Sri. Y. Srinivasa Rao

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

(FAC) VI Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram 

C.C.No. 447/2015

Date of:

Offence:Prior 06.02.2015

Complaint :06.02.2015

Apprehension of accused:31­12­2016 

Release on bail : In Jail

Commencement of trial :11.10.2017

Close of trial :02.11.2017

Sentence or order:13.12.2017

Reasons for delay : Due to non­production of witnesses.

Name of the complainant : State :­ Sub­Inspector of Police, 

Korukonda Police Station.

Name of the accused: 

Kolusu Srinu, S/o Gurrayya, Age 36 years, C/Settibalija, Koti Kesavaram Village of Korukonda Mandal.

Offence: u/sec 379 or 411 IPC

Finding : Found not guilty SENTENCE :­ In the result, accused is found not guilty for offences U/Sec. 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of Accused shall be inforce for a period of six months. As per section 437(A) Code of Criminal Procedure. M.O.1 is gold tradu along with two sutrams given to the Palla Srinu (PW.1)

Crl.M.P No. 3441/2017, dt. 19­09­2017 made absolutely after appeal time is

over. The accused released forthwith is detention is not require any cases.

Remarks : Delay due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Sd/ Y. Srinivasa Rao

VII ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE

(FAC) VI ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copy to 

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

// True Copy//

VII A.J.F.C.M

(FAC)VI A.J.F.C.M

Rajamahendravaram

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM 

Present: Sri Y. Srinivasa Rao,

VII Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

(FAC) VI Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Wednesday, the 13 th day of December, 2017

C.C.NO. 447/2017

Between:­ 

State :­ Sub­Inspector of Police,

Korukonda Police Station, ... Complainant

A n d 

Kolusu Srinu, S/o Gurrayya, Age 36 years, C/Settibalija, Koti Kesavaram Village of Korukonda Mandal. … Accused

This case has come before me for final hearing on 07.12.2017 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri P. Jaya Rama Krishna, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made the following :­

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of police, Korukonda Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable Under Sections 457, 380 or 411 of

Indian Penal Code in Cr. No. 31/2015 of Korukonda Police Station.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet is that:­

On prior to 06­02­2015 at 5­00 PM where in some unknown offenders gained entered into the house of LW.1 Palla Srinu defacto­complainant at

Nidigatla village, Korukonda Mandal through the main door by breaking the lock and committed theft of 2 ½ sovereign gold articles worth Rs.15,000/­ 

On receipt of LW.1 Palla Srinu, LW.10 J.Adinarayana Sub Inspector of

Police Korukonda Police Station registered a case in Cr. No. 31/2015 U/Secs.

457, 380 IPC. 

LW,10 J. Adinarayana Sub Inspector of Police took up investigation visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch to the scene of offence and examined the witnesses Lws 1to 4.

During the course of investigation the accused Kolusu Srinu was arrested by LW.9 N. Madhusudhana Rao, Inspector of Police on 31­12­2016 at 12 hours near Rapaka 4 Tumula center of Seethanagaram Mandal in Cr.

No. 114/2015 U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC of Seethanagaram Police Station in the presence of mediators LW.5 Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao and LW.6 Gunapati

Murali Krishna. During the interrogation of the accused, the accused 2 confessed the offence and mediators report was got drafted by LW.5 Gokada

Naga Venkata Rajarao and LW.6 Gunapati Murali Krishnan from 12 noon to 4­00 PM.

On persuasenceof LW.9 N. Madhusudhana Rao, Inspector of Police the accused led LW.5 Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao and LW.6 Gunapati Murali

Krishna and other party to his house and produced a bronze utensil (bindi) and he shown the plastic covers which contains the gold articles and handed over the gold chain wg. About 17.41 grams in this case.

The recovered stolen property weighed at the house of accused with an electronic weighing machine in presence of mediators by LW.9

N. Madhusudhana Rao Inspector of Police. A mediators report was got drafted by LW.5 Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao and LW.6 Gunapati Murali Krishna from 4­30 PM to 7­30 PM on 31­12­2016 at Koti Kesavaram village and sent for remand. The accused was produced in the Hon’ble Court on 11­01­2017.

The recovered stolen property was identified by the LW.1 Palla Srinu at

Nidigatla Panchayat Before the mediators i.e., LW.7 Karri Apparao and LW.8

Yalla Viswanadham. A report was drafted by the LW.7 Karri Apparao and LW.8

Yalla Viswanadham. After completion of Investigation he filed charge sheet for offence U/Sec. 457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code.

3.Cognizance of case was taken on file for offences punishable under

Sections 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.Later accused was examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. As he denied the offence, charges for offences under Section 353, 354 of Indian Penal Code are framed and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution in all examined Pws 1 to 7 and got marked Ex’s P1 to P8.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution, in Telugu and having understood the same, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

3

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is that:

1)Whether the prosecution could proved that accused committed theft of gold chain at the house of PW.1 Palla Srinu?

2)Whether the accused dishonestly possessed the M.O.1 Gold Chain?

3)Whether the prosecution could bring the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

10. As per testimony of of PW.1 Palla Srinu deposed that, nearly three years back on one day he along with his family members went to Tirupati after locking the doors. Thereafter three days he came to his house from Tirupati he noticed some unknown offenders broke open the main doors and the articles are in pelmell condition, some unknown offenders committed theft of gold tradu weighing approximately two and half sovereigns. He gave complaint to the police. Ex.P1 is complaint. Police examined him and recorded his statement. After four months the police informed him about recovery of gold tradu. He filed interim custody petition before this court and the same was allowed. Now he produced the gold tradu along with two sutrams. M.O.1 is gold tradu along with two sutrams. 

11. The testimony of PW.2 Gokada Naga Venkata Raja Rao deposed that, on 31­12­2016 while he presented at Raghudevapuram Panchayat Office at 12­00 noon one Constable of Seethanagaram Police Station came to him and informed him Sub­Inspector of Police called him. Immediately he proceeded to

Seethanagaram Police Station. When he reached Police Station at that time

Gunapati Murali Krishna (LW.6) presented at Seethanagaram Police Station.

He along with Gunapati Murali Krishna (LW.6) and police proceed to Rapaka

Village through police jeep. On seeing police jeep the accused tried to escape.

The police caught hold the accused on interrogation the accused revealed his name as Kolusu Srinu resident Koti Kesavaram Village. The police identified the accused is involved in previous offences, on suspicious the police checked accused pant pocket and found one gold chain. The accused confessed confessed that he committed theft, to day he is going to pledge gold chain.

4

The accused further confessed that he committed theft at one house at

Nidigatla village i.e., gold chain along with sutrams. The same was kept at his house. Ex.P2 is relevant portion of confession statement dt. 31­12­2016 at 12­00 noon. On the basis of confession of accused they proceeded to the house of accused which is situated at Koti Kesavaram Village. The accused brought the gold ornaments from brass pot. The police identified one gold chain along with sutrams pertaining to the Korukonda Police Station. He drafted mediators report the house of accused at Koti Kesavaram village at 4­30 PM. Ex.P3 is attested copy of mediators report. The gold chain along with sutrams kept in one cover and affixed identify slips. The police obtained his signature as well as Gunapati Murali Krishna (LW.6) on Ex.P3. M.O.1 is gold chain.

During the course of cross examination he admitted that he did not mention about Gunapati Murali Krishna (LW.6) was also presented at Police

Station in Ex.P2 and further deposed that they started drafting mediators report from 4­30 PM and took time for 2 hours.

12.The testimony of PW.3 Karri Apparao deposed that 31­12­2016 while he presented at V.R.O Office at 3­00 PM one police person came to him and informed him called him by police. He along with Yalla Viswanadham (LW.8) proceeded to Panchayat Office at Nidigatla Village. The police mixed three gold chains. The police called Palla Srinu (PW.1) came to Panchayat office and identified his gold chain. He drafted property identification mazhar. Ex.P4 is property identification Mazhar, dt. 31­12­2016 at 3­00 PM the police obtained his signature on property identification mazhar.

13.The testimony of PW.4 Jalla Adinarayana deposed that, on 06­02­ 2015 at about 9­00 PM while he presented at Police Station Palla Srinu (PW.1) came to the Police Station and submitted written report. Ex.P1 is written report already marked. On the basis of Ex.P1 he registered a case in Cr. No.

31/2015 U/Secs 457, 380 Indian Penal Code. He issued First Information

Report. Ex.P5 is First Information Report. He examined Palla Srinu (PW.1) at

Police Station and recorded his 161 Criminal Procedure Code Statement at

Police Police Station. On 07­02­2015 he left the Police Station and he visited scene of offence which is situated at house of Palla Srinu (PW.1) at Nidigatla

Village. He examined scene of offence and he prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P6 is rough sketch of scene of offence.

