanekal police station with an assurance to deposit certain amount on the name of LW.1 for her livelihood, but so far accused Nos.1 to 4 could not deposit any amount or property on her name and they could not bring back LW.1 to their village.

Based on the complaint of LW.1, LW.6 Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.47/2017 U/sec.498-A, 323, 109 r/w 34 IPC on 10.05.2017.

During the course of investigation LW.7 examined LW.1 to 5 and recorded their statements and section 109 IPC was deleted. On 28.05.2017 LW.6 served sec.41-A CrPC notice to the accused and after completion of he laid charge sheet for the offence

U/sec.498-A, 323 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code.

3.On perusal of the record, this court took cognizance for the offence U/secs.498-A, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused 1 to 4.

4.On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of case documents have been furnished as contemplated under Section 207 CrPC.

4

5.Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 239 CrPC.

Charges U/sec.498-A, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code framed against accused No.1 to 4, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to P6.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused are examined

U/s 313 CrPC by explaining the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both the Counsels.

9.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has established the guilt against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence

U/sec.498-A, 323 r/w 34 beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

10.To establish its case, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Ex.P1 to P6. PW.1 is the defacto complainant, PW.2 is mother of PW.1, PW.3 to PW.5 are independent witnesses, PW.6 is the investigating officer. Ex.P1 is report filed by PW.1, Ex.P2 to P4 are sec.161 CrPC statements of PW.3 to PW.5, Ex.P5 is First

Information Report, Ex.P6 is the Rough sketch.

11.In the present case PW.1 deposed that about 8 years back she got married with accused No.1 and they lived happily for a period of one year and thereafter accused started harassing her and she also consumed poison as she is unable to bear harassment of accused and again she joined with accused No.1 in his village, later accused dropped her in her village and did not come back to take her and PW.3 to PW.5 conducted panchayat and advised her to live happily and thereafter again after one month accused started harassing her and she went to her village due to harassment of accused 5 and subsequently no one came back to join her with accused No.1 for marital life. In the cross examinationPW.1 deposed that she stated before police i.e. in 161 CrPC statement and in Ex.P1 that she consumed poison and she admitted that 7 years passed away joined with accused No.1 and she deposed that accrued agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to her but failed to do so, that is why she lodged Ex.P1 and she admitted that she lodged Ex.P1 about a year ago. In the entire evidence of PW.1, she did not depose clearly when she left the company of accused and when she again went to the accused for marital life and when she finally left the company of accused. Further in Ex.P1 and in 161 statement of

PW.1 she stated as if accused necked out her every time and she joined company of accused No.1 after panchayats, but in the evidence she deposed that accused only took her to her parents house and dropped in her village and did not came back to take her, which is quite contradictory. In Ex.P1 and 161 statement she stated that six months prior to lodging Ex.P1 accused Nos.1 to 5 along with elders came to her and held panchayat in the police station and decided that accused will give some money for the security of her life, but till now her husband i.e. A1 neither given property or money nor taken her to his family. But in the evidence she deposed that as she cannot bear harassment made by the accused, she herself left the company of accused and subsequently no one came back to take her to join with accused No.1, which is quite contradictory. Further she deposed that she is living separately since 7 years, if that is so then there is huge delay in lodging report which is fatal to the case of prosecution. So all these inconsistent statements creates doubt in the case of prosecution which is very much fatal to the case of prosecution. Further she did not state anything about her consumption of poison in Ex.P1 and in 161 Statement.

12.PW.2 who is mother of PW.1 deposed that about 8 years ago

PW.1 got married with accused No.1 and PW.1 attempted to commit suicide as she is unable to bear harassments, words of accused and she sent PW.1 to join accused No.1 for marital life and again accused No.1 repeated to harass PW.1 and then PW.1 came back to 6 her village and the elders came and conducted panchayat and re-united accused No.1 with

PW.1 and again accused harassed PW.1 and then PW.1 came back to her village and accused No.1 did not come to take back PW.1 for marital life. In the entire evidence

PW.2 did not state about panchayat held at police station and about agreement of giving money to PW.1 by the accused. PW.2 also not deposed when the accused harassed PW.1 and she did not depose consistently on par with her sec.161 CrPC statement. In the cross examination PW.2 deposed that panchayat was conducted after one year of marriage and

PW.1 returned to her village within a week of joining accused No.1 on the advice of elders and she admitted that accused No.1 did not come to her village and PW.1 did not join with accused No.1 after returning within one week of panchayat. This evidence is quite contradictory to the evidence of PW.1 and with 161 statement of PW.2 as she is saying that after one year one week PW.1 not joined with accused No.1. So all the facts stated subsequent to that one year one week will be put in question whether they really happened or not. She admitted that she stated before police as accused did not give money to PW.1, she lodged report. This point is to be considered crucially.

