Smt. V.Madhavi Latha

Page 1 of 9 JCC.No.86 of 2019

BEFORE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD: AT NALGONDA

(Dated on this the 21st day of June, 2021)

Present: 1. Smt.V.Madhavi Latha Prl. Magistrate, Nalgonda

2. Sri M.Raji Reddy Social Worker Member

J.C.C.No.86 of 2019

Between: The State of A.P., through The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Narkatpally …Prosecution AND

1.Vantepaka Raju, S/o.Shankaraiah, Age:17 years, Occ:Student, R/o.H.No.6, SC colony, Narketpally village and Mandal.

2.Pandula Rakesh, S/o.Narsimha, Age:17 years, Occ:Student, R/o.H.No.5-41, SC colony, Narketpally village and Mandal.

3.Maddela Madhu, S/o.Venkanna, Age:17 years, Occ:Student, R/o.SC colony, Narketpally village and Mandal.

4.Enumala Narsimha, S/o.Kiran, Age:17 years, Occ:Student, R/o.SC colony, Narketpally village and Mandal. …Children in conflict with law No.1 to 4

This case is coming before me on this day for disposal in the presence of Asst. P.P. for prosecution and of Sri T.Chandra Shekar Reddy, Advocate for the Children in conflict with law and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub Inspector of Police, Narkatpally filed charge sheet against the CCLs No.1 to 4 in Cr.No.100 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is LW1/Bhabiram Dangi is working as security guard to the Sri Jadala Parvathi Parameshwara

Temple, Cheruvugattu. The CCLs No.1 to 3 along with two others who are friends were addicted to alcohol and bad habits. They hatched a plan to get easy money and started committing theft of net cash from Hundies

Page 2 of 9 JCC.No.86 of 2019 at Mudugundla and Sri Jadala Parvathi Parmeshwara Swamy temple situated on the hillock of Cheruvugattu village by tying a thread to a magnet and inserting it in the hundi. Three months back they went to hillock of Cheruvugattu and committed theft of Rs.2,800/- by placing magnet thread in the hundi at Mudugundlu and shared among them and spent it for their luxuries. After committing the said theft, the CCLs No.1 to 3 again went to the hundi at Mudugundlu and again committed theft of Rs.3,300/- and Rs.1,500/- and spent the said money. That on 17-04- 2017 at 9.00 AM the CCLs No.1 to 3 went to Cheruvugattu and on 18- 04-2017 at 3.00 AM they committed theft of net cash of Rs.6,690/- from the hundi at Mudugundlu with the help of magnet and thread and in the meanwhile LWs 1 and 2/Bhabiram Dangi and Basinith Gangaram who are security persons, who saw them caught them red-handedly and thereafter lodged the report to the police.

On receipt of report from the LW1/Bhabiram Dangi,

LW8/K.Govardhan registered a case in Cr.No.100 of 2017 u/Sec.379 r/w.34 of IPC and issued FIR. During the course of his investigation he has examined and recorded the statements of LWs 1 to 3/Bhabiram

Dangi, Basinith Gangaram and Godala Mahender Reddy, recorded the confessional statements of the CCLs No.1 to 3 by securing the presence of two mediators, LWs 4 and 5/Surigi Nagaraju and Jeripothula Bharath and seized a net cash of Rs.6,690/-, round shaped magnet, one red color long thread and black color bag from their possession under a cover of panchanama. He has also seized three mobile phone from CCLs. No.1 to 3, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch map by securing the presence of LWs 4 and 5/Surigi Nagaraju and

Jeripothula Bharath as mediators and thereafter produced the CCLs

Page 3 of 9 JCC.No.86 of 2019

No.1 to 3 before the Juvenile Justice Board for necessary action. On 21-04-2017 LW8/K.Govardhan arrested A4 namely Juvvi Madhav, recorded his confessional statement by securing the presence of two mediators and recovered Nokia mobile phone from his possession under the cover of panchanama. On the same day the CCL No.5 came to police station and surrendered himself before LW8/K.Govardhan, as such LW8 has recorded his confessional statement and seized Samsung mobile phone from his possession before the mediators. On completion of investigation, LW8 filed charge sheet against the CCLs No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

Hence the prosecution case in nutshell.

3.The case was taken on file against the CCLs No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. On appearance of the CCLs before the Board, copies of the case documents were furnished to them, as required under Section 207 of

Cr.P.C.

5.The CCLs No.1 to 4 were examined under Section 14 of the

Juvenile Justice Act and the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code was read over and explained to them in Vernacular, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-10.

7. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the CCLs were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material

Page 4 of 9 JCC.No.86 of 2019 available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the learned APP and the counsel appearing for the CCLs.

Perused the material available on record.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the CCLs No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 379 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT :

a) The charge against the CCLs 1 to 4 is under Section 379 r/w.34 of

Indian Penal Code.

b) In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution got examined

PWs 1 to 7. PW1 is the complainant. PW2 is the eye witness to the incident. PW3 is the circumstantial witness. PW4 is the panch witness to the scene of offence panchanama. PWs 5 and 6 are the panch witnesses to the confession-cum-recovery panchanama and PW7 is the investigating officer.

c) The learned APP submitted that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, coupled with the evidence of the investigating officer PW7 clearly establishes that the CCLs 1 to 4 committed theft of net cash from the hundi of Cheruvugattu temple, hence, they may be convicted.

d) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the CCLs submitted that absolutely there is no evidence on record worthmentioning the name of the CCLs said to have committed the alleged theft, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is contradicting with each other. No property connecting to this

Page 5 of 9 JCC.No.86 of 2019 crime is seized from the possession of the CCLs. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the CCLs beyond reasonable doubt, hence, they may be acquitted.

e) Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, there must be some direct evidence to say that the CCLs 1 to 4 committed theft of cash from the hundi of Cheruvugattu temple. In this connection, it is the evidence of PW1 that he is the security guard for Cheruvugattu temple.

That on 18-4-2017 around 3-00 to 4-00 a.m. he found three persons removing money from the hundi of the temple and on seeing him, they fled away with money. That when they were fleeing away, the police present over there caught hold them. He has stated that he cannot identify the said three persons. That he has lodged report with the police on the next day of the incident.

f) PW2, the eye witness to the incident stated that about three years ago, around 4-00 a.m., when he along with PW1 were performing duty as security guards, they found five members removing money from the hundi of the temple and on seeing them, the said five persons fled away with money. He has stated that he cannot identify the said five persons.

g) PW3 is the circumstantial witness to the incident and he stated that on 18-4-2017 on the directions of EO of the temple to assist PWs 1 and 2, he went to the police station, Narketpally and found PWs 1 and 2 in the police station. That in the meanwhile the police brought three persons to the police stating that they committed theft of money from the hundi of the temple. On being dictated by PW1, he scribed the report and inturn PW1 signed on the report. He stated that he cannot identify those three persons who were brought by the police to the police station.

