Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 20171 Bhuvanagiri.
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
AT BHUVANAGIRI
Present: Smt.V.Madhavi Latha, Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhuvanagiri.
Dated this the 07th day of October, 2024
SC.No. 41 of 2017
Name of the Complainant TheStateofTelangana,throughthe Circle Inspector of Police, Yadagirigutta Circle.
Name of the AccusedA-1: Vanapakula Rambabu @ Azad @ Eshwar, S/o.Phakeer, age:35 years, Occ:Auto Driver, R/o.Vengalrao Colony, New Palvancha, Khammam District., Present at #1-9-146, Road No.6, DwarakapuriColony,Backsideof Dilsukhnagar Bus Depot, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, N/o.Ramanujagudem Village, Gundala Mandal, Khammam District.
A-2: Pittala Srinivas @ Ramu, S/o.Somaiah,age:38years, Occ:Agriculture,R/o.Mahamoodpatnam Village, Kesamudram Mandal, Warangal District.
Charge U/Section25(1A) of Indian Arms Act
Crime No.138 of 2011.
Plea of the accusedNot guilty
Finding of the CourtFound guilty
Sentence or OrderIn the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 20172 Bhuvanagiri.
the offence punishable under Section 25(1A) of Indian Arms Act and accordingly, they are convicted of the same under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two (2) months. The remand period shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. MO.4 which was returned back to its owner as per the orders of the learned Addl. JMFC, Bhongir in
Crl.M.P.No.3773/2012 vide C.P.No.230/2012
dated 17.08.2012, vide release order in Dis
No.1479/2012 dated 18.08.2012 is hereby made absolute, after expiry of appeal period. MO.1 (one pistol), MO.2 (one country made tapancha) and MO.3 (10 live rounds) shall be sent to Armory as per law and procedure after the appeal time is over. The accused is appraised of their right to prefer appeal and when questioned about means to engage counsel, they stated that they has got sufficient means to engage a counsel to prefer appeal.
Prosecution conducted by Sri.P.Satyanarayana, Addl.Public Prosecutor.
Defence conducted bySmt.Kalakuntla Jaya, counsel for accused/A1
Sri.S.Jaipal Reddy, counsel for accused/A2
This case is received from the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Alair vide PRC.No.08 of 2013 against the
accused/A1 and A2.
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 20173 Bhuvanagiri.
This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Satyanarayana, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and of Smt.Kalakuntla Jaya, counsel for accused/A1 and Sri.S.Jaipal Reddy, counsel for accused/A2 and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
: J U D G M E N T :
The Circle Inspector of Police, Yadagirigutta Circle filed charge sheet against the accused/A1 and A2 in crime No.138 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 25(1A) of Indian Arms Act.
2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows:-
Accused/A1 is a native of Ramanujagudem village, Gundala
Mandal, Khammam District and his father works as a Man Mazdoor at KTPS, Kothagudem, and his mother is a housewife. A1 is the eldest of four children, with three married sisters. He studied up to the 7th Class and later worked as an auto driver. In the year 1995, he married to one Upendra, with whom he has two daughters. In the year 1998, he purchased an auto to earn his livelihood, but sold it in the year 2000. In the year 2001-2002, A1 was engaged in the business of trading teakwood. During this period, he became a member of the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), a left-
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 20174 Bhuvanagiri.
