Vacant FAC S.Thangamani

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

Guntakal.

Present:- Smt. S.Thangamani, Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal FAC Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

Thursday, the 28th day of January, 2021

CC.No.118/2019

BETWEEN:

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

…... Complainant.

AND

Boya Ramu @ Hanumanthu, S/o Narasimhulu, age 20 years, resident of Kasimgadda Street, Kosigi Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

…... Accused.

This case has come before me on 06-12-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Smt S.Suhasini for Prosecution and of Sri

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

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Adoni Railway Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.44/2019 under section 224 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: On 10.07.2019 at 08:00 am., the LW.11 K.Dastagiri, Sub-Inspector of police, Adoni Railway police station has arrested the accused and another accused by name Duranigeri Gopal and recovered three cellphones from their possession in Cr.Nos.54/2019 under section 379 of IPC of Gooty RPS, 09/2019 under section 379 of IPC of Gooty RPS and 41/2019 under section 379 of IPC of Adoni RPS and they were brought him to 2

Adoni RPS and on the same day that is on 10.07.2019 they forwarded him for judicial remand before this court but this court has returned the remand report in

Cr.No.41/2019 under section 379 of IPC of Adoni RPS with specific objections and later the accused and the said accused person were brought to Adoni RPS and handed over to the sentry RPC.1236/LW.2/M.Ershad at 20:00 hours. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that on 11.07.2019 at 06:00 hours, the Lws.2 and 3/V.Mahendra, RPC.409, Adoni RPS were unauthorizedly handed over the accused to the LW.1/T.Veeresh, Home Guard No.387 of Adoni RPS and they left the police station and thereafter he escaped from the custody of the LW.1 and went away at about 06:30 hours when the LW.1 has bring the accused for nature calls on his request for which based on the report of the LW.1, the LW.11 has registered this case as in Cr.No.44/2019 under section 224 of IPC and investigated the case. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that on 05.09.2019 at 08:00 hours the LW.11 has arrested him at Kosigi Railway station and forwarded him for judicial remand and after completion of investigation the LW.11 has filed charge sheet in this case.

Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under section 224 of IPC and on appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.When the accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., he denied the substance of the accusation under section 224 of IPC after read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has listed 11 witnesses, examined 4 witnesses as Pws.1 to 4, got marked Exs.P1 and P2. The evidence of the Lws.4 to 10 (C.Sivaramaiah, RPHC,910, Adoni RPS, G.Praveen, 3

RPC.838, Adoni RPS, K.Ekaveera, RPC.644, Adoni RPS, KMD.Ghouse, RPC.1193,

Adoni RPS, B.Gadilinga, RPC.1299, Adoni RPS, B.Nagesh, ARPC.1186, Adoni RPS,

U.K.Bhargavi, WRPC.1290, Adoni RPS and N.Mahalakshmi, WRPC.1282, Adoni RPS) is given up by the Assistant Public Prosecutor on 23.10.2019. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents were marked.

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

PW.1 T.Veeresh, Home Guard No.387, Adoni RPS is the defacto complainant to the occurrence of the incident. PWs.2 to 4 (M.Ershad, RPC.1236, Adoni RPS,

V.Mahendra, RPC.409, Adoni RPS and K.Dastagiri, Sub-Inspector of police, Adoni

Railway Police station) are the investigating officers in this case.

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

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

9.Now the point for consideration is, whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 224 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

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

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

11. As seen from the evidence of the PW.1, he has testified that on 11.07.2019 at 06:00 am., he went to the Adoni Railway police station for attending to Roll 4 calls and there he found the Pws.2 and 3 and they told him that they will again come to the Adoni Railway police station after fresh up and accordingly they went away after handing over the accused to him by name Boya Ramu @ Hanumanthu in order to look after him since the accused without proper acknowledgment or any authority he took the accused meantime. The accused is involved in the cell phone theft case vide in Cr.No.41/2019 under section 379 of IPC of Adoni RPS and after completion of half an hour the accused is requested him to go to nature calls for which he bring out him from the lock up for nature calls and accordingly he brought him to the latrine for which the accused pushed him on the ground and ran away from his hands for which he making efforts to caught hold him but in vain for which he immediately informed the same to the PW.4 came to the Adoni

Railway police station within half an hour after receiving his phone call and the

Pws.2 and 3 are also came to the Adoni Railway police station and thereafter he lodged the written report before the PW.4 about the occurrence of the incident. He admitted in his cross examination on the date of offence there are two police constables were available along with him at the Adoni Railway police station. The main entrance of Adoni Railway police station facing towards platform No.1 one can enter and exists into the Adoni Railway police station though main entrance door. The said railway station is under security of CC Cameras. He further admitted that there is adjacent bathroom situated Adoni RPS which is at a distance about 10 feet to the Adoni RPS and another bathrooms are available in

Adoni RPS second room. By the time of timing custody of accused there are number of passengers waiting of boarding into 12 Express and Karnataka Express trains. He further admitted that in general the accused came outside the hand coughs are put the hands of the accused persons. Whenever they bring out side from the police station. He further admitted that the accused ran over eastern side on the platform NO.1 of Adoni Railway station he also making cries but no one come forward to caught hold the accused. He gave report on 11.07.2019 at 5 07:00 AM to LW.11. There are other railway officials and RPFs also present on the platform No.1. The counsel for the accused put the suggestion that himself leave the accused from his custody the accused never ran away from his custody. The accused is no way concerned to this case.

12.PW.2 has testified that on 10.07.2019 at about 07:00 pm., he was deputed for Sentry duty at Adoni Railway police station and accordingly he performing his

Sentry duties at Adoni Railway police station while so at about 08:00 pm, the PW.3 and LW.9 (V.Mahendra, RPC.409, Adoni RPS B.Nagesh, ARPC.1290, Adoni RPS) were together bring the accused and the another accused by name Gopal to the

Adoni Railway police station from this court in Cr.No.41/2019 under section 379 of

IPC of Adoni RPS and handed over the accused to him and again the PW.4 was deputed him and the PW.3 for surveillance duty to the said accused persons at about 08:30 pm and accordingly he and the PW.3 were together performing their duties for the said accused persons and on 11.07.2019 at about 06:00 am., he handed over the said accused persons to the PW.3 and went for fresh up/bathing and on the same day that is on 11.07.2019 between 07:15 am., and 07:30 am., he came to know through the PW.4 stating that the accused was ran away from the hand of the PW.1 for which he immediately rushed to Adoni RPS and he came to know that the accused is ran away from the hand of the PW.1 on the ground of the accused is intending to go to nature calls by that time he ran away from the hands of the PW.1 for which the PW.1 has lodged the report the before the PW.4.