Page 6 of 9 JCC.No.86 of 2019

h) PW4, the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama, so also PWs 5 and 6, the panch witnesses for the confession-cum-recovery panchanama of the CCLs did not supported the prosecution case, they stated, no such panchanamas were conducted in their presence and nothing was recovered from the possession of the CCLs and that their signatures were obtained in the police station when they went to the police station on their personal works.

i) PW7 is the investigating officer and he has stated that on 18-4-2017, on receipt of Ex.P1 report from PW1, he has registered the case, issued FIR, recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 3. That PW1 brought CCLs 1 to 4 along with him at the time of lodging Ex.P1 report.

That on his interrogation, the CCLs 1 to 4 confessed their guilt and in pursuance of their confession, by securing the presence of PWs 5 and 6, he has recovered three mobile phones from the possession under a cover of panchanama. That on 21-4-2017 the CCL No.4 and A4 surrendered

before him and admitted their guilt and as such he has also recorded

their confessional statements by securing the presence of PWs 5 and 6 and recovered a mobile phone from their possession. That on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the CCs 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

j) Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, it is according to PW1, he has seen only three persons committing theft of cash and fleeing away with cash and the police present over took the said three persons to the police station. According to PW2, PW1 was along with him and they both were together doing guard duty and along with PW1, he has also seen the commission of the said offence, but contrary to the

Page 7 of 9 JCC.No.86 of 2019 evidence of PW1, PW2 stated that he has seen five persons committing theft of cash from hundi and fleeing away and the police took the said five persons to the police station. However, it is according to PW3, he went to the police station to assist PWs 1 and 2 to lodge report with the police and after he went to the police station, the police brought only three persons to the police station. Thus, there is variation in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. Be that as it may, all the three witnesses PWs 1 to 3 stated that they cannot identify those persons. Thus, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is not useful to the prosecution to say that the CCLs 1 to 4 committed the said theft.

k) It is the case of the prosecution that the CCLs 1 to 4 committed theft of cash from the hundi of Cheruvugattu temple. PWs 1 and 2 stated that the CCLs removed cash from the hundi and fled away with money, whereas PW7, the investigating officer has not recovered any such money from their possession. It is according to PW7, he has recovered cell phones from their possession and not money. It is not known as to why the investigating officer has not recovered money from them, if they are found to have committed theft of money and they were caught hold immediately after the said theft with cash and instead he has seized mobile phones from their possession. It is not known how the mobile phones seized by PW7 are connected to the theft of cash connecting to this case. PWs 5 and 6, the panch witnesses to such seizure also did not supported the prosecution case, they stated in one voice that no such panchanama was conducted in their presence and that their signatures were obtained by the police in the police station, when they went to the police station on their personal works.

Page 8 of 9 JCC.No.86 of 2019

L) It can be said, in summation, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and PW7 is ridden with omissions and contradictions. The evidence of PW7 also lacks corroboration. Thus, in the circumstances, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Further, in this context, it is worth mentioning that the omissions, which are minor in nature can be simply ignored, but the omissions and contradictions touching to the very root of the prosecution case weakness the case, such evidence does not inspire the confidence of the Court. The evidence on record is relatively weak, vague, inconsistent and generated reasonable doubt.

11) Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the CCLs 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt and the point is answered accordingly, against the prosecution.

12) In the result, the CCLs 1 to 4 are not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same under Section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds, if any, shall stands cancelled.

(Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21st day of June, 2021).

Principal Magistrate

Juvenile Justice Board Nalgonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 : B.Dangi PW2 : B.Gangaram PW3 : G.Mahender Reddy PW4 : J.Bharath

Page 9 of 9 JCC.No.86 of 2019

PW5 : M.Narsimha PW6 : M.Naresh PW7 : K.Govardhan

FOR DEFENCE: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: CC of report, dt.18-04-2017 Ex.P2: Signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3: Signature of PW5 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P4: Signature of PW6 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P5: FIR Ex.P6: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P7: Relevant portion of the recovery of the magnet from the CCL No.1 Ex.P8: Relevant portion of recovery of cell phone from the confession cum recovery panchanama, dt.18-04-2017 Ex.P9: Relevant portion of recovery of oppo cell phone from the confession cum recovery panchanama dt.14-04-2017 Ex.P10: Relevant portion of recovery of Samsung cell phone from the confession cum recovery panchanama dt.18-04-2014

FOR DEFENCE: None

MATERIAL OBJECTS

----Nil---

Principal Magistrate

Juvenile Justice Board Nalgonda

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTARATE OF FIRST CLASS 

(SPL. MOBILE COURT) AT NALGONDA

Present: Smt. K. Rani, Spl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, (For Proh. & Excise Offences), Nallagonda FAC: Judl. First Class Magistrate (Spl. Mobile Court) Nalgonda

Dated this the 11th day of November, 2019

C.C. No. 228 of 2019

Between:­ The State of Telangana through S.H.O. P.S Nalgonda Rural.

…Complainant AND Ponnuri Chinna Sathyanandam @ Sathish @ Ramesh, S/o: Nagaiah, Age: 30 years, N/o: Athmakur Village Durgi Mandal of Guntur District of Andhra Pradesh State, now at Balaji Nagar, near Kesara, Hyderabad city. …Accused

This case is coming before me today for final disposal in the presence of APP for State and of Sri. T. Shekar, Free Legal Aid counsel for the Accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:­

JUDGMENT

1.The brief facts of the prosecution case as enumerated in charge sheet:­

2. The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Nalgonda Rural has filed charge sheet against the accused person alleging that on 24.08.2018 evening he along with his friend Palakuri Saidulu, L.W.3 went to one function hall near Collector office on his red coloured CB Unicorn motor cycle bearing No. TS­05­ET­5651 and returned to this house on the same day night at about 10.00 p.m. and parked his motor cycle in front of his house veranda and slept in his house. Next day morning at about 5.30 a.m., his wife and his two children were pulling their house main door, but the door not opened, then they telephoned to adjacent house 2 owner L.W.3, then he came and open the door and they observed that his motor cycle was not found in front of their house, some unknown offenders has committed theft of his CB Unicorn motor cycle bearing

No. TS­05­ET5651, worth of Rs.45,000/­. Basing on the complaint,

L.W.09 registered a case, issued FIR. During the course of investigation, L.W.09 has recorded the statement of L.W.1 and subsequently, he visited scene of offence situated at Velugupalli village of Nalgonda Mandal, recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted scene of offence of panchanama, drawn rough sketch in the presence of mediators. L.W.8 arrested the accused at Prakasham district and recovered the stolen property and hand over to L.W.9.

