Smt. B.Akhila

CC NO.514/2023

AJFCM COURT/ADDANKI DT: 06.05.2026

APPR0B0009172023

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS:: ADDANKI

PRESENT:: Smt.B.AKHILA

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Wednesday, this the Sixth (06th) day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO.514 of 2023

(Crime No.59/2023 of Santhamaguluru Police Station) BETWEEN:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Santhamaguluru Police Station. ….. Complainant

- Vs -

1. Telaprolu Brahmanandam, S/o Ramaiah, 30 years, Kamma by caste, R/o Kopparam Village of Santhamaguluru Mandal.

2. Shaik Khasim Saida, S/o Alsaida, 45 years, Muslim by caste,

Kopparam Village of Santhamaguluru Mandal. …..Accused

This case coming before me on today i.e., 04.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State/Complainant and of Sri.B.Ramakotaiah, Learned Counsel for A1, Sri.T.Martha Srinu, Learned Counsel for A2; and on perusal of the material on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court, delivered the following:-

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

1.This case arises out of Cr.No.59/2023 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act against A1 & A2 registered by the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Santhamaguluru Police Station, with the following allegations:-

2. The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:

2.1)On 30.04.2023, at about 8 PM, while LW.5-M.V.Siva Kumar. Sub-

Inspector of Police along with LW.1-M.Srinivasa Rao, Assistant Sub-Inspector

Page: 1 OF 11

CC NO.514/2023

AJFCM COURT/ADDANKI DT: 06.05.2026

APPR0B0009172023

of Police, LW.2-P.Venkateswarlu & LW.3-P.Krishna, Police Constables were making night rounds, they reached Kopparam village centre at about 08.30 PM and found A1 & A2, who are having two card board boxes each one with them, are trying to escape from that place on seeing the police jeep. Then, LW.5-

M.Siva Kumar caught hold of A1 & A2 with the assistance of his staff, checked the two card board boxes of A1 and found “96” bottles of Daaru House XO

Brandy (180 ml each) in that boxes and also checked the two card board boxes of A2 and found ““96” bottles of Daaru House XO Brandy (180 ml each).

Then, LW.5-M.V.Siva Kumar questioned A1 & A2 why they are keeping “192” liquor bottles with them, for which A1 & A2 replied that they have purchased the liquor bottles for cheaper rate and brought the liquor to their village in order to sell them the same for higher rate. Then, LW.5-M.V.Siva Kumar questioned

A1 & A2 whether they are having any valid license to purchase the liquor, for which A1 & A2 told that they have not any license or permission to sell the liquor and further they told that they have purchased the liquor bottles from various wines shops. Then, LW.5-M.V.Siva Kumar informed to A1 & A2 that selling of liquor without having license is an offence U/Sec.34(1) of A.P.Excise

Act, seized the “192” liquor bottles from the possession of A1 & A2, arrested

A1 & A2 and drawn one liquor bottle from them in order to send the same for analysis under cover of police proceedings.

2.2)Based on the police proceedings, LW.5-M.V.Siva Kumar registered a case in Cr.No.59/2023, U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act, submitted

FIR to the Court and its copies to all concerned and took up investigation,

During the course of investigation, LW.5-M.V.Siva Kumar examined LW.1-

M.Srinivasa Rao, LW.2-P.Venkateswarlu & LW.3-P.Krishna, recorded their detailed statements U/Sec.161(3) of Cr.P.C., visited the scene of offence, inspected the same and drawn rough sketch and produced A1 & A2 before the

Page: 2 OF 11

CC NO.514/2023

AJFCM COURT/ADDANKI DT: 06.05.2026

APPR0B0009172023

Court for judicial remand, forwarded sample bottle along with letter of advise to the Chemical Examiner. After completion of investigation, LW.5-M.V.Siva

Kumar filed charge sheet against A1 & A2.

3.The Court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of AP

Excise against A1 & A2.

4.On the appearance of A1 & A2, copies of the case documents are furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.A1 & A2 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and a charge framed for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act, contents are read over and explained to A1 & A2 in Telugu, for which they denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

6.During the Course of the trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 besides M.O.1 as indicated in the appendix of evidence.

7.After completion of the prosecution evidence, A1 & A2 were examined U/Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material found from the prosecution witness is read over and explained to A1 & A2 in Telugu, for which they denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence.

8.Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned

Counsel for A1 & A2. Case file has also been perused carefully.

9.Now the point for determination is:-

Page: 3 OF 11

CC NO.514/2023

AJFCM COURT/ADDANKI DT: 06.05.2026

APPR0B0009172023

“Whether the prosecution was able to prove guilt of

A1 & A2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT:- 10.1)I have carefully perused the evidence brought on record. In order to bring home the guilt of A1 & A2, the prosecution has to establish that A1 &

A2 were found in illegal possession of “192” bottles of Daaru House XO

Brandy (180 ml each), which is in contravention of Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise

Act, 1968.

10.2)The evidence available on record is the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.1 was cross-examined by the Learned Counsel for A1 & A2 by stating that

PW.1 registered the false case against A1 & A2 for statistical purpose.

10.3)Admittedly PW.1 is Police Official and there are no independent mediators secured by PW.1 in this case. The evidence available on the record is the evidence of PW.1 who happened to be Sub-Inspector of Police,

Santhamaguluru Police Station. PW.1 in his evidence deposed that on 30.04.2023, at about 8.00 P.M., he along with his staff / M.Srinivasa Rao,

P.Venkateswarlu and P.Krishna proceeded to Kopparam village,

Santhamaguluru and at the main centre of Kopparam village they found two persons in possession of liquor bottles of two boxes per head and that they secured A1 & A2, who were trying to escape by leaving four boxes of liquor bottles, with the help of his staff. Upon enquiry, A1 & A2 confessed that they secured liquor bottles from wine shops and they are selling them at higher prices. As A1 & A2 could not produce any license, they arrested A1 & A2 for illegal selling of liquor and seized entire four boxes of liquor bottles, total “192” bottles each box containing “43” bottles by preparing police proceedings as

Page: 4 OF 11

CC NO.514/2023

AJFCM COURT/ADDANKI DT: 06.05.2026

APPR0B0009172023

they could not secure mediators. The said “192” liquor bottles are Daaru

House XO brandy each 180 ml and he has extracted one sample bottle from the seized contraband for chemical analysis. Later, they returned to the police station along with Accused and seized property and registered the case in

Cr.No.59/2023, U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, submitted FIR to the Court and its copies to all concerned forwarded A1 & A2 for remand to judicial custody.

On the same day, he visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, examined M.Srinivasa Rao, P.Venkateswarlu and P.Krishna and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. On 27.05.2023, he forwarded M.O.1 for chemical analysis along with letter of advise, received chemical analysis report on 17.06.2023 and filed filed charge sheet after completion of investigation.

During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that there are tea stalls, shops, houses near scene of offence at Kopparam village and he has not examined any person shown in the rough sketch and inspite of their efforts nobody is available to act as mediators. He has not mentioned about their efforts to secure nearby persons as mediators in Ex.P1, except that nobody is available to act as mediators. He came to know about the details of owners of neighboring tea stalls and shops at the time of preparing rough sketch with the assistance of a person available at that time and he cannot say the name of said person. The scene of offence is situated in the middle of Kopparam village. As per Ex.P3 scene of offence is situated on the road leading to

Ballikurava on the out side of Kopparam village. PW.1 further admitted that there are village sachivalayam, grama panchyat office at Kopparam village.

Inspite of their efforts they could not secure any employee from those offices.