He admitted in his cross examination is not the eye witness to the offence there is another accused person in the lock up along with the said accused person. He further admitted that he came to know to the LW.11 about this case.

13.PW.3 has testified that 10.07.2019 he and the LW.9/U.K.Bhargavi,

WPRC.1290 of Adoni RPS were deputed for escort duty for the accused and 6 another accused person by name Gopal relating to Cr.No.41/2019 under section 379 of IPC of Adoni RPS and accordingly he and the LW.9 were brought the accused and the another accused from the Adoni RPS and produced them before this court along with remand report for which after verifying the same and its connected papers this court is come to conclusion that age proof particulars were enquired to proceed the case further and accordingly returned the same with the said objection and thereafter he and the LW.3 were receive the same from his court and went to Adoni RPS along with the accused and another accused by 08:00 pm., and the PW.4 has came there and deputed him and PW.2 for surveillance duty for the accused and another accused and accordingly he and the PW.2 were performed the their duties for the accused and another accused and thereafter on 11.07.2019 between 06:10 am., and 06:20 am., he handed over the accused and another accused to the PW.1 and went to fresh up/bathing and thereafter he came to know through the PW.4 that the accused is ran away from the hand of the PW.1 for which immediately he rushed to the Adoni RPS and he came to know about the aforesaid facts of the case. He admitted in his cross examination that he is not the eye witness of this case. In general they are use the hand coughs the accused went for bathroom but they came out side with the accused they put hand cups to the accused. The counsel for the accused put a suggestion that the accused never escaped from the custody of PW.1.

14.PW.4 has testified that on 11.07.2019 at about 06:30 am., while he was present at his house situated at Adoni, the PW.1 has informed him through phone stating that the accused was escaped from the custody of the PW.1 for which the

PW.1 has requested him to come to the Adoni RPS for which immediately he reached the premises of Adoni Railway police station and searched for the accused in the premises of Adoni Railway police station but in vain and thereafter he returned to Adoni Railway police station and he received the roll call and 7 conducted the meeting with their available staff/men with regard to escape of the accused from the custody of the PW.1 and in the said meeting the PW.1 has told him that when the PW.1 has bring the accused for nature calls at his request to the latrine situated beside the Adoni Railway police the accused pushed him down and ran away from the custody of the PW.1 and after two minutes of the said meeting he and his available staff were again searched him in the surrounding places of Adoni Railway police station but in vain and thereafter they returned to

Adoni Railway police station for which the PW.1 has lodged the report before him for which he registered this case as in Cr.No.44/2019 under section 244 of IPC and investigated the case. On 05.09.2019 he reached the Kosigi Railway Station along with his staff and there when the accused fled away on seeing them on his instructions his staff caught hold him and produced him before him for which he enquired him that whey he fled away on seeing the police for which he was admitted the commission of the offence stating that he escaped from the custody of the PW.1 on 11.07.2019 in Cr.No.41/2019 under section 379 of IPC of Adoni RPS for which he arrested the accused after informing the grounds of the arrest to him and brought him to Adoni Railway police station and forwarded him for judicial remand and after completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet in this case under section 224 of IPC of Adoni Railway police station.

15.PW.4 has admitted in his cross examination that he arrested the accused prior to this case in Cr.NO.41/2019 accused person by name B.Gopal under section 379 of IPC of Adoni RPS on 10.07.2019 the court return the remand report with specific objections for age proof of the accused. They are under the preparation of complaint meanwhile the accused absconded. He received the information where about of the accused with in a distance of 100 meters near the

Adoni RPF Post platform No.1 of Adoni Railway station. He also verified the CC camera footage but no clues available. He further admitted that there is a wall the 8 existing opposite the platform No.1. The counsel for the accused put a suggestion that there is compound wall there is no possibility of absconding the accused. the prosecution given up the LWs.4 to 10.

16.There is a clear negligence that as per the evidence of PW.4 there are two constables are available at the Adoni Railway police station even though they handed over the accused to the Home guard. It is the cross negligence towards the duties of the escort duty persons handed over the accused to the Home guard there is no hand coughs at the time of escaping of the accused. It is a doubt whether the accused wontedly escaped from the custody of the police or the PW.1 wontedly leave the accused after taking money. Unfortunately the CC cameras in

Railway station and also not working on the date offence. It clearly shows that the

Accused escaped from the there is a not proved the offence i.e., the accused escaped from the custody of the police. It is clearly shows that the negligence in the duty of the PW.1 whether the accused made any injury to the PW.1 while escaping from the bathroom it is the duty of the PW.1 to take care and vigilant in his duty. Hence prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused as escaped from the custody of the police.

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 224 of IPC and thereby he is acquitted under section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. Since the prosecution agency did not produce any case property and hence there is no order for the case property. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

Typed my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 28th day of January, 2021.

Sd/- S.Thangamani

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal Special Judicial First Class Magistrate

(Railways), Guntakal.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence:

PW1: T.Veeresh, Home Guard No.387, Adoni RPS. -None - PW2: M.Ershad, RPC.236, Adoni RPS. PW3: V.Mahendra, RPC.409, Adoni RPS. PW4: K.Dastagiri, Sub-Inspector of police, Adoni Railway police station.

Exhibits Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1: Report of the PW.1 dated 11.07.2019. -Nil - Ex.P2: FIR in Cr.No.44/2019 under section 224 of IPC dated 11.07.2019.

Material Objects Marked for

Prosecution: Defence: -Nil- -Nil-

Sd/- STM

JFCM/GTL Spl.J.F.C.M.(Rly’s), Guntakal.

