Smt V Sowmya

1

CC.No. 13839 of 2021 Date: 11-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : Smt. V. Sowmya,

XIV ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 11th day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 13839 of 2021

Between:-

The State represented through The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Panjagutta, Hyderabad. ..… Complainant.

AND

Ms. Manognya Alluri, D/o Rama Krishna Raju Alluri, Age: 33 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o Flat No. 502, Block-A, Green Terrace Apts, White Fields Road Kondapur

..... Accused.

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the Additional public Prosecutor Smt. Sree Latha on behalf of the State and of Sri Gampa Venkatesham Advocates for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub inspector of Police Panjagutta filed the charge sheet in Crime No.

439/2021 U/s. 380 IPC against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 23.09.2021 at 20:00 hrs received a complaint/LW1 from Pavan Mor , in which he stated that on 23-09-2021 at about 11:00 hours he opened his shop i.e., Pavan Mor Jewelers, and on his routine check he noticed that one of his Gold Chain Studded with 16 Pcs Diamonds Weight about 29.700 grams worth Rs. 1,74,800 / was missing from his shop. They strongly suspect that one lady by name Ms. Manognya Alluri/accused who is their old customer visited their shop and committed theft of gold chain Studded with 16 Pcs Diamonds

Weight about 29.700 grams worth Rs. 1,74,800 /- and left from their shop. Therefore he kindly request to take necessary action and do needful".

3.Basing on the above complaint, LW-11 registered a case vide Cr.No. 439/2021 2

CC.No. 13839 of 2021 Date: 11-05-2026

U/s. 380 IPC and handed over the CD file to LW-12 for further investigation.

4. During the course of investigation, LW-12 has examined LW-1, LW-2 & LW-3 and recorded their detailed. LW-12 visited the scene of offence located at Pavan Mor,

Panjagutta, Hyderabad, and observed the scene minutely. He secured the presence of two panchayatdars LWs 4 & 5 and drafted the scene of offence observation panchanama and drew a rough sketch of the scene in presence of panchas in a Crime

Detail Form (CDF) LW-12 made spot enquires in the locality but as the incident happened inside the house nobody has witnessed the incident.

5. As the efforts were being made to apprehend the accused, LW-12 received credible information about one suspect lady is roaming suspiciously at Lalitha Jewellery Shop,

Panjagutta, immediately LW-12 along with LW-9 & V-10 brought the suspect person to the Police Station. LW-12 with the assistance of LW-9 & LW-10 have thoroughly interrogated the suspect person as a result she disclosed her identity and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence.

6. During her confession LW-12 secured the presence of two panchayatdars LWs 6 & 7 and recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused. Basing on the confession of the accused lady LW-12 has examined LW-8 the manager of SBFC Finance

Pvt. Ltd., and recorded his detailed statement. Later LW-12 addressed a letter to LW-8 with a request to hand over the Gold ornament which were pledge by accused lady.

Accordingly LW-12 seized the above said Gold Chain Studded with 16 Pcs Diamonds

Weight about 29.700 grams from the SBFC Finance Pvt. Ltd, Kukatpally, Hyderabad under seizure panchanama.

7. On establishing the prima facie of the offence as per the confessional statement of the accused, LW12 issued notice U/sec 14-A notice CrPC to accused in this case and filed charge sheet in this case.

8. This court has taken cognizance against accused for the offences, U/s 380 IPC 3

CC.No. 13839 of 2021 Date: 11-05-2026

9. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents was furnished to her u/sec.207 Cr.P.C. the accused is examined u/sec 239 Cr.P.C for the charges framed against accused U/s 380 IPC to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined (5) witnesses as PW.1 to PW5 and got marked Exs. P1 to P6 and MO1. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW3, LW6, LW9 to LW11.

11.After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused is examined u/sec 313 of

Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence voiced against her to which she pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence on her behalf.

12.Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences u/sec. 380 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

13.To prove the guilty of the accused, the prosecution altogether examined 5 witness. PW1 is the Complainant, PW2 is the Panchanama for confession cum seizure of accused, PW3 is the Circumstantial witness, PW4 is Manager in SBFC Finance Pvt

Ltd., Kukatpally, PW5 is the investigation officer and prosecution marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and MO1.

Evidence on Record:

14. PW1: Pavan Mor. He deposed that he Know LW2 and LW3, earlier they worked as a sales man in his shop. On 23-09-2021 he opened his shop and he noticed one gold chain studded with 16 pieces of diamonds weighing about 29.700grms worth of

Rs.1,70,000/- odd was missing from his shop. They strongly suspect regular customer one lady by name Manogna Alluri who visited the shop might have committed theft of gold chain studded with diamonds and he lodged a report against Manogna suspecting her as a thief. Police examined him and recorded his statement. Ex.P1 report. Later he came to know that the said Manogna pledged stolen gold chain in finance company 4

CC.No. 13839 of 2021 Date: 11-05-2026

and availed a loan, the police recovered the same and handed over to him. He can identify the lady Manogna she is his regular customer, accused absent, Identification is not disputed by the accused counsel. On confrontation of photographs of gold chain the witness identified the chain. MO.1 gold chain studded with 16 pieces of diamonds.

(The case property ie., gold chain deposited in the court vide PI.No.110/2021 was returned to the PW1 for interim custody vide orders in Crl.MP.No.1561/2021 dated 01- 11-2021).

In the cross examination PW1 deposed that the no document proof is submitted to show that the accused is the regular customer, witness adds that the accused earlier purchased ear tops from his shop and if permits the bill will be produced. The

PW1 further deposed that the CCTV footage was handed over to the police along with the complaint. He further deposed that one sales woman by name sharadha vani attended the accused, the attendance of sharadha vani is not submitted to the police

15. PW2: M. Sai Kumar: He deposed that Previously he worked as a sales man at

Pavan mor jewelers from 2020 to 2021. He know LW6, she is senior to him. On 01-10- 2021 the police called him and LW6 to Panjagutta police station and they called the accused also. The accused is a customer of pavan mor jewelers, earlier she visited gold shop. The police asked them to enquire with accused. On enquiry the accused confessed before them that she committed theft of gold chain with diamond stones.

She further confessed on 16-09-2021 she came to their gold shop and asked the sale persons to show some gold chains and kept the sale persons busy, when the sale persons was busy, she committed theft of gold chain. The accused further confessed that she pledged the chain in SBFC bank and took a loan of Rupees between eighty to eighty five thousand. The police recorded the confession statement of the accused and the police have recovered the gold chain from the bank in our presence under the cover of panchanama. After recording the confession statement he along with LW6 signed on panchanama and on seizure report. On confrontation of MO.1 witness identified to have been recovered in his presence. Witness identified the accused in the open court. Ex.P2 confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 seizure report.

5

CC.No. 13839 of 2021 Date: 11-05-2026

In the cross examination PW2 deposed that the accused when visited the shop he did not attend her and he did not see the alleged accused after 01-10-2021. The

PW2 further admits that he did not go to SBFC bank, he saw the chain in the police station, his owner/PW1 went to bank with the police for recovery of gold chain and they brought the gold chain to the plice station and shown to him, he came to know about the fact of receovery of the gold chain only when his onwer informed him that the chain was recovered from the bank.

16. PW3: Sanjeev Agarwal: He deposed that PW1 is his owner, he have been working as a sales man at Pavan Mor Jewelers since eight years till today. On 23-09- 2021 his owner checked the stock on routine basis and he noticed one gold chain with diamond studded was missing from their shop, their owner showed the xerox photo of the chain, then he and his colleague Mohd. Naqi realized few days back one lady who was their old customer came to their shop and left the shop in hurry burry manner without purchasing any items, they suspect that she might have committed theft of diamond studded gold chain from their shop and they informed to his owner. The approximate worth of chain is Rs.1,75,000/-. He cannot identify the accused. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

In the cross examination PW3 admitted that he did not attend the accused on the date of incident. He further deposed after attending every customer they will keep all the gold ornaments back into the boxes and place them in the cupboards.