13.PW.3 to PW.5 independent witnesses completely turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

14.PW.6 who is investigating officer deposed that on 10.05.2017 at 9 AM while he was present in the police station, PW.1 came to police station and lodged Ex.P1 and he registered the same as FIR i.e. Ex.P5. So PW.6 deposed as if he received report i.e. Ex.P1 for first time on 10.05.2017. But on perusal of record, it is seen that Ex.P1 was prepared on 24.04.2017 and the same was received by Sub-Inspector of

Police, Kanekal on 24.04.2017 and endorsed the same on Ex.P1 by Sub-Inspector of

Police and on perusal of Ex.P5 it is seen that the date of occurrence of offence was mentioned as “Prior to 24.04.2017 and information received at police station was on 10.05.2017” which clearly shows that there is gap of 16 days in lodging report and with that of registering FIR which is very much fatal to the case of prosecution and the 7 prosecution has not given any reason for delay in registering FIR even after receiving the same on 24.04.2017. Further the date in the date of endorsement by Sub-Inspector on

Ex.P1 and the date of registration of FIR also creating doubt in the prosecution case. In the cross examinationPW.6 admitted that there is overwriting in Ex.P1 in respect of date mentioned. On perusal of Ex.P1 it is seen that the date mentioned at the signature of

PW.1 was altered from 21.04.2017 to 24.04.2017. Further PW.6 admitted that Ex.P1 is the endorsed to him by Circle Inspector of Police on 24.04.2017 and he registered FIR on 10.05.2017. Here PW.6 made quite contradictory statements with that of his chief examination, because if really he received the same from Circle Inspector on 24.04.2017 then definitely he would have registered FIR immediately on the same day, but in the chief examination he deposed that he received Ex.P1 from PW.1 but not from Circle

Inspector which are quite contradictory and highly doubtful in the case of prosecution.

15.From all the above observation, it is clearly seen that the prosecution has utterly failed in proving guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under U/secs.498-A, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence it is fit case to grant benefit of doubt to the accused.

16.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence U/secs.498-A, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months from today.

Dictated to Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, on this the 28th day of June, 2019.

SD/- KUM V.DEEPTHI

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KALYANDURG.

FAC JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RAYADURG.

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : B.Yerramma -None- PW.2 : B.Hanumakka PW.3 : B.Nagaraju PW.4 : B.Yerriswamy PW.5 : B.Ramaswamy PW.6 : G.Yuvaraj.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : Report filed by PW.1 Ex.P2 : Section 161 CrPC statement of PW.3 Ex.P3 : Section 161 CrPC statement of PW.4 Ex.P4 : Section 161 CrPC statement of PW.5 Ex.P5 : First Information Report Ex.P6 : Rough sketch.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR

-NIL-

SD/- KUM V.DEEPTHI

J.M.F.C.

9

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg.

Date of OffenceReportApprehensionReleased onCommence-Close ofSentence of Accusedbailment of trialtrial Prior to---- 25.5.201731.11.2018 25.5.201721.12.201828.06.2019

Judgment in C.C.No.309/2017 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg

Complainant :: Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanekal PS.

Cr.No:54/2017

Sl. Name of the AgeFather’s NameCallingReligionResidenceMandal No.Accused 1Kuruba Chinna40 K.MalleppaCultivationHinduBramhasamudramKenekal Rudraiahyears 2Kuruba 26 K.chinna CultivationHinduBramhasamudramKanekal Chamundiyearsrudraiah 3Kuruba 87 K.LingannaCultivationHinduBramhasamudramKenekal Mallappayears 4Senakgala 61 S.K.MallesappaCultivationHindu43-UdegolamKanekal Kuruba years Ramachandra 5Kuruba 32 K.MalleppaCultivationHinduBramhasamudramKenekal Mallikarjunayears 6Kuruba Ramu 37 K.MalleppaCultivationHinduBramhasamudramKenekal @ Ramappayears 7K.Rudraiah @ 46 K.MalleppaCultivationHinduBramhasamudramKenekal Thipperudraiahyears

Offence :- U/secs.498-A, 494 r/w 34 IPC. Finding :- Accused A1 to A7 are found not guilty.

Sentence:- In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offence U/secs.498-A, 494 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months from today.

SD/- KUM.V.DEEPTHI

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KALYANDURG.

FAC JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RAYADURG.

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu Dis No. Dt.

2

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

RAYADURG

Present: Kum. V.Deepthi, Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kalyandurg,

FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rayadurg,

Friday, the 28th day of June, 2019

C.C.309/2017

Between: State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanekal P.S. … Complainant.