10.4)As seen from the record, except the interested testimony of PW.1, who is the Police Official, there is no independent evidence available on record. Moreover, the entire case is based on Ex.P1/Police Proceedings.

Page: 5 OF 11

CC NO.514/2023

AJFCM COURT/ADDANKI DT: 06.05.2026

APPR0B0009172023

Admittedly, no mediators were present who witnessed search and seizure,

PW.1 proceeded on Ex.P1/Police Proceedings. On a careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1, it is quite evident that he failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated U/Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C during the search and seizure. PW.1 admitted in his cross-examination that there are tea stalls, shops, houses near scene of offence at Kopparam village and he has not examined any person shown in the rough sketch and inspite of their efforts nobody is available to act as mediators. The scene of offence is situated in the middle of Kopparam village. As per Ex.P3 scene of offence is situated on the road leading to Ballikurava on the out side of Kopparam village. PW.1 failed to follow the procedure prescribed U/Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C. It is expedient to have a glance on Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C for better appreciation of the evidence in this case.

“Sec. 100(4) of Cr.P.C reads as follows: Before making a search

under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call

upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality

in which the place to be searched is situate or any other locality if no

such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a

witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an

order in writing to them or any of them so to do...”.

As per the Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C, when the independent mediators in that locality are not available, the Police Official has to record the same and issue an order in writing as prescribed above. It is pertinent to note here that PW.1 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that there are tea stalls, shops, houses near scene of offence at Kopparam village and he has not examined any person shown in the rough sketch and inspite of their efforts nobody is available to act as mediators. The scene of offence is situated in the middle of Kopparam village. As per Ex.P3 scene of offence is

Page: 6 OF 11

CC NO.514/2023

AJFCM COURT/ADDANKI DT: 06.05.2026

APPR0B0009172023

situated on the road leading to Ballikurava on the out side of Kopparam village.

Moreover, PW.1 did not serve any written authorization to secure mediators.

10.5)It is clear from the record that no such procedure was adopted by the investigating officer though the scene of offence is located in a busy locality where there is public movement. It is a settled law that in absence of independent mediators the entire procedure vitiates the case. I feel it is just and proper to go through the relevant case law in this regard. The Hon’ble

High Court of A.P. in the case of ‘S.Babu Saheb @ babu Vs. The State of

A.P 1 , wherein it was held that:-

“when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a

place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence

of independent mediators, the police officials or prohibition

officers are bound to take the local respectable

independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to

secure local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of

Sec. 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provision,

the police officials are also authorized to issue an order in

writing asking them to act as mediators under sub. sec 4 of

Sec. 100 of Cr.P.C. The object of Sec. 100 of Cr.P.C is to

ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in

general that a genuine search has been made and

incriminating material has been really found and not

planted”. As held in the above authority, the investigating officer/PW.1 failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated and non-securing of independent mediators by the Police Official is creating doubt on the entire prosecution case.

10.6)As seen from the record, no special circumstances are appearing to explain what compelled the PW.1 to proceed under Ex.P1/Police

Proceedings, though the scene of offence is not an isolated area and the time 1 2010 (1) A.L.T (Crl.) 32 A.P Page: 7 OF 11

CC NO.514/2023

AJFCM COURT/ADDANKI DT: 06.05.2026

APPR0B0009172023

of arrest is not an odd hours. It is pertinent to note that the reason shown by

PW.1 for his failure to secure the mediators is not convincing. So, except the confession of A1 & A2 at the time of seizure of contraband, no other evidence on record to show that A1 & A2 having possession of “192” Daaru House XO

Brandy (180 ml each). However, confession of A1 & A2 before the Police

Official is totally inadmissible as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

10.7)For all these reasons, it is not safety to rely upon the testimony of

PW.1. Hence, the search and seizure of “192” Daaru House XO Brandy (180 ml each) from the possession of A1 & A2 is not proved. There is no basis to prove that A1 & A2 possessed the same for the purpose of selling them for higher rates. Therefore, there is no cogent, convincing and corroborating evidence to implicate the complicity of A1 & A2 in commission of the offence.

Thus, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of A1 & A2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

11.IN THE RESULT, A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. Accordingly, A1 & A2 are acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 & A2 shall be in force for a period of Six (06) months U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1/Sample bottle of Daaru House XO Brandy (180 ml), vide CPR No.48 of 2023, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

{{Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer (Grade-III), corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 06 th day of May, 2026.}}

Sd/-B.Akhila

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Page: 8 OF 11

CC NO.514/2023

AJFCM COURT/ADDANKI DT: 06.05.2026

APPR0B0009172023

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defense: PW.1: M.V.Siva Kumar - Nil -

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defense: Ex.P1: Police Proceedings - Nil - Ex.P2: FIR in Cr.No.59/2023 Ex.P3: Rough Sketch Ex.P4: Letter of Advise Ex.P5: Chemical Analysis Report

Material Objects Marked

MO.1: Sample bottle of Daaru House XO Brandy (180 ml)

Sd/-B.Akhila

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Addanki.

Page: 9 OF 11

CC NO.514/2023

AJFCM COURT/ADDANKI DT: 06.05.2026

APPR0B0009172023

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE :: ADDANKI

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.514 of 2023

(Crime No.59/2023 of Santhamaguluru Police Station)

1. Date of Offence: 30.04.2023

2. Date of Report: 03.04.2023

3. Date of taken on file: 15.07.2023

4. Date of appearance: 25.07.2025

5. Date of commencement of trial: 17.04.2026

6. Date of close of trial: 28.04.2026

7. Date of Judgment: 06.05.2026

8. Complainant: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Santhamaguluru Police Station

9. Accused:

1. Telaprolu Brahmanandam, S/o Ramaiah, 30 years, Kamma by caste, R/o Kopparam Village of Santhamaguluru Mandal.

2. Shaik Khasim Saida, S/o Alsaida, 45 years, Muslim by caste, Kopparam Village of Santhamaguluru Mandal.

10. Offence/s: U/sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of Court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or Order:

IN THE RESULT, A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. Accordingly, A1 & A2 are acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 & A2 shall be in force for a period of Six (06) months U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1/Sample bottle of Daaru

House XO Brandy (180 ml), vide CPR No.48 of 2023, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Page: 10 OF 11

CC NO.514/2023

AJFCM COURT/ADDANKI DT: 06.05.2026

APPR0B0009172023

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 15.07.2023 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. On 25.07.2026, after appearance of A1 & A2, copies of all the documents furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. On 03.03.2026, A1 & A2 were examined

U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., a charge framed for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise

Act, contents are read over and explained to A1 & A2 in Telugu, for which they denied the offence and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 besides M.O.1. Hence, prosecution side evidence closed. After closure of prosecution evidence, on 28.04.2026 A1 & A2 were examined U/Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., for which they denied the incriminating material appeared against them and reported ‘no defence evidence’. Hence, defence side evidence closed. On 04.05.2026, heard arguments on both sides. On 06.05.2026, Judgment is pronounced by acquitted

A1 & A2 U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. Hence the delay.