17. PW4: D Srinivas: He deposed that Previously he worked as a operation manger in SBFC finance ltd, Kukatpally branch from 2017 to 2022. He know accused, she is his regular customer. While he is working as a manager at SBFC finance ltd company, Kukatpally the accused approached his office and pledged one gold chain weighing 29grms and took a loan for an amount of Rs.81,000/-, later the Panjagutta police visited the branch and informed that the gold chain which was pledged by the accused is the theft property as such he handed over the gold chain to the police. He can identify the accused/Manognya. (Accused called absent today). On confrontation of 6

CC.No. 13839 of 2021 Date: 11-05-2026

photo of gold chain/MO.1 the witness could not recognize. Witness adds that he is having knowledge about the pledging of gold chain by the accused, but he do not remember the exact design of the chain. Ex.P4 pledged document along with gold chain photo.

In the cross examination PW4 admits that he did not prepare the pledge document Ex.P4, it is the system generated document it was signed by the manager holding office at that time, the signature on Ex.P4 does not belongs to him.

18. PW5: B. Vijay Bhaskar Reddy: He deposed that Previously he worked as a

Sub Inspector of police, at PS Panjagutta from March 2018 to June 2023. He can identify the signature of LW11/ M. Niranjan Reddy, the then Inspector of police, PS

Panjagutta who worked along with him. On 23-09-2021 at 21:00 hrs LW11 received a complaint from PW1 and he registered a case in Cr.No.439/2021 U/s 380 of iPC and handed over CD file to him for further investigation. During the course of his investigation he examined and recorded the statements of PW1, PW3 and LW3 and he visited the scene of offence located at Pavan Mor jewelers, Panjagutta and secured the presence of two mediators LW4 and LW5 and in their presence conducted scene of offence and drawn the rough sketch and incorporated the details in CDF. He along with his staff LW9, LW10 apprehended the accused and brought her to police station and on interrogation the accused person voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence.

He secured the presence of two mediators PW2 LW6 and in their presence he have recorded the confession statement of the accused where in she confessed that she pledged a chain at SBFC finance pvt. Ltd, Kukatpally and took an amount of Rs.81,000/- and spent the amount to clear the debts, based on the confession he addressed a letter to LW8/operation manager SBFC finance pvt ltd to hand over the gold chain which was pledged by the accused. According he seized one gold chain/MO.1 from

SBFC finance which was pledged by the accused in the presence of above said mediators under seizure panchanama and he examined and recorded the statement of

LW8/operation manager of SBFC finance. Later he issued 41 A Cr.PC notice to the accused. He concluded his investigation and filed the charge sheet in this case. Ex.P5 7

CC.No. 13839 of 2021 Date: 11-05-2026

FIR, Ex.P6 CDF.

During the cross examination PW5 deposed that he did not collect the receipts from the jewelry shop owner to establish that the alleged accused is the old customer of Pavan Mor jewelers. He further deposed that he did not take any specific signatures from accused for comparison with the signature on Ex.P4 because LW8 identified the accused, he did not feel it as required.

Answer to the point:

19.The gist of the prosecution case is that the defacto complainant is the owner of pavan mor jewelry shop, he filed the case against the accused suspecting her for committing theft of gold chain from his jewelry shop, as per his complaint Ex.P1, on 23- 9-2021, on routine checking he noticed that one gold chain studded with 16 pieces diamond weighing about 29.700 grams worth of Rs.1,74,800/- was found missing from his shop and he strongly suspects the accused, who is old customer and who visited the shop previously might have stolen and lodged the report against the accused. The panjagutta police registered this case against the accused and based on confession cum seizure panchanam the police recovered the gold chain from SBFC bank which was pledged by the accused and charge sheet is filed to prosecute the accused u/sec.380 of IPC, for committing the theft in a dwelling house.

20.The learned APP argues that the accused committed the theft of gold chain from pavan mor jewelry shop by diverting the sales person and pledged the said gold chain at SBFC bank and took a loan of Rs.80,000/- and spent the money. The police recovered the gold chain and the same was handed over to PW.1 for interim custody by giving notice to the accused to which she did not claim any rights over the chain.

The prosecution further argues that, all the prosecution witnesses viz., complainant, sales man, panch witnesses, SBFC bank manager, investigating officer who are examined as PW.1 to p.w5 supported the prosecution case and identified the accused in the open court, as such the accused is liable to be punished u.sec380 of IPC and prayed the court to convict the accused.

8

CC.No. 13839 of 2021 Date: 11-05-2026

21.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused vehemently argues that the accused is innocent and she is no way connected to this crime, only to avoid the

GST a theft case is registered against the innocent accused. The prosecution failed to lead the sufficient evidence to establish the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

22.The evidence on record goes to show that, as per the given report Ex.P1, the

PW.1 found missing of gold chain M.O.1 from his shop on 23-9-2021, the PW.1 suspect that the accused might have stolen the gold chain and lodged the report Ex.P1 against the accused suspecting her to be thief. The PW.1 deposed that he verified the CCTV footage and found that the accused committed theft of gold chain from the shop, but the said fact was not stated by the PW.1 in his report Ex.P1 and in his 161cr.p.c statement, and no CCTV footage is filed in the court to substantiate the case.

23.The P.W1 further deposed that the accused is his old customer and earlier she purchased ear rings from his shop, in support of the said fact, the PW1 did not even submit the bill copy of ear rings purchased by the accused previously from his shop, therefore this court feels that there is no documentary evidence on record to show that the accused is the old customer of Pavan mor jewelers and no where it is stated as when and on what date and time the accused visited his shop and on what date the offence took place and how did they he verified that the accused as thief.

24.The PW.1 further deposed that, one of the sales girl in his shop by name sharadha vani attended the accused. But, the said girl sharadha vani is not cited as direct witnesses in this case, in spite she is cited as LW.6/panch witnesses to the confession cum seizure panchanam and the learned APP given up the evidence of

LW.6 for the reasons best known to her. Whether the panch witness/sharada vani and the sales girl /sharada vani is one and the same or not is the question.

25.Coming to identification of accused, all the prosecution witnesses i.e., PW.1 to

PW.4 categorically identified the accused in the open court but they categorically 9

CC.No. 13839 of 2021 Date: 11-05-2026

deposed that they did not see the accused while committing the theft of gold chain

MO.1 from the gold shop. To connect the accused to this offence the prosecution relied the confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused i.e., Ex.P2 and P.3. The prosecution argued that the accused confessed to have been committed the theft and admitted the guilt before the investigating officer PW.5 and the same was reduced into writing and relied on confession cum seizure panchanam Ex.P2 and P3.

26.It is the settled law that the confession recorded by the police officer is inadmissible in evidence under section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, As per section 27 of

Indian Evidence Act the confession recorded by the police officer is relevant only if such confessions leads to any discovery of material objects. The prosecution contends that the based on confession panchanam Ex.P2 the PW.5 recovered the gold chain MO.1 from the bank in the presence of panch witness PW2 and the bank manager PW4 supported the case by testifying that the gold chain MO1 is pledged by the accused.

27. On perusal of testimonies panch witness, The PW.2 also one of the sales man at pavanmor jewelry shop, and he is the panch witness to the confession cum recovery panchanam and seizure report Ex.P2 and P.3, he identified the accused in the open court, he admits that “he did not go to SBFC bank, he saw the chain in the police station, his owner went to bank with the police for recovery of gold chain and they brought the chain to the police station and shown to him , the witness further adds that he came to know about the fact of recovery of gold chain only when his owner informed him that the chain was recovered from the bank ” the above few lines deposed by the PW.2 clearly states that no property was seized in his presence from the bank and the PW.1 also did not stated before the court that he went to bank along with police for recovery of gold chain as stated by PW.2. He simply stated that the chain was recovered by the police. There is no consistency in the evidence given by

PW1 and PW.2 and as discussed above there is no relevant and corroborating evidence on record showing that the case property was recovered from the possession of the accused.