L.w.9 produced the accused before this court on PT warrant and send him to court for judicial remand. After completion of entire investigation, filed charge sheet.

2.This case is taken on file for the offence punishable U/s. 379 IPC against the accused person. On appearance of accused person copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/sec. 207

Cr.P.C.

3.The accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C and charges U/s.

379 of IPC were framed, read over and explained in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Accused reported that he got no means to engage an advocate on the request of accused, Legal Aid counsel namely T. Shekar, Legal Aid counsel of this court was allotted to accused for defence.

4.During the trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3.

3

5.The accused person was examined as contemplated U/sec. 313

Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused person denied the same and reported no defence.

6.Heard arguments. Perused the entire record.

7. Points for determination:­ “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused person for an offence under Sec. 379 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?”

8. POINT :­ 4

Prosecution to support and substantiate its case, examined P.W.1 to

P.W.7. P.W.1, Marri Sudhakar has deposed in his evidence that on 24.08.2018 at about 9.00 p.m., when he returned to his house from his work and parked his Honda Unicorn red colour motor cycle bearing

No. TS­05­ET­5651 inside his house and on the next day at about 5.30 a.m., when he tried to open the main door of his house, he could not open it, as such, he called L.W.3, P. Saidulu his neighbour and saw that front door was bolted. Later on opening the door, he found that main gate was opened and his motor cycle was missing, which he was parked under the shed inside his house. Then he made enquiry about the missing motor cycle, but he could not traced out. On 27.08.2018, he lodged a report to the police and his statement was recorded by the police. After two months of the theft of his motorcycle, he received information from the police about the found of his missing motor cycle and he has taken the interim custody of his motor cycle from this court.

9.P.W.2, Marri Jhansi, wife of P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that on 24.08.2018, P.W.1 parked his motor cycle inside the house under the shed, but found missing on the next day, at about 5.30 a.m., when they tried to open the main door of his house, they could not open it and when P.W.1 called L.W.3, he came and opened front door which was bolted. 

5

10.P.W.3, Palakuri Saidulu deposed in his evidence that on 26.08.2018, when he returned along with P.W.1 from the collector office at about 10.00 p.m., on motor cycle vide bearing No. TS­05­ET­ 5651 of P.W.1. On the next day, at about 5.30 a.m., he received a call from P.W.1 informing him that his house door was bolted from outside and requested for opening of the door. Within 10 minutes of his call, he went to the house of P.W.1 and opened the bolt and then found the said motor cycle was missing. He along with P.W.1 and P.W.2 searched the said vehicle, but did not find out.

11.P.W.4, Alugubelli Nirnajan Reddy deposed in his evidence that on 27.08.2018, at about 12.00 noon, police conducted panchanama at the house of P.W.1. P.W.1 informed him about the theft of motor cycle at his house. Scene of offence panchanama was read over to him, then he along with L.W.5 signed on the panchanama. 

12.P.W.5, Renta Chinthala Rama Vishwanadham deposed in his evidence that on 17.01.2019 at about 9.00 am., Donakonda police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama at the house of

Kanishetti Venkateshwarlu at Chapalagadda colony, Dachepally village in crime no.27/2018 of P.S. Donakonda, wherein, accused confessed that he has committed theft of one Unicorn motor cycle on a road in between Miryalaguda and Thipparthy and the said motor cycle was hand over to one Venkateshwarlu for selling. Accused further confessed that he also committed that theft of one Bolero vehicle. Thereafter the police has seized Unicorn motor cycle from said Kanishetti

Venkateshwarlu. He along with L.W.7 has signed on the panchanaama. 

6

13.P.W.6, K. Murali Goud, Investigating officer deposed in his evidence that on 27.08.2018, he received a complaint from P.W.1 and basing on it, he registered a case in crime No.172/2018 for an offence under Sec. 379 IPC and issued FIR. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of L.W.1 and on the same day, he visited scene of offence and recorded the statement of L.W.2 and L.W.3. He conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of L.W.4 and 5. Based on the confession of the accused person in crime No. 1/2019 of Donakonda P.S. of Prakasham district about the theft of this case property he produced accused on execution of PT warrant on 03.04.2019 and he received case property from the said police station. On the completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet. 

7

14.P.W.7, K.SK. Ch. Meera Saheb another investigating officer deposed in his evidence that on 16.01.2019, at about 1.00 p.m., when he was at Donkonda police station of Podili circle and he received credible information about the property offenders, immediately he along with Sub­Inspector of police, Donakonda police station and staff proceeded in their vehicle towards Bobbapuram junction and he met mediators at Donakonda bus stand and he explained panch witnesses about the receipt of information, then he along with staff and panch witness went to Bobbabpuram junction at about 1.30 pm, when they were standing they found 4 persons on 4 motor cycles and on seeing us they trying to escape but they chased them and taken in to the custody and on his enquiry the 4 persons revealed their names as Ponnuri china Sathyanandam, Muli Panidra reddy, Mumin Saida, and Pudili

Jojibabu and further confession that they are committed several theft offences and he conducted mediators nama in the presence of mediators from 1.30 pm to 6.30 pm and wherein accused confessed

before them that he has committed Honda Unicorn motor cycle near

Thipparthy about few days ago. Accused was arrested in Cr.No.1/2019 of Donakonda police station and other 3 persons were arrested in

Cr.no.30/2018 of Donakonda police station and on confession of accused on 17.01.2019 he conducted mediators nama in presence of

L.W.6 and L.W.7 and seized Unicorn motor cycle from one Kanisetti

Venkateshwarlu of Dachepally village. Accused along with other arrested persons were produced before Judl. First Class Magistrate,

Darsi, Prakasham District. Subsequently on his direction Sub­

Inspector of Donakonda P.S. handover the seized unicorn motor cycle to

SHO, Rural, Nalgonda.