Sd/-B.Akhila

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

Page: 11 OF 11

CC No.106 of 2020

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:12.05.2026

APPR0B0013622019

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS :: ADDANKI

PRESENT:: Smt.B.AKHILA

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Tuesday, this the Twelfth (12th) day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO.106 of 2020

(Crime No.98/2019 of Medarametla Police Station)

BETWEEN: State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Medarametla Police Station ….. Complainant

And

Mandava Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu, S/o Ramarao, age 41 years, Kamma by caste, Mittapalem Village, Kondepi mandal, Prakasam District. Driver of

Hyundai I 20 car bearing No.AP-27/BH-5699. …..Accused

Boddu Veera Bhupathi, S/o Sri Anjaneyulu, age 43 years, Kamma by caste, Kammapalem Area, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. …..Deceased

This case coming before me on this day, i.e., 05.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri.G.Srinivasa Rao, Learned Advocate for Accused; and on perusal of the material on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court, delivered the following:-

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

1.This case arises out of Cr.No.98/2019 for the offences punishable

U/Sec.338 & 304-A of IPC against the Accused registered by the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Medarametla Police Station, with the following allegations:-

2. The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: 2.1)On 13.10.2019, morning 09.00 hours, the deceased Boddu Veera

Bhupathi [Hereinafter referred to as deceased] and his second son namely

Boddu Hemesh Sai are started on Splendor motorcycle bearing No. AP-27F- 5455 from Ongole in order to go to the Addanki as rider and pillion rider along Page: 1 OF 10

CC No.106 of 2020

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:12.05.2026

APPR0B0013622019

with neighbors and friends namely Shaik Subedar Hajratvali and Pasupuleti

Ramakrishna were also started on another motorcycle. At about 09.00 hours, when they reached near Thimmanapalem village on NH-16 road, at that time the Accused, being the driver of Hyundai 1 20 car bearing No.AP-27/BH-5699 which is coming on the same way in same direction, drove the car in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed to the back side of fargoing

Splendor motorcycle and stopped at road side, resulting which the deceased and his second son were fell down on the road, the deceased received fatal injury to his head and died on the spot and his second son of deceased, who is pillion rider, received severe bleeding injuries and gone into unconscious state. Meantime the neighbors, who are coming along with them on another

Motorcycle, stopped there and learnt the details of car driver and shifted the injured to KIMS hospital with the help of gathering crowd for treatment and also shifted the dead body of the deceased to Community Health Centre,

Addanki for further proceeds.

2.2)Basing on the statement of LW.1-K.Srinivasa Rao, LW.11-T.Bala

Krishna, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.98/2019, U/Sec.337 & 304-A of IPC, submitted FIR to the Court and its copies to all concerned and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.11-T.Bala Krishna visited the scene of offence, inspected the same, prepared scene observation report, drawn rough sketch and photographed the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars, prepared inquest report, secured the presence of witnesses, examined them and recorded their detailed statements U/Sec.161(3) of Cr.P.C., sent the corpse of deceased to postmortem examination, arrested the Accused on 19.10.2019 and sent him to judicial remand. LW.8-Dr.T.Kamalakar Rao, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued postmortem report opining that the Page: 2 OF 10

CC No.106 of 2020

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:12.05.2026

APPR0B0013622019

deceased would appear to have died of “Shock and Hemorrhage due to multiple injuries ”. LW.9-Dr.G.Suresh Babu, who rendered treatment to the injured, issued wound certificate opining that the injury no.1 is simple in nature and injury No.2 is grievous in nature. Based on the wound certificate, LW.11-

T.Bala Krishna altered the section of law from 337 of IPC to 338 of IPC and filed section alteration memo before the Court to that effect. LW.10-B.Amar

Naik, Motor Vehicle Inspector, inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report in which he opined that the accident occurred is not due to any mechanical defects over the crime vehicle. After completion of investigation,

LW.11-T.Bala Krishna, filed charge sheet against the Accused.

3.The Court took cognizance for the offences U/Sec.338 & 304-A of

IPC against the Accused.

4.On the appearance of Accused, copies of the case documents is furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. and he denied the offence. The substance of accusation of the offences U/Sec.338 & 304-A of

IPC against the Accused is read over and explained him in Telugu, for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6.During the Course of the trial, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 to PW.5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 as indicated in the appendix of evidence.

7.After completion of the prosecution evidence, Accused was examined U/Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material found from the prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to the Accused in

Page: 3 OF 10

CC No.106 of 2020

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:12.05.2026

APPR0B0013622019

Telugu, for which he denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence.

8.Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned

Counsel for Accused. Case file has also been perused carefully.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.338 & 304-A of IPC,

beyond all reasonable doubt?” 10.POINT:- 10.1)To bring home the guilt of Accused, the prosecution has examined the de-facto complainant cum brother-in-law of deceased as PW.1, eyewitnesses as PW.2 & PW.3, mediator for scene observation and inquest as

PW.4 and the Investigating Officer as PW.5.

10.2)PW.1, who is the de-facto complainant and brother-in-law of deceased, deposed in his chief-examination that on 12.10.2019, deceased came from Addanki to Ongole and on 13.10.2019, the deceased returned from

Ongole to Addanki along with his six years old son on a two wheeler and when the motorbike reached Thimmanapalem they met with an accident. He came to know about the accident from PW.3 and immediately, he rushed to the scene of offence, by that time the deceased was shifted to Community Health

Centre, Addanki and his son was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Ongole and that he went to Community Health Centre, Addanki and observed the dead body. He gave a report to Medarametla police and the accident is caused by the

Accused who was traveling in Hundai I 20 car bearing registration No.AP BH 5699 in a rash and high speed. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

Page: 4 OF 10

CC No.106 of 2020

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:12.05.2026

APPR0B0013622019

In the cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that NH-16 on which the scene of offence is situated is a straight road without any turnings. He do not know in which line among three lines on NH-16 the vehicle of the Accused was traveling. PW.1 further admitted that the Accused is having valid driving license and insured his vehicle. PW.1 further admitted that he has not witnessed the accident and he came to know about the details of the accident from some others.

10.3)PW.2 & PW.3, who are said to be eyewitnesses, did not support the prosecution case and deposed that they have not witnessed the accident and they do not know the case details and police did not examine them.

Hence, Exs.P2 & P3 are not reliable.

10.4)PW.4, who said to be acted as mediator for scene observation and inquest, deposed in his chief-examination that he acted as mediator for scene observation and inquest and scene observation was conducted at

Thimmanapalem in 2019 and police conducted scene observation and prepared scene observation report in his presence and obtained his signatures on it. He further deposed that on the same day inquest was conducted at

Community Health Centre, Addanki and police prepared inquest report in his presence and obtained signatures on it and that he observed injuries over head, hands and legs on the dead body of the deceased and the deceased died due to injuries sustained during accident.

10.5)The only evidence available on record in support of the case of prosecution case is that of PW.5, who is the Investigating Officer.

10.6)The evidence of PW.5 is that based on the report of PW.1 he registered the case, issued FIR, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene Page: 5 OF 10

CC No.106 of 2020

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:12.05.2026

APPR0B0013622019

observation report in the presence of mediators and prepared scene observation report, drafted rough sketch, examined witnesses and recorded their 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars, subject the dead body to postmortem, served Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the Accused, sent a requisition to the Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspection of crime vehicle, received postmortem report, MVI report, wound certificate of injured and altered the section of law based on wound certificate of injured and filed section alteration memo to that effect and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation.

In the absence of the evidence of PW.1, who is de-facto complainant cum wife of deceased, PW.2 & PW.3, who are eyewitnesses to the incident, no weightage can be given to the evidence of PW.5.

10.7)In the absence of evidence of material witnesses to the occurrence of incident/PW.2 & PW.3, who said to be the eyewitnesses to the occurrence of incident, no weight can be given to the evidence of PW.1, being the brother-in-law of deceased, since PW.1 is only a hearsay witness and

PW.4 is also not a direct witness to the incident as such their evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case to prove the guilt of the Accused for the alleged offences leveled against him.