10

CC.No. 13839 of 2021 Date: 11-05-2026

28.The only evidence which connect the accused to this crime is pledge document

Ex.P4. The PW.4/ is the bank manager of SBFC bank, he testified before the court, that the accused pledged one gold chain/M.O.1 in his bank and availed loan., later when the police came and informed that the gold chain which was pledged by the accused is the theft property, he handed over the gold chain to the police. The evidence of PW.4 is corroborating with Ex.P4 and supporting the prosecution case. The identity particulars on Ex.P4 is tallying with the accused identity details.

29. The learned counsel for the accused disputed about the genuineness of the document Ex.P4, and also denied the signature on Ex.p4, he argues that the signature on Ex.P4 does not belongs to accused but he did not lead any evidence to substantiate the same.

30.When the signature is denied the onus shifts on to the accused to prove that the signature does not belongs to him, the accused to prove her innocence, she did not taken any steps to send the signatures to the handwriting expert, therefore this court feels that unless and otherwise it is proved, the document Ex.P4 is presumed to be genuine and it is relevant to the prosecution case and connecting the accused to this crime.

31.During pendency of proceedings, the gold chain Mo.1 was returned to the PW.1 for interim custody vide Crl MP No.1561/2021, while returning the property a notice was served to the accused, the accused did not claim any right over the property. Had the gold chain really belongs to the accused, definitely she would have raised one complaint against the bank manager for unauthorized handing over the gold chain to the police without any notice to her, keeping silent without taking any action or steps raises a doubt and suspects the accused to have been stolen the gold chain.

32.on evaluating the above evidence of prosecution witnesses, this court feels that there is no direct evidence on record which shows that the accused have committed theft of gold chain from the PW.1 shop, but the chain which was lost from the PW.1 gold 11

CC.No. 13839 of 2021 Date: 11-05-2026

shop was recovered by the PW.5 from the SBFC bank, and it is proved before the court that the chain Mo.1 was pledged by the accused in the bank and the accused failed to account for its possession. The basing on the evidence of PW.4 and the documentary evidence Ex.p4 it is proved before the court that the accused pledged the gold chain in

SBFC bank.

33.As per the presumption laid down under section 114 illustration (a) of Indian evidence act the court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession

34.The burden lies on the accused to account to its possession and the accused failed to account the possession of the stolen property, therefore it is presumed that the accused is receiver of stolen property unless and otherwise proved and liable to be punished u/sec.411 of IPC. The offence proved u/sec.411 of IPC is minor offence than the offence charged U/sec 380 of IPC, hence no separate charge is required as per section 222 of CrPC and accused can be convicted for the minor offence.

In the result: The accused is found guilty for the offence U/sec 411 of IPC and she is convicted u/sec.248(2) of CrPC. Heard the accused on quantum of sentence.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of May,2026.

Sd/-

XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

35. The accused is called present and she is questioned as to the quantum of sentence prescribed for the offence U/sec.411 CrPC. The accused having understood the same, submitted that she did not commit any offence, she pledged her own ornaments in the bank and without her permission the bank manager handed over her gold chain to the police and she went to police station to lodged the complaint against the bank manager. The police did not take the complaint and in turn they registered 12

CC.No. 13839 of 2021 Date: 11-05-2026

this false case against her and she was not given any opportunity to submit her explanation. The counsel also instructed her to remain silent in the court. As such she did not open her mouth during 313 CrPC examination. The accused further submitted that several times she pledged the gold ornaments and took the loan and repaid it.

The accused is ready to submit her bank account statement to prove her innocence and she prayed the court to take a lenient view of her and show mercy on her and acquit her. The plea of the accused is considered.

36.Having regard to the submissions made by the accused persons, this court is of the opinion that, the offence committed by the accused persons are serious in nature, the accused who is young in age needs rehabilitation, therefore it is not a fit case to release the accused under Probation of Offenders Act.

37.The accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal to the appellate court against the judgment passed by this court. The accused is also informed about there right to seek legal aid if they have no means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal to the Hon’ble District Court.

38. The copy of this judgment is given to the accused at free of cost in compliance of Sec.363 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as the accused is found guilty and sentenced

39. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the accused, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), for the offence U/sec 411 of IPC and in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for period of One month.

40.The period of detention already undergone by the accused, during the period of remand if any, shall be set off from the total period of sentence of imprisonment under

Section 428 Cr.P.C.

13

CC.No. 13839 of 2021 Date: 11-05-2026

41 The case property i.e., gold chain studded with 16 pieces of diamonds is deposited in the court vide PI.No.110/2021 was returned to the PW1 for interim custody vide orders in Crl.MP.No.1561/2021, dated 01-11-2021 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of May,2026.

Sd/-

XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution:Defence: PW1: Pavan Mor None PW2: M. Sai Kumar PW3: Sanjeev Agarwal PW4: B. Vijay Bhaskar Reddy

Exhibits Marked For

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex P1 is the Report NIL Ex.P2 is the Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3 is the seizure report Ex.P4 is the Pledged document along with gold chain photo Ex.P5 is the FIR Ex.P6 is the CDF

Material Objects Marked

MO1 is the gold chain studded with 16 pieces of diamonds. (The case property ie., gold chain deposited in the court vide PI.No.110/2021 was returned to the PW1 for interim custody vide orders in Crl.MP.No.1561/2021 dated 01-11-2021).

Sd/-

XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

1

CC.No. 1093 of 2026 Date: 28-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : Smt. V. Sowmya,

XIV ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2026

C.C. No. 1093 of 2026

Between:-

The State represented through The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Madhuranagar, Hyderabad. ..… Complainant.

AND

Marikala Saikumar S/o, Late Ramulu, Aged: 31 years, Occ: Labour, R/o Near Bus stop Nampally Public Garden Hyderabad and as Per Aadhar Card residence H.No:12-1-925/3c, Old Mallepalli, Falkana, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.

..... Accused.

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the Asst public ProsecutorSmt.Sree Lathaon behalf of the State and of Kum. Panwar Neetu, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub inspector of Police Madhuranagar filed the charge sheet in Crime No. 310 of 2025 U/s 303(2) of BNS against the accused .

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on on 01-05-2025 at 01:00hrs

Madhuranagar P.S. received LW-1 Komalla Shiva, he stated that on 30-04-2025, at approximately 23:30 hours, while he was returning home from Karmikanagar to Begumpet, he noticed a suspicious person near Madhura Nagar Metro Station pushing a black Yamaha

FZ motorcycle, bearing registration number TS24A5963, towards Maitrivanam. Assuming he might have run out of fuel, he stopped and asked if he needed help. The individual requested him to tow the motorcycle for a short distance. While doing so, he noticed the bike had no key, which made him suspicious of his intentions. He immediately ceased assisting him and dialed 100 to alert the police. Around 23:45 hours, Madhura Nagar Police arrived at the scene. Upon checking the vehicle registration using their tablet device, they

2

CC.No. 1093 of 2026 Date: 28-04-2026

contacted the registered owner of the vehicle. The owner confirmed that the vehicle belonged to them and that it had been parked in front of their residence near Madhura

Nagar Metro Station at around 8:30 PM the same day. The police apprehended the suspect along with the vehicle and brought him to Madhura Nagar Police Station. Later, he came to know that the person involved in the theft. Hence, he request you to kindly register a case and take necessary legal action against accused for the attempting theft of the said motorcycle.

3.Basing on the above complaint,LW-7 registered a case in Cr.No.310/2025 U/s 303(2)

BNS and case file handed over to LW-8 for further investigation.

4. During the course of investigation, the LW-8 secured the presence of the LW-1 and recorded his detailed statement. Further, LW-8 also recorded detail statement of LW-2, who is the owner of the theft vehicle, in which he stated that "He was an employee in Pharmacy

Company at Bala Nagar and staying in a rented room at 4th floor situated at Medplus building near Madhura Nagar Metro Station and he used to park my vehicle in-front of the said building.

5.Then the LW-8 visited the scene of offence situated at opposite Madhura Nagar

Metro station, Med Plus Building, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad and caused enquiry with the available persons, but no useful clues come to light. LW-8 conducted the scene of offence panchanama in CDF in presence of LWs- 3 & 4.