And

1. Kuruba Chinna Rudraiah, age 40 years S/o K.Malleppa, Cultivation, R/o Bramhasamudram village, Kanekal mandal.

2. Kuruba Chamundi, age 26 years W/o K.Chinna Rudraiah, R/o Bramhasamudram village, Kanekal mandal.

3. Kuruba Mallappa, age 87 years S/o K.Linganna, R/o Bramhasamudram village, Kanekal mandal.

4. Senakgala Kuruba Ramachandra, age 61 years S/o K.Malleshappa, R/o 43-Udegolam village, Kanekal mandal.

5. Kuruba Mallikarjuna, age 32 years S/o K.Malleppa, R/o Bramhasamudram village, Kanekal mandal.

6. Kuruba Ramu @ Ramappa, age 37 years S/o K.Malleppa, R/o Bramhasamudram village, Kanekal mandal.

7. K.Rudraiah @ Thipperudraiah, age 46 years S/o K.Malleppa R/o Bramhasamudram village, Kanekal mandal. …Accused.

This case came on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri G.Lokananda, Advocate for the accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following Judgment.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanekal police station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.54/2017 for the offence punishable U/secs.498-A, 494 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos.1 to 7.

3

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are that about 20 years back LW.1 Kuruba Vasikeri Vedavathi marriage was performed with accused No.1 in the presence of respectable and they blessed with two sons namely Anil and

Gnaneswar. Accused No.1 addicted to bad ices and harassing LW.1 mentally and physically and LW.1 used to inform the same to lw.2 Kuruba Vasikeri Yerramma, LW.3

Kuruba Venkatesh, LW.4 Kuruba Pedda Narayana, LW.5 Kuruba Guruswamy, LW.6

Kuruba Lokesh Gowd and others for which they held panchayaths with accused No.1 and his family members and requested them to take good care of LW.1, but there is no change in the attitude of accused No.1 and he is harassing LW.1 mentally and physically. Apart from it accused Nos.3 to 7 are supporting accused No.1 and they also harassing LW.1.

After having intimacy with accused No.2, accused No.1 harassed LW.1 immensely. Due to unable of their harassment, LW.1 went to her parentage along with her children, later with the support and co-operation of accused Nos.3 to 7, accused No.1 got married accused No.2 without her knowledge and keeping the family at Bramhasamudram village of Kanekal mandal.

Based on the complaint of LW.1, LW.7 Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.54/2017 U/sec.498-A, 494 r/w 34 IPC on 25.05.2017. During the course of investigation LW.7 examined LW.1 to 6 and recorded their statements. On 10.06.2017 LW.7 served sec.41-A CrPc notice to the accused and after completion of he laid charge sheet.

3.On perusal of the record, this court took cognizance for the offence U/secs.498-A, 494 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused 1 to 7.

4.On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of case documents have been furnished as contemplated under Section 207 CrPC.

5.Accused Nos.1 to 7 were examined under Section 239 CrPC.

Charges U/sec.498-A, 494 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code framed against accused No.1 to 7, 4 read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to P3.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused are examined

U/s 313 CrPC by explaining the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both the Counsels.

9.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has established the guilt against the accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offence

U/sec.498-A, 494 r/w 34 beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

10.To establish its case, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Ex.P1 to P3. PW.1 is the defacto complainant, PW.2 to PW.4 are independent witnesses, PW.5 is the investigating officer. Ex.P1 is report filed by PW.1, Ex.P2 is First

Information Report, Ex.P3 is the Rough sketch.

11.In the present case PW.1 deposed that her marriage with accused No.1 was performed about 20 years back and after marriage she joined with A1 at Bramhasamudram village and they blessed with two sons and thereafter accused No.1 started harassing her in order to marry another woman and she is unable to bear the harassment, so she went to her parents house with her younger son and accused No.1 married accused No.2 after she went to her parents house and she went to police station and lodged report i.e. Ex.P1. In the cross examination PW.1 deposed that after marriage she lived with accused No.1 happily for about 12 years and she left the company of A1 about 12 years ago as she cannot bear mental harassment of accused No.1 and she admitted that she went to her parents house 5 years prior to lodging Ex.P1 and accused 5

No.1 did not come to her till today and she lodged Ex.P1 while she was residing in her parents’ house and she admitted that she filed Maintenance case before Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Court, Kalyandurg in the year 2012.