5

14.The testimony of PW.5 Dharavathu Rambabu deposed that on 21­04­2015 he received C.D file from J. Adinarayana (PW.4), he verified the

Investigation done by J. Adinarayana (PW.4) and found it on correct lines. He took up further investigation in this case. He secured two witnesses and recorded their statements and further Investigation done by R. Murali Mohan (LW.11).

15.The testimony of PW.6 Naidu Madhusudhana Rao deposed that on 31­ 12­2016 at about 10­00 am he received credible information and he secured the mediators by name Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2) and Munapati

Murali Krishna (LW.6) secured them at Seethanagaram Mandal office and also secured electronic weighing machine and proceeded to four culvert center at

Rapaka Village through his police jeep along with his staff. On seeing the police one person tried to escape. Then he caught hold the accused with the help of his staff and questioned about his escape. He interrogated the accused in the presence of Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2) and Munapati Murali

Krishna (LW.6) and seized the property i.e., gold brass let and gold ring from the accused. The said property belongs to the Cr. No. 114/2015 of

Seethanagaram Police Station.

During the course of his interrogation the accused confessed the offence

before him in the presence of mediators the accused committed theft at

Nidigatla village during the period of February, 2015 along with some other offences. Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2) drafted mediators report.

Ex.P7 is attested copyof mediators report drafted by Gokada Naga Venkata

Rajarao (PW.2), dt. 31­12­2016 at 12­00 noon at Rapaka Village,

Seethanagaram Mandal. On showing by the accused he along with his staff and accused Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2) and Munapati Murali

Krishna (LW.6) proceeded to the Kotikesavaram village to the house of the accused bearing D. No. 4­20, then he questioned the accused to produce the secreted property relating to the offence. The accused went to his house and brought brass bindey and took a plastic cover which contain gold sathamanam tradu. He contacted the Sub­Inspector of Police, Korukonda he received information from the Sub­Inspector of Police, Korukonda pertaining to the Cr.

No. 31/2015 U/Sec 457, 380 Indian Penal Code.

6

Then he weighing the gold sathamanam tradu through electronic weighing machine. He seized the sathamanam tradu from the possession of the accused the same was kept in the plastic cover and affixed identity slips.

M.O.1 is gold sthamanam tradu already marked. Gokada Naga Venkata

Rajarao (PW.2) drafted mediators report, Ex.P8 is attested copy of mediators report, dt. 31­12­2016 at about 4­30 PM at the house of accused. He obtained signature of the accused on mediators report and also obtained signature of

Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2) and Munapati Murali Krishna (LW.6) himself also put signatures on Ex.P8. He arrested the accused and brought to the Police Station along with seized property and he remanded the accused to judicial custody. 

16.The testimony of PW.7 Ravuri Murali Mohan deposed that he received

C.D. file from D. Rambabu (PW.5) he verified the investigation done by D.

Rambabu (PW.5) and he found it on correct lines and he took up further investigation in this case. On 31­12­2016 he secured Karri Apparao (PW.3) he conducted property identification mazhar at Panchayat office, Nidigatla village through Palla Srinu (PW.1) Ex.P4 is property identification mazhar already marked. He received information about arrest of the accused and recovery of the property through Naidu Madhusudhanarao (PW.6). Thereafter on 11­01­2017 he filed P.T. warrant against the accused and the same was allowed and produced the accused before the Hon’ble Court. After completion of Investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

17.To prove the guilty of accused the mainly relied upon the testimony of

Pws 1 to 7. Int his case the defacto complainant by name Palla Srinu (PW.1).

He categorically deposed that some unknown offenders enter into his house and committed theft of Gold Tradu weighing approximately two and half sovereigns. He lodged complaint to the Jalla Adinarayana (PW.4). Ex.P1 is complaint. Jalla Adinarayana (PW.4) received the same on the basis of Ex.P1 he registered the case in Cr. No. 31/2015 Ex.P5 is First Information Report.

18.In this case Palla Srinu (PW.1) did not state anything against the accused committed of M.O.1 is gold tradu along with two sutrams. Palla Srinu (PW.1) claimed M.O.1 property. Hence, the prosecution proved that the some unknown offenders committed theft of M.O.1 from his house.

7

19. Coming to seized M.O.1 from the possession of the accused. To prove that fact the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of Pws 2,3,5,6 and

7. As per the version of the prosecution Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2) categorically deposed that on 31­12­2016 he presented at Raghudevapuram panchayat office at 12 noon at request of police he went to the Seethanagaram

Police Station at Gunapati Murali Krishna (LW.6) presented he along with

Gunapati Murali Krishna (LW.6) and police proceeded to the Rapaka Village.

On seeing police jeep the accused tried to escape. He categorically deposed that the police identified the accused is involved in previous offences and the accused confessed that he committed theft at one house at Nidigatla Village.

Ex.P2 relevant portion of confessional statement, dt. 31­12­2016 at 12­00 noon. On the basis of confession statement he proceeded to the house of accused. The accused brought the gold ornaments from brass pot. He drafted mediators report at the house of accused at Kotikesavaram village at 4­30 PM.

Ex.P3 is attested copy of mediators report.

20.As per the testimony of Karri Apparao (PW.3) he categorically deposed that on 31­12­2016 at 3­00 PM one police eprson came to him and informed him called him by police he along with Yalla Viswanadham (LW.8) proceeded panchayat office. The police mixed three gold chains. Palla Srinu (PW.1) came to panchayat office and identified his gold chain. Ex.P4 is property identification Mazhar, dt. 31­12­2016 at 3­00 PM. As per the version of the karri Apparao (PW.3) the police conducted property Identification Mazhar at about 3­00 PM on 31­12­2016. As per the Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2) who is mediators categorically deposed that the accused produced the property from his house and drafted mediator report at about 4­30 PM. On 31­12­2016 if really the Investigation Officer seized property from the possession of the accused at about 4­30 PM on 31­12­2016. Karri Apparao how the PW.3 conducted property Identification Mazhar at 3­00 PM the best reason known to the Investigating Officer. Hence, the prosecution failed to proved that the seizure of M.O.1 from the possession of the accused on 31­12­2016 at about 4­30 PM. The testimony of Gokada Venkata Naga Raja

Rao (PW.2) is not trust worthy. Hence, the prosecution failed to proved that the seizure of M.O.1 he seized from the possession of accused.

21.The Investigating Officer by name Naidu Madhusudhana Rao examined as PW.6 he categorically deposed that, on 31­12­2016 at 12 noon seizure the property from the possession of the accused in the presence of panchayatdars the same was kept in the plastic cover and affixed identity slips. M.O.1 is gold 8 sathamanam tradu already marked. Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2) drafted mediators report, Ex.P8 is attested copy of mediators report, dt.31­12­2016 at about 4­30 PM at the house of accused. He arrested the accused remanded the judicial custody.

As per the version of the Naidu Madhusudhana Rao (PW.6) he arrested the accused on 31­12­2016 at 4­30 PM and seized M.O.1 is gold chain along with two sutrams from the possession of the accused at 4­30 PM. In this case

Karri Apparao (PW.3) deposed that at about the conduct of the property

Identification Mazhar. Palla Srinu (PW.1) identified the property at

Panchayath Office on 31­12­2016 at about 3­00 PM. Hence, the testimony of

Naidu Madhusudhana Rao and Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2 were not trust worthy. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilty of the accused. 

22.In the result, accused is found not guilty for offences U/Sec. 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of

Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of Accused shall be inforce for a period of six months. As per section 437(A) Code of Criminal Procedure. M.O.1 is gold tradu along with two sutrams given to the Palla Srinu (PW.1)

Crl.M.P No. 3441/2017, dt. 19­09­2017 made absolutely after appeal time is

over. The accused released forthwith is detention is not require any cases.

Dictated to Stenographer and transcribed by her; corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 13th day of December, 2017.

Sd/ Y. Srinivasa Rao

VII ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE

(FAC) VI ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :

P.W.1 – 11.10.2017 – Palla Srinu P.W.2 – 13.10.2017 – Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao. P.W.3 – 13.10.2017 – Karri Apparao P.W.4 – 13.10.2017 ­ Jalla Adinarayana P.W.5 – 13.10.2017 – Dharavathu Rambabu P.W.6 ­ 20.10.2017 – Naidu Madhusudhana Rao P.W.7 ­ 02.11.2017 – Ravuri Murali Mohan

FOR DEFENSE : ­­­Nil­­­ 9

Documents Marked :­

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1/11­10­2017 : Report, dt. 25­04­2015.