8

15. On the appreciation of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is the contention of the prosecution that accused has committed theft of motor cycle belonging to P.W.1. The said motor cycle was seized by the Donakonda police on the confession of the accused person. The learned APP submitted that basing on the confession by the accused person before the Donakonda police, the stolen property was recovered.

Hence, requested for the conviction of the accused person.

16.During the cross examination of P.W.1, the legal aid counsel elicited that report was scribed by him after 3 days of the missing of the motorcycle he lodged a report. P.W.1 and P.W.2 admitted that in and around there are houses. Learned legal aid counsel failed to elicit anything from the cross examination of P.W.3 to P.W.7. P.W.6 denied the suggestion that he did not visit the scene of offence and never conducted any panchanama. P.W.7 denied the suggestion that he did not visit the Donakonda center and never conducted any mediators nama in which accused along with others never confessed about the theft of offence. P.W.7 denied the suggestion that he did not seized any Unicorn motor cycle at Dachepally.

17.On the appreciation of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 it is clear that Honda Unicorn motorcycle vide bearing No. TS­05­ET­5651 was found missing on 24.08.2018 and the same was found by the police after two months of the theft. P.W.4 panch witness has supported the case of prosecution about the conduct of scene of offence panchanama on missing of the motor cycle by the police. The evidence of P.W.7 is crucial, since the accused has confessed during the confession cum seizure panchanama conducted by the Donakonda police about the 9 theft of stolen motor cycle. P.W.5 being the panch witnesses has categorically deposed that upon the confession of the accused before the Donakonda police about the committing of theft of Unicorn motor cycle the said motor cycle was recovered from the Kanishetti

Venkateshwarlu shows that the stolen property was recovered by the police from the possession of said Kanishetti Venkateshwarlu only on confession made by the accused.

18.As per Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act if the fact stated by the accused which lead to discovery of new fact that part of information is relevant. In the present case on confession of the accused person stolen property was discovered which is relevant to this case.

19.There are no eye witnesses at the time of committing theft of motor cycle by the accused person and only on the basis of confession of accused, stolen property was recovered. Prosecution failed to prove that accused has committed theft of motor cycle, but prosecution able to prove that the stolen property was recovered basing on the confession of the accused person. P.W.5 has deposed that he can identify the accused person since his evidence was recorded in the absence of the accused person and accused counsel reported no objection if identity of the accused is taken to be proved. The testimony of P.W.5, is sufficient to hold that accused confessed and basing on the confession the stolen property was recovered. Hence the prosecution able to prove that accused has hand over the stolen property to Kanishetti Venkateshwarlu. Hence, it is proved that accused was in constructive possession of the stolen property.

Though the property is not recovered from the accused person, the property recovered is taken as constructive possession. 

10

20.In view of above discussion, accused found of constructive possession of the stolen property. The prosecution successfully proved that accused was found with the stolen property.

21.In the result, accused is found guilty for an offence under Sec.

379 IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under Sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C.

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

pronounced by me in open Court on this 11th day of November, 2019.

FAC:Judl. First Class Magistrate (Spl. Mobile Court) Nalgonda.

22.Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence. Accused stated that he got small kinds and family and he is sole bread wineer of his family, if he is sentenced to imprisonment, his family would be face harship. Hence requested for set off the detention period. On considering the submissions, this court is of opinion that accused is not entitled for lenient view, since he is lodged in several property offences.

In the result, accused is convicted under Sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Accused is sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for Ten months for an offence under Sec.379 IPC. The period of detention already undergone by the accused shall be given set off under ScSec. 428 of Cr.P.C.

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

pronounced by me in open Court on this 11th day of November, 2019. 

FAC:Judl. First Class Magistrate (Spl. Mobile Court) Nalgonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Defence PW­1 M. Sudhakar None PW­2 M. Jhansi PW­3 P. Saidulu PW­4 A. Niranjan PW­5 R. rama Vishwanadam 11

PW­6 J, Murali Goud PW­7 K.SK. Ch. Meera Saheb

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P­1 Complaint Ex.P­2 A portion of certified copy of panchanama Ex.P­3 FIR.

M.Os. Marked NIL

FAC:-Judl. First Class Magistrate, (Spl. Mobile Court) Nalgonda.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTARATE OF FIRST CLASS

(SPL. MOBILE COURT) AT NALGONDA

Present: Smt. K. Rani, Spl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, (For Proh. & Excise Offences), Nallagonda FAC: Judl. First Class Magistrate (Spl. Mobile Court) Nalgonda

Dated this the 29th day of November, 2019

C.C. No. 168 of 2019

Between:- The State of Telangana through S.H.O. P.S Thipparthy. …Complainant AND A.1: Ponnuri Chinna Sathyanandam @ Sathish @ Ramesh, S/o: Nagaiah, Age: 30 years, R/o: Balaji Nagar, near Kesara, Hyderabad and native of Athmakur Village Durgi Mandal of Guntur District. A.2: Momin Saida, S/o: Vali, Age: 23 years, R/o: Vemavaram Village of Machavaram Mandal, Guntur District. …Accused

This case is coming before me today for final disposal in the presence of APP for State and of Sri. N. Narsimha, Legal Aid counsel for the Accused No.1 and Sri. M. Nagesh, Advocate for Accused No.2 and having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The brief facts of the prosecution case as enumerated in charge sheet:-

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Thipparthy has filed charge sheet against the accused person alleging that on the night of 08.09.2018, A.1 and A.2 were gained ingress into his jewler shop of complainant namely Chinthoju Srinivsa Chary by broking the shutter located infront of his house and committed theft of one kg silver worth of Rs.40,000/, 16 grams of gold worth of Rs.38,000/- and net cash of

Rs.12,000/ from his jeweler shop and also damaged the CC cameras which were installed in front of the shop and also committed theft of

DVR of CC cameras by broking the house door. Basing on the complaint, L.W.09 registered a case, issued FIR. During the course of 2 investigation, L.W.09 has recorded the statement of witnesses and subsequently, he visited scene of offence situated at jeweler shop, recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted scene of offence of panchanama, drawn rough sketch in the presence of mediators.

L.W.07 arrested the accused persons at Prakasham district and recovered the stolen property and hand over to L.W.09. L.W.09 produced the accused persons before this court on execution of PT warrant and send them to court for judicial remand. After completion of entire investigation, filed charge sheet.

