Smt B.Deepti

IN THE COURT OF THEJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR.

Friday, the 12th day of July, 2019.

Present: D.V.R.Tejo Karthik, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar.

C.C.No.32 of 2019

Between:- The State represented through Sub Inspector of police, PS.Addakal.

.... Complainant

And

Lahu Rama Dhage s/o Rama, age 38 yrs, occ: Driver of Lorry bearing No.MH/12/MB/0223, r/o Nimboni, Mangalwedha Taluka, Solapur District, Maharashtra-413322. …. Accused Section of law: 304-A IPC

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A

IPC and consequently he is acquitted u/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the

Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to property.

@ @ @

This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst., Public Prosecutor, on behalf of prosecution and of

Sri B.Balaswamy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for determination, this day the court delivered the following:- 2

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS.Addakal laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.86/2018 for the offence u/Sec.304-A IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 16-11-2018 at 10.00 AM the deceased Vijaykumar left his house on his motorbike bearing No.TS/06/EX/5699 for searching his missing buffalo and in the afternoon at about 2.30 PM the de-facto complainant PW1 who was wife of the deceased received phone call that while her husband was returning to their home on motorcycle, on the way near Gudiband Shivar in front of Chowderpally Dhaba on NH-44 road, one Lorry bearing

No.MH/12/MV/0223 which was proceeding towards Hyderabad from

Kurnool, the driver of lorry drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner at high speed and applied sudden brakes due to which the deceased lost control over his bike and hit to rear side of the lorry, due to which the deceased received head injury and while he was shifting to hospital, he died. Therefore, PW1 lodged report with the police seeking necessary action against the driver of lorry.

Basing on the contents of report, PW6 registered a case in

Cr.No.86/2018 U/Sec.304-A IPC and issued FIR and took up the investigation.

During the investigation, PW6 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at police station and visited the scene of offence, which is situated in front of Chowderpally Dhaba on NH-44 road and secured the presence of PW3 and LW6/B.Shekar Reddy and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene and thereafter visited the Government Headquarters Hospital, 3

Mahabubnagar and secured the presence of PW4 and LW8/K.Bugganna and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased and thereafter subjected the dead body for postmortem examination. PW6 also examined and recorded the statements of LW2/Smt.Y.Laxmamma,

LW3/Y.Shivakumar and PW2. LW9/Dr.Parvathi, medical officer held autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued postmortem examination repot, opining that the deceased died due to head injury.

PW5 is the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and issued report opining that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. The accused who was the driver of lorry surrendered before PW6 on 20-11-2018 and voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence and Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice was issued to the accused. After completion of investigation, basing on the evidence collected during investigation, PW6 laid charge sheet against the accused.

3. Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, the cognizance for the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A IPC was taken against the accused and on appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as per section 207 Cr.P.C., after furnishing copies of the documents the accused was examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the substance of accusation for the offence u/Sec.304-A IPC for which the accused had denied the accusation and on question of plea of guilt he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial against the accused.

4. For proving their case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

4

5. PW1 is the de-facto complainant and wife of the deceased. PW2 is the circumstantial witness. PW3 is the panch witness for crime details form.

PW4 is the panch witness for inquest panchanama. PW5 is the Motor

Vehicle Inspector. PW6 is the investigating officer. The prosecution gave up the evidence of LW2/Smt.Y.Laxmamma, LW3/Y.Shivakumar,

LW6/B.Shekar Reddy, LW8/K.Bugganna and LW9/Dr.Parvathi.

5. Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is the crime details form. Ex.P3 is the inquest panchanama. Ex.P4 is the report. Ex.P5 is the FIR. Ex.P6 is the postmortem examination report.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defence evidence on his side.

7. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the accused.

8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution could successfully bring home the guilt of the accused by proving the substance of the accusation for the offences punishable u/Sec.304-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

9. POINT:- As seen from the evidence of PW1, who is the de-facto complainant and wife of the deceased in her evidence testified that the deceased Vijay Kumar is her husband and he died on 16-11-2018 in a road traffic accident. At around 10.00 AM her husband Vijay Kumar left the house for searching their missing buffalo on his motorcycle bearing

No.5699 and at around 2.30 PM she received information over phone from one of their villagers informing her that her husband met with an accident 5 on NH-44 road, Gudibanda Shivar near Chowdary Dhaba as one lorry bearing No.0223 which came from Kurnool and proceeding towards

Hyderabad, the driver of lorry drove the lorry in high speed and applied sudden brakes, due to which her husband lost control of his bike and hit the lorry on rear side and her husband sustained severe head injury and while shifting her husband to hospital, he died and she lodged report with police vide Ex.P1 and the police examined and recorded her statement.

During cross examination, PW1 testified that she is a graduate. She denied the suggestion that she did not state in her statement to the police that she received phone call from one of her villagers informing her about the incident and that she did not state the bike number as 5699 and lorry number as 0223 and she went to hospital on knowing that her husband died and she was in the hospital till 9.00 PM and returned to her home as she was having one year old son and she returned by 10.00 PM to her village. On the same day the police examined and recorded her statement in the hospital between 7.00 to 7.30 PM. She denied the suggestion that her husband was drunk at the time of accident and fell on the road and sustained injury on his head and died.

10. PW2 in his testified that the deceased Vijay Kumar was his cousin and he died on 16-1-2018 in a road traffic accident near Gudibanda in front of Chowdary Dhaba. At around 10.00 AM the deceased Vijay Kumar left the house for searching their missing buffalo on his motorcycle bearing

No.5699 and after 2.30 PM he received information over phone from one of their villagers informing that his cousin met with an accident on NH-44 road, Gudibanda Shivar near Chowdary Dhaba as one lorry bearing

No.0223 belongs to Maharashtra State registration which came from

Kurnool and proceeding towards Hyderabad, the driver of lorry drove the 6 lorry in high speed and applied sudden brakes, due to which his cousin lost control of his bike and hit the lorry on rear side and his cousin sustained severe head injury and while shifting his cousin to hospital, he died and the police examined and recorded her statement.

During cross examination, PW2 testified that he is not an eyewitness to the accident and that immediately on receipt of information he left to the spot and he did not remember exactly the contents mentioned by him to the police. He denied the suggestion that his cousin was drunk at the time of accident and fell on the road and sustained injury on his head and died.

11. PW3 in his evidence testified that about 8 to 10 months ago a road traffic accident took place in which a person died and the police came near his hotel and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene and explained the contents to him in Hindi and he appended his signature as a witness to the proceedings.

During cross examination, PW3 testified that he did not know what was written in the panchanama as it was written in Telugu, but the police have explained the contents to him in Hindi. He testified that there is a separate line for two wheelers on National Highways. That towards East there are dhabas. He denied the suggestion that no accident took place in front of his dhaba and that no panchanama was conducted in his presence.

12. PW4 in his evidence testified that the deceased Vijay Kumar died about eight months ago in a road traffic accident and the police have conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased in his presence and in the presence of LW8/Bugganna at Government Hopsital, 7

Mahabubnagar and the contents were read over and explained to him and he appended his signature in the inquest panchanama.

During cross examination, PW4 testified that the deceased Vijay

Kumar was his relative. He denied the suggestion that no inquest panchanama was conducted in his presence and he was deposing false.

13. PW5 is the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in his evidence testified that on 20-11-2018 he received requisition from Station House Officer,

PS.Addakal for inspecting the crime vehicle bearing No.MH-12-MV-0223 which is multi axle (Trailer) vehicle and he inspected the vehicle at police station, Addakal on the same day and he found right side safety bumper bend and tail lamp light broken and the brake system was intact and in his opinion the accident occurred was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle and the owner of the vehicle was Mahavir Fleer Operations Private Limited and the deceased was

Y.Vijay Kumar s/o Srinivasulu r/o Vemula village and the driver was

Lahudhage s/o Rama as per the requisition received by him and after inspection he issued his report.

During cross examination, PW5 testified that he did not visit the scene of crime as the vehicle was already shifted to police station. He denied the suggestion that without inspecting the vehicle at the request of police, he issued Ex.P4.

14. PW6 is the investigation officer and he testified the chronological events of his investigation in his chief examination, which are similar to the allegations made in the charge sheet.

During cross examination, PW6 testified that he did not examine the owner of the crime vehicle and in Ex.P1 and in the statements of 8 witnesses, there is no mention about the driver of crime vehicle and PW1 in Ex.P1 and in her statement did not state that her villagers informed her about the accident and the accident took place as the lorry hit the bike on its rear side. He denied the suggestion that without proper investigation, he laid charge sheet mechanically and that he did not visit the scene of offence and conduct scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators and the accused is no way concerned with the offence and a false case was foisted against the accused.

15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence on record, in order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has to prove that there was death of a person and the accused was responsible for such death due to his rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and the death of such person not amounts to culpable homicide. It is also imperative on the part of the prosecution to establish that there was direct nexus between the death of deceased and rash and negligent act on the part of the accused.

16. In this case, there are no eyewitnesses to the accident. PWs1 and 2 are only circumstantial witnesses and they did not witness the accident and further there was no identification of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle. The case of prosecution is that the accused was driver of the crime vehicle and he drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and in high speed and he applied sudden brakes due to which the deceased who was riding the motorcycle hit the rear side of the lorry and sustained injuries and while he was shifting to hospital, he succumbed to injuries and the investigating officer, who laid charge sheet was examined as PW6 during cross examination testified that the lorry was hit the 9 deceased motorcycle on its rear side, due to which the accident took place and the deceased died. The evidence of PW6 is quite opposite to the case of the prosecution and further in this case the photographs of scene of offence were not taken and moreover the skid marks were not lifted and further identification of accused to be the driver of crime vehicle and that the accused was responsible for the death of deceased were not proved by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence.

Further, in this case, the owner of the vehicle was not examined in order to establish the fact that the accused was driver of the lorry. Since, the essential ingredients of the offence were not brought on record, the accused is therefore entitled for acquittal

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A IPC and consequently he is acquitted u/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bond of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to property..

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 12th day of July, 2019.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1 Y.Anitha @ Kalpana. PW-2 Sathyanarayana. PW-3 Rajesh Pandar @ Raju. PW-4 Krishnaiah. PW-5 K.Sai Krishnaveni, Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector PW-6 V.Satheesh, Sub Inspector of Police, PS.Addakal. FOR DEFENCE: -Nil- 10

Exhibits marked FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is the crime details form. Ex.P3 is the inquest panchanama. Ex.P4 is the report. Ex.P5 is the FIR. Ex.P6 is the postmortem examination report.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil- Material Objects marked -NIL-

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar. .

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Thursday, the 7th day of October, 2021.

Present:- Smt.B.Deepti,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.

C.C.No.192 of 2021

Between:- State through Sub Inspector of Police, PS.II-Town, Mahabubnagar. Cr.No.84 of 2021 of PS.II-Town, Mahabubnagar.

... Complainant

A N D

Gorantla Kranthi Kumar s/o G.Chinna Buggaiah, age 25 yrs, occ: Coolie, r/o H.No.1-8-88/79, T.D.Gutta, Mahabubnagar.

... Accused

Section of lawU/Sec.379 IPC

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the courtFound not guilty

Sentence or orderAccused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.379 IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. Accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. MO1 is the Bike i.e., Splendor Plus bearing No.AP-22-N-9558whichwas deposited vide CP.No.76/2021 was already given to Dubba Vinay as interim custody in view of the Orders in Crl.M.P.No.546/2021, dt.28-7-2021 is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

This CC came before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sr.APP for the State and of Sri Advocate for the accused. Upon perusing the material papers on record and after hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court delivered the following:- 2 of 10 C.C.No.192 of 2021 -:: JUDGMENT::-

1.The State represented by the Sub Inspector of the Police,

PS.II-Town, Mahabubnagar laid charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.84/2021 for offence U/Sec.379 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 1-5-2021 at about 10.00 AM PW1 lodged report with PW6 and in the report it was alleged that on 25-3-2021 in the night hours at about 9.00 PM PW1 parked his Hero Honda Splendor bike bearing No.AP-22-N-9558 in-front of his house and on the following day he did not find the bike at the place where he parked it. It was alleged that PW1 searched for his bike in all the probable places, but he could not trace it. It was alleged that some unknown offenders had committed theft of his bike.

The cost of the bike is about 45,000/-. PW1 had lodged report with police.

Basing on the above report, PW6 registered a case in

Cr.No.84/2021 U/Sec.379 IPC and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, PW6 examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2 at police station. Thereafter, PW6 visited the scene of offence i.e., rented house of PW1 located in

Hanumannagar, Mahabubnagar. At the house of PW1, PW6 secured two panchayathdars i.e., LW4/K.Raghupathi and PW3 and in the presence of panchayathdars he recorded crime details form and thereafter, PW6 recorded statement of PW5 who is owner of the house.

Reportedly on 1-5-2021 at about 7.00 PM when PW6 along with his staff was checking vehicles that were passing along the road at

Boyapally gate they found the accused. It was alleged that PW6 3 of 10 C.C.No.192 of 2021 interrogated the accused upon which when the accused was about to confess he secured the presence of PW4 and LW7/D.Goverdhan Reddy and recorded confession-cum-recovery panchanama. It was alleged that the accused had confessed that he got acquaintance with one

A.Krishnaveni r/o Old Palamoor, Mahabubnagar and he fell in love with he. It was alleged that later he had come to know that P.Ramesh of Old

Palamoor had been pestering A.Krishnaveni to sleep with him and as such on 30-11-2018 he killed P.Ramesh and in that regard

Cr.No.219/2018 was registered against him U/Sec.302 r/w 109 IPC by

PS.II-Town, Mahabubnagar and a bike bearing No.TS-06-EM-8410 was also seized and in that case and he was sent to judicial remand.

Allegedly he had also confessed that he picked up quarrel with Jailor and in that regard Cr.No.24/2019 was registered U/Sec.324 IPC by PS.I-

Town, Mahabubnagar. It was also alleged that he confessed that his lover A.Krisnaveni had illegal intimacy with some others and then he tried to attempt to kill her with a boulder on 28-2-2019 and in that connection Cr.No.175/2019 was registered U/Sec.307 IPC was registered. He confessed that after being released from Jail, he did not have bike to attend his personal work as his bike was already seized by the police and thereafter he had decided to commit theft of the bike and he had committed theft of bike on 25-3-2021 at about 11.30 PM when he had seen that the bike was parked in front of the house located at Boyapaly gate and under cover of panchanama, the bike was seized after affixing panch chits. The case property i.e., Bike is deposited in Court vide CP.No.76/2021. After completion of investigation, PW6 laid charge sheet against the accused.

4 of 10 C.C.No.192 of 2021

3.Basing on the strength of the above charge sheet, this Court has taken the cognizance for the offence U/Sec.379 IPC against the accused on 4-5-2021 and issued summons.

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

5. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C for offence U/Sec.379

IPC for which, he denied the accusation. Charge was framed U/Sec.240 of Cr.P.C. Charge was read over and explain to him in Telugu, upon which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The Prosecution in support of it’s case have examined PWs1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 as documentary evidence. MO1 is the

Bike i.e., Splendor Plus bearing No.AP-22-N-9558.

8. PW1 is the complainant and circumstantial witness. PW2 is the brother-in-law of PW1 and circumstantial witness. PW3 is the panchathdar for scene of offence panchanama. PW4 is the panchayathdar for confession-cum-seizure panchanama. PW5 is the circumstantial witness. PW6 is the Investigation Officer, who filed charge sheet. The learned Sr.APP had given up the evidence of

LW4/Kavali Raghupathi and LW7/Dubba Goverdhan.

9.Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is the crime details form. Ex.P3 is the confession-cum-recovery panchanama. Ex.P4 is the FIR. MO1 is the

Bike i.e., Splendor Plus bearing No.AP-22-N-9558.

10.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing 5 of 10 C.C.No.192 of 2021 against him, for which he had denied the truth of it and reported that he would not adduce evidence in defense.

11.Heard both sides.

12.Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/Sec.379 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

13.POINT:- PW1 testified that on 25-3-2021 he retired to sleep at about 9.00 PM and he woke up in the next morning and found that his bike make Splendor Plus bearing No.AP-22-N-9558 has been stolen. He searched for the bike in all the probable places, but he could not find it.

On 1-5-2021 he lodged report vide Ex.P1. Some unknown offenders had been stolen his bike. His statement was recorded by police.

When he was cross examined by the learned Counsel for the accused, PW1 admitted that he lodged report with police belatedly, i.e., two months after the occurrence. He denied the suggestion that after the bike was recovered police obtained report from him.

14.PW2 testified that PW1 is his brother-in-law. PW2 stays in

Hanumanagar locality at Mahabubnagar. He works as a Medical representative. PW1 parked his bike near his house and he slept inside his house on the following day PW1 noticed that the bike had been stolen. They searched for the bike all over but they could not find.

PW2’s bike was bearing No.AP-22-N-9558 and its worth is

Rs.45,000/-. They searched the in all the probable places, but they could not find it. The bike was stolen on 25-3-2021. MO1 is the bike.

PW1 lodged report. His statement was recorded by police.

6 of 10 C.C.No.192 of 2021

When he was cross examined by the learned Counsel for the accused, PW2 admitted that in his 161 Cr.P.C statement he stated to the police that the bike belongs to PW1. After theft PW1 informed him that the bike had been stolen. He had no personal knowledge about theft. 45 days after occurrence the bike was recovered. He denied the suggestion that at the instance of PW1 he was deposing falsely.

15.PW3 testified that he knew LW4/K.Raghupathi. On 1-5-2021 police came to the house of PW1 and had conducted scene of offence panchanama after recording the rough sketch of the scene of offence.

The scene of offence panchanama was recorded in connection with a theft case. The panchanama was not read over to him, he knew the contents of the panchanama, it was conducted in connection with theft of bike. Ex.P2 is the crime details form.

When he was cross examined by the learned Counsel for the accused, PW3 testified that the stolen bike belongs to PW2. He admitted that PW1 and PW2 were his friends. Police had come to the house of PW1 at about 10.30 AM and recorded panchanama. He did not know who had reduced the panchanama into writing. He admitted that he did not know the contents of the panchanama, but it was recorded in connection with theft of bike. He denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed any panchanama conducted by the police.

16.PW4 testified that he knew LW7/D.Goverdhan. On 1-5-2021 at about 7.30 PM near Boyapally gate of Mahabubnagar Town, Sub

Inspector of Police along with one Kranthi Kumar was present then they took the accused aside and in the absence of police, on 20-3-2021 at about 11.30 PM he committed theft of a Hero Honda bike bearing No.AP-22-9558. The bike was already in possession of police 7 of 10 C.C.No.192 of 2021 when the confession was made. He knew the contents of the panchanama. LW7/D.Goverdhan and he witnessed the recording of the panchanama. Ex.P3 is the confession-cum- recovery panchanama.

When he was cross examined by the learned Counsel for the accused, PW4 admitted that LW7/Goverdhan is his friend. He admitted that Sub Inspector of Police had informed him that accused had committed theft of bike and he asked them to act as panchayathdars for the confession panchanama. He admitted that he is not resident of

Boyapally locality. He admitted that the panchanama was reduced into writing and then his signature was obtained beneath the panchanama.

He admitted that his signature was obtained in hand writing panchanama, but not on typed panchanama. When the witness is confronted the panchanama, he admits that one of the signatures on the panchanama is his signature. He admitted that the panchanama was not read over to him. He denied the suggestion that accused had never confessed.

17.PW5 testified that he knew PW1, PW1 was his tenant. Since the year 2017 PW1 has been his tenant. On 26-3-2021 during night hours

PW1 parked his bike infront of his house and on the following day he did not find his bike at the place where he parked. PW1 informed him that his bike had been stolen. Then he advised him to lodge report with police. Police recorded his statement.

When he was cross examined by the learned Counsel for the accused, PW5 testified that they have five portions in his house. He had let out on rent all the portions retaining one portion for him. Some tenants have bike and some tenants do not have bike. He had also a 8 of 10 C.C.No.192 of 2021 bike. Their family has two bikes. He admitted that there is no sufficient place to park bike within his house compound and therefore some bikes are parked outside his compound. He denied the suggestion that

PW1 parked his bike somewhere and he had forgotten where he had parked his bike. He denied the suggestion that since PW1 is his tenant he was deposing falsely. He denied the suggestion that since he is a

Court employee yielding to his pressure police registered case.

18.PW6 is the Investigation Officer and he chronologically narrated the contents of charge sheet. Therefore, I am of the opinion that reproduction of examination in chief of PW6 would be redundant. Ex.P4 is the FIR is marked with him.

When he was cross examined by the learned Counsel for the accused, PW6 denied the suggestion that he had not affected the seizure of bike.

15.PW5 i.e., panchayathdar testified that on 1-5-2021 at about 7.30

PM near Boyapally Gate police of II-Town found the accused and then they took the accused aside, upon which accused had confessed that he had committed theft of bike bearing No.AP-22-9588 and the bike was already in possession of police. I am of the considered opinion that the evidence of PW4 is not admissible as he had not witnessed the recovery of the bike. PW4 had not testified that he witnessed the confession and that confession of the accused was lead to the discovery of bike. PW5 categorically testified that the bike was already in the possession of police when the accused made confession.

Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the evidence of PW4 is of no consequence to the case of the prosecution. Insofar as the evidence of PW6 Investigation Officer, he testified that accused had 9 of 10 C.C.No.192 of 2021 confessed and under the cover of panchanama the bike was recovered. I am of the considered opinion that this omnibus testimony of Investigation Officer is of no avail to the case of the prosecution.

Though, it has been established by the prosecution that PW1’s bike was stolen, it could prove that it was the accused who had stolen the bike. In the light of discussion supra, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.379 IPC. The point is answered accordingly.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.379 IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. Accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. MO1 is the Bike i.e., Splendor Plus bearing No.AP-22-N-9558which was deposited vide CP.No.76/2021 was already given to Dubba Vinay as interim custody in view of the Orders in Crl.M.P.No.546/2021, dt.28-7-2021 is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 7th day of October, 2021.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.

::Appendix of Evidence::

For Prosecution: PW1 A.Sailu. PW2 D.Vinay Kumar. PW3 D.Praveen. PW4 D.Yadaiah. PW5 K.Shivalingam. PW6 K.Barinath, Sub Inspector of Police, PS.II-Town, Mahabubnagar.

For Defense: None 10 of 10 C.C.No.192 of 2021

:: Documents marked on behalf of ::

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is the crime details form. Ex.P3 is the confession-cum-recovery panchanama. Ex.P4 is the FIR. For Defense: -NIL-

:: Material objects marked for::

MO1 is the Bike i.e., Splendor Plus bearing No.AP-22-N-9558.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, MAHABUBNAGAR

Tuesday, the 26th day of November, 2019.

Present: D.V.R.Tejo Karthik, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court, FAC Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Mahabubnagar.

C.C. No. 309 of 2016

Between:- The State represented though Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of police, PS, Wanaparthy. …. Complainant A n d

A1: Mandla Mannem, S/o. Thimmanna, age 44 years, Occ: Hamali, R/o. H.No.4-2, Nagavaram village of Wanaparthy, A2:-Sadurla Anjaneyulu, S/o.Galenna, age 40 years, Occ: Barber, R/o. Nagavaram village of Wanaparthy Mandal, A3:-Sadurla Krishnaiah, S/o. Galenna, age 45 years, Occ: Barber, R/o. H.No.4-38, Nagavaram village of Wanaparthy Mandal, A4:-Sabavath Jagan Naik, S/o. Budya Naik, age 47 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Nagavaram village of Wanaparthy Mandal. …. Accused Nos.1 to 4.

Section of law: u/Sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act and consequently they are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C., for preferring appeal to the Higher Court. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

-0o0- This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Ramesh, Advocate

for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court

delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, PS, Wanaparthy laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.no.53 of 2014 for the offences punishable u/Sec.34(a) of AP. Excise Act and Sec.171 E of IPC.

2

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 27-03-2014 at about 9-30 hours on receipt of credible information LW.6 D.Ram babu Sub

Inspector of police along with his staff PW.1, LW.1 K.Balraju and LW.3 Golla

Narsimha have proceeded to Nagavaram village and at about 9.45 hours and raided the house of accused A1 and found whisky carton in the house and immediately on enquiry the accused A1 confessed about the commission of offence stating that A4 had brought the whisky bottles and kept them in his house and also in the houses A2 and A3 whisky bottles were kept and they all belong to TDP party and A4 wanted to supply the whisky bottles to the voters in the village as his wife Manikyamma is contesting MPTC elections-2014. That

LW.6 Ram Babu secured the presence of PWs.2 & 3 and conducted scene of offence panachanama and also confession and seizure panchanama and seized (4) cartons of officer choice quarter bottles and 2 cartons of imperial blue quarter bottles each carton containing 48 quarter bottles, totally 192 officer choice bottles and 96 imperial blue bottles from the possession of the accused

A1 under cover of panchanama. That LW.6 D.Ram Babu along with the staff and the panchas and accused A1 rushed to the house of A2 and found (4) cartons of officer choice whisky bottles, each carton containing (48) quarter bottles, totally 192 quarter bottles. The said 192 quarter bottles were seized under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and from there they all rushed to the house of A3 and found (2) cartons of officer choice bottles, each carton containing 48 quarter bottles totally 96 quarter bottles were seized under the cover of seizure panchanama and further from there they all rushed to the fields of A4 and found (2) cartons of officer choice quarter bottles, each carton containing (48) bottles, totally 96 bottles were seized under the cover of panchanama in the presence of the same mediators and all the accused were brought in the police station along with the seized property and basing on the strength of the confession, seizure panchanama, LW.6 Rambabu registered a suo moto case in Cr.No.53 of 2014 u/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and Sec.171 E of IPC and issued FIR. On 27-03-2014 LW.6 Ram Babu issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notices to A1 to A4. During investigation LW.6 Ram Babu examined and recorded the statements of PW.1, LW.1 Bala Raju and LW.3 Narsimha. The 3 sample bottles which were seized were sent FSL, Hyderabad and a report was issued by the FSL vide file no. NAR/764/2014, dated 24-7-2014 in which it was opined that “Ethyl alcohol is found”. On 21-6-2014 the seized case property had been deposited in the office of Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise, Mahabubnagar. On completion of investigation LW.6 Ram Babu laid charge sheet against the accused.

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, cognizance for the offence u/Sec.34(e) of AP Excise Act and Sec.171(E) IPC was taken against the accused A1 to A4 and on appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as per u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and after furnishing copies of documents, accused were examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C for the offences u/Sec.34 (e) of AP Excise Act and Sec.171(E) IPC for which they denied accusation and a charge as per Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable u/Sec.34(e) of AP Excise Act and Sec.171(E) IPC was framed, and explained to the accused in Telugu and having understood the charge framed against them, they denied the charge and on question of plea of guilt, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial against the accused.

4.For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 out of 6 cited witnesses and exhibited Exs.P-1 and P-2.

5.The list of witnesses examined by the prosecution are as follows:-

PW.1 – T.Satyanarayana - is the assisted the I.O and the eye-witness. PW.2 – R.Ramulu - is the panch witness for scene and seizure and confession panchanama, PW.3 – Ashok Kumar – is the panch witness for scene and seizure and confession panchanama.

The evidence of LW.1 K.Balraju, LW.3 Narsimha and LW.6 Rambabu was closed by this court as the prosecution failed to produce them despite granting several adjournments and the prosecution did not evince any interest in serving the summons or in filing the report.

6.The list of documents exhibited by the prosecution are as follows:-

Ex.P-1 is the signature of PW.2 in confessional and recovery panchanama (Exhibited through PW.2), 4

Ex.P-2 is the signature of PW.3 in confessional and recovery panchanama (Exhibited through PW.3).

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused A1 to A4 were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of PW.1, for which they denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defence evidence on his side.

8.Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the accused.

9. Now the point for determination is.

Whether the prosecution proved its case by proving the charge for the offences punishable u/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act against accused A1 to A4 beyond reasonable doubt?.

10.PW1 in his evidence testified that on 27-03-2014 in the morning hours their SI of police i.e. LW.6 Rambabu asked them to accompany to Nagavaram village. That he along with LW.3 G.Narsimha and LW.1 K.Balaraju accompanied their SI. That it was election time then. That their SI received information that liquor was being distributed to voters. That they all together went to Nagavaram village to the house of A1 i.e. M.Manyam. Then they effected search of the house of A1 and found 4 cartons of officer choice bottles and (2) cartons of imperial blue bottles. That in each carton there were 48 bottles. That they effected the seizure of the contraband in the presence of Pws.2 and 3. That therefore they went to the house of A2 S.Anjaneyulu and searched his house.

That in the house of A2 they found 4 cartons of officer choice bottles. Then in the presence of Pws.2 and 3 they effected seizure of the contraband. Then they went to the house of A3 S.Krishnaiah and found 2 cartons containing officer choice liquor bottles. Then they seized those bottles under the cover of panchanama in the presence of PWs.2 and 3. Lastly they went to the field of A4 which had paddy standing crop. That in the field they found officer choice bottles in the cartons. They effected the arrest of A1. That they collected the samples out of the contraband in the presence of panch witnesses under the cover of panchanam. That LW.6 Rambabu had examined and recorded his statement.

During cross-examination of PW.1 testified that he had not received any complaint in writing against A1 to A4. That he had not lodged the report. That 5 he did not remember how many cases were registered on that day. That he did not know the house number of A1. That he did not know the house number of other accused. That his statement was not recorded. That he did not know whether the SI followed procedure meant for search of a closed place. That they did not obtain certificates that the houses belong to the accused. That they did note down the survey number of the field of A4. That they did not record the boundaries of scene of offence and the rough sketch scene of offence was not drawn. That their SI collected documents to prove that the land belongs to A4.

11. PWs.2 and 3 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Pws.2 and 3 have testified that their signatures were obtained on a blank paper and no panchanama was conducted in their presence.

During examination in the nature of cross by the learned APP nothing could be elicited in favour of prosecution from PWs.2 & 3.

12. POINT:-

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of evidence on record, it could be seen that it is the contention of prosecution that LW.6 Ram Babu along with PW.1, LW.1 Bal

Raju and LW.3 Narsimhulu and PWs.2 and 3 have proceeded to the houses of A1 to A3 and to the field of A4 and seized the contraband under the cover of confession cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of PWs.2 and 3. PWs.2 and 3 who are arrayed as mediators to the so called confession-cum-seizure panchanama have turned hostile to the case of prosecution and as such the seizure of the liquor bottles from the possession of A1 to A4 is not proved.

There is no cogent evidence brought on record by the prosecution to prove that the accused A1 to A4 were in possession of the liquor bottles. The evidence of

PW.1 is not cogent enough to prove the guilt of the accused A1 to A4 beyond reasonable doubt. PW.1 had further stated that his statement was not recorded by the SI of police and that he did not know the house numbers of A1 to A3 and the survey number of the field of A4. On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record the charge against the accused about the possession of the liquor bottles without license is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this

Court is of opinion that accused are entitled for acquittal.

6

13.In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act and consequently they are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C., for preferring appeal to the Higher Court. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on my official Laptop and corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 26th day of November, 2019.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar FAC.Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESS EXAMINED)

For Prosecution:- PW1 Sathyanarayana Goud, PW2 R.Ramu, PW3 Ashok Kumars.

For defence: -None-.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P-1 is the signature of PW.2 in confessional and recovery panchanama, Ex.P-2 is the signature of PW.3 in confessional and recovery panchanama.

For defence: Nil. MO’s marked: -Nil-

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar FAC.Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar.

TSMA030012772021

Presented on : 26-10-2021 Registered on : 08-10-2021 Decided on : 08-10-2021 Duration : 0 years, 0 months, 18 days

IN THE COURT OF

Prl Junior Civil Judge cum JMFC

AT MAHABUBNAGAR ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

(Presided Over by Smt.Surampudi Sree Devi)

STC/50/2021 (PROSECUTION): traffic ps Shadnagar Through Police Station Officer , shadnagar

MAHABUBNAGAR MAHABOOBNAGAR

traffic ps Shadnagar

VERSUS

Mohammad subetulah Age: 17 Occupation : r/o muzaffar pur bihar state ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: app, Advocate for appearing for Mohammad subetulah Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 3rw181 of MV ACT.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 08-10-2021)

R1/CCL called present and copies furnished to him as per Section 207 Cr.P.C and he was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act, 1988 is read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded guilty. The admission of R1/CCL appears to be fresh and voluntarily. Hence, the R1/CCL is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act, 1988 and he is convicted U/Sec.252(2) Cr.P.C for the said offence. Heard regarding the quantum of sentence. It was the plea of R1/CCL that it was his first offence and that he will never repeat any such offences. Provisions of P.O Act and Sec.360 Cr.P.C are not applicable to this case. Accordingly, R1/CCL is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) in default of payment of fine, R1/CCL shall be sent to Observation Home for a period of one month for the offence punishable U/Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act, 1988.

Sd/-

Date : 08-10-2021 (Smt.Surampudi Sree Devi)

Prl Junior Civil Judge cum JMFC

MAHABUBNAGAR

TSMA030012762021

Presented on : 26-10-2021 Registered on : 08-10-2021 Decided on : 08-10-2021 Duration : 0 years, 0 months, 18 days

IN THE COURT OF

Prl Junior Civil Judge cum JMFC

AT MAHABUBNAGAR ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

(Presided Over by Smt.Surampudi Sree Devi)

STC/49/2021 (PROSECUTION): traffic ps Shadnagar Through Police Station Officer , shadnagar

MAHABUBNAGAR MAHABOOBNAGAR

traffic ps Shadnagar VERSUS

Mangali Balakrishna Age: 17 Occupation : r/o jadcherla ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: app, Advocate for appearing for Mangali Balakrishna Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 3rw181 of MV ACT.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 08-10-2021)

R1/CCL called present and copies furnished to him as per Section 207 Cr.P.C and he was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act, 1988 is read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded guilty. The admission of R1/CCL appears to be fresh and voluntarily. Hence, the R1/CCL is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act, 1988 and he is convicted U/Sec.252(2) Cr.P.C for the said offence. Heard regarding the quantum of sentence. It was the plea of R1/CCL that it was his first offence and that he will never repeat any such offences. Provisions of P.O Act and Sec.360 Cr.P.C are not applicable to this case. Accordingly, R1/CCL is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) in default of payment of fine, R1/CCL shall be sent to Observation Home for a period of one month for the offence punishable U/Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act, 1988.

Sd/-

Date : 08-10-2021 (Smt.Surampudi Sree Devi)

Prl Junior Civil Judge cum JMFC

MAHABUBNAGAR