Ex.P2/13­10­2017 : Relevant Portion of Confessional Statement, dt.31.12.2016

Ex.P3/13­10­2017 : Attested copy of mediators report

Ex.P4/13­10­2017 : Property identification Mazhar, dt. 31­12­2016

Ex.P5/13­10­2017 : First Information Report

Ex.P6/13­10­2017 : Rough Sketch

Ex.P7/20­10­2017 : Attested copy of mediators report of PW.2 Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao

Ex.P8/20­10­2017 : Attested copy of mediators report, dt. 31­12­2016

FOR DEFENSE :

­­­Nil­­­

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: Gold tradu along with two sutrams

Sd/ Y. Srinivasa Rao

VII ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE

(FAC) VI ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

// True Copy//

VII A.J.F.C.M

(FAC)VI A.J.F.C.M

Rajamahendravaram

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

(FAC) VI Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram 

C.C.No. 447/2015

Date of:

Offence:Prior 06.02.2015

Complaint :06.02.2015

Apprehension of accused:31­12­2016 

Release on bail : In Jail

Commencement of trial :11.10.2017

Close of trial :02.11.2017

Sentence or order:13.12.2017

Reasons for delay : Due to non­production of witnesses.

Name of the complainant : State :­ Sub­Inspector of Police, 

Korukonda Police Station.

Name of the accused: 

Kolusu Srinu, S/o Gurrayya, Age 36 years, C/Settibalija, Koti Kesavaram Village of Korukonda Mandal.

Offence: u/sec 379 or 411 IPC

Finding : Found not guilty SENTENCE :­ In the result, accused is found not guilty for offences U/Sec. 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of Accused shall be inforce for a period of six months. As per section 437(A) Code of Criminal Procedure. M.O.1 is gold tradu along with two sutrams given to the Palla Srinu (PW.1)

Crl.M.P No. 3441/2017, dt. 19­09­2017 made absolutely after appeal time is

over. The accused released forthwith is detention is not require any cases.

Remarks : Delay due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Sd/ Y. Srinivasa Rao

VII ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE

(FAC) VI ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copy to 

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

// True Copy//

VII A.J.F.C.M

(FAC)VI A.J.F.C.M

Rajamahendravaram

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM 

Present: Sri Y. Srinivasa Rao,

VII Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

(FAC) VI Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Wednesday, the 13 th day of December, 2017

C.C.NO. 447/2017

Between:­ 

State :­ Sub­Inspector of Police,

Korukonda Police Station, ... Complainant

A n d 

Kolusu Srinu, S/o Gurrayya, Age 36 years, C/Settibalija, Koti Kesavaram Village of Korukonda Mandal. … Accused

This case has come before me for final hearing on 07.12.2017 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri P. Jaya Rama Krishna, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made the following :­

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of police, Korukonda Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable Under Sections 457, 380 or 411 of

Indian Penal Code in Cr. No. 31/2015 of Korukonda Police Station.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet is that:­

On prior to 06­02­2015 at 5­00 PM where in some unknown offenders gained entered into the house of LW.1 Palla Srinu defacto­complainant at

Nidigatla village, Korukonda Mandal through the main door by breaking the lock and committed theft of 2 ½ sovereign gold articles worth Rs.15,000/­ 

On receipt of LW.1 Palla Srinu, LW.10 J.Adinarayana Sub Inspector of

Police Korukonda Police Station registered a case in Cr. No. 31/2015 U/Secs.

457, 380 IPC. 

LW,10 J. Adinarayana Sub Inspector of Police took up investigation visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch to the scene of offence and examined the witnesses Lws 1to 4.

During the course of investigation the accused Kolusu Srinu was arrested by LW.9 N. Madhusudhana Rao, Inspector of Police on 31­12­2016 at 12 hours near Rapaka 4 Tumula center of Seethanagaram Mandal in Cr.

No. 114/2015 U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC of Seethanagaram Police Station in the presence of mediators LW.5 Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao and LW.6 Gunapati

Murali Krishna. During the interrogation of the accused, the accused 2 confessed the offence and mediators report was got drafted by LW.5 Gokada

Naga Venkata Rajarao and LW.6 Gunapati Murali Krishnan from 12 noon to 4­00 PM.

On persuasenceof LW.9 N. Madhusudhana Rao, Inspector of Police the accused led LW.5 Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao and LW.6 Gunapati Murali

Krishna and other party to his house and produced a bronze utensil (bindi) and he shown the plastic covers which contains the gold articles and handed over the gold chain wg. About 17.41 grams in this case.

The recovered stolen property weighed at the house of accused with an electronic weighing machine in presence of mediators by LW.9

N. Madhusudhana Rao Inspector of Police. A mediators report was got drafted by LW.5 Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao and LW.6 Gunapati Murali Krishna from 4­30 PM to 7­30 PM on 31­12­2016 at Koti Kesavaram village and sent for remand. The accused was produced in the Hon’ble Court on 11­01­2017.

The recovered stolen property was identified by the LW.1 Palla Srinu at

Nidigatla Panchayat Before the mediators i.e., LW.7 Karri Apparao and LW.8

Yalla Viswanadham. A report was drafted by the LW.7 Karri Apparao and LW.8

Yalla Viswanadham. After completion of Investigation he filed charge sheet for offence U/Sec. 457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code.

3.Cognizance of case was taken on file for offences punishable under

Sections 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.Later accused was examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. As he denied the offence, charges for offences under Section 353, 354 of Indian Penal Code are framed and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution in all examined Pws 1 to 7 and got marked Ex’s P1 to P8.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution, in Telugu and having understood the same, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

3

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is that:

1)Whether the prosecution could proved that accused committed theft of gold chain at the house of PW.1 Palla Srinu?

2)Whether the accused dishonestly possessed the M.O.1 Gold Chain?

3)Whether the prosecution could bring the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

10. As per testimony of of PW.1 Palla Srinu deposed that, nearly three years back on one day he along with his family members went to Tirupati after locking the doors. Thereafter three days he came to his house from Tirupati he noticed some unknown offenders broke open the main doors and the articles are in pelmell condition, some unknown offenders committed theft of gold tradu weighing approximately two and half sovereigns. He gave complaint to the police. Ex.P1 is complaint. Police examined him and recorded his statement. After four months the police informed him about recovery of gold tradu. He filed interim custody petition before this court and the same was allowed. Now he produced the gold tradu along with two sutrams. M.O.1 is gold tradu along with two sutrams. 

11. The testimony of PW.2 Gokada Naga Venkata Raja Rao deposed that, on 31­12­2016 while he presented at Raghudevapuram Panchayat Office at 12­00 noon one Constable of Seethanagaram Police Station came to him and informed him Sub­Inspector of Police called him. Immediately he proceeded to

Seethanagaram Police Station. When he reached Police Station at that time

Gunapati Murali Krishna (LW.6) presented at Seethanagaram Police Station.

He along with Gunapati Murali Krishna (LW.6) and police proceed to Rapaka

Village through police jeep. On seeing police jeep the accused tried to escape.

The police caught hold the accused on interrogation the accused revealed his name as Kolusu Srinu resident Koti Kesavaram Village. The police identified the accused is involved in previous offences, on suspicious the police checked accused pant pocket and found one gold chain. The accused confessed confessed that he committed theft, to day he is going to pledge gold chain.

4

The accused further confessed that he committed theft at one house at

Nidigatla village i.e., gold chain along with sutrams. The same was kept at his house. Ex.P2 is relevant portion of confession statement dt. 31­12­2016 at 12­00 noon. On the basis of confession of accused they proceeded to the house of accused which is situated at Koti Kesavaram Village. The accused brought the gold ornaments from brass pot. The police identified one gold chain along with sutrams pertaining to the Korukonda Police Station. He drafted mediators report the house of accused at Koti Kesavaram village at 4­30 PM. Ex.P3 is attested copy of mediators report. The gold chain along with sutrams kept in one cover and affixed identify slips. The police obtained his signature as well as Gunapati Murali Krishna (LW.6) on Ex.P3. M.O.1 is gold chain.

During the course of cross examination he admitted that he did not mention about Gunapati Murali Krishna (LW.6) was also presented at Police

Station in Ex.P2 and further deposed that they started drafting mediators report from 4­30 PM and took time for 2 hours.

12.The testimony of PW.3 Karri Apparao deposed that 31­12­2016 while he presented at V.R.O Office at 3­00 PM one police person came to him and informed him called him by police. He along with Yalla Viswanadham (LW.8) proceeded to Panchayat Office at Nidigatla Village. The police mixed three gold chains. The police called Palla Srinu (PW.1) came to Panchayat office and identified his gold chain. He drafted property identification mazhar. Ex.P4 is property identification Mazhar, dt. 31­12­2016 at 3­00 PM the police obtained his signature on property identification mazhar.