2. This case is taken on file for the offence punishable U/s. 457 and 380 IPC against the accused persons. On appearance of accused person copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated

U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

3. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C and charges U/s. 457 and 380 of IPC were framed, read over and explained in vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accused No. 1 reported that he got no means to engage an advocate on the request of accused, Legal Aid counsel namely T.

Shekar, Legal Aid counsel of this court was allotted to accused for defence.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4.

5. The accused persons were examined as contemplated U/sec. 313

Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused persons denied the same and reported no defence.

6. Heard arguments. Perused the entire record.

3

7. Points for determination:- “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused persons for an offence under Sec. 457 and 380 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?”

8. POINT :-

Prosecution to support and substantiate its case, examined P.W.1 to

P.W.7. P.W.1, Chinthoju Srinivasa Chary deposed in his evidence that on 08.02.2018, at about 8.00 p.m., he closed his gold shop shetter which is located in front portion of his house situated at Miryalaguda road, Thipparthy. At about 5.30 a.m., one Gangi Ramesh residing adjacent to their house came to his house and informed him about opening of his shop shetter. Immediately searched for the DVR inside the house but could not found and further found that CC cameras which were placed in front of his house was broken and he saw the lock of shetter was broke open. On the search of shop, he found that some gold small ornaments of 16 gms and one kg silver articles was missing. Immediately he went to police station and gave a report.

9. P.W.2, Thota Sathi Reddy deposed in this evidence that on 09.02.2018, at about 10.00 a.m., police conducted panchanama at the house of P.W.1 in the presence of him and L.W.3/P.W.7. Police informed him about the theft occurred at the house of P.W.1 on the previous night and he saw all the things at the house of P.W.1 was in pell-mell condition and also found that the wiring of CC camera was disconnected. He gave the details of boundaries with persons of

P.W.1 house. The contents of panchanama was read over to him, he along with L.W.3 signed on the panchanama.

10. P.W.3, Chettupalli Bhasker, another panch witness deposed in his evidence that on 07.03.2019 at about 8.30 am., police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama at Shaligouraram circle office, 4

Nakrekal. In which accused No.1 confessed that he along with A.2 has committed theft of Rs.400/- from the gold shop at Thipparthy by break opened lock of shetter of gold shop and further confessed that he removed DVR from the gold shop and the same was thrown

Vemulapally canal, after he went to Dachepally village and spend the cash for his personal use. P.W.3 stated that he along with L.W.6 signed on the panchanama. P.W.3 reported that he can identified the person, confessed before him. Accused No.1 was not produced from the District Jail, Nalgonda. Therefore, accused counsel reported no objection if identity of the accused persons is taken as identified by the witness.

11. P.W.4, V. Surendher, Head Constable deposed in his evidence that on 08.02.2018, at about 8.00 hours, he received a report from

P.W.1, basing on it, he registered a case vide crime No. 12/2018 for an offence under Sc.457,380 IPC and issued FIR. He recorded the statement of L.W.1 and L.W.2 at police station. On the same day, he visited the house of L.w.1 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn the rough sketch and on the same day he handover CD file to L.W.10.

12. P.W.5, K.Sk. Ch. Meera Saheb, Circle Inspector of police deposed in his evidence that on 16.01.2019, at about 1.00 p.m., when I was at

Donakonda police station of podili circle, he received credible information about the property, immediately he along with SI of police of Donakonda police station and staff proceeded in their vehicle towards Bobbapuram junction and there met mediators L.W.7 and

L.W.8 at Donakonda bus stand and he explained panch witness about the receipt of information, he along with staff and panch witness went to Bobbabpuram junction at about 1.30 pm. When they were standing 5 they found 4 persons on 4 motor cycles and on seeing them they trying to escape but they chased them and taken in to the custody. On his enquiry the 4 people revealed their names as Ponnuri china

Sathyanandam/A1, Muli Panidra reddy, Mumin Saida, and Pudili

Jojibabu/A2.

13. P.W.6, K. Kastro, Investigating Officer deposed in his evidence that A.1 has confessed in Cr.No.27/2018 and 14/2018 of PS

Thipparthy. During the police custody, A.1 confessed that he has committed theft along with A2 from house with the shop of

Complainant of Rs. 400/- and DVR, later DVR was thrown in

Vemulapally canal and spend Rs.400/- for his personal use.

14. P.W.7, G. Saidulu, panch witnesses deposed in his evidence that on 09.02.2018, at about 10.00 a.m., police conducted panchanama in his presence at the house of P.W.1 and drawn the rough sketch. On eastern side of the house of P.W.1, the house of one Venkateshwarlu and on western side the house of one Ramesh is situated. On the southern side of P.W.1 house vacant open land and on north side road leading to Miryalguda. He saw all the things in the house of P.W.1 was in pell-mell condition and P.W.1 informed him but he lost 16 grams of gold, 1 kg silver, DVR and Rs.12,000 cash. The contents of the panchanama is read over to him, he along with P.W.2 signed on the panchanama.

15. P.W.8, D. Madhu, another Investigating officer deposed in his evidence that on 12.09.2018, he received CD file from P.W.4. On 08.03.2019, he collected the confession statement of A.1 from L.W.7, basing on it, he filed a requisition before this court for issuance of PT warrant against A.1 and A.2. On 19.03.2019, he produced the A.2

before this court on PT warrant. On 23.03.2019, he produced the A.1

6

before this court on PT warrant and send them to judicial remand.

After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

16. It is the contention of the prosecution that A.1 along with A.2 has committed theft of gold, silver and DVR from the house of P.W.1.

17. During the cross examination of P.W.1, it is elicited from P.W.1 that he drafted the report. P.W.2 admitted that he and P.W.1 belongs to the same village and his house is not situated near to the house of

P.W.1. P.W.2 stated that there are some residential house near the house of P.W.1. It is elicited from P.W.4 that he received complaint from P.W.1 on 09.02.2018 and recorded the statements of L.W.1 and

L.W.2 at about 10.00 a.m., and went to the scene of offence, it took about 15 to 20 minutes each for recording of the statements of L.W.1 and L.W.2.

18. On the appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution, it is the fact that the theft occurred at the gold shop of P.W.1 which is situated in front portion of P.W.1 house in which DVR and gold, silver was thefted. Basing on the confession of A.1 before P.W.6, the charge sheet has been filed. There are no eye witnesses to show that A.1 along with A.2 has committed theft of fold gold, silver and DVR at the gold shop of P.W.1. There are no circumstantial witnesses to show that A.1 and A.2 were present near to the house of P.W.1, at the time of theft.