On perusal of evidence of PW.1, it is clearly seen that PW.1 did not depose single sentence against accused Nos.2 to 7 and she herself admitted that she went to her parents house 12 years ago as she cannot bear the mental harassment made by accused No.1. If that is so, then definitely she would have lodged report before the police at that time itself, but she did not prefer any report against accused since these 12 years and she herself admitted that since 12 years she is living separately from accused, so we can definitely come to conclusion that there is no harassment from accused No.1 since 12 years. In the present case charges framed U/sec.498-A, 494 IPC. Limitation for Sec.498-

A IPC up to 3 years and there is no limitation for 494 IPC.

Sec.468-3 Cr.P.C. says that “the period of limitation in relation to the offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.” So from this section, there is no limitation period for this case. But object in putting bar of limitation of prosecution was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after long time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of process of the court by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions after the date of offence.

12.In the present case, it is clearly seen that PW.1 has filed maintenance case in the year 2012, she filed criminal case against the accused in the year 2017 and she left the company of accused 12 years back. Further PW.1 deposed that accused No.1 married accused No.2 after PW.1 went to her parents house. From this we can come to conclusion that accused No.1 married accused No.2 about 12 years back.

From all this there is a huge delay in lodging report against the accused which is very much fatal to the case of prosecution. Further nowhere in the evidence of PW.1 she 6 deposed that accused No.2 has married accused No.1 with the knowledge of existence of first marriage of accused No.1. So we cannot come to conclusion that accused No.2 has knowledge about existence of first marriage of accused No.1, so sec.494 IPC will not attract to accused No.2 and PW.1 has not give any reason in lodging report with so much delay which is very much fatal to the case of prosecution.

13.PW.2 who is mother of PW.1 deposed that accused A1, A3 to

A7 used to beat PW.1 with chappal and harass with a view to go for second marriage by accused No.1 and PW.1 left company of accused No.1 about 8 years ago and later PW.1 lodged Ex.P1. In the cross examination PW.2 deposed that the accused beat PW.1 8 years ago, but PW.1 did not lodge complaint before the police at that time and PW.1 informed her about harassment of accused about 8 years ago immediately and PW.1 did not join with accused No.1 after she came to her house about 8 years ago and she admitted that at the time of lodging Ex.P1, PW.1 is residing with her in Kanekal mandal.

14.Here in the evidence of PW.2 she did not depose anything about accused No.2 and the evidence deposed by her about A3 to A7 was not corroborated with the evidence of PW.1 and she herself admitted that they did not file any case against the accused about 8 years back when PW.1 left the company of accused No.1 and PW.1 did not join the company of accused No.1, further she left his company. Even from the evidence of PW.2, it is clearly seen that there is huge delay of 8 years in lodging report which is very much fatal to the case of prosecution and she did not depose that A1 married A2. She simply deposed that accused No.1 harassed PW.1 in order to go for second marriage, but she did not give any clarity whether accused No.1 married accused

No.2 or not.

15.PW.3 who is brother of PW.2 deposed that accused had been continuously harassing PW.1, so that PW.1 came to the house of PW.2 and PW.1 informed him that accused No.1 did not take care of her properly and had been beating frequently and that is why she came to her parents house and about 8 years ago PW.1 7 informed him about the alleged harassment and he do not know whenPW.1 lodged Ex.P1.

The evidence PW.3 is clearly hearsay evidence and his evidence is not corroborated with the evidence of PW.1, so the evidence of PW.3 cannot be relied upon.

16.PW.4 also deposed that only about harassment made by accused No.1 but no deposed about second marriage of accused No.1. In the cross examination PW.4 deposed that they held panchayat in the year 2017 and prior to 2017 itself PW.1 is not living with accused No.1 and she was living with her parents house for past 8 years from the date of that panchayat. The evidence of PW.4clearly shows that he is hearsay witness and he kept his best efforts to support the case of PW.1 and added that they held panchayat in the year 2017, so the evidence of PW.4 cannot be relied upon.

PW.5 is the investigating officer and his evidence is formal in nature cannot be relied upon and conviction cannot be given based on the evidence of PW.5.

17.From all the above observation, it is clearly seen that the prosecution has utterly failed in proving guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offence under U/secs.498-A, 494 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence it is fit case to grant benefit of doubt to the accused.

18.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offence U/secs.498-A, 494 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months from today.

Dictated to Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, on this the 28th day of June, 2019.

SD/- KUM.V.DEEPTHI

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KALYANDURG.

FAC JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RAYADURG.

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : Vedavathi -None- PW.2 : Yerramma PW.3 : K.Venkatesh PW.4 : P.Narayana PW.5 : G.Yuvaraj.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Report filed by PW.1 Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: Rough sketch.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR

-NIL-

SD/- KUM.V.DEEPTHI

J.M.F.C.