13.The testimony of PW.4 Jalla Adinarayana deposed that, on 06­02­ 2015 at about 9­00 PM while he presented at Police Station Palla Srinu (PW.1) came to the Police Station and submitted written report. Ex.P1 is written report already marked. On the basis of Ex.P1 he registered a case in Cr. No.

31/2015 U/Secs 457, 380 Indian Penal Code. He issued First Information

Report. Ex.P5 is First Information Report. He examined Palla Srinu (PW.1) at

Police Station and recorded his 161 Criminal Procedure Code Statement at

Police Police Station. On 07­02­2015 he left the Police Station and he visited scene of offence which is situated at house of Palla Srinu (PW.1) at Nidigatla

Village. He examined scene of offence and he prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P6 is rough sketch of scene of offence.

5

14.The testimony of PW.5 Dharavathu Rambabu deposed that on 21­04­2015 he received C.D file from J. Adinarayana (PW.4), he verified the

Investigation done by J. Adinarayana (PW.4) and found it on correct lines. He took up further investigation in this case. He secured two witnesses and recorded their statements and further Investigation done by R. Murali Mohan (LW.11).

15.The testimony of PW.6 Naidu Madhusudhana Rao deposed that on 31­ 12­2016 at about 10­00 am he received credible information and he secured the mediators by name Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2) and Munapati

Murali Krishna (LW.6) secured them at Seethanagaram Mandal office and also secured electronic weighing machine and proceeded to four culvert center at

Rapaka Village through his police jeep along with his staff. On seeing the police one person tried to escape. Then he caught hold the accused with the help of his staff and questioned about his escape. He interrogated the accused in the presence of Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2) and Munapati Murali

Krishna (LW.6) and seized the property i.e., gold brass let and gold ring from the accused. The said property belongs to the Cr. No. 114/2015 of

Seethanagaram Police Station.

During the course of his interrogation the accused confessed the offence

before him in the presence of mediators the accused committed theft at

Nidigatla village during the period of February, 2015 along with some other offences. Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2) drafted mediators report.

Ex.P7 is attested copyof mediators report drafted by Gokada Naga Venkata

Rajarao (PW.2), dt. 31­12­2016 at 12­00 noon at Rapaka Village,

Seethanagaram Mandal. On showing by the accused he along with his staff and accused Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2) and Munapati Murali

Krishna (LW.6) proceeded to the Kotikesavaram village to the house of the accused bearing D. No. 4­20, then he questioned the accused to produce the secreted property relating to the offence. The accused went to his house and brought brass bindey and took a plastic cover which contain gold sathamanam tradu. He contacted the Sub­Inspector of Police, Korukonda he received information from the Sub­Inspector of Police, Korukonda pertaining to the Cr.

No. 31/2015 U/Sec 457, 380 Indian Penal Code.

6

Then he weighing the gold sathamanam tradu through electronic weighing machine. He seized the sathamanam tradu from the possession of the accused the same was kept in the plastic cover and affixed identity slips.

M.O.1 is gold sthamanam tradu already marked. Gokada Naga Venkata

Rajarao (PW.2) drafted mediators report, Ex.P8 is attested copy of mediators report, dt. 31­12­2016 at about 4­30 PM at the house of accused. He obtained signature of the accused on mediators report and also obtained signature of

Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2) and Munapati Murali Krishna (LW.6) himself also put signatures on Ex.P8. He arrested the accused and brought to the Police Station along with seized property and he remanded the accused to judicial custody. 

16.The testimony of PW.7 Ravuri Murali Mohan deposed that he received

C.D. file from D. Rambabu (PW.5) he verified the investigation done by D.

Rambabu (PW.5) and he found it on correct lines and he took up further investigation in this case. On 31­12­2016 he secured Karri Apparao (PW.3) he conducted property identification mazhar at Panchayat office, Nidigatla village through Palla Srinu (PW.1) Ex.P4 is property identification mazhar already marked. He received information about arrest of the accused and recovery of the property through Naidu Madhusudhanarao (PW.6). Thereafter on 11­01­2017 he filed P.T. warrant against the accused and the same was allowed and produced the accused before the Hon’ble Court. After completion of Investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

17.To prove the guilty of accused the mainly relied upon the testimony of

Pws 1 to 7. Int his case the defacto complainant by name Palla Srinu (PW.1).

He categorically deposed that some unknown offenders enter into his house and committed theft of Gold Tradu weighing approximately two and half sovereigns. He lodged complaint to the Jalla Adinarayana (PW.4). Ex.P1 is complaint. Jalla Adinarayana (PW.4) received the same on the basis of Ex.P1 he registered the case in Cr. No. 31/2015 Ex.P5 is First Information Report.

18.In this case Palla Srinu (PW.1) did not state anything against the accused committed of M.O.1 is gold tradu along with two sutrams. Palla Srinu (PW.1) claimed M.O.1 property. Hence, the prosecution proved that the some unknown offenders committed theft of M.O.1 from his house.

7

19. Coming to seized M.O.1 from the possession of the accused. To prove that fact the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of Pws 2,3,5,6 and

7. As per the version of the prosecution Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2) categorically deposed that on 31­12­2016 he presented at Raghudevapuram panchayat office at 12 noon at request of police he went to the Seethanagaram

Police Station at Gunapati Murali Krishna (LW.6) presented he along with

Gunapati Murali Krishna (LW.6) and police proceeded to the Rapaka Village.

On seeing police jeep the accused tried to escape. He categorically deposed that the police identified the accused is involved in previous offences and the accused confessed that he committed theft at one house at Nidigatla Village.

Ex.P2 relevant portion of confessional statement, dt. 31­12­2016 at 12­00 noon. On the basis of confession statement he proceeded to the house of accused. The accused brought the gold ornaments from brass pot. He drafted mediators report at the house of accused at Kotikesavaram village at 4­30 PM.

Ex.P3 is attested copy of mediators report.

20.As per the testimony of Karri Apparao (PW.3) he categorically deposed that on 31­12­2016 at 3­00 PM one police eprson came to him and informed him called him by police he along with Yalla Viswanadham (LW.8) proceeded panchayat office. The police mixed three gold chains. Palla Srinu (PW.1) came to panchayat office and identified his gold chain. Ex.P4 is property identification Mazhar, dt. 31­12­2016 at 3­00 PM. As per the version of the karri Apparao (PW.3) the police conducted property Identification Mazhar at about 3­00 PM on 31­12­2016. As per the Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2) who is mediators categorically deposed that the accused produced the property from his house and drafted mediator report at about 4­30 PM. On 31­12­2016 if really the Investigation Officer seized property from the possession of the accused at about 4­30 PM on 31­12­2016. Karri Apparao how the PW.3 conducted property Identification Mazhar at 3­00 PM the best reason known to the Investigating Officer. Hence, the prosecution failed to proved that the seizure of M.O.1 from the possession of the accused on 31­12­2016 at about 4­30 PM. The testimony of Gokada Venkata Naga Raja

Rao (PW.2) is not trust worthy. Hence, the prosecution failed to proved that the seizure of M.O.1 he seized from the possession of accused.

21.The Investigating Officer by name Naidu Madhusudhana Rao examined as PW.6 he categorically deposed that, on 31­12­2016 at 12 noon seizure the property from the possession of the accused in the presence of panchayatdars the same was kept in the plastic cover and affixed identity slips. M.O.1 is gold 8 sathamanam tradu already marked. Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2) drafted mediators report, Ex.P8 is attested copy of mediators report, dt.31­12­2016 at about 4­30 PM at the house of accused. He arrested the accused remanded the judicial custody.

As per the version of the Naidu Madhusudhana Rao (PW.6) he arrested the accused on 31­12­2016 at 4­30 PM and seized M.O.1 is gold chain along with two sutrams from the possession of the accused at 4­30 PM. In this case

Karri Apparao (PW.3) deposed that at about the conduct of the property

Identification Mazhar. Palla Srinu (PW.1) identified the property at

Panchayath Office on 31­12­2016 at about 3­00 PM. Hence, the testimony of

Naidu Madhusudhana Rao and Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao (PW.2 were not trust worthy. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilty of the accused. 

22.In the result, accused is found not guilty for offences U/Sec. 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of

Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of Accused shall be inforce for a period of six months. As per section 437(A) Code of Criminal Procedure. M.O.1 is gold tradu along with two sutrams given to the Palla Srinu (PW.1)

Crl.M.P No. 3441/2017, dt. 19­09­2017 made absolutely after appeal time is

over. The accused released forthwith is detention is not require any cases.