wing organization, under the leadership of Maineni Mohan, who served as the Divisional Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI (M)] for the Palvancha Division. One M.Mohan, who was also the editor of a weekly magazine titled "Sangha Mithra," suffered financial loss due to the publication, which prompted him and others, including A1, to form an unlawful organization named "Praja Sena Party (Dalam)" in 2002. A1, along with other accused individuals, namely, Jinka Venkanna, Suresh, Kathula Nagaraju, and
Yellaiah from Bethampudi village, Tekulapalli Mandal, Khammam
District, and Ramu, Upender, and Paramanandam from Mutyalapadu village, Tekulapalli Mandal, Khammam District, as well as Cheema
Venkanna of Komararam village, Ilandu Mandal, Khammam District, conspired to engage in illegal activities. This group procured four single-bore firearms, olive green uniforms, and kit bags and went underground for a period of four months. During this time, they extorted substantial amounts of money from businessmen, specifically Bodapudi Ramesh, a contractor and hotelier in
Palvancha Town, Bhaskara Rao, a contractor affiliated with the
Railways, and other members of the public. Subsequently, A1 and his associates, with the exception of Cheema Venkanna, who managed to abscond, were apprehended and remanded to judicial
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 20175 Bhuvanagiri.
custody. Cheema Venkanna evaded arrest and later joined the "Praja Prathighatana Party (PPP)." After being released from judicial custody in 2006, A1 resumed his criminal activities by re- establishing contact with Cheema Venkanna. A1, in collaboration with his close relative, Chemma Suri, and another associate,
Choppadandi Radhakrishna, continued to operate on behalf of the
Prathighatana Party, targeting individuals for extortion. A notable instance occurred when A1, in concert with Chemma Suri and
Choppadandi Radhakrishna, abducted a clerk employed by a contractor working for the Housing Board at Manugur and extorted a substantial sum of money. In this case, Chemma Suri and
Choppadandi Radhakrishna were apprehended by Manugur Police, while A1 and other accomplices managed to evade arrest. In the year 2007, during an agitation organized by the Madiga Reservation
Porata Samiti (M.R.P.S.), A1, along with other individuals, namely,
Perla Sham, Adhuri Vijay, Vempalli China Bhadraiah, Tadwai
Bhaskar, Tappetla Mutyam, and Bommeria Mutyam, engaged in acts of arson. They set fire to an electrical sub station at Kothulagutta and a Road Transport Corporation (RTC) bus in Manchukonda village,
Khammam Rural and Urban areas, respectively. In connection with these incidents, A1 and his associates were apprehended by the
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 20176 Bhuvanagiri.
police and remanded to judicial custody. In 2007, after being released from custody, A1 shifted his political alignment by joining the Praja Rajyam Party (PRP) from the M.R.P.S., which led to an altercation between rival political groups. During this melee, A1, along with an individual named Gurram Srinu, was arrested by the
Khammam Urban Police and remanded once again. In 2009, A1, along with his brother-in-law, Kampati Ravibabu, son of Venkaiah, and other associates, namely, Gurram Srinu, Vanapakula Ramu,
Vanapakula Prabhakar, and Bommerla Narayana, reorganized their unlawful activities by forming the "Praja Prathighatana Dalam."
They procured four long air pistols, two small air pistols, and olive green uniforms with kit bags. This group went underground for a period of two to three months, during which time they extorted large sums of money from businessmen, including the owners of
Kushi Bar shop, Laxmipuram Petrol Bunk, Palvancha Petrol Bunk, and KSM Petrol Bunk in the Palvancha area. While most of the associates were arrested and remanded to judicial custody, A1 once again managed to escape apprehension. Later in 2009, A1, armed with an air pistol and assisted by his cousin, Vanapakula Ramu, and an individual named Appala Kotiswar alias Koti, attempted to extort an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the Rupa Paper Company at
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 20177 Bhuvanagiri.
Narsampet. While the company agreed to pay Rs.25,000/-, A1 extorted an initial sum of Rs.5,000/-. However, while attempting to collect the remaining Rs.20,000/-, A1 and his accomplices were arrested by Narsampet Police. In June, 2010, A1 along with his relative, Kondru Ramesh, a resident of Rompedu village, Illandu
Mandal, and Saidulu, a resident of Gouraram village, Bayyaram
Mandal, Khammam District, as well as two other individuals (friends of Saidulu), were traveling in a jeep owned by Kondru Ramesh, armed with an air pistol, with the intention of extorting money from a private financier. However, they met with an accident at
Somaram Thanda, and the villagers apprehended them, subsequently handing them over to the Torrur Police. In this instance, an air pistol was seized, and a case under Crime No.