10.8)The remaining evidence in support of the prosecution, i.e., of

PW.5 is to the limited extent of registration of crime, visit to the scene of offence, examining the witnesses, recording their statements, holding inquest over the dead body of deceased, forwarding the dead body for autopsy, receiving postmortem certificate, MVI report, wound certificate of injured and altered section of law and filed alteration memo and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation, is merely not sufficient to connect Accused with

Page: 6 OF 10

CC No.106 of 2020

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:12.05.2026

APPR0B0013622019

the incident, in view of the hostile evidence of PW.2 & PW.3, who are eyewitnesses to the occurrence of incident.

10.9)In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can safely be concluded that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the foregoing reasons and there is no material against the Accused in proving the ingredients of Sections 338 & 304-A of IPC. Therefore, the Accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

11. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.338 & 304-A of IPC. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for Six (06) months U/Sec.437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. No order is passed with regard to property, since no property is involved in this case.

{{Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer (Grade-III), corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 12 th day of May, 2026.}}

Sd/-B.Akhila

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defense:

PW.1: K.Srinivasa Rao - Nil -

PW.2: P.Ramakrishna

PW.3: Sk.Subedar Hajrathvali

PW.4: M.Trimurthulu

PW.5: T.Bala Krishna

Page: 7 OF 10

CC No.106 of 2020

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:12.05.2026

APPR0B0013622019

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defense:

Ex.P1: Report by PW.1 - Nil -

Ex.P2: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Ex.P3: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3

Ex.P4: Scene Observation Report

Ex.P5: Inquest Report

Ex.P6: F.I.R. in Cr.No.98/2019

Ex.P7: Rough Sketch

Ex.P8: MVI Report

Ex.P9: Postmortem Report

Ex.P10: Wound Certificate of injured

Ex.P11: Section Alteration Memo

Material Objects Marked

- Nil -

Sd/-B.Akhila

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Addanki.

Page: 8 OF 10

CC No.106 of 2020

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:12.05.2026

APPR0B0013622019

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: ADDANKI

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.106 of 2020

(Crime.No.98/2019 of Medarametla Police Station)

1. Date of Offence: 13.10.2019

2. Date of Report: 13.10.2019

3. Date of taken on file: 07.02.2020

4. Date of appearance: 31.03.2022

5. Date of commencement of trial: 03.09.2025

6. Date of close of trial: 22.04.2026

7. Date of Judgment: .12.05.2026

8. Complainant: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Medarametla Police Station

9. Accused: Mandava Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu, S/o Ramarao, age 41 years, Kamma by caste, Mittapalem Village, Kondepi mandal, Prakasam District. Driver of Hyundai I 20 car bearing No.AP-27/BH-5699.

10. Deceased : Boddu Veera Bhupathi, S/o Sri Anjaneyulu, age 43 years, Kamma by caste, Kammapalem Area, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.

11. Offence/s: U/Sec.338 & 304-A of IPC

12. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

13. Finding of Court: Found not guilty

14. Sentence or Order:

IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.338 & 304-A of IPC. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for Six (06) months U/Sec.437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. No

Page: 9 OF 10

CC No.106 of 2020

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:12.05.2026

APPR0B0013622019

order is passed with regard to property, since no property is involved in this case.

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 07.02.2020 for the offences punishable U/Sec.338 & 304-A of IPC against the Accused. On 31.03.2022, after appearance of Accused, copies of all the documents furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. On 28.12.2023,

Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., substance of accusation for the offences punishable U/Sec.338 & 304-A of IPC is read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu, for which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 to PW.5 examined, got marked Exs.P1 to P11.

Hence, prosecution side evidence closed. After closure of prosecution evidence, on 22.04.2026, Accused was examined U/Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating material appeared against him from the prosecution witnesses and reported ‘no defence evidence’. Hence, defence side evidence closed. On 05.05.2026, heard arguments on both sides. On 12.05.2026, Judgment is pronounced by acquitted the Accused U/Sec.255(1)

Cr.P.C. Hence the delay.

Sd/-B.Akhila

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

Copy to :

The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District

Page: 10 OF 10

CC No.360 of 2022

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:01.05.2026

APPR0B0015182022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS :: ADDANKI

PRESENT:: Smt.B.AKHILA

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Friday, this the First (01st) day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO.360 of 2022

(Crime No.04/2022 of Medarametla Police Station)

BETWEEN: State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Medarametla Police Station ….. Complainant

And

Singampalli Rambabu, S/o Sannababu, age 33 years, Koppulavelama by caste, Vadderavachandra Nagar, Bammuru, Rajamandri Town. Driver of

Maruthi Alto Car bearing No.AP-39/DD-0387. …..Accused

Jandrajupalli Koteswara Rao, S/o Anjaiah, age 72 years, Madiga by caste, Venkatapuram Village, Addanki Mandal. …..Deceased

This case coming before me on this day, i.e., 22.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri.T.Martha Srinu, Learned Advocate for Accused; and on perusal of the material on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court, delivered the following:-

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

1.This case arises out of Cr.No.04/2022 for the offences punishable

U/Sec.338 & 304-A of IPC against the Accused registered by the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Medarametla Police Station, with the following allegations:-

2. The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: 2.1)On 07.01.2022, evening LW.1-K.Karthik, LW.2-J.Punnaiah and the deceased Jandrajupalli Koteswara Rao [Hereinafter referred to as deceased] were went to Reningavaram village in the auto of LW.2-J.Punnaiah vide bearing No.AP-27/UA-1357 and after completion of work, while they were Page: 1 OF 10

CC No.360 of 2022

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:01.05.2026

APPR0B0015182022

returning to Venkatapuram in same auto, on the way at about 19.30 hours, when they reached to culvert near Venkatapuram cross road and while they crossing NH-16 road from east side to west side, meantime the Accused, being the driver of Maruthi Alto Car bearing No.AP-39/DD-038, who proceeds on Ongole – Guntur NH-16 road, drove his car in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control over his vehicle and dashed the auto of LW.2-

J.Punnaiah, resulting which the auto turned turtle on the road and that the deceased was died on the spot with fatal injuries, LW.1-K.Karthik received bleeding injuries on his both knees and face.

2.2)Basing on the statement of LW.1-K.Karthik, LW.15-K.Anuk, Sub-

Inspector of Police, registered the same as a case in Cr.No.04/2022,

U/Sec.337 & 304-A of IPC, submitted FIR to the Court and its copies to all concerned and took up investigation. During the course of investigation,

LW.15-K.Anuk visited the scene of offence, inspected the same, prepared scene observation report, drawn rough sketch and photographed the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars at Community Health Centre, Addanki, prepared inquest report, secured the presence of witnesses, examined them and recorded their detailed statements U/Sec.161(3) of Cr.P.C., sent the corpse of deceased to postmortem examination, served Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the Accused. LW.11-Dr.SD. Hakeem, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued postmortem report opining that the deceased would appear to have died of “Hemorrhagic Shock”. LW.13-B.Amar Naik,

Motor Vehicle Inspector, inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report in which he opined that the accident occurred is not due to any mechanical defects over the crime vehicle. LW.12-Dr.N.Anjaneyulu, who rendered treatment to LW.1-K.Karthik, issued wound certificate, opined that the injuries 2 & 7 are grievous in nature and the remaining injuries are simple in nature. Page: 2 OF 10

CC No.360 of 2022

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:01.05.2026

APPR0B0015182022

Basing on the wound certificate of LW.1-K.Karthik, LW.15-K.Anuk altered the section of law from 337 of IPC to 338 of IPC and filed alteration memo before the Court to that effect. After completion of subsequent investigation, LW.16-

M.V.Siva Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet against the

Accused.