Dictated to Stenographer and transcribed by her; corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 13th day of December, 2017.

Sd/ Y. Srinivasa Rao

VII ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE

(FAC) VI ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :

P.W.1 – 11.10.2017 – Palla Srinu P.W.2 – 13.10.2017 – Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao. P.W.3 – 13.10.2017 – Karri Apparao P.W.4 – 13.10.2017 ­ Jalla Adinarayana P.W.5 – 13.10.2017 – Dharavathu Rambabu P.W.6 ­ 20.10.2017 – Naidu Madhusudhana Rao P.W.7 ­ 02.11.2017 – Ravuri Murali Mohan

FOR DEFENSE : ­­­Nil­­­ 9

Documents Marked :­

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1/11­10­2017 : Report, dt. 25­04­2015.

Ex.P2/13­10­2017 : Relevant Portion of Confessional Statement, dt.31.12.2016

Ex.P3/13­10­2017 : Attested copy of mediators report

Ex.P4/13­10­2017 : Property identification Mazhar, dt. 31­12­2016

Ex.P5/13­10­2017 : First Information Report

Ex.P6/13­10­2017 : Rough Sketch

Ex.P7/20­10­2017 : Attested copy of mediators report of PW.2 Gokada Naga Venkata Rajarao

Ex.P8/20­10­2017 : Attested copy of mediators report, dt. 31­12­2016

FOR DEFENSE :

­­­Nil­­­

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: Gold tradu along with two sutrams

Sd/ Y. Srinivasa Rao

VII ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE

(FAC) VI ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

// True Copy//

VII A.J.F.C.M

(FAC)VI A.J.F.C.M

Rajamahendravaram

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM (FAC) VI ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM 

C.C.No. 141 /2015

Date of:

Offence: 28.12.2014

Complaint : 28.12.2014

Apprehension of accused:

Release on bail :

Commencement of trial :02.06.2017

Close of trial :08.12.2017

Sentence or order:13.12.2017

Reasons for delay : Due to non­production of witnesses.

Name of the complainant : State :­Sub­Inspector of Police, II Town L&O Police Station.

Name of the accused: 

A.1Ponnaganti Subbarao, S/o Govindu, age 45 years, D.No. 18­360 Padmasali Near Polytechnic College, Durga Nagara, Dowlaiswaram Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal.

A.2Ponnaganti Lovaraju, S/o Surayanarayana, age 23 years D.No. 18­360 Padmasali Near Polytechnic College, Durga Nagara, Dowlaiswaram Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal.

A3Dunga Ramababu, S/o Venakataramana, age 23 years, Settibalija, Guthulavari Street, AC Gardens, Rajahmundry.

A4Yalamanchali Vasu, S/o Venu Gopal Rao, age 38 years, C/Relli, D.No. 40­3­6, Mangalavarupeta, Rajahmundry

Offence: U/secs. 448, 323, 324, 427, 506 and 509 r/w 34 of IPC

Finding : Found not guilty.

SENTENCE :­

In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for offences under sections 448, 323, 324, 427, 506 and 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure.The bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall be inforce for a period of six months. As per section 437(A)

Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sd/ Y. Srinivasa Rao

VII ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

(FAC) VI ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

// True Copy//

VII A.J.F.C.M

(FAC)VI A.J.F.C.M

Rajamahendravaram

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS;

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Sri Y.Srinivasarao, VII Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class FAC VI Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Wednesday, 13th q day of December, 2017 C.C.NO. 141/2015

Between:­

State : Sub­Inspector of Police, II Town L&O Police Station

Rajamahendravaram. ... Complainant

A n d

A.1Ponnaganti Subbarao, S/o Govindu, age 45 years, D.No. 18­360 Padmasali Near Polytechnic College, Durga Nagara, Dowlaiswaram Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal.

A.2Ponnaganti Lovaraju, S/o Surayanarayana, age 23 years D.No. 18­360 Padmasali Near Polytechnic College, Durga Nagara, Dowlaiswaram Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal.

A3Dunga Ramababu, S/o Venakataramana, age 23 years, Settibalija, Guthulavari Street, AC Gardens, Rajahmundry.

A4Yalamanchali Vasu, S/o Venu Gopal Rao, age 38 years, C/Relli, D.No. 40­3­6, Mangalavarupeta, Rajahmundry … Accused

This case has come before me for final hearing on 11.12.2017 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, counsel for prosecution and of Sri T.V. Rama Mohana Rao, Advocate for A1 to A4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made the following :­

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of police, II Town L&O Police Station, filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 for offence punishable under sections 341, 448, 323, 324, 427, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC in Cr. No. 373/2014 of II Town L&O

Police Station, Rajahmundry. 

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet is that:­ on 28­12­2014 at 10­00 AM A1 Ponnaganti Subbarao came to his Karkana with eggs. A1 Ponnaganti Subbarao absued the cake master by saying that Yevadura Ikkada gudlu Paggalagottina nakoduku. Then Kanjalthengal Denny (LW.5) cake master questioned him why he abused Pedapudi Balaji (LW.4) on that Ponnaganti Subbarao (A1) beat the Kanjalthengal Denny (LW.5) cake master Denny with hands. Then Yadla Praveen (LW.1) admonished the accused and sent him away. The accused 2 left away and threatened them. Ponnaganti Subbarao (A1) about 12­00 noon A1 and A2 to A4 came to the bakery. They asked Yadla Praveen (LW.1) to bring LW.4 Pedapudi Balaji and Kanjalthengal Denny (LW.5) and other workers and they trespassed into the upstairs of the bakery and beat Lw.2 Chilla Satyavathi and LW.3 Bankuri Lakshmi. They along with Yadla Praveen (LW.1) tried to rescue them . Ponnaganti Subbarao (LW.1) pushed Yadla Praveen (LW.1) and picked up a rod and beat him on his right side of the head. Ponnaganti Subbarao (A1) beat LW.2 Chilla Satyavathi and LW.3 Bankuri Lakshmi with chair. Ponnaganti Subbarao (LW.1) and others caused mischief by damaged the chairs and bakery items. The accused abused Chilla Satyavathi (LW.2) and Bankuri Lakshmi (LW.3) in filthy language.

On 28­12­2014 at 2­00 PM Yadla Praveen (LW.1) came to II Town (L&O)

Police Station Rajahmundry gave the report to the Sri M.D Nabi (LW.12) Sub

Inspector of Police, II Town (L&O) Police Station Rajahmundry registered the case in Cr. No. 373/2014 U/Secs. 448, 323, 324, 427, 506, 509 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code.

During the course of Investigation LW.12 Sub Inspector of Police, II Town (L&O) Police Station Rajahmundry examined the witnesses and prepared rough sketch and seized chair pieces in the presence of mediators report. On 04­01­2015 LW.12 Sub Inspector of Police, II Town (L&O) Police Station

Rajahmundry served 41 (A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused and released them on bail. Dr. A. Subramaneswari (LW.11) Deputy Civil Surgeon, District Hospital,

Rajahmundry examined Lws 1 to 3 and issued wound certificates. He opined that the injured sustained injuries simple in nature. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

3.The said court took cognizance of case for offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 324, 427, 506 and 509 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code

4.Later accused Nos 1 to 4 are examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. As they denied the offence, charge for offence under

Secs. 448, 323, 324, 427, 506 and 509 r/w 34 IPC are framed and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 5 and got marked Ex P1 to P8 are marked.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 are examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution, in Telugu and 3 having under stood the same A1 to A4 denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Thereafter heard the arguments of both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could bring the guilt of A1 to A4 for offence under sections 448, 323, 324, 427, 506 and 509 r/w 34 IPC against

A1 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.The testimony of PW.1 Yadla Praveen Kumar deposed that, on 28­12­2014 or 2015 of Ponnaganti Subbarao (A1) supplied eggs to his bakery, the accused (A1) supplied eggs three years prior to incident, or the date of alleged incident in between10­00 AM to 10­30 AM. He was sitting at cash counter of his baker. Denny (LW.5) worked as cake master in their bakery.

The accused (A1) went to first floor of bakery, the first floor used for preparation of cakes. The accused (A1) beat Denny (LW.5) at that time he was sitting at cash counter the same was witnessed through C.C. Cameras. The accused (A1) brought Denny (LW.5) to ground floor from first floor. A1 threatened him with dire consequences and went away from bakery.

Thereafter one hourA1 along with his followers nearly 30 persons came and entered into bakery and damaged ice­cream fridge, cool drinks fridge entire cash counter and entire furniture and material in bakery. He gave complaint to the police. Ex.P1 is complaint.