// True copy // Attested //

Calendar and Judgment

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

C.C.No.118 of 2019

Date of Offence: 10/07/19 Date of Report: 10/07/19 Date of apprehension of the accused: 05/09/19 Date of release on bail: 23/10/19 Date of Commencement of Trial: 16/10/19 Date of Close of trial: 23/10/19 Date of Judgment: 28/01/21

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.118/2019 on the file of Special Judicial

First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

BETWEEN:

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

…... Complainant.

AND

Boya Ramu @ Hanumanthu, S/o narasimhulu, age 20 years, resident of Kasimgadda Street, Kosigi Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

…... Accused.

Offence: Under section 224 of IPC. Finding: Found not guilty. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 224 of IPC and thereby he is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Since the prosecution agency did not produce any case property and hence there is no order for the case property. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

Explanation for delay and remarks if any:- This case was taken on file on 19-09-2019. Copies of documents were furnished to the accused on 26-09-2019 and he was examined Under section 251 of Cr.P.C., and a charge was framed on 11-10-2019, PW.1 was examined on 16-10- 2019, prosecution evidence is closed on 23-10-2019, after closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined Under section 313 of Cr.P.C., on 23-10-2019, heard the arguments by the both sides on 13-11-2019, Judgment delivered on 28- 01-2021. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- S.Thangamani

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal Special Judicial First Class Magistrate

(Railways), Guntakal.

// True copy // Attested //

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

Guntakal.

Present:- Smt.S.Thangamani, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal FAC Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

Friday, the 04rth day of December, 2020.

Calendar Case No.39/2019

BETWEEN:-

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

...... Complainant.

AND

1)Srina, age 30 years (A1), S/o Govindu, R/o Behanahal Village, Halaharvi Mandal, Kurnool District.

2)Laxmikanth (A2), Age 26 years, S/o Ambanna, R/ Behanahal Village, Halaharvi Mandal, Kurnool District.

3)Kaadappa (A3), Age 30 years, S/o Sunkanna, R/o Behanahal Village, Halaharvi Mandal, Kurnool District.

4)Nabi Rasool (A4), Age 45 years, S/o Chenna Kasim, R/o Behanahal Village, Halaharvi Mandal, Kurnool District.

5)Obulesh (A5), Age 25 years, S/o Vannurappa, R/o Behanahal Village, Halaharvi Mandal, Kurnool District.

..... Accused A1 to A5.

2

This case has come before me on 09-11-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor Sri N.S.Sreenivasulu for Prosecution and of Sri S.Younus Ahammed, Advocate Counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon perusing the material on record, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector, Guntakal Railway Protection Force has filed complaint against the accused in Crime No.01/2019 under Section 3(a) of

R.P.(UP) Act 1966.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: On 15.01.2019 at about 11:45 hours the PW.1/Sub-Inspector has received from

SMR/Bavinahal Railway station stating that one Coal wagons goods train arrived at about 10:45 hours and some outsiders taken away the Railway wagon tarpaulins and requested for necessary action. In this connection during the course of enquires on 17.01.2019 at about 06:30 hours in the early morning while the PW.1 along with LW.2 A.Nagabhushanam,

Con.5092/Guntakal RPF and G.Ragappa, Con.5748/Guntakal RPF on confidential watch at Bavinahal Railway station to Bavinahal village road (about half kilometers from Railway station) and apprehended the A1 to A5 while each one carrying railway wagon tarpaulin and each 5 numbers of

Railway pendrol clips in black colour cover in suspicious manner and then the

PW.1 has enquired them in the presence of mediators, the A1 to A5 are revealed their names and address particulars as mentioned in the complaint and further the A1 confessed that on 15.01.2019 at about 10:45 hours the

A1 along with A2 to A5 were came to Bavinahal Railway station and the same time one coal wagons goods train came to Railway station and they noticed about 36 wagons were covered with black cover railway wagon Tarpaulins and then the A1 to A5 were committed theft of 36 numbers of Railway wagon tarpaulins and on further enquiry the A1 to A5 are stated that they are 3 committed theft of the said pendrol clips from the said place with an intention to dispose the same to vendors for which the PW.1 has seized the same and recorded their confession statement in which they are admitted their guilty for which the PW.1 has registered this case as in Cr.No.1/2019 under section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act 1966 and forwarded them for judicial remand and after completion of the enquiries the PW.1 has filed complaint against them under section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act 1966. Hence, the complaint.

3.The case was taken on file against the A1 to A5 for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act, 1966 and on appearance of the A1 to A5 before this court copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.When the A1 to A5 were examined under Section 246(2) of Cr.P.C., they denied the substance of accusation. After perusing the entire material available on record and on hearing the both sides a charge under Section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act 1966 is framed against the A1 to A5, read over and explained its contents in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

5. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has listed 5 witnesses, examined 3 witnesses as Pws.1 to 3, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 and MOs.1 and 2 were marked. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the A1 to A5 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and explained the incriminating material appearing from the prosecution witnesses in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

4

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

8.Now the point for consideration is, whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the A1 to A5 for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act, 1966 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

9.The Public prosecutor has contended that the evidence on record is sufficient to convict the A1 to A5 and prays to convict the A1 to A5 according to Law. On behalf of the defence, the counsel for the A1 to A5 has contended and focused the defects in the case of the prosecution and prays to acquit the A1 to A5 in the ends of Justice.

10.Prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P13 and

MOs.1 and 2 were marked.