6.While the investigation is in progress, on 01.05.2025, the LW-8 on enquiry, the accused person, who is in the custody he disclosed his details and on thorough interrogation, he voluntarily about to confess, the LW-8 summoned the LWS-2 4 & 3 and recorded his confessional – cum - seizure panchanama in their presence, wherein he confessed that he have committed theft of black Yamaha FZ motorcycle, bearing registration number TS24A5963 from Opp Madhura Nagar metro Station, Madhura Nagar, which was parked by the LW-2 and went his home. The LW-8 seized the stolen above vehicle pertaining to this case, from the accused possession and pasted panch chit on it in

3

CC.No. 1093 of 2026 Date: 28-04-2026

their presences. The LW-8 seized the bike Yamaha FZ motorcycle, bearing registration number TS24A5963 from his possession in their presence and pasted panch chit on it.

7.This court has taken cognizance against accused for the offences U/sec. 303(2) of

BNS.

8.On appearance of accused copies of case documents was furnished to him u/sec.230 BNSS. The accused is examined u/sec.263 BNSS for the accusation u/sec 303(2) of BNS to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.Duringthecourseoftrial theprosecutiongotexamined (3) witness as PW.1 to 3 and got marked Exs. P1 to Ex.P4 and MO1.The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW5 to LW7 and the evidence of LW3 and LW4 are closed by the report filed by the police.

10.After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused is examined u/sec. 303(2) of

BNS for the incriminating evidence voiced against him to which he pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

11.Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences U/sec. 303(2) of BNS beyond all reasonable doubt?

12.To prove the guilty of the accused, the prosecution altogether examined 3 witnesses.

PW1 is the Victim, PW2 is the Complainant, PW3 is the investigation officer and prosecution marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO1.

Evidence on record:

13. PW1: A. Shiva Prasad. He deposed that he know LW1/Komalla Shiva with this case.

On 30-04-2025 at about 08:30pm, he parked his Yamaha FZ vehicle B.No. TS24k 5963 at open parking area near Madhura Nagar Metro station. On the same day he received a call

4

CC.No. 1093 of 2026 Date: 28-04-2026

from Madhura nagar police station at around 11:50pm and they informed about theft of his vehicle by one unknown person and the police called him to police station to identify the vehicle. When he went to police station he came to Know that one LW1/ Komalla Shiva caught the offender on suspicious circumstances while committing the theft of his two wheeler from the parking area and informed to police by dial 100, the police arrived and took his vehicle to police station and LW1 lodged the complaint against the said offender.

He received his vehicle for interim custody from the court vide Crl.MP.No.711/2025, dated 20-06-2025. Today he did not bring the bike. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

14. PW2: K. Shiva. He deposed that On 30-04-2025 between 11:00 to 11:30pm, while he was going from Madhura Nagar to Begumpet, he saw one person pushing FZ bike

B.No.5963, he thought the said person was running out of fuel and to help him he went near him, while he was helping him in pushing vehicle, by seeing his appearance he suspected him and immediately dialed 100 and informed to police, the police arrived at the spot and they entered the details of registered vehicle Number in their tab and called the registered owner, who stated that he parked his vehicle in front of his house on the same day at 08:00pm. As such the police took him, and the offender to the police station and he lodged the report. He can identify the said offender, the person standing in the court room hall is the same person. Witness identified the accused. Police examined him and recorded his statement. Ex.P1 report. (Police did not produce the property ie,. Yamaha FZ Motor cycle B.No. TS24A5963 before the court during trial).

15. PW3: Mohd Ashraf. He deposed that Previously he worked as a Asst. Sub- Inspector of police, PS Madhura Nagar from June 2023 to June 2025. He can identify the signature of

LW7/ B. Chandraiah, Sl of PS Madhura Nagar. On 01-05-2025 at 01:00am LW7 received a complaint from PW2 and he registered a case in Cr.No.310/2025 U/s 303 (2) of BNS and entrusted CD file to him for further investigation. During the course of his investigation he examined and recorded the complainant PW2, Owner of the vehicle PW1 and he visited the scene of offence situated opposite to Madhura Nagar Metro station and conducted scene of offence panchanama by securing the two mediators LW3 and LW4. On 01-05-2025 he

5

CC.No. 1093 of 2026 Date: 28-04-2026

apprehended the accused and on interrogation he voluntarily confessed the commission of offence. He secured the presence of two mediators LW3 and LW4 and recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused and seized one black Yamaha motor cycle B.No. TS24A5963 from the possession of the accused and pasted panch slips. He effected the arrest of accused by issuing arrest memo and produced the accused before court on 01-05-2025 and he was remanded to judicial custody, then he concluded his investigation and filed charge sheet in this case. Ex.P2 FIR, Ex.P3 CDF, Ex.P4 Confession cum seizure panchanama. MO.1 Yamaha vehicle B.No.TS24A5963 (Deposited in the court vide Pi.No.170/2025 and the same was returned to PW1 for interim custody vide

Crl.MP.No.711/2025).

In the cross of PW3, he admits that the complainant is not the owner of the vehicle.

PW1 is the owner of the theft vehicle.

Answer to the point:

16.As per the case of prosecution, the accused committed the theft of Black Yamaha

FZ motor cycle from the parking place opposite to metro station, and in order to take away the bike, while he was pushing the bike, the PW.2 caught him red handedly and handed over to police by dialing 100 and he lodged the report Ex.P1, the police registered the case against the accused for the charge U/Sec.303(2) r/w 62 of BNS.

17.Sec 303(1) of BNS speaks as follows: who ever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. The punishment for theft is prescribed Sec 303(2) of BNS. Sec 303 (2) :- whoever commits theft shall be punished imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to 3 years or with fine or with both.

18.The prosecution to prove the guilty of the accused for the offence U/sec.303(2) of

IPC examined three(3) witnesses, the PW.2 is the defacto complainant he deposed that he saw the accused pushing the vehicle and suspected him to be thief and immediately

6

CC.No. 1093 of 2026 Date: 28-04-2026

informed to police by dialing 100 and police arrived at the spot and PW.2 handed over the accused to police, the PW.2 identified the accused in the open court and supported the prosecution case.

19.The PW.1 is the owner of the vehicle Yamaha vehicle B.No.TS24A5963 he deposed that police called him to police station to identify the vehicle and when he went to police station he came to know that PW.2 caught the offender on suspicious circumstance while committing the theft of his two wheeler from the parking area and informed to police and the police arrived at the spot and recovered the vehicle. The PW.1 is not an eye witnesses, he learnt the facts through others his evidence is considered as hearsay evidence and corroborating with the prosecution case. The p.w2 further deposed that he took his vehicle for interim custody from the court vide Crl MP.No 711/2025 Dt: 20- 6-2025.

20.The investigating officer also deposed that he conducted scene of offence panchanam in the presence of two mediators LW.3 and LW4 and recorded the confession statement of the accused in the presence of same mediators and recorded the vehicle

Yamaha vehicle B.No.TS24A596 and supported the prosecution case.

21.The testimonies of PW.1 to PW.3 are consistent and corroborating with the prosecution case. The PW.2 who caught the accused at the spot had an opportunity to see the accused till he handed over the custody of accused to the police and he rightly identified the accused in the open court, the owner of the vehicle PW.1 took the vehicle for interim custody, the accused did not raise any objections while returning the vehicle to

PW.1, it clearly shows that the accused is not the registered owner of the vehicle, but as per the prosecution evidence he is found in possession of vehicle and failed to account it possession, hence he is presumed to be thief U/sec. 119 (1) illustration a of Bharatiya

Sakshya Adhinayam 2023, unless otherwise proved.

22.The legal aid defense counsel argues that the seizure of vehicle from the possession of the accused is not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts . The legal

7

CC.No. 1093 of 2026 Date: 28-04-2026

aid defense counsel rightly pointed out, none of the the panch witnesses seizure panchanama was examined before the court to testify the seizure of vehicle from the possession of the accused. But in this case the accused was caught red handedly and handed over to police by PW.2, the veracity of testimony of PW2 was tested through cross examination but nothing was elicited, therefore c it is needless to say that when there is a direct evidence as to seizure , the proof of seizure panchanama through the mediators is need not be necessary to be proved, direct evidence of PW2 plays a crucial role in proven the guilty of the accused.

23. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 are corroborating to the case of prosecution. There is no denial about identification and seizure of vehicle. Therefore this court feels that when the witnesses able to identify the accused properly without second thought, in such cases a test identification parde is also not necessary. Through the cross examination of PW.2 no truth is elicited which discredit the evidence of PW2 and prosecution case. Therefore the evidence of PW.2 cannot be discarded merely because panch witnesses are not examined.

24.The evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent and relevant to the prosecution case and proves the dishonest intention of the accused in moving the vehicle bearing NO.

TS24A5963 out of possession of PW1 without PW1 consent and it is proved that the accused committed the theft of vehicle Yamaha vehicle B.No.TS24A5963 from the parking place opposite to metro station .

25.The prosecution successfully prove the guilty of the accused u.sec303(2) of BNS beyond all reasonable doubts.

In the result : The accused is found guilty for the offence U/esc 303(2) of BNS and he is convicted u/sec.271(2) of BNSS.

The case property MO1 Deposited in the court vide PI.No.170/2025 and the same was returned to PW1 for interim custody vide Crl.MP.No.711/2025 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-

XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

8

CC.No. 1093 of 2026 Date: 28-04-2026

26. The accused is called present and he is questioned as to the quantum of sentence prescribed for the offence U/sec. 303(2) of BNS . The accused having understood the same, prayed the court that he have attempted to commit the theft for his livelihood and he promised that, he will not repeat or commit any offences in future and begged to take lenient view and acquit him, the plea of the accused is considered.

27.Having regard to the submissions made by the accused persons, this court is of the opinion that, the offence committed by the accused persons are serious in nature, the accused who is young in age needs rehabilitation, therefore it is not a fit case to release the accused under Probation of Offenders Act.

28.The accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal to the appellate court against the judgment passed by this court. The accused is also informed about there right to seek legal aid if they have no means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal to the

Hon’ble District Court.

29. The copy of this judgment is given to the accused at free of cost in compliance of

Sec.363 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as the accused is found guilty and sentenced

30. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the accused, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence under Section. 303(2) of BNS.

29.The period of detention already undergone by the accused, during the period of remand if any, shall be set off from the total period of sentence of imprisonment under

Section 468 of BNSS.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28th day of April,2026.

Sd/-

XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

9

CC.No. 1093 of 2026 Date: 28-04-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution:

PW1: A. Shiva Prasad PW2: K. Shiva PW3: Mohd Ashar

Exhibits Marked For

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex P1 is the report Ex.P2 is the FIR Ex.P3 is the CDF Ex.P4 is the Confession sum seizure panchanama

Material Objects Marked

MO.1 is the Yamaha vehicle B.No.TS24A5963 (Deposited in the court vide Pi.No.170/2025 and the same was returned to PW1 for interim custody vide Crl.MP.No.711/2025).

Sd/-

XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

1

CC.No. 6926 of 2025 Date: 28-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : Smt. V. Sowmya,

XIV ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2026

C.C. No. 6926 of 2025

Between:-

The State represented through The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Panjagutta, Hyderabad. ..… Complainant.

AND

Sudeb Debbarma S/o Late. Sumbhucharan Debbarma, Age:24yrs, Occ:Labour(Ex-Security guard at HP Petrol pump, road no. 5, Jubilee hills) R/o near scrap market, krishna nagar, Hyderabad N/o 2/150, Mohanta Sardar para, near Duski Bazar S.B. School, Mouja(v), Uttar Pulin pur, Teliamura, West Tripura, Tripura-799203.

..... Accused.

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the Asst public Prosecutor Smt. Sree Latha on behalf of the State and of Kum. Panwar Neetu, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub inspector of Police Panjagutta filed the charge sheet in Crime No. 219 of 2025 U/s 331 (3), 305(a), 13 of BNS against the accused .

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on on 21.03.2025, 14:00 hrs

Panjagutta P.S. received a complaint from the complainant/LW-1 stating that he is working as a Electrical Maintenance at Image Hospital, Ameerpet, from past two years, on 20.03. 2025, he, along with security guard K. Raju Bose S/o Battaiah, aged 58 years,

R/oH.No:8-3-228/487, Rahunal Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad and ambulance driver M.

Shiva S/o Edaiah, aged 24 years, R/o. Image Hospital, were present in the hospital, at 9AM, they saw an unknown person climbed over the hospital's through main road wall and entered through the Ramp to the terrace. They got suspicious, and they went up 2

CC.No. 6926 of 2025 Date: 28-04-2026

and found that some taps in the washroom were broken and stolen. They immediately informed to their chairman, who contacted the police. Upon the chairman's arrival, they handed over the person to police. Hence, he requested to take necessary actions as per law.

3.Basing on the above complaint,LW-7 of the Police registered a case in Cr

No.219/2025 under Section 331(3), 305(a), R/w 62 BNS and entrusted it to LW-8 for further investigation.

4. During the course of the investigation, LW-8 secured the presence of LW-1 to LW3, examined them and recorded their statement. LW-8 along with two panch witnesses

LW-4 & LW-5 visited the scene of the offense at Image hospital, Ameerpet, Hyderabad on 21-03-2024 at 09:00 hours and inquired about the occurrence of the offense. LW-8 conducted the CDF in the presence of same mediators. LW-8 took the accused persons into custody, in the presence of same mediators LW-4 & LW-5 and recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused and from the possession of the accused LW8 seized 6 water taps, 1 cutting pliar, 1 cap black color, 1 blue color t-shirt, 1 American Tourister bag black color which are used by the accused for the commission of offence under seizure panchanama and pasted panch chits to them.

5.The LW8 effected the arrest of the accused person on 21-03-2025 at 16:05 by issuing a arrest memo and produced the accused before the Honorable Court and sent to judicial custody. During the course of investigation, as per the Instructions of SHO,

Panjagutta the LW-8 handed over the case file to LW-9 for further Investigation, who verified the investigation done by LW8 and filed the chargesheet in this case.

6.This court has taken cognizance against accused for the offences U/sec.331 (3), 305(a), 13 of BNS.

7.On appearance of accused copies of case documents was furnished to him u/sec.230 BNSS. The accused is examined u/sec.263 BNSS for the accusation u/sec 3

CC.No. 6926 of 2025 Date: 28-04-2026

331 (3), 305(a), 13 of BNS to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined (5) witness as PW.1 to 5 and got marked Exs. P1 to Ex.P6.The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW7 to LW9 and the evidence of LW2 is closed by the report filed by the police.

9.After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused is examined u/sec. 313

CrPC for the incriminating evidence voiced against him to which he pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

10.Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences U/sec. 331 (3), 305(a), 13 of BNS beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.To prove the guilty of the accused, the prosecution altogether examined 5 witnesses. PW1 is the Complainant, PW2 is the eyewitness, PW3 and PW4 are the

Panch witness for scene of offence and confessional cum seizure panchanama of accused person, PW5 is the investigation officer and prosecution marked Ex.P1 and

Ex.P6.

Evidence on record:

12. PW1: B. Lakshmi srinivas . He deposed that Previously he worked as a electrical maintenance employee in image hospital from 2023 to October 2025. on 21st march 2025 he along with the security guard LW2 and LW3 saw one unknown person climb over the hospital to main wall and went to 3rd floor they got suspicious on him and they went up and caught him and found with taps, on enquiry the said person confessed that he had stolen taps from the hospital. Immediately they went to police station and lodged the complaint. Police examined and recorded him statement. He can identify the person who stolen the taps from hospital. Witness identified the 4

CC.No. 6926 of 2025 Date: 28-04-2026

accused standing in the court room dock as a same person stolen taps. Ex.P1 report.

In the cross examination, the PW1 deposed that he did not see the accused while stealing the taps, he verified in CCTV camera and they recorded the video in the phone and submitted to the police.