During the course of cross examination he admitted that he deposed entire evidence before this court at the instance of police.

10.The testimony of PW.4 Bandaru Subrahmaneswari deposed that, 28­12­2014 at about 3­20 PM she examined a male person by name Yadla

Praveen Kumar (PW.1) and she found three injuries. She is the opinion that the injuries 1 to 3 are simple in nature. She issued wound certificate of Yadla

Praveen Kumar (PW.1). Ex.P15 is wound certificate of PW.1. On the same day at about 4­00 PM she examined Bankuri Lakshmi (PW.3) and she found two injuries. She is the opinion that injury Nos 1 and 2 are simple in nature. She issued wound certificate of Bankuri Lakshmi (PW.3). Ex.P6 is wound certificate of Bankuri Lakshmi (PW.3). On the same day at about 3­40 PM she examined Chilla Satyavathi (PW.2) and she found two injuries. She is opinion that the injury Nos 1 and 2 are simple in nature. She issued wound certificate of Chilla Satyavathi (PW.2). Ex.P7 is wound certificate of Chilla Satyavathi (PW.2).

4

During course of cross examination she admitted that, the injuries mentioned ins Exs P5 to P7 are possible if any person fell down on the blunt object. 

11.The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilty of the accused. To prove the guilty of the accused the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of Pws 1 to 5. In this case defacto complainant/victim by name Yadla Praveen Kumar (PW.1) he did not support to the prosecution case, he turned hostile. The learned. The learned APP PW.1 is nothing was elicited except marking of

Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C. Statement.

12. Chilla Satyavathi examined as PW.2 and Bankuri Lakshmi (PW.3) are victims. In this case they did not support to the prosecution case. They turned hostile. The learned APP cross examined PWs.2 and 3 nothing was elicited except marking of Exs.P3 and P4 are recoded their 161 Cr.P.C.

Statements.

13. Who gave treatment to the injured examined Bandaru Subramaneswari (PW.4). She categorically deposed that the examined Yadla Praveen Kumar (PW.1) Banukuri Lakshmi (PW.3) and Chilla Satyavathi (PW.2).

14. On perusal of Exs.P5 to 7 are the Wound Certificates of Yadla Praveen

Kumar (PW.1) Banukuri Lakshmi (PW.3) and Chilla Satyavathi (PW.2). The prosecution proved that the Yadla Praveen Kumar (PW.1) Banukuri Lakshmi (PW.3) and Chilla Satyavathi (PW.2) sustained inujuries. Yadla Praveen Kumar (PW.1) Banukuri Lakshmi (PW.3) and Chilla Satyavathi (PW.2) did not state anything against A1 to A4.

15. As per the version of the prosecution the Investigating Officer by name

Gudla Gopala Krishna (PW.5) seized the property in the presence of Gudla

Gopala Krishna (PW.5). In this case he did not support to the prosecution case, he turned hostile. Hence, the prosecution miserably failed to prove guilty of the accused. The evidence adduced by the prosecution case is not sufficient to prove guilty of A1 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for offences under sections 448, 323, 324, 427, 506 and 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure.The 5 bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall be inforce for a period of six months. As per section 437(A) Code of Criminal Procedure.

Dictated to Stenographer and transcribed by her; corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 13th day of December, 2017.

Sd/ Y. Srinivasa Rao

VII ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

(FAC) VI ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :

P.W.1 – 02.06.2017 – Yadla Praveen Kumar P.W.2 – 28.11.2017 – Chilli Satyavathi P.W.3 – 28.11.2017 – Bankuri Lakshmi P.W.4 – 06.12.2017 – Bandaru Subramaneswari P.W.5 – 08.12.2017 – Gudla Gopala Krishna 

FOR DEFENSE : ­­­Nil­­­

Documents Marked :­

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 :02.06.2017: Complaint given by P.W.1 Yadla Praveen Kumar Ex.P2 :02.06.2017: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1 Ex.P3 :28.11.2017: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2 Chilla Satyavathi Ex.P4 :28.11.2017: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3 Bankuri Lakshmi Ex.P5 :06.12.2017: Wound Certificate of PW.1 Yadla Praveen Kumar Ex.P6 :06.12.2017: Wound Certificate of PW.3 Bankuri Lakshmi Ex.P7 :06.12.2017: Wound Certificate of PW.2 Chilla Satyavathi Ex.P8 :08.12.2017: Signature of PW.5

FOR DEFENSE : ­­­Nil­­­

Sd/ Y. Srinivasa Rao

VII ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

(FAC) VI ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

// True Copy//

VII A.J.F.C.M

(FAC)VI A.J.F.C.M

Rajamahendravaram

1

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.1305/2018

Crime No.372/2016-17 of Prohibition & Excise Police Station Rajamahendravaram

1. Date of Offence 05-08-2016

2. Date of Complaint 05-08-2016

3. ApprehensionofAccused 05-08-2016

4. Released on Bail 20-08-2016

5. Commencement of Trial 20-10-2017

6. Close of Trial20-03-2018

7. Date of order 23-04-2018

8. Complainant State:- Rep.by probation & Excise Sub- Inspector, Rajamahendravaram (South)

9. Accused laveti Padma, W/o Appalakonda, Age:30 yrs, C/o Settibalija, R/o Thokada, Rajanagaram mandal

10. Offence Under Section7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra PradeshProhibition (Amended)Act, 1997.

11. Finding Not Guilty

12. Order/Sentence: In the result accused was found not guilty of the offence charged under section 7(A) r/ w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amended) Act., 1997 and she is acquitted under section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code in Crime No.372/2016-2017 of Prohibition and Excise Station,

Rajamahendravaram(south). Bail bonds of accused person shall stand cancelled. M.O.1. shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

13. Remarks Delay due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Sd/- Y.Srinivasa Rao

VII A.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram. Copies to:- The Hon’ble. Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl.Senior Civil Judge, E.G. Dist. Rajamahendravaram.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE:: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present:- Sri.Y.Srinivasa Rao, VII Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, 23rd day of April Two Thousand and Eighteen

C.C.No. 1305/2018

Between:-

State:- The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram (South) … Complainant

And

laveti Padma, W/o Appalakonda, Age:30 yrs, C/o Settibalija, R/o Thokada, Rajanagaram mandal … Accused

This case coming on 20-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.Ch.Padmavathi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri K.A.Ratnam advocate for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T:

The Sole Accused was facing trial of offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amended) Act., 1997 in Crime No.372/2016-2017 on the file of Prohibition and Excise Station,

Rajamahendravaram (South),

2.It is alleged that on 05-08-2016 at about 10-00 A.M. upon receipt of reliable information about Prohibition and Excise offences

I.D.Nageswarao (P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ENFT, kakinada, he along with his staff while conducting patrolling for detection of

Prohibition and excise offences and when reached near Jagajievanrao

Statue situated at Thokada Village, Rajangaram Mandal, one person carrying two gunny bags on his right shoulder and carrying another gunny bags on his left hand entering into the house, found the presence of accused possession of 10 liters of I.D. liquor packeted in a two seperate

Polythene Covers and kept in a mica hand bags, and she tried to escape upon witnessing their arrival. She was surrounded by

I.D.Nageswarao(P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ENFT,

Kakinada caused enquiries and searched the said mica hand bags and 3 found to contain polythene covers of ten liters of Illicitly Distilled Liquor said to be purchased by her from an unknown person with an intention to sell the same for higher price. Then I.D.Nageswarao(P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ENFT, Kakinada apprehended the accused duly effecting seizure of ten liters of Illicitly Distilled Liquor, drawn a sample of 300 ml. of Illicitly Distilled Liquor into a bottles from the said contraband under cover of special report scribed to that effect duly attested by her.

Thereafter, the accused along with seized contraband was brought to

Prohibition and Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram (South) and produced her before Pithani Surya Kumari (P.W.2), Prohibition and Excise Sub-

Inspector, Rajamahendravaram (South) for taking necessary action. In turn, she registered the said special report as Crime No.372/2016-17 duly invoking provisions under section 7(A) r/w.8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition(Amended) Act., 1997. Thereafter, the Accused was produced

before the Court seeking judicial remand.

3.During the course of investigation, Pithani Surya Kumari(P.W.2),

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram(South) forwarded sample Illicitly Distilled Liquor bottle on 07-12-2016 for Chemical analysis, in turn the chemical examiner, Kakinada issued a report dated 08- 12-2016 opining the sample as illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injuries to health. The remaining seized contraband was destroyed on 10-12-2016 as per the orders of Deputy Commissioner of

Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada. After completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against accused rendering himself liable for punishment of the alleged offence.