11.PW.1 is the complainant V.Bhaskar, Sub-Inspector, Guntakal RPF Post he deposed that he gave Ex.P.1 report on 15.01.2019 at 11:45 hours he received a message over phone from Station Master, Bavanahal Railway

Station stating that one goods train consisting coal wagon arrived at Railway station and some outsiders entered in to Railway station and taken tarpaulins covered on said Goods train. On 17.01.2019 at about 06:30 hours he along with his staff making watch at Bavanahal Railway station to Bavanahal village road and there he noticed the A1 to A5 carrying each one tarpaulin and one bag on suspicion he detained them in the presence of mediators/PW.2 and

LW.2 A.Nagabhushanam and on his enquiry A1 to A5 revealed their names and address particulars mentioned in the complaint and he checked the bags which were in the possession of A1 to A5 in the presence of PW.2 and LW.2 5

A.Nagabhushanam, he found 5 pendrol clips in each bag with each accused in total 25 pendrol clips and further he found 5 tarpaulins in possession of the

A1 to A5 and on his enquiry A1 to A5 made confession of theft of 36 tarpaulins covered on the aforesaid Goods train, 25 pendrol clips by the side of Railway track and they concealed the said 36 tarpaulins in the bushes. On 17.01.2019 while taking 5 tarpaulins and 25 pendrol clips they were caught by RPF party. A1 to A5 did not produce any valid authority to posses the aforesaid railway property. Thereafter he arrested the A1 to A5 Bavanahal railway station under cover of panchanama dated 17.01.2019. He also prepared seizure list-1 and acknowledged the same by A1 to A5. He also affixed identity slips on the seized property duly signed by him and PW.2 and

LW.2 A.Nagabhushanam. Then he recorded confession statement of A1 to A5 in the presence of PW.2 and LW.2 A.Nagabhushanam on the same day A1 to

A5 lead and shown remaining particulars which were kept in the bushes that is Bavanahal village – Bavanahal village road. Then they reached there they found remaining 31 tarpaulins in the bushes. Then he seized the same in the presence of PW.2 and LW.2 A.Nagabhushanam under cover of panchanama-2.

He prepared seizure list-2 and acknowledged the same. Then he returned to the RPF Post along with A1 to A5 and case property and produced the same

before him, he registered this case as in Cr.No.1/2019 under section 3(a) of

R.P.(UP) Act 1966 and on the same day 17.01.2019 he received a theft report from the PW.3 relating to missing of pendrol clips 25 in number and the same day he examined the PW.2 and recorded his statement and issued the certificate by certifying that aforesaid case property is belongs to railways. On 27.02.2019 he examined and recorded the statement of the LW.2

A.Nagabhushanam and PW.2 after confession of enquiry he filed complaint through him Ex.P.1 to P.13, MOs.1 and 2 marked. He admitted in his cross examination there no identification marks on the tarpaulins stating that the 6 said tarpaulins was belongs to railways and also no identification marks on the said iron clips stating there are belongs to railways. The said tarpaulins available in the open market. He after admitted that the said iron clips cannot be used for tracks which were laying for cement factory and iron factories.

Prior to registering this case. He did not receive any kind of information from the concern department relating to the said iron clips and the said tarpaulins.

He further admitted that he affixed one punch slip after taking the thumb impression and all persons of accused and on his enquiry he did not issue either notices and summons to the Pw.2 and LW.3 requesting them to act as mediator in this case.

12.PW.2 is the one of the mediator he deposed that he was doing coolie works he was called by the PW.1 requesting him to act as mediator in this case while he was going to Bavanahal village and another mediator also present at that time but he does not know his name. At that time when he see the A1 to A5 are in the custody of the PW.1 along with tarpaulins each accused person having one polythene bag in his presence the PW.1 checked the said bags for which the each accused is having one polythene bag containing 5 iron lips. When the questioning of PW.1 enquired about tarpaulins they replied that they committed theft of 36 tarpaulins from the

Goods train while it was stationed in the Bavanahal railway station and A1 to

A5 further admitted that the remaining 31 tarpaulins are concealed in bushes and further they stated that they taken over the said iron clips by the side of

Railway track. Thereafter the PW.1 has arrested the A1 to A5 and seized the 5 tarpaulins and 25 numbers of pendrol clips under the cover of Ex.P.1 and

P.2. He attested the Ex.P.1 and P.2 in his presence PW.1 recorded the confession statement of the A1 to A5 in his presence under Ex.P.3 to P.7.

After that there are proceeded along with A1 to A5 concealed 31 tarpaulins 7 they bring out from the bushes and Pw.1 seized them under Ex.P.8 and P.9.

After 20 days of seizure of the property the PW.1 arrested the A1 to A5 in his presence he was examined by the PW.1 ender Ex.P.12. He admitted in his cross examination he is living by coolie work in Guntakal Railway station. He does not know names and address particulars of the A1 to A6. He signed the written papers before the RPF Officers but he does not know which kind of papers he signed before the RPF Officers.

13.PW.3 is the SSE/P.Way he deposed that on 29.01.2019 he issue theft report to Guntakal RPF authorities relating to missing of 25 numbers of pendrol clips at KM.No.240/3-4 at Bavanahal Railway station and on the same day i.e., on 29.01.2019 at evening hours he again attended the

Guntakal RPF Office to certify the case property which was seized in

Cr.No.1/2019 of Guntakal RPF and the PW.1 has produced the 25 numbers of pendrol clips before him for which he examined the same and certified the same that the same is belongs to Railways used in Engineering Department for fixing the same for Railway track and they are serviceable condition and they are not available in the open marked and are not actionable by Railways being the same is exclusively designed for Railways. He admitted in his cross examination nobody given any representation requesting him to certify the case property he gave the complaint to the Guntakal RPF authorities requesting them to conduct enquiry relating to missing of 25 numbers of pendrol clips. He further admitted that there are no identity marks of Indian

Railways and South central railways on the pendrol clips. Witness adds that the said pendrol clips exclusively designed for railways. There are writing on the said pendrol clips exclusively for design for railways. Guntakal RPF authorities did not seize the stock register maintained by them relating to missing of the said pendrol clips sometimes the said pendrol clips can be 8 auctioned, by the time private contractors can be purchased the same. Now they can be available in the open market also. The similar railway tracks are lying for cement factories and for iron factories for which the said pendrol clips can be used. After examining the aforesaid pendrol clips, identity slips which were affixed on the said pendrol clips and accordingly he did so in all the said pendrol clips but he did not remember that he can do the same on the said pendrol clips or not. He do not remember the crime number and section of law noted on the identity slips or not.

14Basing on the confessional statements of the accused A1 to A5 i.e.,

Exs.P.3 to P.7. The accused are convicted for the offence under section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act 1966 because they are confessed before the PW.1 ie.., RPF SI according to the Judgment.