3.The Court took cognizance for the offences U/Sec.338 & 304-A of

IPC against the Accused.

4.On the appearance of Accused, copies of the case documents is furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. and he denied the offence. The substance of accusation of the offences U/Sec.338 & 304-A of

IPC against the Accused is read over and explained him in Telugu, for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6.During the Course of the trial, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 as indicated in the appendix of evidence.

7.After completion of the prosecution evidence, Accused was examined U/Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material found from the prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to the Accused in

Telugu, for which he denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence.

8.Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned

Counsel for Accused. Case file has also been perused carefully.

Page: 3 OF 10

CC No.360 of 2022

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:01.05.2026

APPR0B0015182022

9.Now the point for determination is:

‘Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.338 & 304-A of IPC,

beyond all reasonable doubt?’ 10.POINT:- 10.1)To bring home the guilt of Accused, the prosecution has examined the de-facto complainant cum grandson and son of deceased as

PW.1 & PW.2, mediator for scene observation and inquest as PW.3 and the

Investigating Officer as PW.4.

10.2)PW.1, who is the de-facto complainant and grandson of deceased, deposed in his chief-examination that one day he along with deceased PW.2 were traveling from Renangivaram to Venkatapuram in an auto and PW.2 was driving the auto and when they reached Venkatapuram cross road the auto capsized and he do not know the manner of accident and abut the crime vehicle. He sustained injuries on both his legs and deceased died on the spot. Immediately, he was shifted to hospital to Ongole. He do not know whether police examined him or not.

The evidence of PW.1 is not in support with prosecution case as he re-sailed from his 161 Cr.P.C. statement and hence PW.1 was declared as hostile and that Ex.P2 is not reliable.

10.3)PW.2, who is son of deceased, deposed in his chief-examination that three years ago in the month of January, 2020 he along with deceased,

PW.1 were traveling from Renangivaram to Venkatapuram in an auto and he was driving the auto and when they reached Venkatapuram cross road the auto capsized. He do not know the manner of accident and about the crime vehicle and PW.1 sustained injuries on both his legs and deceased died on spot. Immediately, they were shifted to Community Health Centre, Addanki

Page: 4 OF 10

CC No.360 of 2022

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:01.05.2026

APPR0B0015182022

and from there PW.1 was shifted to hospital at Ongole. He do not know whether police examined him or not.

The evidence of PW.2 is also not in support with prosecution case as he re-sailed from his 161 Cr.P.C. statement and hence PW.2 was declared as hostile and that Ex.P3 is not reliable.

10.4)PW.3, who said to be acted as mediator for scene observation and inquest, deposed in his chief-examination that scene observation was conducted in January, 2022 at Venkatapuram cross road and police conducted scene observation and prepared scene observation report in his presence and obtained his signatures on it. He further deposed that on the same day inquest was conducted to Community Health Centre, Addanki and police prepared inquest report in his presence and obtained his signatures on it and he observed injuries over head, ribs, legs on the dead body of the deceased and the deceased died due to injuries sustained during accident.

During cross-examination, PW.3 admitted that there is repair work going on the road where scene of offence was situated at the time of conducting scene observation and the vehicles have to travel in a low speed at the time of scene observation due to work going on that road. He has not witnessed the occurrence of accident in this case and the deceased is his relative.

10.5)The only evidence available on record in support of the case of prosecution case is that of PW.4, who is the Investigating Officer.

10.6)The evidence of PW.4 is that based on the statement of PW.1 he registered the case, issued FIR, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene observation report in the presence of mediators and prepared scene observation report, drafted rough sketch, examined witnesses and recorded

Page: 5 OF 10

CC No.360 of 2022

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:01.05.2026

APPR0B0015182022

their 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars, subject the dead body to postmortem, sent a requisition to the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Chirala for conducting vehicle inspection, served Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the

Accused, who surrendered before him in the police station, received postmortem report, MIV report and wound certificate of PW.1 and handed over the case file to M.V.Siva Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, who filed charge sheet after completion of subsequent investigation.

In the absence of the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2, who is grandson and son deceased, no weightage can be given to the evidence of PW.4.

10.7)In the absence of evidence of material witnesses to the occurrence of incident/PW.1 & PW.2, who are grandson and son of deceased, no weight can be given to the evidence of PW.3/Mediator for scene observation and inquest, is not the direct witness to the incident as admitted by him during his cross-examination and that his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case to prove the guilt of Accused for the alleged offences leveled against him.

10.8)The remaining evidence in support of the prosecution, i.e., of

PW.4 is to the limited extent of registration of crime, visit to the scene of offence, examining the witnesses, recording their statements, holding inquest over the dead body of deceased, forwarding the dead body for autopsy, receiving postmortem certificate, MVI report, wound certificate of PW.1 and handed over case file to M.V.Siva Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, who filed charge sheet after completion of investigation, is merely not sufficient to connect Accused with the incident, in view of the hostile evidence of PW.1 &

PW.2, who are grandson and son of deceased.

Page: 6 OF 10

CC No.360 of 2022

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:01.05.2026

APPR0B0015182022

10.9)In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can safely be concluded that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the foregoing reasons and there is no material against the Accused in proving the ingredients of Sections 338 & 304-A of IPC. Therefore, the Accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

11. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.338 & 304-A of IPC. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for Six (06) months U/Sec.437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. No order is passed with regard to property, since no property is involved in this case.

{{Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer (Grade-III), corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 01 st day of May, 2026.}}

Sd/-B.Akhila

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defense:

PW.1: K.Karthik- Nil -

PW.2: J.Punnaiah

PW.3: T.Anjaiah

PW.4: K.Anuk, S.I. of Police

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defense:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on Statement - Nil -

Ex.P2: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1

Ex.P3: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Ex.P4: Scene Observation Report Page: 7 OF 10

CC No.360 of 2022

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:01.05.2026

APPR0B0015182022

Ex.P5: Inquest Report

Ex.P6: Hospital Intimation

Ex.P7: Statement of PW.1

Ex.P8: F.I.R. in Cr.No.04/2022

Ex.P9: Rough Sketch

Ex.P10: Postmortem Report

Ex.P11: MVI Report

Ex.P12: Wound Certificate of PW.1

Ex.P13: Section Alteration Memo

Material Objects Marked

- Nil -

Sd/-B.Akhila

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Addanki.

Page: 8 OF 10

CC No.360 of 2022

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:01.05.2026

APPR0B0015182022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: ADDANKI

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.360 of 2022

(Crime.No.04/2022 of Medarametla Police Station)

1. Date of Offence: 07.01.2022

2. Date of Report: 07.01.2022

3. Date of taken on file: 05.08.2022

4. Date of appearance: 10.11.2022

5. Date of commencement of trial: 07.11.2025

6. Date of close of trial: 08.04.2026

7. Date of Judgment: .01.05.2026

8. Complainant: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Medarametla Police Station

9. Accused: Singampalli Rambabu, S/o Sannababu, age 33 years, Koppulavelama by caste, Vadderavachandra Nagar, Bammuru, Rajamandri Town. Driver of Maruthi Alto Car bearing No.AP-39/DD-0387.

10. Deceased : Jandrajupalli Koteswara Rao, S/o Anjaiah, age 72 years, Madiga by caste, Venkatapuram Village, Addanki Mandal.

11. Offence/s: U/Sec.338 & 304-A of IPC

12. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

13. Finding of Court: Found not guilty

14. Sentence or Order:

IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.338 & 304-A of IPC. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for Six (06) months U/Sec.437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. No

Page: 9 OF 10

CC No.360 of 2022

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:01.05.2026

APPR0B0015182022

order is passed with regard to property, since no property is involved in this case.