150/2010, under Section 25(A) of the Arms Act, was registered at
Torrur Police Station. Upon release from jail in the aforementioned cases, A1 motivated by the desire to acquire easy money, conspired with others to commit a series of offences in the jurisdictions of various police stations in the state of Andhra Pradesh, acting with common intention. In furtherance of this conspiracy, on 04.12.2011 around 03:00 hours, A1 and A2 were found traveling on a Hero
Honda CBZ motorcycle without a registration number, proceeding
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 20178 Bhuvanagiri.
from Hyderabad to Kesamudram. They were in possession of two illegal, unlicensed fire arms with ten rounds of ammunition, which were concealed in a rexin bag. At Jeedikal X-road on National
Highway-163, they were apprehended in possession of these weapons, which serve as material evidence. Consequently, A1 and
A2 are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 25(1A) of the Indian Arms Act for the illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
3.Basing on the said panchanama, LW.1/N.Venkateshwarlu, he registered a suo-moto case in Cr.No.138/2011 under Section 25(1A) of Indian Arms Act and issued F.I.R. During the course of his investigation, he has examined and recorded the statements of
LWs.2 to 5/G.V.Mohan Rao, P.Ravinddar, S.Narsaiah and G.Krishna.
Later, he affected the arrest of accused/A1 and A2, recorded their confessional statements in the presence of two mediators i.e.,
LWs.6 and 7/Morigadi Venkatesh and Poreddi Srinivas and seized two illegal unlicensed country made weapons i.e., one Pistol and one Tapancha along with 10 rounds and one Hero Honda CBA Bike without registration number from their possession under a cover of panchanama. On interrogation, accused/A1 confessed that “he was
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 20179 Bhuvanagiri.
engaged in various occupations, including auto driving and teakwood business, and became affiliated with the Democratic
Youth Federation of India (DYFI) under the leadership of M. Mohan.
In 2002, he co-founded the "Praja Sena Party Dalam," during which he and his associates unlawfully procured firearms, extorted significant sums from local businessmen, and subsequently faced arrest, except for one member who evaded capture. Post-release in 2006, the accused reconnected with Cheema Venkanna, participating in further criminal activities, including the kidnapping of a contractor's clerk for extortion, resulting in additional arrests.
During the M.R.P.S. agitation in 2007, he was implicated in acts of vandalism, leading to his arrest alongside other co-conspirators.
Following his association with the Praja Rajyam Party, he was again arrested due to violent confrontations. In 2009, the accused, with several associates, formed the Praja Prathighatana Dalam, engaging in extortion with procured fire arms and subsequently evading arrest after committing further offences. His criminal activities continued upto 2010, culminating in an attempted extortion from a private financer, which resulted in an accident and his apprehension along with fire arms in his possession. Multiple criminal charges, including extortion under IPC and violations of the
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201710 Bhuvanagiri.
Arms Act, have been filed against him. Following his release from jail, the accused, in conspiracy with his associates, committed multiple offences under the pretense of being members of "Praja
Prathighatana." After his release from jail, the accused, along with his associates, engaged in numerous crimes while pretending to be members of "Praja Prathighatana." Starting in January 2011, he kidnapped a granite quarry worker and extorted ₹50,000 from the owner. He then attempted to extort ₹50,000 from Dr. Koteshwar
Rao, leading to one associate's arrest. The accused went on to extort amounts ranging from ₹2,000 to ₹50,000 from various businesses, including a brick factory, petrol bunks, and shops, using threats and firearms. In July 2011, he demanded ₹200,000 from the
principal of a school and later stolen money and petrol from a
kirana shop. He also robbed a couple of gold ear rings and continued his extortion spree with illegal fire arms, collecting ₹30,000 from a crushing machine operator and various sums from other businesses. Later, on 04.12.2011, he was caught by Alair
Police while preparing for more crimes and was found with unlicensed weapons, eventually confessing to his extensive criminal activities and the location of stolen property.” On interrogation, accused/A2 confessed that “the accused/A2 is residing in
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201711 Bhuvanagiri.