16.The Hon’ble Supreme court of India Balakrishna.A Deva Diyal etc., Vs

State of Maharashtra etc., on 31.07.1980. Equallent citation; 1981 AIR 379, 1981 SCR(1) 175.

17.According to the Indian Evidence Act sections 25, 26, 27 Railway

Protection Force Officer whether “Police Officer” Under section 25 of Evidence

Act. Giving find out that the Railway Protection Force is not comes under police. So, that confession before RPF is admissible in evidence. Moreover the

PW.2 the mediator also corroborated the evidence of PW.1. According to the

PW.3 a grave theft the report i.e., Ex.P.10 basing on the confessional statements PW.1 seized the Mos.1 and 2. Even though PW.1 not issued summons to the mediator PW.2 he made phone call to the mediator in his presence he recorded the confessional statement and seizure and arrest done in his presence. PW.3 reported even though the pendrol clips and tarpaulins not containing the seal or indication or marks which shows that MOs belongs 9 to Railways those properties easily available in the market. Basing on the

Confessional statement by A1 to A5. The accused are convicted under section 3(a) of R.P(UP) Act 1966. The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt corroborated with PWs.1 to 3 they are convicted.

18.When asked about the quantum of sentence to be imposed to the A1 to

A5, they are stated that this is the first offence and they got small children and old parents and they are poor coolies and they are only bread winners of their families and prays the court to take lenient view.

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

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 03rd day of December, 2020.

Sd/- S.Thangamani

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal FAC Special Judicial First Class Magistrate

(Railways), Guntakal.

This court is not inclined to extend the benefit of the benevolent

Provision of Sec.4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the A1 to A5.

In the result, the A1 to A5 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 3(a) of R.P.(UP) Act and thereby the A1 to A5 are convicted for the offence 248(2) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2000-00 (Rupees two thousand only) each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 07 days each (Total fine amount of Rs.10,000/-). The MOs.1 and 2 which were in the custody of Guntakal RPF Post Officials shall be returned to concerned Railway Authorities after appeal time is over. This court has duly explained to the A1 to A5 about the right of appeal and providing free legal aid to the A1 to A5 for filing appeal before the

Honourable Appellate Court. The bail bonds of the A1 to A5 shall be in force

for a period of six months.

10

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

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 04th day of December, 2020.

Sd/- S.Thangamani

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal

FAC Special Judicial First Class Magistrate

(Railways), Guntakal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW.1: V.Bhaskar, Sub-Inspector, -None - Guntakal Railway Protection Force. PW.2: S.Khaja. PW.3: M.Ramesh Reddy, SSE/P.Way, Guntakal.

Exhibits Marked:

For Prosecution:For Defence:

Ex.P.1: Panchanama dated 17.01.2019 at about -Nil - 07:00 am. Ex.P.2: Seizure list-1. Ex.P.3: Confessional statement of A1. Ex.P.4: Confessional statement of A2. Ex.P.5: Confessional statement of A3. Ex.P.6: Confessional statement of A4. Ex.P.7: Confessional statement of A5. Ex.P.8: Panchanama dated 17.01.2019 at about 08:40 am. Ex.P.9: Seizure list-2. Ex.P.10: Theft report given by LW.4 Lingamurthy. Ex.P.11: Case property certificate issued by the LW.4 Lingamurthy. Ex.P.12: Statement of LW.2 A.Nagabushanam. Ex.P.13: Statement of PW.2.

Material Objects Marked:

For Prosecution: For Defence:

MO.1: 25 numbers of pendrol clips. -Nil- MO.2: 36 numbers of tarpaulins.

Sd/- STM

JFCM/GTL FAC Spl.J.F.C.M.(Rly’s), Guntakal.

// True copy // Attested //

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

Guntakal.

Present:- Smt. S.Thangamani, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal. FAC/ Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

Thursday, the 25th day of March, 2021

Calender Case.No.70/2019

BETWEEN:

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

…... Complainant.

AND

Niranjan Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, Aged about 22 years, resident of D.No.1/18, Chapatla Village, Gurumetikal Taluq, Yadgiri District, Karnataka Sate.

…... Accused.

This case has come before me on 25-03-2021 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Smt S.Suhasini for Prosecution and of Sri MD.Baba Tazuddin, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon perusing the material available on record this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu Railway Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.20/2019 under section 354(A) of

IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: On 25.04.2019 at about 09:00 pm., while the defacto complainant/PW1/Abha Jeurkar have been travelling from Kacheguda to Yeswanthapur in Train No.17603 Prashanthi Nilayam

Express in S-5 coach in berth No.72 at that time the PW.2/O.Jaswanth Kumar is also boarded the same train to proceeded to Yeswanthapur and when the said train has reached towards Ananthapuramu Railway station on 26.04.2019 2 between 01:00 hours and 05:00 hours the PW.1 has found the accused is created touched repeatedly to the PW.1 at the same time he was exposed his genitals to the PW.1 by standing outside of the bathroom near the PW.1 berth in the train for which the PW.1 has informed the same to the PW.3/ J.Sudhakar, RPHC.538,

Dharmavaram RPS and LW.4/Giriraj Prasad, PRF PC.2683, Dharmavaram RPS were escort RPF in the said train at that time he was escaped from the said train for which based on the same the PW.1 has lodged the report through mail to the

Ananthapuramu Railway police and the same was the PW.4 has registered this case as in Cr.No.20/2019 under section 354(A) of IPC and investigated the case. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that on 27.04.2019 at 09:00 am., the PW.4 has arrested the accused and forwarded him for judicial remand and after completion of entire investigation the LW.6 M.Sathya Narayana, Sub-Inspector of police, Ananthapuramu Railway police station has filed charge sheet against the accused in this case for the offence punishable under section 354(A) of IPC.

Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under section 354(A) of IPC and on appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.When the accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., he denied the substance of accusation. After perusing the entire material available on record and on hearing the both sides a charge under section 354(A) of IPC is framed and read over and explained its contents in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

5. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has listed 6 witnesses, examined the 4 witnesses as Pws.1 to 4, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4.