4.Upon careful perusal of charge sheet and other relevant material placed on record, cognizance of offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amended) Act. 1997 was taken against the accused and ordered summons as she was enlarged on bail at the time of he apprehension before the court under section 167(2) Criminal

Procedure Code.

5.On receipt of summons, the accused made her appearance and she was furnished with copies of documents as stipulated under section 207 4

Criminal Procedure Code. The accused was defended by her counsel Sri

K.A.Ratnam Advocate, Rajamahendravaram. The accused was examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code about allegations leveled against her in above crime, and a charge under section 7(A) r/w.8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act., 1997 are framed, read over and explained to her in vernacular language to which,she pleaded not guilty for the above said charge, duly claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution relied upon testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 supported by marking documents under Ex.P1 to P5, so also produced the sample Illicitly Distilled liquor bottles as M.O.1. Upon closure of prosecution’s side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313

Criminal Procedure Code about the incriminating evidence appearing against him from prosecution’s side witnesses, and she denied the same.

The accused did not choose to examine any defence witness nor mark documents on his behalf.

7.Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and Sri K.A.Ratnam Advocate for accused the learned counsels for the accused respectively.

8. The point for consideration:-

Whether the prosecution succeeded in proving its contention

levelled against the accused under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition(Amendment) Act, 1997 beyond all

reasonable doubt that he was guilty of possessing Illicitly

Distilled Liquor?

9. To prove its case, prosecution relied upon testimonies of

I.D.Nageswarao(P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ENFT,

Kakinada and Pithani Surya Kumari (P.W.2), Prohibition and Excise Sub-

Inspector, Rajamahendravaram(South) who happened to be excise officials. The initial contention of I.D.Nageswarao (P.W.1), Prohibition and

Excise Sub-Inspector, ENFT, Kakinada as placed on record, discloses that on 05-08-2016 at about 10-00 A.M. on receipt of credible information, she along with his staff member G.Raja sekhar (L.W.2), Prohibition and Excise

Head Constable, while conducting patrolling for detection of Prohibition and excise offences and when reached beside one person carrying one gunny 5 bag on his right shoulder and carrying another gunny bag on his left hand entering into the house, found accused with a mica hand bags,she found polythene covers of ten liters of Illicitly Distilled Liquor and Ex.P1 Signature of Mediator Report was scribed duly effecting arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from your possession. Further deposed that she also lifted one sample of 300 mI. of Illicitly Distilled Liquor from the said contraband and marked as M.O.1 for chemical analysis. He brought the accused along with seized contraband to Prohibition Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram for taking necessary action.

10.Pithani Surya Kumari(P.W.2), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,

Rajamahendravaram (South) on 05-08-2016 at about 10-00 A.M while she was acting as Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, PW.1 brought the accused with seized contraband of ten liters of Illicitly Distilled

Liquor in a mica hand bags under special report marked as ExP1 and the same was registered by her as in Crime No.372/2016-2017 under section 7(A) r/w.8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amended) Act., 1997, under

Ex.P2 (F.I.R.) and produced accused before the Court seeking judicial remand. He forwarded the seized samples to Government Chemical

Examiner, Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Kakinada under a letter of advice, i.e., Ex.P3 received, Ex.P4 report, dt.12-05-2016. The remaining seizure of contraband was destroyed on 10-12-2016 as per destruction proceedings marked as Ex.P6.

11.As seen from contentions of I.D.Nageswarao (P.W.1), Prohibition and

Excise Sub-Inspector, ENFT, kakinada, and Pithani Surya Kumari (P.W.2),

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram, initially

I.D.Nageswarao(P.W.2), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,ENFT,

Kakinada had effected apprehension of accused and seizure of contraband. Even according to I.D.Nageswarao (P.W.1), Prohibition and

Excise Sub-Inspector, ENFT, Kakinada the place of apprehension of accused is busy and residential locality and he did not secure independent witnesses at the place of apprehension. On the above fact,

I.D.Nageswarao(P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ENFT, kakinada offered an explanation that his efforts to procure any independent 6 witnesses did not yield any result. The said contention of I.D.Nageswrao (P.W.2), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ENFT, kakinada seems to be unbelievable as by the time of apprehension of accused, it is not improbable that neighboring witnesses would not be available at the place of apprehension. On going through recitals of said report marked as Ex.P1 it is clear that the mode of reaching place of apprehension of accused was not described. Alternatively, I.D.Nageswrao (P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise

Sub-Inspector,ENFT, Kakinada also failed to make any whisper in his testimony that soon after completing proceedings under Ex.P1, contents of special report were explained to the accused and obtained her signature as acknowledgment. Except placing the solitary testimony of I.D.Nagewarao (P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,ENFT,Kakinada prosecution did not try to examine other witness said to have participated in the alleged raid.

12.The remaining testimony of Pithani Surya Kumari (P.W.2), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram which confines to the extent of setting the law into motion and forwarding the sample for chemical analysis even if accepted to that extent would not be sufficient enough to arrive at safe conclusion. The effort made by prosecution duly producing sample liquor bottles as M.O.1, and while examining I.D.Nageswarao (P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,ENFT, kakinada is the only piece of evidence available on record as contended by him to find the accused to be guilty of possession of Illicitly Distilled Liquor. Further non compliance of Sub Section(4) of Section 100 Criminal Procedure Code by

I.D. Nageswarao (P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,ENFT,

Kakinada at the time of apprehension of accused and non examination of other witness said to have participated in the raid would lead to a finding that the accusation leveled against accused in above crime stands not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, this court holds that case of prosecution fails for above said reason and Accused was entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, accused was found not guilty of the offence charged under section 7(A) r/ w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amended) Act., 7 1997 and she is acquitted under section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code in Crime No.372/2016-2017 of Prohibition and Excise Station,

Rajamahendravaram(south). Bail bonds of accused person shall stand cancelled. M.O.1. shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open court, this the23rd day of April- 2018.

Sd/- Y.SrinivasaRao

VII A.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of Evidence. Prosecution: Witnesses Examined Defence -None P.W.1/18-04-2018: Irikineni Durga Nageswarao(proh & Excise (ENFT, kakinada) P.W.2/18-04-2018:Pithani Surya Kumari( Proh & Excise Excise (Rajamahendravaram South)

Exhibits marked Ex.P1/05-08-2016: Special report. Ex.P2/05-08-2016: First Information Report Ex.P3/05-08-2016: Letter of advise Ex.P4/12-10-2016: Analysis report Ex.P5/ 10-12-2016: Attested copy of distruction proceedings

Material objects marked. M.O.1 : Unexpended portion of Sample bottle

Sd/- Y.SrinivasaRao

VIIA.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram 8

1

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.1302/2018

Crime No.633/2016-17 of Prohibition & Excise Police Station Rajamahendravaram

1. Date of Offence 28-11-2016

2. Date of Complaint 28-11-2016 3.ApprehensionofAccused28-11-2016

4. Released on Bail 30-11-2016

5. Commencement of Trial20-01-2017

6. Close of Trial30-03-2017

7. Date of order 23-04-2018

8. Complainant State:- Rep.by probation & Excise Sub- Inspector, Rajamahendravaram (South)

9. Accused Musini Venkata Lakshmi, W/o Satyanarayana, age:40 yrs, Caste:Settibalija, R/o Vemagiri, Kadiyam Mandal

10. Offence Under Section7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra PradeshProhibition (Amended)Act, 1997.

11. Finding Not Guilty

12. Order/Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence charged under section 7(A) r/ w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amended)

Act., 1997 and she is acquitted under section 248 (1) Criminal

Procedure Code in Crime No.633/2016-2017 of Prohibition and Excise

Station, Rajamahendravaram(south). Bail bonds of accused person shall stand cancelled. M.O.1. shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

13. Remarks Delay due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Sd/- Y.SrinivasaRao

VII A.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Copy to Submitted: The Hon’ble. Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl.Senior Civil Judge, E.G. Dist. Rajamahendravaram.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE:: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present:- Sri.Y.Srinivasa Rao, VII Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, 23rd day of April Two Thousand and Eighteen

C.C.No. 1302/2018

Between:-

State:- The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram (South) … Complainant

And

Musini Venkata Lakshmi, W/o Satyanarayana, age:40 yrs, Caste:Settibalija, R/o Vemagiri, Kadiyam Mandal… Accused

This case coming on 20-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.Ch.Padmavathi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri B.Musalayya advocate for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T:

1The Sole Accused is facing trial of offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amended) Act., 1997 in Crime

No.633/2016-2017 on the file of Prohibition and Excise Station,

Rajamahendravaram (South),

2.It is alleged that on 28-11-2016 at about 8-30 a.m. upon receipt of reliable information about Prohibition and Excise offences, MD.Abdul

Rehman(P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF,

Rajamahendravaram he along with his staff while conducting patrolling for detection of Prohibition and excise offences and when reached road margin near Rajeev Nagar Colony Vinayaka Temple situated in Vemagiri Village,

Kadiyam Mandal found the presence of accused five liters of I.D. liquor packed in a one Polythene Cover and kept in a mica hand bag, and he tried to escape upon witnessing their arrival. He was surrounded by MD Abdul

Rehman (P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF

Rajamahendravaram, caused enquiries and searched the said mica hand bag and found to contain polythene cover of five liters of Illicitly Distilled

Liquor said to be purchased by her from an unknown person with an 3 intention to sell the same for higher price. Then M.D.Abdul Rehman(P.W.1),

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF, Rajamahendravaram apprehended the accused duly effecting seizure of five liters of Illicitly

Distilled Liquor, drawn a sample of 300 ml. of Illicitly Distilled Liquor into a bottle from the said contraband under cover of special report scribed to that effect duly attested by him. Thereafter, the accused along with seized contraband was brought to Prohibition and Excise Station,

Rajamahendravaram (South) and produced him. before P.Surya Kumari (P.W.2), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram (South) for taking necessary action. In turn, she registered the said special report as Crime No.633/2016-17 duly invoking provisions under section 7(A) r/w.8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition(Amended) Act., 1997.

Thereafter, the accused was produced before the Court seeking judicial remand.

3.During the course of investigation, P.Surya Kumari (P.W.2),

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram(South) forwarded sample Illicitly Distilled Liquor bottle on 06-12-2016 for Chemical analysis, in turn the chemical examiner, Kakinada issued a report dated 08- 12-2016 opining the sample as illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injuries to health. The remaining seized contraband was destroyed on 10-12-2016 as per the orders of Deputy Commissioner of

Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada. After completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against accused rendering herself liable for punishment of the alleged offence.

4.Upon careful perusal of charge sheet and other relevant material placed on record, cognizance of offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amended) Act. 1997 was taken against the accused and ordered summons as she was enlarged on bail at the time of her apprehension before the court under section 167(2) Criminal

Procedure Code.

5.On receipt of summons, the accused made her appearance and she was furnished with copies of documents as stipulated under section 207

Criminal Procedure Code. The accused is defended by her counsel sri 4

B.Musalayya Advocate, Rajamahendravaram.The accused was examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code about allegations leveled against him in above crime, and a charge under section 7(A) r/w.8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act., 1997 was framed, read over and explained to her in vernacular language to which, she pleaded not guilty for the above said charge, duly claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution relied upon testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 supported by marking documents under Ex.P1 to P5, so also produced the sample Illicitly Distilled liquor bottles as M.O.1. Upon closure of prosecution’s side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313

Criminal Procedure Code about the incriminating evidence appearing against her from prosecution’s side witnesses, and she denied the same.

The accused did not choose to examine any defence witness nor mark documents on his behalf.

7.Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and Sri B.Musalayya advocate for accused the learned counsel for accused respectively.

8. The point for consideration:-

Whether the prosecution succeeded in proving its contention

levelled against the accused under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition(Amendment) Act, 1997 beyond all

reasonable doubt that he was guilty of possessing Illicitly

Distilled Liquor?

9. To prove its case, prosecution relied upon testimonies of MD.Abdul

Rehman(P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF

Rajamahedravaram and P.Surya Kumari (P.W.2), Prohibition and Excise

Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram(South) who happened to be excise officials. The initial contention of MD.Abdul Rehman (P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF Rajamahendravaram as placed on record, discloses that on 28-11-2016 at about 8-30 AM on receipt of credible information, she along with his staff member E.Prasad (L.W.2), Prohibition and Excise Head Constable, while conducting patrolling for detection of

Prohibition and excise offences and when reached beside near at the road margin infront of Rajeev Nagar Colony Vinayaka Temple situated in 5

Vemagiri Village, kadiyam Mandal found accused with a mica hand bag, she found one separate polythene cover of five liters of Illicitly Distilled

Liquor and Ex.P1 Special Report was scribed duly effecting arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from your possession. Further deposed that she also lifted one sample of 300 mI. of Illicitly Distilled

Liquor from the said contraband and marked as M.O.1. for chemical analysis. They brought the accused along with seized contraband to

Prohibition Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram for taking necessary action.

10.P.Surya Kumari(P.W.2), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,

Rajamahendravaram (South) on 28-11-2016 at about 8-30 a.m. while she was acting as Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, PW.1 brought the accused with seized contraband of five liters of Illicitly Distilled

Liquor in a mica hand bag under special report marked as ExP1 and the same was registered by her as in Crime No.633/2016-2017 under section 7(A) r/w.8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amended) Act., 1997, under

Ex.P2 (F.I.R.) and produced accused before the Court seeking judicial remand. she forwarded the seized samples to Government Chemical

Examiner, Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Kakinada under a letter of advice, i.e., Ex.P3 received, Ex.P4 report, dt.08-12-2016. The remaining seizure of contraband was destroyed on 06-12-2016 as per destruction proceedings marked as Ex.P5.

11.As seen from contentions of MD.Abdul Rehman (P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF, Rajamahednravaram and P.Surya Kumari (P.W.2), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram, initially Md.Abdul Rehman(P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,

ENFT, Rajamahendravaram had effected apprehension of accused and seizure of contraband. Even according to Md.Abdul Rehman (P.W.1),

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF, Rajamahendravaram the place of apprehension of accused is busy and residential locality and she did not secure independent witnesses at the place of apprehension. On the above fact, Md.Abdul Rehman(P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-

Inspector, ESTF Rajamahendravaram offered an explanation that his 6 efforts to procure any independent witnesses did not yield any result. The said contention of Md.Abdul Rehman(P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-

Inspector, ESTF, rajamahendravaram seems to be unbelievable as by the time of apprehension of accused it is not improbable that neighboring witnesses would not be available at the place of apprehension. On going through recitals of said report marked as Ex.P1 it is clear that the mode of reaching place of apprehension of accused was not described.

Alternatively, Md.Abdul Rehman(P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-

Inspector, ESTF, rajamahendravaram also failed to make any whisper in his testimony that soon after completing proceedings under Ex.P1, contents of special report were explained to the accused and obtained her signature as acknowledgment. Except placing the solitary testimony of Md.Abdul

Rehman(P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF

Rajamahendravaram prosecution did not try to examine other witness said to have participated in the alleged raid.

12.The remaining testimony of P.Surya Kumari (P.W.2), Prohibition and

Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram which confines to the extent of setting the law into motion and forwarding the sample for chemical analysis even if accepted to that extent would not be sufficient enough to arrive at safe conclusion. The effort made by prosecution duly producing sample liquor bottles as M.O.1. while examining Md.Abdul Rehman (P.W.1),

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF, Rajamahedravaram is the only piece of evidence available on record as contended by her to find the accused to be guilty of possession of Illicitly Distilled Liquor. Further non compliance of Sub Section(4) of Section 100 Criminal Procedure Code by

M.d.Abdul Rehman(P.W.1), Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF,

Rajamahendravaram at the time of apprehension of accused and non examination of other witness said to have participated in the raid would lead to a finding that the accusation leveled against accused in above crime stands not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, this court holds that case of prosecution fails for above said reason and accused is entitled for acquittal.

7

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence charged under section 7(A) r/ w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amended) Act., 1997 and she is acquitted under section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code in Crime No.633/2016-2017 of Prohibition and Excise Station,

Rajamahendravaram(south). Bail bonds of accused person shall stand cancelled. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open court, this the 23rd day of April- 2018.

Sd/- Y.SrinivasaRao

VII A.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram

Appendix of Evidence. Prosecution: Witnesses Examined Defence P.W.1/18-04-2018 : Md.Abdul Rehman (Prohibition and Excise -None – And Excise Sub-Inspector),ESTF, Rajamahendravaram

P.W.2/18-04-2018: P.Surya Kumari ((Prohibition and Excise and Excise Sub-Inspector), Rajamahendravaram(South)

Exhibits marked Ex.P1/28-11-2016: Special report. Ex.P2/28-11-2016: First Information Report Ex.P3/28-11-2016: Letter of advise Ex.P4/08-12-2016: Analysis report Ex.P5/ 10-12-2016: Attested copy of destruction proceedings

Material objects marked. M.O.1 : Unexpended portion of Sample Bottle

Sd/- Y.SrinivasaRao

VIIA.J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

8