P.W.1 has categorically deposed that small gold ornaments of 16 gms along with one kg silver articles were thefted. Police has not recovered any stolen property. P.W.1 has never stated that there is a theft of cash at his shop. But police has not recovered any of the gold and silver ornaments from the custody of A.1 and A.2. There is no iota evidence to show that A.1 along with A.2 has committed theft at the gold shop of P.W.1. Any confession made during the police 7 custody is inadmissible as per Sec.26 of Indian Evidence Act.

Therefore, this court is of considered view that basing on the confession of A.1, the accused person cannot be convicted.

19. In the light of above discussion, there is nothing on record to prove the guilty of the accused persons. Prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilty of the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubt.

20. In the result, A.1, A.2 found not guilty for an offence under Sec.

457, 380 IPC. Accordingly, A.1 and A.2 are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/sec. 457, 380 I.P.C. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand dismissed after expiry of appeal period. Accused No.1 is in judicial custody, the Superintendent, District Jail, Nalgonda is hereby directed to release the accused No.1 if he is not required in any other case.

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

pronounced by me in open Court on this 29th day of November, 2019.

FAC:Judl. First Class Magistrate (Spl. Mobile Court) Nalgonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Defence PW-1 Ch. Srinivasa Chary None PW-2 Thota Sathi Reddy PW-3 Chettupalli Bhasker PW-4 V. Surendher PW-5 K. Sk. Ch. Meera Saheb PW-6 K. Kastro PW-7 Gundeboina Saidulu PW-8 D. Madhu

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P-1 Complaint Ex.P-2 Panchanama Ex.P-3 FIR Ex.P-4 Rough sketch M.Os. Marked NIL

FAC:-Judl. First Class Magistrate, (Spl. Mobile Court) Nalgonda.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTARATE OF FIRST CLASS 

(SPL. MOBILE COURT) AT NALGONDA

Present: Smt. K. Rani, Spl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, (For Proh. & Excise Offences), Nallagonda FAC: Judl. First Class Magistrate (Spl. Mobile Court) Nalgonda

Dated this the 20th day of December, 2019

C.C. No. 416 of 2019

Between:­ The State of Telangana through S.H.O. P.S Nalgonda Rural.

…Complainant AND Ponnuri Chinna Sathyanandam @ Sathish @ Ramesh, S/o: Nagaiah, Age: 30 years, N/o: Athmakur Village Durgi Mandal of Guntur District of Andhra Pradesh State, now at Balaji Nagar, near Kesara, Hyderabad city. …Accused

This case is coming before me today for final disposal in the presence of APP for State and of Sri. T. Shekar, Free Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:­

JUDGMENT

1.The brief facts of the prosecution case as enumerated in charge sheet:­

2. The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Nalgonda Rural has filed charge sheet against the accused person alleging that complainant namely

Gopu Jalandhar Reddy has running Mahalakshmi Cars Consultancy since five years in front of Lakshmi Gardens situated in the limits of

Marriguda village. On 13.08.2018 night at about 8.30 hours, he locked his shop and went to his house. On the next day (i.e.) on 14.08.2018 morning 10.00 hours, he came to his shop in order to open the same and found that the lock of main gate was broke open and went to inside parking place, found that one Hundai Xcent model

Red colour car bearing no. TS­06­ED­4779 is missing and also lock of 2 office was broken. On 24.05.2018, he purchased said car from

Hundai show room for purpose of resale and parked in his shed. The worth of said car is Rs.2,80,000/­. Basing on the complaint, L.W.7 registered a case, issued FIR. During the course of investigation, L.W.7 has recorded the statement of L.W.1 and subsequently, he visited scene of offence, recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted scene of offence of panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of mediators. L.W.5 arrested the accused at Prakasham district and recovered the stolen property and hand over to L.W.12.

L.W.12 produced the accused person before this court on PT warrant and was sent for judicial remand. After completion of entire investigation, filed charge sheet.

2.This case is taken on file for the offence punishable U/s. 457 and 380 IPC against the accused person. On appearance of accused person copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/sec. 207

Cr.P.C.

3.The accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C and charges U/s.

457 and 380 of IPC were framed, read over and explained in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Accused reported that he got no means to engage an advocate, on the request of accused, Legal Aid counsel namely T. Shekar, Legal Aid counsel was allotted to accused for defence.

4.During the trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6.

5.The accused person was examined as contemplated U/sec. 313

Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence 3 of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused person denied the same and reported no defence.

6.Heard arguments. Perused the entire record.

7. Points for determination:­ “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused persons for an offence under Sec. 457 and 380 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?”

8. POINT :­

Prosecution to support and substantiate its case, examined

P.W.1 to P.W.6. P.W.1, Gopu Jalendhar Reddy deposed in his evidence that on 13.08.2018, at about 8.30 p.m., he closed his car consultancy and returned to his house. On the next day, when he went to the said car consultancy, he found front gate lock was break opened and found missing of Hondai XCENT red colour car bearing No.

TS­06­ED­4779 and immediately, he lodged a report to the police and his statement was recorded by the police. 

4

9.P.W.2, Devineni Venkat Reddy deposed in his evidence that on 14.08.2018 at about 12.00 to 1.00 p.m., police conducted panchanama at the car consultancy situated at Hyd road, near bus stage of

Marriguda village opposite to Laxmi gardens, Nalgonda and also drawn the rough sketch. He signed on the panchanama and rough sketch.

At the scene of offence, he found many cars and some unknown offenders tried to commit the theft of Swift car and found hammer marks at the door lock of the car. The offenders also break open the lock of room and taken the keys of car for committing of theft of cars. 

10.P.W.3, Chettipally Bhaskar deposed in his evidence that on 7.03.2019 at about 8.30 am., police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama at Shaligouraram police station, in which, accused confessed that he has committed theft of one car at a second hand car consultancy at Hyderabad road, Nalgonda and the same was driving to

Dachepally village. On the same day, the said car vide registered no.4779 was seized at tollgate, Madugalpally. He along with L.W.5 was present at the time of conduct of panchanama and they both signed on the panchanaama. Accused was not produced from District Jail,

Nalgonda and accused counsel has not taken any objection for recording of identification of the accused person as identified.

11.P.W.4, K. Murali Goud, Investigating officer deposed in his evidence that on 14.08.2018, he received complaint from P.W.1, basing on it, he registered a case vide crime No.160/2018 for an offence under

Sec. 457, 380 IPC and issued FIR and during the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of L.W.1 at police station and on the same day, he hand over the CD file to L.W.8.

5

12.P.W.5, K. Kastro, Investigating officer deposed in his evidence that accused has confessed in crime No.27/2018 and 14/2018 of PS

Thipparthy during the police custody about the theft of property in the present case before him and on 07.03.2019, he recovered stolen property of Hondai XCENT red colour vide registered bearing no.TS­06­

ED­4779 at Srinagar, Balaji nagar in front of the house of one Shaik Ali in which accused was previously resided on rent. During the seizure, they found 10 pieces of panchaloham idols in the dicky, which is a case property of Cr.no.129/2018 of PS Adavidevulapally and he has conducted seizure panchanama and seized the above Hondai in the presence of L.W.4 and L.W.5. 

13.P.W.6, S. Mahaboob Pasha, another investigating officer deposed in his evidence that on14.08.2018, he received CD file from P.W.4 and took up the investigation, as the part of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn the rough sketch. On 07.03.2019, he came to know that accused was taken into the police custody by Shaligouraram police wherein, accused admitted about the committing of theft of this case property and also the said police has recovered this case property. On 09.03.2019, he secured the case property from the Shaligouraram police and deposited into the court. On 03.04.2019, accused was produced on PT warrant and send him to judicial custody. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

14.During the cross examination of P.W.1, it is elicited that he scribed the report and admitted that his consultancy is situated near to the Hyderabad road and there is a float of public. It is elicited from

P.W.2 that he went to the scene of offence on the call of P.W1 as

P.W.1 is his relative, but denied the suggestion that he did not visited 6 the scene of offence and police never conducted any panchanama in his presence. The learned counsel for accused failed to elicit anything from the cross examination of P.W.3 and P.W.4. During the cross examination of P.W.5, it is elicited that he did not examine the owner of the house in front of which property was seized and denied that he false implicated accused person in the case.

15.It is the contention of prosecution that accused has committed theft of Hondai XCENT red colour car bearing No. TS­06­ED­4779, which was parked in car consultancy situated at Laxmi gardens,

Hyderabad road, Nalgonda.

16.On the appreciation of the prosecution evidence the theft of

Hondai XCENT red colour car bearing No. TS­06­ED­4779 is

undisputed fact. The stolen property is also recovered and the same was given to the P.W.1 for interim custody. P.W.2, panch witnesses has supported the prosecution case to the extent of conduct of scene of offence panchanama at the car consultancy of P.W.1, which is situated at Hyderabad road near bus stage of Marriguda village opposite to

Laxmi gardens, Nalgonda. P.W.3 categorically deposed that in his presence, police conducted confession panchanama, in which, accused has confessed that he has committed theft of second hand car at car consultancy situated at Hyderabad road, Nalgonda vide registration

No. 4779. As per the evidence of P.W.5 he has recovered the stolen property of Hondai Xcent red colony car at Srinagar, Balaji nagar in front of the house of one Shaik Ali, in which, accused was previously resided on rent and also seized 10 pieces of panchloham idols in the dickey pertaining to the case property of crime No.110/2019 of P.S.

Adavidevulapally. On confession of the accused person, the stolen 7 property was recovered, but not from the actual or constructive possession of the accused person. None of the panch witnesses has been examined in whose presence, the stolen property was recovered.

Only on the basing on the confession conducted by P.W.5, P.W.6 has produced the accused on execution of PT warrant and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. Though the stolen property is recovered by the P.W.5, non examination of any of the independent witnesses or panch witnesses effects the crux of the prosecution case.

There are no witnesses as to the commit of theft by the accused person at the car consultancy of P.W.1. The stolen property is not recovered in the presence of the accused person. This court is of considered view that basing on the confession made by the accused

before P.W.5 and recovery of the property in the absence of the accused

persons and also non examination of the confession panch witnesses, accused person cannot be convicted since there is no iota of evidence indicating that the accused is involved in the theft of stolen Hondai

Xcent and the same was recovered from his actual or constructive possession.

17.In the light of above discussion, there is nothing on record to prove the guilty of the accused person. Prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilty of the accused person, beyond reasonable doubt.

Hence, accused person is entitled for benefit of doubt.

18.In the result, accused is found not guilty for an offence U/sec.

457, 380 I.P.C. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

Bail bonds, if any, shall stand dismissed after expiry of appeal period.

The un­marked case property already given for interim custody shall hold good after the expiry of appeal period. The Superintendent, 8

District Jail, Nalgonda is hereby directed to release the accused if he is not required in any other case.

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

pronounced by me in open Court on this 20th day of December, 2019.

FAC:Judl. First Class Magistrate (Spl. Mobile Court) Nalgonda. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Defence PW­1 G. Jalendhar Reddy None PW­2 D. Venkat Reddy PW­3 Ch. Bhaskar PW­4 K. Murali Goud PW­5 K. Kastro PW­6 S. Mahaboob Basha

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P­1 Complaint Ex.P­2 Photographs Ex.P­3 Signature of P.W.2 on panchanama Ex.P­4 Signature of P.W.2 on rough sketch Ex.P­5 A portion of attested copy of panchanama Ex.P­6 FIR.

M.Os. Marked NIL

FAC:-Judl. First Class Magistrate, (Spl. Mobile Court) Nalgonda.

Page 1 of 6 JCC.No.87 of 2019

BEFORE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD: AT NALGONDA

(Dated on this the 21st day of June, 2021)

Present: 1. Smt.V.Madhavi Latha Prl. Magistrate, Nalgonda

2. Sri M.Raji Reddy Social Worker Member

J.C.C.No.87 of 2019

Between: The State of A.P., through The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S., Narkatpally …Prosecution AND

Orsu Mahesh, S/o.Venkatesh, Age:15 years, Occ:Tractor driver, N/o.Kesaram village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri District, R/o.Ammanabole village and Narketpally Mandal. …Children in conflict with law

This case is coming before me on this day for disposal in the presence of Asst. P.P. for prosecution and of Sri A.Venkat Reddy, Advocate for Children in conflict with law and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub Inspector of Police, Narkatpally filed charge sheet against the CCL in Cr.No.274/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(d) of PDPP Act, Sections 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 of MV Act and Section 20(1) of Mines and

Minerals Act.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the CCL in the company of others was in a habit of committing theft of sand. They used to lift sand in their tractors illegally at Ammanabole stream situated at the outskirts of the village without having valid permission from the concerned authorities. Knowing well that the government has banned lifting of sand from the streams and other water canals to save ground

Page 2 of 6 JCC.No.87 of 2019 water level, the CCL and two others, on 29-11-2017 lifted sand from

Ammanabole stream and when they were transporting the sand in two tractors, LW9/K.Govardhan along with his staff stopped them. On their enquiry, they confessed that they were transporting sand without valid license. Therefore, by securing the presence of LWs 4 and 5/Sripathi

Rakesh and K.Yadagiri, LW9/K.Govardhan has conducted panchanama, seized the samples of sand, recorded their confessional statements, brought them along with sand loaded tractors to the police station and basing on the said panchanama he has registered a case in crime

No.274/2017 and issued FIR.

During the course of his investigation, LW9/K.govardhan has examined and recorded the statements of LWs 1 to 3/D.Veeraiah,

Ma.Faheem and Venkateshwarlu, issued notice to the CCL under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and released him, thereby directing him to appear before the Board on receipt of summons. On completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against the CCL for the offences punishable under

Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(2)(d) of PDPP Act, Sections 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 of M.V.Act and Section 20(1) of Mines and

Minerals Act. Hence the prosecution case in nutshell.

3.The case was taken on file against the CCL for the offences punishable under Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(2)(d) of

PDPP Act, Sections 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 of M.V.Act and Section 20(1) of Mines and Minerals Act.

4. On appearance of the CCL, copies of the case documents were furnished to him, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Page 3 of 6 JCC.No.87 of 2019

5.The CCL was examined under Section 14 of Juvenile Justice Act and the substance of accusation for the offences punishable under

Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(2)(d) of PDPP Act, Sections 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 of M.V.Act and Section 20(1) of Mines and

Minerals Act was read over and explained to him in Vernacular, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-5.

7. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the CCL was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to him, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the learned APP and the counsel appearing for the CCL.

Perused the material available on record.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the CCL for the offences punishable under Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(2)(d) of PDPP Act, Sections 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 of M.V.Act and Section 20(1) of Mines and Minerals Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT :

a) To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 4.

PW1 is the police constable and PW4 is the investigating officer. Both

PWs 1 and 4 said to have detected the crime. PWs 2 and 3 are the panch witnesses to the scene of offence-cum-confession-cum-seizure panchanama.

Page 4 of 6 JCC.No.87 of 2019

b) Coming to the evidence proper, PWs 1 and 4 deposed consistently.

They stated, they along with LWs 2 and 3/PC and HG of P.S.Narketpally together went to Ammanabole village for patrolling duty, where they noticed two tractors bearing Nos.TS-05-UC-4783 and TS-05-UC-4034 transporting sand. On noticing the same, immediately they stopped the

CCL and one another namely J.Mahesh, who are the drivers of the said tractors and enquired them. On their enquiry, they stated that they were transporting sand illegally without valid licence. Therefore, by securing the presence of PWs 2 and 3, PW4 has conducted panchanama seized the samples of sand and brought the tractors with sand to the police station. PW4 has stated, he also brought the CCL and J.Mahesh to the police station, that basing on the said panchanama he has registered the case suo-motto, issued FIR, examined and recorded the statements of

LWs 2 and 3/PCs of P.S. Narketpally, issued notice the CCL under

Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and released him, thereby directing him to appear before the Hon’ble Juvenile Justice Board, on receipt of summons and on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the CCL for the offences punishable under Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code,

Section 3(2)(d) of PDPP Act, Sections 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 of M.V.Act and Section 20(1) of Mines and Minerals Act.

c) PWs 2 and 3 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence-cum- confession-cum-seizure panchanama, in whose presence, PW4 stated to have conducted panchanama, seized the samples of sand, recorded the confession panchanama of the CCL, but both PWs 2 and 3 did not supported the prosecution case, they stated that the police did not conducted panchanama in their presence and that their signatures were

Page 5 of 6 JCC.No.87 of 2019 obtained in the police station, when they went to the police station on their personal works.

d) Thus, the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 lacks corroboration from the independent evidence of PWs 2 and 3. It is true, PWs 1 and 4 deposed consistently supporting the prosecution case, but it is also to be noted equally that both of them are police personnel and interested witnesses in this case. This court should be cautious in accepting the evidence of

PWs 1 and 4, who are the police personnel, who alleged to have detected the crime. Unless their versions get corroboration from the independent witnesses, much reliance cannot be placed on their versions, but in this case, the evidence from the independent witnesses is lacking supporting the prosecution case. PWs 2 and 3, who are the independent panch witnesses did not supported the prosecution case. This court is not inclined to accept the evidence of PWs 1 and 4, which is not corroborated by the independent panch witnesses. Moreover, admittedly in this case, no independent person lodged complaint with the police, but the police themselves registered the case suo-moto. It is a settled law that the police officer who detected the offence and arrested the accused gave a report which was registered as FIR, same officer investigated the case and filed the charge sheet and conviction based on such investigation cannot be sustained. In this case, PW4 himself registered the case suo- moto and did the investigation and laid charge sheet

11. Therefore, for the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the CCL beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(2)(d) of PDPP Act, Sections 3/181,

Page 6 of 6 JCC.No.87 of 2019 5/180, 146/196 of M.V.Act and Section 20(1) of Mines and Minerals Act and therefore the CCL is entitled to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.

12. In the result, the CCL is not found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(2)(d) of PDPP Act,

Sections 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 of M.V.Act and Section 20(1) of Mines and Minerals Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under

Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds, if any, shall stands cancelled.

(Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21st day of June, 2021).

Principal Magistrate

Juvenile Justice Board Nalgonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 : D.Veeraiah PW2 : S.Rakesh PW3 : K.Yadagiri PW4 : K.Goverdhan

FOR DEFENCE: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW2 on scene of offence cum seizure panachanama Ex.P2: Signature of PW3 on panchanama Ex.P3: CC of Scene of offence cum confession panchanama Ex.P4: CC of FIR Ex.P5: Sand report, dt.04-12-2017

FOR DEFENCE: None

MATERIAL OBJECTS

----Nil---

Principal Magistrate

Juvenile Justice Board Nalgonda