3

The evidence of the LW.4 Giriraj Prasad is given up by the Assistant Public

Prosecutor on 12.02.2020. The evidence of LW.6 M.Sathya Narayana Sub-Inspector of police, Ananthapuramu Railway police station is given up by the Assistant

Public Prosecutor on 11.03.2020. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents were marked.

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

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

8.Now the point for consideration is, whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 354(A) of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

9.The prosecution examined as PW.1 to PW.4 and Ex.P.1 to P.4 were got marked.

10.PW.1 is the defacto complainant she gave report against accused she is resident of Bangalore city she is a Research scholar, and the PW.2 is co-passenger in the same train, as well as the accused also co-passenger same train, but the accused was not present at the time of her chief examination. Then she identified the accused who is occurrence of the offence and he was repeatedly touched to

PW.1 and exposed his genitals for sexual harassment. She admitted in her cross examination she occupied middle berth near bathroom side in the train. So, that possible to touched that berth seat, then the accused intentionally, knowingly, repeatedly touched the PW.1 and harassed sexually. She further admitted that the 4 corroborated the accused is going in around the train and when she was laying in her berth by that time the accused touched her around her knees at first time and again he touched her at second time on her chest and on her thighs when he came back for which she saw the escort police then she informed the same. She further admitted that the accused harassed sexually to her, other eye witness/PW.2 corroborated and support the her and saw the occurrence of the offence. She suffer and sexually harassed by the accused and it is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that one the repeatedly touched the her and exposed his genitals.

11.The accused standing near the bathroom situated nearer to their coach and made some sound from his mouth and pulled his pant down and exposing his genital to the PW.1 and PW.2 was observed the same the behavior of the accused.

The PW.2 is the eye witness and PW.2 informed the same to the escort police i.e.,

PW.3 in the same way the behavior of the accused and the same corroboration in cross examination also, but the same was not denied by the defence counsel. She further admitted in her cross examination that PW.2 and along with PW.1 and others went to the accused and asked about his behavior and they asked his travelling ticket, which he shows his shows his travelling ticket, then the PW.1 took the capture of his ticket in her phone. After that she handed over the accused to escort police. It clearly shows that the corroboration of the evidence of PW.1. It is proved beyond all reasonable doubt the accused intentionally sexually harassed the PW.1. The PW.1 further re-irritated in her chief examination she made online complaint i.e. Ex.P.1 Ananthapuramu Railway police. PW.1 admitted in her cross examination that accused was wearing blue shirt from the night journey at the time of occurrence.

5

12.PW.2 is the co-passenger of the same train he also travelled by the PW.1, she deposed that the accused repeatedly went away the PW.1 to go to bathroom of her coach, the PW.2 witnessed the above occurrence of the offence. The PW.1 admitted in her cross examination she identify the accused at present he gave his evidence, but she stated in her cross examination she did not remember the accused wore. It is not fatal to the prosecution for the colour the dress.

13.PW.3 is the escort duty above said in the train on 25/26.04.2019 the train

No.17603 Kacheguda to Yeswanthpur Express, PW.1 they reached along with LW.2 to the PW.1 coach she came out and reported about the sexual harassed the accused his genitals near the to the toilet and further she stated to him the accused repeatedly touched the body. PW.2 caught hold the accused at

Ananthapuramu Railway station the same was informed to the Ananthapuramu

Railway police for necessary action there the PW.1 not given any written report and she gave report through online after she reached Bangalore.

14.PW.4 is the Investigation Officer, he received E-mail report from the PW.1, then he registered a case in crime number. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 corroboration with the PW.1. The Investigation Officer categorically admits in his cross examination the Investigation Officer seized the travelling ticket of the accused. It clearly shows that the accused traveling in the train on the date of offence. The prosecution is relying a decision with the case of Nanka, S/o

Chimiliya Vs. state M.P reported on 27 October 1988. It is held the FIR and statement recorded under Section.161 Cr.P.C., alleged sexual misconduct witnesses deposing about enmity between parties contradiction in statements of victim as regards incident protection prove the case conviction of the case BIBHAS

KUNTI VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL.

15.Lalitha Joshi Vs. State, 18.11.2019 the accused found guilty offence.

6

16. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 354(A) of Indian Penal Code and thereby he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of

Cr.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of R.3,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for one week for the offence punishable under section 354(A) of Indian Penal Code.

17.When the accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence, he stated that he live by doing coolie works and he is having old aged parents and he is only the person to look after his family and he would not commit any offences in future and praying the court to take lenient view for awarding punishment.

18. Considering all these facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of P.O. Act and the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

19. Upon hearing the accused and upon considering his submission this court finds that the accused under section for the punishable under section 354(A) of

Indian Penal Code and thereby he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of R.3,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for one week for the offence punishable under section 354(A) of Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 of Cr.P.C. The accused is informed about his right to prefer appeal against the judgment passed by this court. No property was seized and that there is no order as to property.

Typed my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 25th day of March, 2021.

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate

(Railways), Guntakal.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: Abha Jeurkar. -None - PW.2: O.Jaswanth Kumar. PW.3: J.Sudhakar. PW.4: G.Nagaraju.

Exhibits Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1: Report(G-mail) of the PW.1 dated 26.04.2019 -Nil - at 01.24 pm Ex.P2: First Information Report. Ex.P3: Rough sketch of the scene of incident dated 26.04.2019. Ex.P4: Online ticket.

Material Objects Marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

-Nil- -Nil-

Spl.J.F.C.M.(Rly’s), Guntakal.

Calendar and Judgment

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

C.C.No.70 of 2019

Date of Offence: 25.04.2019 Date of Report: 26.04.2019 Date of apprehension of the accused: 27.04.2019 Date of release on bail: 27.04.2019 Date of Commencement of Trial: 13.11.2019 Date of Close of trial: 29.01.2021 Date of Judgment: 25.03.2021

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.70/2019 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Railways), Guntakal.

BETWEEN:

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

…... Complainant.

AND

Niranjan Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, Aged about 22 years, resident of D.No.1/18, Chapatla Village, Gurumetikal Taluq,

Yadgiri District, Karnataka Sate. …... Accused.

Offence: Under section 354(A) of IPC. Finding: Found guilty.