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 05.08.2022 for the offences punishable U/Sec.338 & 304-A of IPC against the Accused. On 10.11.2022, after appearance of Accused, copies of all the documents furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. On 23.09.2025,

Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., substance of accusation for the offences punishable U/Sec.338 & 304-A of IPC is read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu, for which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 to PW.4 examined, got marked Exs.P1 to P13.

Hence, prosecution side evidence closed. After closure of prosecution evidence, on 08.04.2026, Accused was examined U/Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating material appeared against him from the prosecution witnesses and reported ‘no defence evidence’. Hence, defence side evidence closed. On 23.04.2026, heard arguments on both sides. On 01.05.2026, Judgment is pronounced by acquitted the Accused U/Sec.255(1)

Cr.P.C. Hence the delay.

Sd/-B.Akhila

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

Copy to :

The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District

Page: 10 OF 10

CC No.397 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:13.05.2026

APPR0B0006132025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS :: ADDANKI

PRESENT:: Smt.B.AKHILA

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Wednesday, this the Thirteenth (13th) day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO.397 of 2025

(Crime No.110/2024 of Santhamaguluru Police Station)

BETWEEN: State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Santhamaguluru Police Station ….. Complainant

And

Thammineni Srinadh Reddy, S/o Sambi Reddy, age 32 years, Reddy by caste, Nagularam Village, Vinukonda Mandal. Driver of Car bearing No.TS-

13/EZ-1557. …..Accused

Tatkalika Srinivasa Rao, S/o Pedda Venkateswarlu, age 48 years, Telaga by caste, Elchur Village of Santhamaguluru Mandal. …..Deceased

This case coming before me on this day, i.e., 05.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri.Y.Ramesh Babu, Learned Advocate for Accused; and on perusal of the material on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court, delivered the following:-

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

1.This case arises out of Cr.No.110/2024 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A of IPC against the Accused registered by the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Santhamaguluru Police Station, with the following allegations:-

2. The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: 2.1)On 08.06.2024, morning the deceased Tatkalika Srinivasa Rao [Hereinafter referred to as deceased] and his villager Vallem Venkateswarlu are went to Karumanchi village on the motorcycle bearing No.AP-39/QT-2774 of the deceased to purchase a tractor. After that, afternoon return back to Page: 1 OF 10

CC No.397 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:13.05.2026

APPR0B0006132025

home from Karumanchi village and proceeding towards Elchuru village, on enroot while reaching near the turning of Masanam Pullaiah fields at 1.30 P.M.

on 08.06.2024, at that time the Accused, being the driver of Tata Punch car bearing No.TS-13/EZ-1557, coming opposite and drove the car in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed without blowing horn and hit the motorcycle of deceased, resulting of which both of them fell down on the road and the rider of motorcycle and the deceased received cut injury on forehead, fracture to left hand wrist, cut injury to left foot, cut injuries to both lips and died on the spot. Immediately, LW.4-V.Venkateswarlu informed about the accident to

LW.1-T.Venkata Gopi, who rushed to the spot and found the dead body of deceased with severe bleeding injuries.

2.2)Basing on the report of LW.1-T.Venkata Gopi, LW.12-P.Suresh,

Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the same as a case in Cr.No.110/2024,

U/Sec.304-A of IPC, submitted FIR to the Court and its copies to all concerned and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.12-P.Suresh visited the scene of offence, inspected the same, prepared scene observation report, drawn rough sketch of scene of offence, photographed the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars at Area Hospital, Narasaraopeta, secured the presence of witnesses, examined them and recorded their detailed statements

U/Sec.161(3) of Cr.P.C., sent the corpse of deceased to postmortem examination, served Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the Accused. LW.10-

Dr.B.Rajasekhar, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued postmortem report, opined that the deceased would appear to have died of brain damage tramatic had injury death trama. LW.11-

N.Prasanna Kumari, Motor Vehicle Inspector, inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report in which he opined that the accident occurred is not due to

Page: 2 OF 10

CC No.397 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:13.05.2026

APPR0B0006132025

any mechanical defects over the crime vehicle. After completion of subsequent investigation, LW.13-M.Pattabhiramaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet against the Accused.

3.The Court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC against the Accused.

4.On the appearance of Accused, copies of the case documents is furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. and he denied the offence. The substance of accusation of the offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC against the Accused is read over and explained him in Telugu, for which the

Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6.During the Course of the trial, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 as indicated in the appendix of evidence.

7.After completion of the prosecution evidence, Accused was examined U/Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material found from the prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to the Accused in

Telugu, for which he denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence.

8.Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned

Counsel for Accused. Case file has also been perused carefully.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC,

beyond all reasonable doubt?” Page: 3 OF 10

CC No.397 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:13.05.2026

APPR0B0006132025

10.POINT:- 10.1)To bring home the guilt of Accused, the prosecution has examined the de-facto complainant cum son, wife, daughter and brother-in-law of deceased as PW.1 to PW.4, mediator for scene observation and inquest as

PW.5 and the Investigating Officer as PW.6.

10.2)PW.1, who is the son of deceased, deposed in his chief- examination that on 08.06.2024, while the deceased was traveling from

Karumanchi to Elchuru on his motorbike and when he reached near to Elchuru at about 2.00 P.M., the deceased met with an accident. He came to know about the incident from the persons gathered at the scene and he reached

Santhamaguluru Government Hospital where deceased was admitted. By the time he reached hospital, deceased died. He do not know the manner of the accident, details of crime vehicle and its driver. He do not know the contents of report and police obtained his signature on blank paper.

The evidence of PW.1 is not in support with prosecution case as he re-sailed from his 161 Cr.P.C. statement and hence PW.1 was declared as hostile and that Ex.P2 is not reliable.

10.3)PW.2 to PW.4, who are the wife, daughter and brother-in-law of deceased, deposed in their chief-examination that about one year ago, while the deceased was traveling from Karumanchi to Elchuru on his motorbike and when he reached near to Elchuru at about 2.00 P.M., the deceased met with accident. They came to know about the incident from the persons gathered at the scene and they reached Santhamaguluru Government Hospital where deceased was admitted. By the time they reached hospital deceased died.

They do not know the manner of accident, details of crime vehicle and its driver. Police did not examine them.

Page: 4 OF 10

CC No.397 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:13.05.2026

APPR0B0006132025

The evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 are not in support with prosecution case as they re-sailed from their 161 Cr.P.C. statements and hence PW.2 to

PW.4 were declared as hostile and that Exs.P3 to P5 are not reliable.

10.4)PW.5, who said to be acted as mediator for scene observation and inquest, deposed in his chief-examination that he acted as mediator for scene observation and inquest and scene observation was conducted in June, 2024 at scene of offence situated at Elchuru to Karumanchi road and police prepared scene observation report in his presence and obtained his signatures on it. He further deposed that on the same day inquest was condcuted at

Government Hospital, Narasaraopet and police prepared inquest report in his presence and obtained his signatures on it and he observed head injury on the dead body of the deceased and the deceased died due to injuries sustained during accident.

10.5)The only evidence available on record in support of the case of prosecution case is that of PW.6, who is the Investigating Officer.

10.6)The evidence of PW.6 is that based on the report of PW.1 he registered the case, issued FIR, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene observation report in the presence of mediators, taken photographs of scene of offence, prepared scene observation report, drafted rough sketch, examined witnesses and recorded their 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars, subject the dead body to postmortem, served Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the

Accused and secured vehicle documents, received MVI report and handed over case file to M.Pattabhiramaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, who received postmortem certificate and filed charge sheet after completion of subsequent investigation.

Page: 5 OF 10

CC No.397 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:13.05.2026

APPR0B0006132025

In the absence of the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4, who are son, wife, daughter and brother-in-law of deceased, and PW.5, who is acted as mediator scene observation and inquest, no weightage can be given to the evidence of

PW.6.

10.7)In the absence of evidence of material witnesses to the occurrence of incident/PW.1 to PW.4, who are son, wife, daughter and brother-in-law of deceased, no weight can be given to the evidence of

PW.5/Mediator for scene observation and inquest as he is not the direct witness to the incident and that his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case to prove the guilt of Accused for the alleged offence leveled against him.

10.8)The remaining evidence in support of the prosecution, i.e., of

PW.6 is to the limited extent of registration of crime, visit to the scene of offence, examining the witnesses, recording their statements, holding inquest over the dead body of deceased, forwarding the dead body for autopsy, receiving MVI report and handing over case file to M.Pattabhiramaiah, Sub-

Inspector of Police, who receiving postmortem report and filing charge sheet after completion of subsequent investigation, is merely not sufficient to connect

Accused with the incident, in view of the hostile evidence of PW.1 to PW.4, who are son, wife, daughter and brother-in-law of deceased.

10.9)In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can safely be concluded that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the foregoing reasons and there is no material against the Accused in proving the ingredients of Section 304-A of IPC. Therefore, the Accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

Page: 6 OF 10

CC No.397 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:13.05.2026

APPR0B0006132025

11. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for Six (06) months U/Sec.437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. No order is passed with regard to property, since no property is involved in this case.

{{Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer (Grade-III), corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13 th day of May, 2026.}}

Sd/-B.Akhila

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defense:

PW.1: T.Venkata Gopi- Nil -

PW.2: T.Srilakshmi

PW.3: V.Nagaveni

PW.4: V.Venkateswarlu

PW.5: V.Krishna

PW.6: P.Suresh, S.I. of Police

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defense:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on Report - Nil -

Ex.P2: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1

Ex.P3: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Ex.P4: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3

Ex.P5: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4

Ex.P6: Scene Observation Report

Ex.P7: Inquest Report

Ex.P8: Report by PW.1

Page: 7 OF 10

CC No.397 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:13.05.2026

APPR0B0006132025

Ex.P9: F.I.R. in Cr.No.110/2024

Ex.P10: Rough Sketch

Ex.P11: MVI Report

Ex.P12: Postmortem Report

Material Objects Marked

- Nil -

Sd/-B.Akhila

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Addanki.

Page: 8 OF 10

CC No.397 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:13.05.2026

APPR0B0006132025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: ADDANKI

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.397 of 2025

(Crime No.110/2024 of Santhamaguluru Police Station)

1. Date of Offence: 08.06.2024

2. Date of Report: 08.06.2024

3. Date of taken on file: 22.04.2025

4. Date of appearance: 18.07.2025

5. Date of commencement of trial: 10.12.2025

6. Date of close of trial: 23.04.2026

7. Date of Judgment: 13.05.2026

8. Complainant: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Santhamaguluru Police Station

9. Accused: Thammineni Srinadh Reddy, S/o Sambi Reddy, age 32 years, Reddy by caste, Nagularam Village, Vinukonda Mandal. Driver of Car bearing No.TS- 13/EZ-1557.

10. Deceased : Tatkalika Srinivasa Rao, S/o Pedda Venkateswarlu, age 48 years, Telaga by caste, Elchur Village of Santhamaguluru Mandal.

11. Offence/s: U/Sec.304-A of IPC

12. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

13. Finding of Court: Found not guilty

14. Sentence or Order:

IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for Six (06) months U/Sec.437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. No order is passed with regard to property, since no property is involved in this case.

Page: 9 OF 10

CC No.397 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:13.05.2026

APPR0B0006132025

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 22.04.2025 for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC against the Accused. On 18.07.2025, after appearance of Accused, copies of all the documents furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. On 25.09.2025, Accused was examined

U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., substance of accusation for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A of IPC is read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu, for which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution,

PW.1 to PW.6 examined, got marked Exs.P1 to P12. Hence, prosecution side evidence closed. After closure of prosecution evidence, on 23.04.2026,

Accused was examined U/Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating material appeared against him from the prosecution witnesses and reported ‘no defence evidence’. Hence, defence side evidence closed. On 05.05.2026, heard arguments on both sides. On 13.05.2026, Judgment is

pronounced by acquitted the Accused U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. Hence the delay.

Sd/-B.Akhila

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

Copy to :

The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District

Page: 10 OF 10

CC No.257 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:05.05.2026

APPR0B0003652025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS :: ADDANKI

PRESENT:: Smt.B.AKHILA

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Tuesday, this the Fifth (05th) day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO.257 of 2025

(Crime No.114/2023 of Santhamaguluru Police Station)

BETWEEN: State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Santhamaguluru Police Station ….. Complainant

And

Varikuti Krishna, S/o Pothuraju, age 33 years, Mala by caste, Ammanabrolu Village, N.G.Padu Mandal. Driver of Car bearing No.AP-39/UG-4163.

…..Accused

Shaik Mohiddinbee, W/o Baba Vali, age 70 years, Muslim by caste, Elchuru Village, Santhamaguluru Mandal. …..Deceased

This case coming before me on this day, i.e., 04.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri.P.Ramesh, Learned Advocate for Accused; and on perusal of the material on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court, delivered the following:-

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

1.This case arises out of Cr.No.114/2023 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A of IPC against the Accused registered by the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Santhamaguluru Police Station, with the following allegations:-

2. The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: 2.1)On 18.07.2023, at 4.00 P.M., the deceased Shaik Mohiddinbee [Hereinafter referred to as deceased] was walking on the left side of the

NAM state highway road and was going home to LW.1-Sk.Abudl Nabhi, when she came near Jakannanna Colony on the way to hills in enroute, at the same Page: 1 OF 9

CC No.257 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:05.05.2026

APPR0B0003652025

time the driver of the car bearing No.AP-37/UG-4163, drove the car recklessly and at high speed, hit the deceased from behind and that the deceased fly and down about five feet on the road and received severe bleeding injury to her head and fracture to her right leg and died on the spot. LW.3-Sk.Imamun, who witnessed the accident, went to the house of LW.1-Sk.Abdul Nabhi and informed him about the road accident that had happened to her grandmother.

2.2)Basing on the report of LW.1-Sk.Abdul Nabhi, LW.14-

M.Srinivasulu, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the same as a case in Cr.No.114/2023, U/Sec.304-A of IPC, submitted FIR to the Court and its copies to all concerned and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.14-M.Srinivasulu visited the scene of offence, inspected the same, prepared scene observation report, drawn rough sketch of scene of offence, photographed the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars at Area Hospital,

Narasaraopeta, secured the presence of witnesses, examined them and recorded their detailed statements U/Sec.161(3) of Cr.P.C., sent the corpse of deceased to postmortem examination, served Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the Accused. LW.12-Dr.G.Prasanna, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued postmortem report, opined that the death was due to “Acute lung injury with multiple rib fracture with and subdural hemorrhage caused due to road traffic accident”. LW.13-B.Rama Krishna

Reddy, Motor Vehicle Inspector, inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report in which he opined that the accident occurred is not due to any mechanical defects over the crime vehicle. After completion of subsequent investigation, LW.16-M.Pattabhiramaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet against the Accused.

Page: 2 OF 9

CC No.257 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:05.05.2026

APPR0B0003652025

3.The Court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC against the Accused.

4.On the appearance of Accused, copies of the case documents is furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. and he denied the offence. The substance of accusation of the offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC against the Accused is read over and explained him in Telugu, for which the

Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6.During the Course of the trial, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 as indicated in the appendix of evidence.

7.After completion of the prosecution evidence, Accused was examined U/Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material found from the prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to the Accused in

Telugu, for which he denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence.

8.Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned

Counsel for Accused. Case file has also been perused carefully.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC,

beyond all reasonable doubt?” 10.POINT:- 10.1)To bring home the guilt of Accused, the prosecution has examined the de-facto complainant cum son of deceased as PW.1,

Page: 3 OF 9

CC No.257 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:05.05.2026

APPR0B0003652025

eyewitness as PW.2, PW.3 & PW.5, mediator for scene observation and inquest as PW.4 and the Investigating Officer as PW.6.

10.2)PW.1, who is the son of deceased, deposed in his chief- examination that about two years ago, he received phone call from their mason mastry informing him about occurrence of accident of deceased at

Elchuru. Immediately, he reached scene of offence and came to know that deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Narasaraopeta and that he reached hospital and found that the deceased died. He do not know the manner of accident, details of crime vehicle and its driver who caused the accident. Police obtained his signature on blank paper at hospital and he do not know the contents of the report.

The evidence of PW.1 is not in support with prosecution case as he re-sailed from his 161 Cr.P.C. statement and hence PW.1 was declared as hostile and that Ex.P2 is not reliable.

10.3)PW.2, PW.3 & PW.5, who are said to be eyewitnesses to the occurrence of offence, also did not support the case of prosecution, re-sailed from their 161(3) Cr.P.C. and turned hostile and that Exs.P3, P4 & P7 are not reliable.

10.4)PW.4, who said to be acted as mediator for scene observation and inquest, deposed in his chief-examination that he acted as mediator for scene observation and inquest and scene observation was conducted about two years ago at Elchuru and police conducted scene observation and prepared scene observation report in his presence and obtained his signatures on it. He further deposed that On the same day inquest was condcuted at Area Hospital,

Narasaraopet and police prepared inquest report in his presence and obtained

Page: 4 OF 9

CC No.257 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:05.05.2026

APPR0B0003652025

his signatures on it and he observed head injuries on the dead body of the deceased and the deceased died due to injuries sustained during accident

During cross-examination, PW.4 admitted that Exs.P5 & P6 are prepared at police station and he signed upon them at police station as instructed by police.

10.5)The only evidence available on record in support of the case of prosecution case is that of PW.6, who is the Investigating Officer.

10.6)The evidence of PW.6 is that based on the report of PW.1 he registered the case, issued FIR, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene observation report in the presence of mediators and prepared scene observation report, drafted rough sketch, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars, examined witnesses and recorded their 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements, subject the dead body to postmortem, served Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the Accused and secured vehicle documents, forwarded crime vehicle for MVI inspection, received MVI report and postmortem report and handed over case file to M.Pattabhiramaiah,

Sub-Inspector of Police, who filed charge sheet after completion of subsequent investigation.

In the absence of the evidence of PW.1, who is son of deceased, PW.2,

PW.3 & PW.5, who are eyewitnesses to the incident and PW.4, who is acted as mediator scene observation and inquest, no weightage can be given to the evidence of PW.6.

10.7)In the absence of evidence of material witnesses to the occurrence of incident/PW.1 to PW.3 & PW.5, who is son of deceased and eyewitnesses to the incident, no weight can be given to the evidence of

PW.4/Mediator for scene observation and inquest as he is not the direct witness to the incident and also turned hostile during his cross-examination Page: 5 OF 9

CC No.257 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:05.05.2026

APPR0B0003652025

and that his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case to prove the guilt of Accused for the alleged offence leveled against him.

10.8)The remaining evidence in support of the prosecution, i.e., of

PW.6 is to the limited extent of registration of crime, visit to the scene of offence, examining the witnesses, recording their statements, holding inquest over the dead body of deceased, forwarding the dead body for autopsy, receiving postmortem certificate and handed over case file to

M.Pattabhiramaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, who filed charge sheet after completion of investigation, is merely not sufficient to connect Accused with the incident, in view of the hostile evidence of PW.1 to PW.5, who are son of deceased, eyewitnesses to the incident and mediator for scene observation and inquest.

10.9)In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can safely be concluded that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the foregoing reasons and there is no material against the Accused in proving the ingredients of Section 304-A of IPC. Therefore, the Accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

11. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for Six (06) months U/Sec.437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. No order is passed with regard to property, since no property is involved in this case.

{{Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer (Grade-III), corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 05 th day of May, 2026.}}

Sd/-B.Akhila

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Page: 6 OF 9

CC No.257 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:05.05.2026

APPR0B0003652025

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defense:

PW.1: Sk.Abdul Nabhi - Nil -

PW.2: T.Kotaiah

PW.3: N.Ramanaiah

PW.4: Sk.Khadar Basha

PW.5: T.Subba Rao

PW.6: M.Srinivasulu, ASI

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defense:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on Report - Nil -

Ex.P2: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1

Ex.P3: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Ex.P4: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3

Ex.P5: Scene Observation Report

Ex.P6: Inquest Report

Ex.P7: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5

Ex.P8: Report by PW.1

Ex.P9: F.I.R. in Cr.No.114/2023

Ex.P10: Rough Sketch

Ex.P11: MVI Report

Ex.P12: Postmortem Report

Material Objects Marked

- Nil -

Sd/-B.Akhila

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Addanki.

Page: 7 OF 9

CC No.257 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:05.05.2026

APPR0B0003652025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: ADDANKI

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.257 of 2025

(Crime No.114/2023 of Santhamaguluru Police Station)

1. Date of Offence: 18.07.2023

2. Date of Report: 18.07.2023

3. Date of taken on file: 05.03.2025

4. Date of appearance: 19.08.2025

5. Date of commencement of trial: 11.02.2026

6. Date of close of trial: 23.04.2026

7. Date of Judgment: .05.05.2026

8. Complainant: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Santhamaguluru Police Station

9. Accused: Varikuti Krishna, S/o Pothuraju, age 33 years, Mala by caste, Ammanabrolu Village, N.G.Padu Mandal. Driver of Car bearing No.AP-39/UG- 4163.

10. Deceased : Shaik Mohiddinbee, W/o Baba Vali, age 70 years, Muslim by caste, Elchuru Village, Santhamaguluru Mandal.

11. Offence/s: U/Sec.304-A of IPC

12. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

13. Finding of Court: Found not guilty

14. Sentence or Order:

IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for Six (06) months U/Sec.437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. No order is passed with regard to property, since no property is involved in this case.

Page: 8 OF 9

CC No.257 of 2025

AJMFC COURT/ADDANKI DT:05.05.2026

APPR0B0003652025

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 05.03.2025 for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC against the Accused. On 19.08.2025, after appearance of Accused, copies of all the documents furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. On 22.10.2025, Accused was examined

U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., substance of accusation for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A of IPC is read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu, for which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution,

PW.1 to PW.6 examined, got marked Exs.P1 to P12. Hence, prosecution side evidence closed. After closure of prosecution evidence, on 23.04.2026,

Accused was examined U/Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating material appeared against him from the prosecution witnesses and reported ‘no defence evidence’. Hence, defence side evidence closed. On 04.05.2026, heard arguments on both sides. On 05.05.2026, Judgment is

pronounced by acquitted the Accused U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. Hence the delay.

Sd/-B.Akhila

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

Copy to :

The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District

Page: 9 OF 9