Mahamoodpatnam, Kesamudram, Warangal district, is a Mudiraj by caste and engaged in agriculture. After completing his education upto the 10th grade, he learned tractor driving and acquired a tractor for his livelihood and he was married in 2000, and he along with his wife i.e., Yashoda have two sons. However, due to a growing addiction to alcohol and gambling, he incurred significant debts and struggled to maintain his vices with limited income.
Seeking assistance, he confided in a villager named Ravi, who introduced him to Koti from Narsampet, leading to an association with Vanapakula Rambabu @ Azad @ Eshwar. In January, 2011, they conspired to commit crimes together. Following Rambabu's invitation, they met at Dornakal Railway Station and, under the influence of Ravi Babu, proceeded to extort Rs.50,000/- from RMP
Dr.Koteshwar Rao in Karepalli, brandishing an air pistol. They were later interrupted by the Karepalli Police, allowing them to flee. The accused confirmed the details of his involvement, corroborating the confessional statement of co-accused Vanapakula Rambabu.” Upon the confession of A1, he led police to his residence at #1-9-146,
Dwarakapuri Colony, Hyderabad, where stolen items were seized, including gold Pusthela Thadu and ear tops linked to respective cases under IPC. Both A1 and A2 were medically evaluated and
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201712 Bhuvanagiri.
presented to the Tahsildar for judicial custody. On 05.12.2012, they were produced before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Bhongir and remanded to District Jail, Nalgonda. Further, LW.1 handed over the CD-file to LW.8/K.Krishna Kishore for further investigation. During the course of his investigation, on 04.01.2012, he received a Forwarding Letter from the Sub-Divisional Police
Officer, Bhongir (C.No.3/FSL/SDPO-B/2012, dt:03.01.2012), prepared the seized material objects from A1, which included one pistol, one
Tapancha, and ten live rounds (five for each weapon) to forward the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Hyderabad.
Whereas the FSL examination concluded that the items included a country-made pistol, a country-made SBBL pistol, and live cartridges, which were successfully test-fired. Subsequently, on 04.04.2012, he requisitioned the Superintendent of Police,
Nalgonda, to seek prosecution orders against A1 and A2 under the
Indian Arms Act, obtained these orders from the District Collector’s office on 15.05.2012 vide Proceedings No.C2/5594/2012,
dt:25.04.2012). On collecting FSL report, dt:29.03.2012, permission
proceedings, dt:25.04.2012 and on completion of investigation,
LW.8 filed charge sheet against the accused/A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 25(1A) of Indian Arms Act.
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201713 Bhuvanagiri.
4.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alair has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 25(1A) of Indian Arms Act against the accused/A1 and A2 and registered the case as PRC
No.08 of 2013. Copies of the case documents were furnished to the accused/A1 and A2, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
This case was committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Alair, vide committal order dated 14.03.2016 under Section 209 Cr.P.C to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Nalgonda. The Hon’ble
Sessions Court registered it as S.C.No.41 of 2017 and made over
the same to this Court for trial and disposal as per law.
5.On hearing the accused/A1 and A2, this court framed charge against them for the offence punishable under Section 25(1A) of
Indian Arms Act. The charge was read over and explained to them in vernacular, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.At the time of trial, prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 6, got marked Exs.P1 to P4. Material Objects MOs.1 to 4 are marked.
7.After closure of trial, the accused/A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating evidence
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201714 Bhuvanagiri.
of prosecution in question form to them, for which they denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.
8.Heard arguments of both sides.
9.Now the point for determination is:
“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused/A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 25(1A) of Indian Arms Act, beyond reasonable doubt?”
10.POINT :
a)To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6.
PW1 is the Sub Inspector of Police who said to have detected the crime. PWs 2 and 3 are the police personnel who said to have assisted PW1 in detecting the crime. PWs 4 and 5 are the panch witnesses for the confessional-cum-seizure panchanama and PW6 is the investigating officer.
b)Unfolding the prosecution case, PW1 testified that on 04.12.2011 around 2.00 a.m. when they were conducting vehicle checking at Jedikal cross road, Alair, at about 3.00 a.m. they found a two wheeler proceeding from Hyderabad towards Warangal in suspicious circumstances, they stopped the said vehicle and found
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201715 Bhuvanagiri.
A1 and A2 proceeding on the said bike. On searching the bike, they found two weapons i.e., one tapancha and one pistol along with 10 live rounds. Immediately they brought them to the police station and recorded the confessional statements before the mediators/PWs 4 and 5 and seized the said weapons under a cover of panchanama. He also seized one pair of gold ear studs and one gold chain (pustheli thradu) from them under a cover of panchanama later. Basing on the said panchanama, he registered a case in crime No.138/2011 for the offence punishable under
Section 25(1A) of Arms Act and issued FIR.
c)PW2 deposed that on 03.12.2011 due to the encounter of
Mavoist leader Kishan Ji, he along with LW2/ASI, PW1/SI, LW3/HC and LW5/PC went for vehicle checking at Jidikal cross roads, Alair. In the mid night around 2.30 a.m. when they were conducting vehicle checking duty, they found two persons coming on a bike from
Hyderabad towards Warangal. When they tried to stop the bike, they tried to escape from them and proceeded forward.
Immediately, they followed their bike and caught hold the said two persons. The said bike is Hero Honda CBZ vehicle without number.
They found two pistols with them in a rexin bag of the bike. On
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201716 Bhuvanagiri.
their enquiry, they did not show any license for having custody of two pistols with them. They revealed their names as A1 and A2.
They brought them to the police station, Alair.
d) PW3 deposed that on 03.12.2011, on the instructions of
PW1/SI, he along with Lws 2 and 3/ASI and HC and PW2 went to
Jidikal cross roads, Alair for vehicle checking duty. In the mid night around 2.30 to 3.00 a.m. they found a bike on which two persons were traveling from Hyderabad towards Warangal. As they were found suspicious, they took them into custody and found two pistols with them. They revealed their names as A1 and A2. They brought them to the police station.
e) PW4 is the panch witness for the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of the accused. He deposed that in the year 2011, in the early hours around 3.00 a.m., the police made a phone call and asked him to come to the police station, Alair and conducted panchanama. He has seen A1 and A2 in the police station, and they confessed the commission of the offence and in pursuance of their confession, the police shown some weapons on the table i.e., pistol, tapancha and 10 rounds. They also shown a bike to her. After
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201717 Bhuvanagiri.
reducing the panchanama in writing, they obtained his signatures on the panchanama.
f) PW4 is another panch witness for the confession-cum-seizure panchanama. He deposed that on 04.12.2011 in the earlier hours around 3.00 a.m. the police made a phone call and asked him to come to P.S.Alair and conducted panchanama. He has seen A1 and
A2 in the police station and they confessed the commission of the offence and in pursuance of their confession, the police seized one pistol, tapancha and 10 rounds along with one CBZ bike from A1.
After reducing the panchanama in writing, they obtained his signatures on the panchanama.
g) PW6 is the investigating officer. He deposed that on 05.12.2011 he has taken up the investigation in this case from
PW1, verified the investigation done by him and found it on proper lines. During the course of his investigation, he has forwarded the material objects to FSL for expert opinion and received FSL report.
He has obtained permission for prosecution of the case, from the
District Collector, Nalgonda. He has deposited the case property
before the court. On completion of investigation, he filed charge
sheet against A1 and A2.
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201718 Bhuvanagiri.
h) Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, PWs 1 to 3 in one voice stated that on 04.12.2011 around 2.00 a.m. when they were conducting vehicle checking at Jedikal cross road, Alair, they found A1 and A2 proceeding on the bike from Hyderabad towards
Warangal, they found them proceeding in suspicious circumstances, therefore they stopped the said vehicle and on searching the bike, they found Mos 1 to 3. Immediately they brought them to the police station and recorded their confessional statements before the mediators/PWs 4 and 5. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is corroborating with each other. PWs 4 and 5 are figured as panch witnesses for the confession and recovery panchanama of ammunition from the possession of the accused. The evidence of
PWs 2 and 3 is to the effect that the police called them to the police station on 04.12.2011 around 3.00 a.m. through phone call, they have seen A1 and A2 in the police station and they confessed the commission of the offence in their presence and in pursuance of their confession, the police seized Mos 1 to 3 in their presence. As such, the independent witnesses like PWs 4 and 5 lent credence.
The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 that the accused were carrying ammunition secured corroboration from the independent evidence of PWs 4 and 5. Nothing is elicited from PWs 1 to 5 by the evidence
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201719 Bhuvanagiri.
in their cross examination, so as to impeach their credibility. There is nothing on record to discard the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, so also the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 as regards the confession of the accused and seizure of Mos 1 to 3 from them.
i) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that
PWs 1 to 3 are the police personnel and they are the interested witnesses to the case of the prosecution and no independent witness lodged any report before the police. It is according to PW1 there is a MPDO office and a hospital nearby the scene of offence, but the police did not chose to secure anyone from the MPDO office or the hospital as mediators to the panchanama and instead they conducted panchanama in the police station by calling PWs 4 and 5 who are their stock witnesses. The evidence of PW4 is clear that he do not know whether he signed on blank or written papers and he do not know its contents. This itself shows that a false case has been foisted against the accused persons. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence they may be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.
j)On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that, since it was in the odd hours around 2.00 a.m.
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201720 Bhuvanagiri.
there cannot be any independent witnesses available to secure as mediators and though there is MPDO office nearby the scene of offence, it works in day time and in the mid night no one will be there in the office and the hospital near the scene of offence is the
Public health care centre and we cannot expect the presence of much staff or the doctor during such odd hours. The evidence of
PWs 1 to 3 and 6 is corroborating with the independent evidence of
PWs 4 and 5. There is no rule that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of the police officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy and no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officials merely because they belong to police force and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2016(1)
ALD (Cri) (SC) 233 in between Bal Dev Singh vs. State of Haryana, wherein it is held at para Nos.8,9, 10 and 11 as follows :
“Para No.8 : On the midnight of 16/17.09.1990, when the police party was holding Nakabandi on both sides of kacha path leading to village Kingre from G.T. Road, the tractor was intercepted and the driver of the tractor-appellant was apprehended under suspicion at odd hours of midnight, prosecution cannot be expected to examine independent witnesses. In his cross examination, PW1 stated that two persons had come at the place of Nakabandi in the mid night and they were asked to join, but they refused to join. In the circumstances of the case, when there is satisfactory explanation for non-examination of independent witnesses, conviction can be based solely on the testimony of official
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201721 Bhuvanagiri.
witnesses if evidence of such official witnesses inspires confidence.
Para No.9 : The accused sought to place reliance on the decision in Gyan Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 658, wherein this court observed that conviction cannot be based on uncorroborated testimony of official witnesses. But this judgment has no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the case as in Gyan Singh’s case (supra), this court focused on the need to have independent witnesses in the odd hours in night as at the distance of 100 years there was habitation but in the instant case no such material is brought on record to show that there was human habitation in the nearby place.
Para No.10 : There is no legal proposition that evidence of police officials unless supported by independent evidence is unworthy of acceptance. Evidence of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to police force and interested in the investigation and their desire to see the success of the case. Prudence however requires that the evidence of police officials who are interested in the outcome of the result of the case needs to be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated. Mere fact that they are police officials does not by itself give rise to any doubt about their creditworthiness.
Para No.11 : Observing that no infirmity is attached to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force and that conviction can be based on the testimony of police officials in Girja Prasad (dead) by LRs. vs. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SCW 5589 = (2007) 7 SCC 625, it was held as under : “[In our judgment, the above proposition does not lay down correct law on the point. It is well-settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. It is quite possible of complainant or a police official but is not the law that police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201722 Bhuvanagiri.
police officials merely because they belong to police force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of police officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence”.
k)The ratio laid down in the above decision is that merely because they are the police officials, their evidence cannot be brushed aside in toto, if their evidence is reliable and trustworthy, even in the absence of corroboration in material particulars by other independent evidence, their evidence can be relied and conviction can be based on such evidence. In the case on hand, apart from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6, who are the police officials, the independent evidence of PWs 4 and 5 is also available on record, which corroborates with the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6.
l)No doubt true, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the accused, no independent witness lodged police report against the accused, but it is pertinent to note that it is in the mid-night the police noticed A1 and A2 carrying ammunition and proceeding on the bike from Hyderabad towards Warangal when they were
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201723 Bhuvanagiri.
conducting vehicle checking and on being found suspicious, they tried to stop A1 and A2 and as they moved further, without stopping, they followed them and stopped them and on checking them, they found ammunition with them. In such circumstances, there cannot be notice of the same to any independent person to bring it to the notice of the police and file a police report against the accused. PW2 stated that while they were stopping their bike,
A1 and A2 moved ahead without stopping the bike and therefore, they were made to follow their bike and caught hold them. Moving ahead without stopping their bike, though the police were trying to stop them clearly establishes that they have knowledge that they were carrying prohibited objects.
m) The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is clear that they found the accused carrying ammunition in odd hours around 2.00 a.m. No doubt true,
PW1 stated in his cross examination that there is a MPDO office in 15 meters from the scene of offence and there is also a government hospital 200 to 300 meters away from the scene of offence. As rightly submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, one cannot expect the presence of any one in the MPDO officer in the mid-night around 2.00 a.m. and the government hospital nearby the scene of
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201724 Bhuvanagiri.
offence is the public health care centre and it is not a big hospital to expect the presence of much staff or doctors in such odd hours. As it was around 2.00 a.m. naturally no one will be there in the scene of offence, on the road. Therefore, not conducting panchanama in the scene of offence itself and non-securing the mediators in the scene of offence itself, cannot be doubted.
n)PWs 1 to 4, the mediators to the confession-cum-seizure panchanama stated that Mos 1 to 3 were seized in their presence in pursuance of the confession made by the accused. No doubt true, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the accused, PW4 stated in his cross examination that the police obtained his signatures on some papers, but he cannot say whether he affixed his signatures on blank papers or on written papers and he cannot say as to how many signatures he has affixed on those papers, but he signed on so many papers and he do not know the recitals of the said panchanama, but that does not by itself mean that MOs 1 to 3 were not seized from the accused in his presence and his evidence is discarded in toto. The offence took place in the year 2011 and the police filed charge sheet in the year 2012 and the evidence of
PW4 is taken up in the year 2024, which is after a lapse of more
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201725 Bhuvanagiri.