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 354(A) of Indian Penal Code and thereby he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of R.3,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for one week for the offence punishable under section 354(A) of Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 of Cr.P.C. The accused is informed about his right to prefer appeal against the judgment passed by this court. No property was seized and that there is no order as to property. Explanation for delay and remarks if any:- This case was taken on file on 22-05-2019. Copies of documents were furnished to the accused on 14-06-2019 and he was examined Under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and a charge was framed on 24-10-2019, PW.1 was examined on 13-11- 2019, prosecution evidence is closed on 29-01-2021, after closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined Under section 313 of Cr.P.C., on 24-02-2021, heard the arguments by the both sides on 23-03-2021, Judgment delivered on 25- 03-2021. Hence, the delay.

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate

(Railways), Guntakal.

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

Guntakal.

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

Friday, this the 28th day of June, 2019

Calender Case No.63/2019

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

Name of the accused:

Mukesh Goud, S/o Late Rajendra Goud, age 20 years, resident of Koiri Tola, Deoria District, Uttar Pradesh.

…... Accused.

Q: You are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 354C of IPC and shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. What do you say with regard to the quantum of sentence provided under section 354C of IPC?

Ans: Maa amma naanna musali vaallu, Vaallaku health bagaledu, vaallaku nene thodu, nenu private job chestunnanu, Rs.5000/- jeethamu.

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

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

GUNTAKAL

Present: Smt.S.Thangamani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal

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

Tuesday this the 06th day of April, 2021

Calendar Case No.72/2019

Between:

The State represented by The Station House Officer, Hindupur Railway Police Station.

...Complainant

And

Nikhil Patil, S/o Vijay Kumar Patil, Aged about 31 years, Residing at H.No.33, 2nd Main, 3rd Phase, Rajaji Nagar, Near Reliance electronics, Bangalore City. ……. Accused.

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 06.04.2021 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor Smt S.Suhasini for Prosecution and of Sri K.Ravindra Kumar, advocate for the accused and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Hindupur Railway Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.27/2019 under sections 323 and 353 of Indian Penal Code.

2.Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.04.2019 at about 07:20 pm., while the defacto complainant/LW.1 R.Venkata Ramana Reddy, Dy.Chief

TTE, South Western Railways, Bangalore he boarded in the train No.12627

Karnataka Express and while discharging his duties in the said train and when the said train has reached near Hindupur from Bangalore one unknown 2 passenger has came to him and informed him that the accused beat him with dire consequences in the said train in the S-13 coach on the accused wish and will for which the Pw.1 has came there and asked him that why he behaving like that and who are you for which the accused is replied with him that his name is Nikhil Patil, S/o Vijay Kumar Patil, age 31 years and thereafter he pulling the chain of the said train for which the said train has stopped at Devarapalli Railway station for which when the PW.1 has asked him that the accused has replied that who are you questioning me and the accused making hues and cries and he came to the PW.1 and making scratches over the face of the Pw.1 and over the shoulders of the Pw.1 and the accused beat him with his hand resulting PW.1 causing bleeding injuries over his face and dumb injuries over the shoulders of the Pw.1 for which the

OBHS staff/personnel are came to him and rescued him from his hands and thereafter he came to Hindupur and informed the same to his friend/Pw.2 through phone for which the PW.2 has came to him and admitted him in the

Government Hospital, Hindupur for treatment for which the PW.1 has lodged the report before the Hindupur Railway police for which the PW.4 has registered this case as in Cr.No.27/2019 under sections 323 and 353 of IPC and investigated the case. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that on 18-04-2019 at 05:30 am., while the PW.4 was present in the police station the accused voluntarily came there and revealed his name and address particulars and confessed the commission of the offence as stated above for which the PW.4 has identified the accused in this case and arrested him and forwarded him for judicial remand and after completion of investigation the

Pw.4 has filed charge sheet in this case.

3. On 30.05.2019 cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 353 of Indian Penal Code Act against the accused.

3

4.After appearance of accused copies were furnished to accused under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code and he was examined under section 251 Criminal Procedure Code for the accusation made in the charge sheet, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, for trial

5.In the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. The evidence of remaining witnesses were closed by this court on 23.03.2021.

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

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

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of

accused for the offences under sections 323 and 353 of Indian

Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

9.In order to prove the case on hand, the prosecution relied on oral testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.4.

10.PW.1 is the defacto complainant.

11.PW.2 is the another witness. His evidence is ear say evidence.

12.PW.3 is the independent eye witness to the occurrence he could not support the prosecution he turned hostel.

13.LW.4 is the doctor who was not examined his evidence was closed but the wound certificate is marked through the Investigation Officer.

4

14.PW.5 is the Investigation Officer who registered and investigated this case.

15.As per evidence of PW.1 is working as a Chief Travelling Ticket

Examiner he deposed that on 16.04.2019 while he has been performing his duties in a Train No.12627 A/C coach the train which goes to Bangalore to

Dharmavaram like that one male person came to him and reported that somebody making noise in S-13 coach in the same train. He went there by that time somebody already pulled the chain of the train. Then he questioned the accused about his ticket he did not shown his ticket. Again he asked to show his ticket. The accused is replied that who are you for questioning him when he escaped from S-13 coach and returned to B1 coach from the hands of the accused. The accused followed him in order to beat him by the time housekeeping staff caught hold the accused and the accused caught hold his tie and caused bleeding injuries by scratching his hand over his face resulting he sustained bleeding injuries over his face and further the accused fisted him over his shoulder resulting he sustained dumb injuries over his left shoulder. Thereafter he gave report on 17.04.2019

before Hindupur Railway police about the occurrence of the incident. Ex.P1 is

the report. After the incident he went to the Government hospital, Hindupur for treatment. Then he informed the same to PW.2 through phone. He came to GRP Office, Hindupur. Police examined him. As per Ex.P.1 a person came to the PW.1 and informed that in the bogie S-13 one person misbehaved with one women there is abuse and beating and threatened to pull the chain.

Then he questioned why he do like that then he replied his name Nikhil Patil,

S/o Vijay Kumar Patil and he pulled the chain then the train was stopped at

Devarapalli Railway station. But the Investigation Officer not enquired whether the Railway authorities registered a case against the accused for pulling of the chain.