13. PW2: M. Shiva. He deposed that he know PW1, he is electrician at Image hospital, LW2 is a security guard working at Image hospital. He is working as a

Ambulance driver at Image hospital. On 21-03-2025 one unknown person climbed over the Hospital main wall and went to third floor, he saw the PW1 while catching the suspect and they found taps in his possession, which was stolen from hospital washrooms, on enquiry the said person admitted that he stolen taps from the hospital.

They caught him and informed to hospital incharge. Later the police arrived to hospital and they handed over the accused to police. Police examined him and recorded his statement. Witness identified the accused standing in the court room hall, the witness adds he is the same person who stolen taps from the hospital and caught red handedly.

14. PW3: Syed Nizam. He deposed that he know LW5. On 21-03-2025 at around 02:30pm, the Panjagutta police called them to police station to act as a panch witness in one theft case. Accordingly he along with LW5 went to police station to attend panchanama, there he saw one person by name Sudeb Debbarma, he confessed that he have stolen water taps from Image Hospital and shown taps, one cutter, black colour bag, one black colour cap, one blue T shirt, the police seized the above items from the possession of the accused in their presence under the cover of panchanama.

The contents of the panchanama is read over to him, after understood he along with

LW5 and accused signed on panchanama. Witness Identified the accused standing in the open court hall. Ex.P2 confession cum seizure panchanama. The police did not take them to anywhere.

In the cross examination, the PW1 deposed that the Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are prepared in the police station and he kept his signatures on Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 in police 5

CC.No. 6926 of 2025 Date: 28-04-2026

station. The PW3 admits that the police breifed about the facts of the case before conducting panchanama and the accused did not disclose the facts to him. He further admits that the police shown taps, one cutter, black colour bag, black colour cap and one blue tshirt to him. The PW3 fruther admits that he did not sign on any panch chits except on Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.

15. PW4: Syed Saheb Gour. He deposed that he know PW3. At about one year back the police conducted panchanama in the police station and shown cutting plier, cap, T shirt and obtained his signature on panchanama. On confrontation of signature the witness admitted. Ex.P4 two signatures on CDF, Ex.P5 three signature on confession cum seizure panchanama.

16. PW5: M. Venkat Kishan. He deposed that presently he have been working as

Sub Inspector of police, of PS Panjagutta, Hyderabad from last two years to till date.

He can identify the signature of LW7/ P. Pradeep, Sub-Inspector of police, PS

Panjagutta. On 21-03-2025 at 14:00 hrs the LW7 received a complaint from PW1 and he registered a case in Cr.No. 219/2025, U/s 331(3), 305(a) r/w 62 of BNS and entrusted the CD file to him for investigation. During the course of his investigation he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and he took the accused into custody, on interrogation the accused voluntarily admitted of committing theft of 6 water taps from a wash room inside the hospital, he secured the presence of two mediators PW3,

PW4 recorded the confession statement of the accused and he seized 6 water taps, cutting pliar, one cap black colour, one blue colour T Shirt, one black colour American tourist bag used for commission of offence under the cover of seizure panchanama.

Based on the confession statement of the accused he altered the section of Law Sec 62

BNS and added Sec 13 BNS to the section of Law and filed separate section deletion and addition memo before the Hon’ble court, after completion of confession and seizure panchanama he effected the arrest of the accused person and produced him

before the court and he was remanded to Judicial custody, the accused is previously

involved in two crimes Cr.No. 7 of 2024 and Cr.No.268 of 2024 of S.R Nagar PS under 6

CC.No. 6926 of 2025 Date: 28-04-2026

sec 380 of IPC. Later on the same day at 17:00hrs, along with the same panchas, he visited the scene of offence at Image Hospital, Ameerpet and conducted scene of offence panchanama by drawing the rough sketch of scene of offence by incorporated the details in the CDF and he secured the presence of two eye witnesses LW2, PW2 and recorded their statements. As per the instructions of SHO he handed over the CD file to

LW9. The LW9 verified the investigation done by him and field the charge sheet in this

Case. Ex.P6 FIR.

In the cross examination, the PW5 deposed that the PW1 mention about the exact number of taps stolen from the washrooms and the PW1 did not submit any video recording along with the complaint.

Answer to the point:

17.The PW.1 and PW.2 are cited as eye witnesses to the incident, they both are employees working at Image hospital, PW.1 is working as Electrician and PW.2 is working as ambulance driver. PW.1 deposed that he saw one unknown person climbing the hospital main wall, he got suspicion on him, he went up and caught the accused with taps. The PW.2 deposed that he saw the PW.1 while catching the accused and he also saw taps in possession of the accused. Both the witnesses admits that they did not see the accused while stealing the taps from the washrooms of image hospital, the

PW.1 further deposed that they have verified in CCTV camera, they recorded the video and handed over to police, the investigating officer/PW.5 deposed that he did not receive any recorded video along with the complaint which is completely contradicting to PW.1 evidence. The PW.1 and PW.2 caught the accused on suspicious ground but they did did not see the accused while committing the theft and no CCTV footage was filed in the court to establish the fact that the accused stolen the taps from the image hospital washrooms. The chairman of the hospital was the not examined . Therefore this court is of firm opinion that there is no direct evidence as to the occurrence of theft. The occurrence of incident is not proved by the prosecution beyond all 7

CC.No. 6926 of 2025 Date: 28-04-2026

reasonable doubts.

18.However, the prosecution argues that the accused was found in the possession of tap and the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused further relied on the confession and seizure panchanam of the accused Ex.P2. where, as per sec.23(1) of

Bharatiya Sakshya Adiniyam the confession recorded by the police is inadmissible in evidence therefore the document Ex.P2 which was prepared by the police officer/ PW.5 has no evidentiary value and cannot be read as evidence in favour of prosecution.

19.Coming to the seizure of case property i.e., taps, one cutter black color cap, one black color bag, and one blue color T-shirt, the panch witnesses PW.3 to the confession cum seizure panchanam testified before the court that the police seized taps, one cutter black color cap, one black color bag, and one blue color T-shirt from the possession of the accused in his presence and the PW.3 identified the accused in the open court, but the seized property i.e., seized taps, one cutter black color cap, one black color bag, and one blue color T-shirtare not produced before the court during trail.

20.The evidence of PW.3 does not inspire the confidence, during cross examination while testing the veracity of his statement in chief he deposed contradictory statements. Through cross examination it is elicited that the Ex.P2 and P.3 are prepared in police station and PW3 kept the signatures on Ex.p2 confession cum seizure panchanam and on Ex.P3 CDF in the police station and he also admits that the police briefed him about the facts of the case before conducting panchanam the accused did not disclose any fact to him. It is further elicited that the PW.3 signed on prepared panchanam and the police shown taps, one cap, one blue tshirt, one bag, cutter which clearly proves that nothing was seized from the possession of accused in the presence of PW3. Whatever the evdience deposed by the PW3 in his chief examination is tutored by police. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 is not trustworthy to punish the accused and the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of taps from the 8

CC.No. 6926 of 2025 Date: 28-04-2026

possession of the accued and the panchanama Ex.P2 beyond all reasonable doubts.

There is no sufficient evidence of record to show that the accused trespassed into the hospital building and committed the theft of taps from the washrooms. As such the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.

21.The prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the offence U/sec 331(3), 305(a), 13 of BNS beyond all reasonable doubts.

In the result : The accused found not guilty for the offence U/sec.

331 (3), 305(a), 13 of BNS. Accordingly he is acquitted u/sec. 271(1) of BNSS. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled and the sureties are discharged after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28th day of April,2026.

Sd/-

XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution: Defence:

PW1: B. Lakshmi Srinivas PW2: M. Shiva PW3: Syed Nizam PW4: Syed Sahen Gour PW5: M. Venkat Kishan

Exhibits Marked For

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex P1 is the report Ex.P2 is the Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3 is the CDF Ex.P4 is the Two signatures on CDF Ex.P5 is the Three signatures on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P6 is the FIR

Material Objects Marked

NIL

Sd/-

XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

1

CC.No. 10843 of 2021 Date:14-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : Smt. V. Sowmya,

XIV ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 14th day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 10843 of 2021

Between:-

The State represented through The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Panjagutta, Hyderabad. ..… Complainant.

AND

A. Praveen, S/o: A. Tirupathi, Age: 30 Years, Occ: ICICI Bank Employee, R/o: H.No. Maram Towers, Near Bhashyam School, Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad.

..... Accused.

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the Additional public Prosecutor Smt. Sree Latha on behalf of the State and of Sri P. Srikar Advocates for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub inspector of Police Panjagutta filed the charge sheet in Crime No. 344 of 2021 U/s 304(A) IPC against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 29.07.2021 at 19:45 hours

Panjagutta received the complaint from the complainant LW1- G. Sri Ramulu, in which he stated that on 29.07.2021 at about 09:00 Hours, while he was at home his Nephew received a phone call from 9010448710 saying that he belongs to Ambulance staff and one Lady Person by name G. Raja Narsamma while crossing the road, she met with an accident near Civil Supplies Department, Errumanzil, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, by a bike bearing Reg.No. TS25B 9173 which was driven in rash and negligent manner and hit G.

Raja Narsamma. Immediately the rider of the Vehicle (bearing Reg.No.TS25B 9173)

Praveen/accused called an Ambulance and admitted her in Yashoda Hospital. On knowing this information the complainant along with his relatives went to Yashoda 2

CC.No. 10843 of 2021 Date:14-05-2026

Hospital and identified the patient as their elder sister Ms.G. Raja Narsamma . He also stated that the doctors said, at present his sister condition is very critical because of severe head injury. Therefore he requested to take necessary action against the driver of the vehicle as per Law.

3.Basing on the above complaint, LW-9 registered a Case vide Cr. No. 344/2021,

U/Sec. 304 (A) IPC and handed over the case file to LW-10 for further investigation.

4. During the course of investigation the LW-10 examined the LW-1 and LW2 and recorded their detailed statement The LW-10 visited the scene of offence and the scene minutely, secured the presence of the LW's 5&6 and conducted the observation

Panchanama and drawn rough sketch. The LW-10 further visited Yashoda Hospital and tried to examined the victim, but the victim was not in a stage to give any statement.

5. While the efforts were in progress the accused person voluntarily came to the PS and appeared before the LW-10. In the course of interrogation the accused revealed his name and details . On thorough interrogation the accused admitted his guilt and has confessed to have committed the offence. The LW-10 served the notice U/Sec. 41(A) Cr.

P.C. to the accused with instructions to appear before the Hon'ble Magistrate as and when he receives summons or notices from the Hon'ble court. In the course of investigation it came to light that the deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for better treatment.

6. On 16.08.2021, while the investigation was in progress, the LW-10 received the information that the victim in this case has died while undergoing treatment. So the

LW-10 altered the section of law from 337 IPC to 304(A) IPC and the same is her with intimated to the concerned officials. Later the LW-10 visited the Gandhi Hospital mortuary room and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the LW's 5&6. After the inquest the dead body of the deceased was subjected to PME and after the completion of PME the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the concerned under proper acknowledgment.

3

CC.No. 10843 of 2021 Date:14-05-2026

7.The LW-10 immediately called the accused person to produce the crime vehicle.

Accordingly as per the instructions the accused came to the PS along with the crime vehicle and appeared before the LW-10. The LW-10 further sent the crime vehicle to

MVI, Central Zone RTA Hyderabad for the vehicle inspection. Accordingly the LW-10 obtained the MVI report in which the LW-8 opined that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.

8.The LW-10 obtained the PME report in which the LW-7opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to Head Injury- An Accidental Death. The LW10 concluded his investigation and filed the charge sheet in this case.

9. This court has taken cognizance against accused for the offences U/sec. 304(A) IPC

10.On appearance of accused copies of case documents was furnished to him u/sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused is examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C for the accusation U/sec.

304(A) IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

11.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined (3) witnesses as PW.1 to PW3 and got marked Exs. P1 to Ex.P6. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW7 to LW9. The evidence of LW3 and LW4 was closed on the report filed by the police.

12.After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused examined u/sec.313 of

Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence voiced against him to which he pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

13.Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences U/sec. 304(A) IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

14.To prove the guilty of the accused, the prosecution altogether examined 3 witness. PW1 is the Complainant, PW2 is the circumstantial witness and PW3 is the 4

CC.No. 10843 of 2021 Date:14-05-2026

Investigation officer and prosecution marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

Evidence on record:

15. PW1: Sriramulu: He deposed that Deceased G. Rajanarsamma is his elder sister. She died in road accident. His sister used to work in Civil Supply department,

Erramanzil Panjagutta. On 29-07-2021 to attend the duty his sister took a bus and she got down at Somajiguda bus stop and while she was going to her office by walk,

Meanwhile one bike driver drove the bike in rash and negligent manner and dashed his sister from backside, she sustained injury to her head and went to coma, the person who done this accident called the ambulance and admitted his sister to Yashoda

Hospital. The ambulance driver informed him. He went to Hospital and he saw his sister in ICU. The person who did the accident was present in the hospital and he explained the manner of accident to him and he admitted his guilt before him. He can identify the said person, his name is Praveen. His sister died after one week. He lodged a report at police station. Police examined and recorded his statement. Ex.P1 report.

16. PW2: G. Naveen Kumar: He deposed that PW1 is Junior paternal Uncle.

Deceased/G. Rajanarsamma is his maternal aunt, she died in road accident on 29-07- 2021. He received a phone call from ambulance driver and he informed that him aunt met with an accident near Civil supply department, Erramanzil, by a bike which was driven in rash and negligent manner and hit to his aunt, the bike rider called ambulance and admitted his aunt in Yashoda Hospital, soon after receiving the information he rushed to the hospital, his aunt was in serious condition, she sustained injury to her head, she was in the hospital for 30 days and she died after 30 days while undergoing treatment. He saw the bike rider in the hospital, he can identify him. The witness identified the accused as the bike rider.

17. PW3: M. Arun Kumar: He deposed that previously he worked as a Sub Inspector of police, at Panjagutta PS from 2020 to December 2023. He can identify the signature of Lw9/ B.V Koushik, the then Sub- Inspector of police, Panjagutta PS. On 29-07-2021 at 19:45 hrs, LW9 received a complaint from PW1 and registered a case in Cr.No.344/2021 5

CC.No. 10843 of 2021 Date:14-05-2026

U/s 337 of IPC and handed over CD file to him for further investigation. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of PW1, PW2 and he visited the scene of offence situated near Civil supplies bhavan and conducted scene of offence observation panchanama and drafted the rough sketch of scene of offence in presence of two mediators LW3 and LW4. Later he visited Yashoda Hospital to record the statement of the victim, the victim was not in a stage to give the statement. While the efforts where in progress the accused came to police station and appeared before him, during interrogation the accused persons admitted his guilt and confessed to have committed the offence. Then he issued 41 A notices to the accused and enlarged him on station bail. During the course of investigation it is brought to his notice that the victim was shifted to Gandhi Hospital and on 16-08-2021 victim died while undergoing treatment, as such he altered the section of Law from 337 to 304 A IPC and submitted the alteration memo. Later he visited the Gandhi hospital mortuary and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of two panch witness LW5 LW6 and handed over the dead body to doctor/ LW7 for conducting postmortem. Later he addressed a letter to Motor vehicle inspector LW8 for inspection of crime vehicle B.No. TS25B9173. He collected the postmortem report from LW7 and

MVI report from LW8 and he concluded his investigation and filed the charge sheet in this case. Ex.P2 FIR, Ex.P3 CDF along with rough sketch, Ex.P4 Inquest report. Ex.P5

PME report. Ex.P6 MVI report.

Answer to the point:

18. The prosecution argues that the all the witnesses supported the prosecution case, the witnesses identified the accused in the open court, PME report, Inquest report proves the death of the deceased and prosecution proves the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and prayed the court to punish the accused for the offence u/sec 304A of IPC.

19.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused vehemently argues that the accused saw the deceased fell down on road with head injury and on humanitarian grounds he helped the deceased by shifting her to hospital in a ambulance, despite of 6

CC.No. 10843 of 2021 Date:14-05-2026

expressing the gratitude, the accused is falsely implicated in this case. The accused is innocent and no way connected to this case, he did not commit any offence and prayed to acquit him.

20.The prosecution evidence goes to show that the PW.1 and PW.2 are not the direct eye witnesses to the incident, they did not present at the scene of offence, one ambulance driver who shifted the deceased to hospital disclosed the manner of accident to PW.1 and PW.2, and the prosecution did not even examine the ambulance driver . Had the PW.1 and PW.2 saw the accused, there would be scope for conducting

TIP for proper identification of accused, but the PW.1 and PW.2 did not even stated identity particulars and physical features of accused to police so as to enable them to conduct test identification proceedings for identification of accused. Accused is stranger to PW1 PW2. They do not have any prior acquaintance with him. Identifying the person for the first time in the court after lapse of nearly 5 years without any prior acquaintance cannot be trusted so easily unless there is some corroborative evidence.

21.It is well settled that the identification of the accused by the witnesses for the first time in Court when such witness were stranger to the accused and got only a fleeting glimpse of the accused, is not reliable. - State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdev

Singh AIR 1992 SC 2100 : (1192) 3 SCC 700.

22.The Hon’ble supreme court in State of Maharashtra CBI vs Sukhdev Singh alias

Sukha AIR (1992)3SCC700 “it would extremely risk to place implicit reliance on identification made for the first time in court after a long lapse of time. But it has to be kept in mind that this principle will apply case of total strangers.”

23.Therefore this court feel that Mere identification of the accused in the open court is not sufficient unless the manner of the accident is proved, the PW.1 and p.w.2 did not deposed about the manner in which the accused took place, except stating that the accused drove the bike with a high speed nothing have deposed by them which proves the rash and negligent act of the accused. Therefore the testimonies of PW.1 7

CC.No. 10843 of 2021 Date:14-05-2026

and PW.2 does not inspire confidence in the mind of the court and cannot place any reliance and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

In the result: The accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 304A of

IPC . Accordingly he is acquitted u/sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C Bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled and the sureties are discharged after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 14th day of May,2026.

Sd/

XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution: PW1: Sriramulu PW2: G. Naveen Kumar PW3: M. Arun Kumar

Exhibits Marked For

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex P1 is the report Ex.P2 is the FIR Ex.P3 is the CDF along with rough sketch Ex.P4 is the Inquest report Ex.P5 is the PME report Ex.P6 is the MVI report.

Material Objects Marked

NIL

Sd/

XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

1

CC.No. 8236 of 2020 Date: 01-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : Smt. V. Sowmya,

XIV ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 01st day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 8236 of 2020

Between:-

The State represented through The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Panjagutta, Hyderabad. ..… Complainant.

AND

Bankala Madhava Rao @ Madhu S/o Alluraiah, age 38 years, Occ: Makeup Man R/o Vigneshwara Hostel, Krishna Nagar, Hyderabad N/o Naguluvaram Village, Markapuram Mandal, Prakasham District, AP

..... Accused.

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the Additional public Prosecutor Smt. Sree Latha on behalf of the State and of Kum Neetu Panwar Advocates for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub inspector of Police Panjagutta filed the charge sheet in Crime No.

103/2020 U/Sec. 354-A, 506 IPC against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is that 13.02.2020 at 22:30 hours received a complaint/LW1 from Smt. Veeragani Smiley, in which she stated that she got marriage and blessed with two children's, since 3 months she have been working as artist in Serials & movies, mean while a person by name Madhu/accused became acquainted with her. At that time she was shared her photos with him for her opportunities. From then he used her photos as his whatsapp status and spread rumors about her character. He used to hone calls to her mobile from different numbers and used filthy language and came to her hostel and harassed her to sleep with him, otherwise he will stop her opportunities and threatened as he will kill her. Till now 2

CC.No. 8236 of 2020 Date: 01-05-2026

waited all day for his antics to stop, but no use. Therefore she requests you to take necessary action against accused as per law.

3.Basing on the above complaint, registered a case in Cr. No. 103/2020 U/Sec.

354-A, 506 IPC has been registered by Lw-5 and case file handed over to Lw- 6 for further investigation.

4. During the course of investigation LW-6 examined the LW.1 and recorded her detailed statement. LW-6 visited the scene of offence which is located at Bankala

Madhava Rao @ Madhu and secured the presence of witness i.e. Lw-2, who corroborated the same statement of Lw-1 all aspects. Later, Lw-6 secured the presence of two mediators i.e. Lws-3 & 4 and secured the presence of two mediators and conducted the scene of offence observation panchanama and also drawn rough sketch of the scene.

5.As per the statements of the Lws-1 to 3, the prima facie case is proved against the accused. As such LW-6 took the accused into custody and interrogated thoroughly, on interrogation the accused voluntarily admitted to guilty of this offence. Basing on the confession made by accused, Lw-6 issued a notice U/Sec. 41 A (1) Cr.PC and served to him on 11-03-2020 with instructions to appear before the court as and when required/directed and to co-operate in the investigation.

6.This court has taken cognizance against accused for the offences, U/s 354-A, 506 IPC.

7.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents was furnished to him u/sec.207 Cr.P.C. the accused is examined u/sec 239 Cr.P.C for the charges framed against accused U/s 354-A, 506 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

CC.No. 8236 of 2020 Date: 01-05-2026

8.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined (1) witnesses as PW.1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P3.

9.After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused is examined u/sec 313 of

Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence voiced against him to which he pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

10.Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences u/sec. 354-A, 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.To prove the guilty of the accused, the prosecution altogether examined 1 witness. PW1 is the Investigation officer and prosecution marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

Evidence on Record:

12. PW1: B. Vijay Bhaskar Reddy. He deposed that Previously he worked as a

Sub Inspector of police, at PS Panjagutta from March 2018 to June 2023. He can identified the signature of LW5/N. Niranjan Reddy, the then Inspector of police, PS

Panjagutta. On 13-02-2020 at 22:30 hrs LW5 received a complaint from LW1 and he registered a case in Cr.No.103/2020 U/s 354 A, 506 of IPC and handed over CD file to him for further investigation. During the course of his investigation he examined and recorded the statements of LW1 and he visited the scene of offence located at

Vigneshwara Hostel, Krishna Nagar Hyderabad and secured the presence of two mediators LW3 and LW4 and in their presence conducted scene of offence and drawn the rough sketch and incorporated the details in CDF. At the scene of offence he secured the presence of Lw2 and recorded his statement. On 11-03-2020 in response to 41 A Cr.PC notice, the accused surrendered and admitted his guilt. He concluded his investigation and filed the charge sheet in this case. Ex.P1 complaint, Ex.P2 FIR,

Ex.P3 CDF.

4

CC.No. 8236 of 2020 Date: 01-05-2026

Answer to the point:

13. The complainant/LW1 is not examined in the court, during trial the police filed the report stating that the complainant/LW1 in reply to the summons, she sent a message through whatsapp by endorsing a letter, requesting the court to close the case as she is residing far from Hyderabad and unable to come to court and she wants to withdraw the case. Considering the request of LW1, this court closed the evidence of LW1. In view of the request raised by LW1, the evidence of circumstantial witnesses and panch witnesses LW2 to LW5 are also closed. The investigation officer is examined as PW1, he is not direct witness to any of the incidents, his evidence is purely procedure in nature and does not helpful to the prosecution in proving the dishonest intention and the sexual harassment caused against the LW1. There is no any incriminating material evidence against the accused.

14.The prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the offence U/sec 354-A, 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

In the result: The accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 354-A, 506 of

IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted u/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled and the sureties are discharged after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 01st day of May,2026.

Sd/-

XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution:Defence: PW1: B. Vijay Bhaskar Reddy None 5

CC.No. 8236 of 2020 Date: 01-05-2026

Exhibits Marked For

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex P1 is the complaint NIL Ex.P2 is the FIR Ex.P3 is the CDF

Material Objects Marked

NIL

Sd/-

XIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.