than 12 years. We cannot expect the witness to disclose all the facts with mathematical niceties after such a long lapse of 12 years. Be that as it may, the evidence of another mediator/PW5 clinchingly establishes that the accused persons confessed the commission of the offence and in pursuance of their confession, the police seized Mos 1 to 3 in his presence from their possession. In his cross examination also PW5 has stated clearly that the police prepared the panchanama in his presence and after it was reduced into writing, they read over the panchanama to him. The police typed the panchanama. The accused narrated the facts and the same is typed by the police and it took one hour to them to type the panchanama. He denied the suggestion that no such panchanama was conducted in his presence and that he is the stock witness to the police. For the reason that the police called the witness over phone to secure them as the mediators, they cannot be titled as stock witnesses. In the mid-night one cannot expect the presence of anyone nearby the vicinity of the police station to secure as mediators.
o)Further, nowhere the accused has taken defence that PW1 is not entitled to investigate the case. No suggestion is given to PW1
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201726 Bhuvanagiri.
with regard to the same. No where it is suggested to PW1 with regard to the prejudice caused to the accused, if PW1 registered the case and recorded the statements of the witnesses. In the absence of the same, the contention of the counsel for the accused that the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution, cannot be accepted. There is nothing on record to discard the evidence of
PWs 1 to 3, so also the independent evidence of PWs 4 and 5.
Merely because PWs 1 to 3 and 5 are the police officials, their evidence cannot be doubted and discarded, However, unlike the case referred above, it is not that there is no independent witnesses in this case. Apart from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, the evidence of the independent witnesses PWs 4 and 5 is available on record, which stood corroborated with the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 about the seizure of Mos 1 to 3 from the possession of the accused in their presence. The evidence on record is cogent, reliable, natural and convincing.
p)In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the prosecution has proved its case against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 25(1A) of Indian Arms Act and as such they are liable to be convicted.
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201727 Bhuvanagiri.
11.In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 25(1A) of Indian Arms Act and accordingly, they are convicted of the same under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.
Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07th day of October, 2024.
Sd/-
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
BHUVANAGIRI
q)When questioned about the sentence, A1 and A2 pleaded mercy
A1 submitted that he has got two daughters, studying B.tech and
Intermediate respectively and there is no one to look after them. A2 submitted that he has two sons studying 10th and 7th class respectively. There is no one to look after them and if he is sent to jail, the studies of his children, will be spoiled and prayed to take lenient view in awarding the sentence.
r)Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by A1 and A2, I am of the opinion that sentencing A1 and A2 with Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years, would meet the ends of justice.
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201728 Bhuvanagiri.
12. In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 25(1A) of Indian Arms Act and accordingly, they are convicted of the same under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred
Only) each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two (2) months. The remand period shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. MO.4 which was returned back to its owner as per the orders of the learned Addl.
JMFC, Bhongir in Crl.M.P.No.3773/2012 vide C.P.No.230/2012 dated 17.08.2012, vide release order in Dis No.1479/2012 dated 18.08.2012 is hereby made absolute, after expiry of appeal period.
MO.1 (one pistol), MO.2 (one country made tapancha) and MO.3 (10 live rounds) shall be sent to Armory as per law and procedure after the appeal time is over. The accused is appraised of their right to prefer appeal and when questioned about means to engage counsel, they stated that they has got sufficient means to engage a counsel to prefer appeal.
Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07th day of October, 2024.
Sd/-
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
BHUVANAGIRI
Date:07.10.2024.
Assistant Sessions Judge, S.C.No.41 of 201729 Bhuvanagiri.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :
PW1: N.Venkateshwarlu -None- PW2: S.Narsaiah PW3: G.Krishna PW4: Morigadi Venkatesh PW5: Poreddi Srinivas PW6: K.Krishna Kishore
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P1: The relevant portion of recovery in the confession-cum-seizure panchanama, dt:04.12.2011 Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: FSL Report, dt:29.03.2012 Ex.P4: Permission proceedings, dt:25.04.2012
FOR DEFENCE:-NIL-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: MO.1:One Pistol MO.2:One country made tapancha MO.3:10 live rounds MO.4:Hero Honda motorcycle (CBZ) bike
Sd/-
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
BHUVANAGIRI
// TRUE COPY//
Date:07.10.2024.