5

16.PW.2 is the Ticket Inspector in Railways he deposed he received phone call on 16.04.2019 at 10:30 pm., while he was at his home then he rushed to the Hindupur Railway police station and he observed the bleeding injuries over his face of the PW.1 and shifted the PW.1 to the Government hospital,

Hindupur for treatment. When he enquired the reason for galata, PW.1 replied that accused is picked up quarrel with passengers when he questioned him, the accused beat him.

17.PW.3 is the eye witness after entire incident who is the staff of OBH,

Bangalore. But he could not support the prosecution case he turned the hostile.

18.PW.4 is the Investigation Officer who registered the case.

19.PW.1 in his complaint there was some nuisance going on in S-13 coach when he went to the accused at the train stopped at Devarapalli Railway station but he deposed in his chief examination he went there somebody has made was chain pulling of the above said train suspension arises who pulled the chain. As per the evidence he is the allotted for the A/C coach but he entered into the S-13 coach whether the PW.1 allotted which compartment there is a doubt arises that whether the PW.1 was on duty or not. Because no document was filed in the charge sheet to prove that he is on duty. He further admitted in his cross examination he deputed for A/C coaches only.

But the incident was occurred not in the A/C coaches.

20.PW.1 informed the matter to the PW.2 by phone enter the PW.2 came to Devarapalli Railway station and gone to Hospital. The PW.2 version PW.1 made phone call to him while he was at Hindupur immediately he reached to the Hindupur RPF Post. The suspension arises first the PW.1 and PW.2 reached the Police station or hospital.

21.PW.1 stated admitted in his cross examination the accused caught hold is tie he revealed first time in his cross examination nowhere he mentioned 6 the same. PW.1 stated that at the time of occurrence there are three other

TTE were deputed for A/C and Sleeper coaches for the said train. The PW.1 admitted that the train contains 24 coaches and also GRP and RPF are escorting entire night for avoiding thefts. While the PW.1 not reported or complaint the matter to the GRP or RPF and Guard.

22.According to Pw.1 he informed the incident to the PW.2 who is at the house at Hindupur not on duty. He admitted that he got acquaintance with the PW.1 for the last 13 years. It clearly shows that the PW.2 is the close friend to the PW.1.

23.In this case the Investigation Officer he never visited the Devarapali

Railway station the place of the occurrence of the incident no material evidence was collected by the Investigation Officer he never examined the guard of the said train. He never examined the Station Master and TTE accompanied by the PW.1 in the said train. Investigation Officer failed to collect whether PW.1 is on duty or not. Investigation Officer as not place any material that PW.1 as given intimation to commercial control/Bangalore. The

Investigation Officer stated that the Pw.1 allotted to S-13 coach but the PW.1 admitted that his duty is only the A/C coaches only.

24. There are so many contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused, whether the offence held or not. As per Ex.P.4 is the wound certificate there injury are multiple nail bite marks over the face bleeding from the scratch on left cheek below the eye.

The injuries are simple in nature. No eye witness supported the prosecution case. There is no corroboration evidence of PW.1 version there is a contradictions this case. Hence the prosecution failed to prove the case.

25. In the result, accused was found not guilty for the offences under sections 323 and 353 of Indian Penal Code and hence he is acquitted for the same under section 255(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of 7 accused shall be in force for a period of six months after appeal time. No property was seized and that there is no order as to property.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 06th day of April, 2021.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

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

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence

P.W.1: P.Venkataraman Reddy. -Nil- P.W.2: G.Kiran Kumar. P.W.3: Rahul Sabita. P.W.4: V.Anjineyulu.

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 dated 17.04.2019. Ex.P.2:161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3. Ex.P.3: First Information Report. Ex.P.4: Wound certificate.

Exhibits marked for Defence

NIL

Material Objects marked

No material Objects were marked on either side.

J.M.F.C/GTL 8

Calendar & Judgment

In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class: Guntakal

C.C.No.72 of 2019

Date of

OffenceReportApprehenReleaseCommencCloseJudgment sion of on baileof trial ment of accused trial 16.04.201917.04.1918.04.201926.4.201905.02.2023.3.2106.4.2021

Between:

The State represented by The Station House Officer, Hindupur Railway Police Station.

...Complainant

And

Nikhil Patil, S/o Vijay Kumar Patil, Aged about 31 years, Residing at H.No.33, 2nd Main, 3rd Phase, Rajaji Nagar, Near Reliance electronics, Bangalore City. ……. Accused.

Offence: Under section 323 and 353 of Indian Penal Code Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty Finding of the court: Found not guilty

Sentence:-

In the result, accused was found not guilty for the offences under sections 323 and 353 of Indian Penal Code and hence he is acquitted for the same under section 255(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months after appeal time. No property was seized and that there is no order as to property.

Explanation for delay & Remarks, if any: This case was taken on file on 30-05-2019. Copies of documents were furnished to the accused on 14-06-2019 and he was examined Under section 251 of Cr.P.C., and a charge was framed on 09-01-2020, PW.1 was examined on 05-02- 2020, prosecution evidence is closed on 23-03-2021, after closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined Under section 313 of Cr.P.C., on 23-03-2021, heard the arguments by the both sides on 06-04-2021, Judgment delivered on 06- 04-2021. Hence, the delay.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Guntakal

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

Case No. :CC/0000089/2018 Inspector,RPF, Guntakal Vs Sabavath Gopal Naik

Date : 24-02-2021

Business: Judgement pronounced in the open court. (VSJ) In the result, the A1 is found guilty for the offense plunishable under section 3 (a) of R.P(UP) Act 1966 and thereby he is convicted under section 246 (3) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of thirteen (13) days for the offense punishable under section 3(a) of R.P. (U.P) Act 196. The remand period undergone by the accused commencing from 15.2.2021 to 24.2.2021 shall be set-ff under section 428 of Cr.P.C. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Gooty is directed to release the A1 immediately if his presence is not required in any other case Nature of : CONVICTED Disposal Disposal Date: 24-02-2021 Spl.Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways