Sri. B.srinivasulu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MAHABUBABAD

Friday, this the 7 th day of October, 2016

Present: B. Srinivasulu Addl Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mahabubabad

CALENDAR CASE NO. 175/2014

Between:-

The State of Telangana represented by Sub-Inspector of Police

P.S. Mahabubabad Rural ....Complainant

And

Shaik Anwar S/o Malsoor, 46 years,

R/o Kothagudem of Khammam District. ....Accused

This case is coming for final hearing, before me in the presence of A.P.P representing the State/Complainant and of Sri. D. Venkat Swamy, Advocate for the accused and the Court made the following:- ::J U D G M E N T::

1. The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Mahabubabad Rural has laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.85/2014 u/S. 304-A IPC.

2. BREIF FACTS: Accused is driver of lorry bearing AP 36 U 3546 and driven it in high speed in a negligent manner by lost control over the steering and dashed to the standing tree towards left side of the road while proceeding towards Mahabubabad to reach Bhadrachalam and cabin was damaged and cleaner of the lorry has sustained fractures of both legs and died on the spot. The accident has occurred due to negligence of the accused on 29.3.2014 at about 6.15 a.m., at Ramsingh thanda near Shanigapuram village main road of Thorrur to Mahabubabad. On the complaint of the deceased son, police registered the case and after due investigation laid charge.

3. This Court took the Cognizance for the offence punishable u/S. 304-A IPC.

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

2 5. Accused is examined U/S 251 of Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation is read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex. P1 to Ex.P7. On behalf of defence no evidence is adduced and no documents are marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused has been examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C, for which he deny the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, through evidence on record and pleaded false implication and on his behalf reported no defence evidence.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether prosecution has proved that the accused is driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 36 U 3546 and driven it in rash or negligent manner on 29.3.2014 at about 6.15 a.m., at Ramsingh thanda near Shanigapuram village main road of Thorrur to Mahabubabad and caused the death lorry cleaner by name P. Satyam and thereby committed the offence punishable u/S. 304-A of IPC?” 9. PW1/ P. Nagaraju is son of the deceased has deposed that he is resident of

Thallada village of Khammam District and Deceased was cleaner of the accused, resident Kothagudem now and the accused is driver cum owner of the said lorry and he received phone information that accused driven the lorry while proceeding towards Badhrachalam with iron load and dashed to a tree at Shanigapuram village in the morning hours. His father was sat in the cabin i.e., cleaner’s seat. His father died on the spot and his father has sustained injuries on both legs and hand and also on the waist and he went to the scene of offence and body was shifted to post mortem and the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver and Ex.p1 is the complaint given to police and that police examined him and the accused is the same person who driven the lorry and the accident has occurred about two years back.

3 10. PW2/M.Srinivas has deposed that he is resident of Thirvur of Krishna

District and that more than two years back Satyam who was lorry cleaner and also does coolie was died in road accident occurred at the outskirts of

Mahabubabad and he came to know that deceased was as a cleaner travelled in the lorry driven by the accused, on that information himself,

PW1 came to Area Hospital Mahabubabad and the accident has occurred due to negligence of the driver, as the accused dashed the lorry to a standing tree while proceeding towards Badhrachalam and accident was occurred in the morning hours and the deceased was sat on the cabin seat.

11. PW3/B. Ramji has deposed that he is resident of Ramsnghthanda and about three years back he noticed at about 7.00 a.m., lorry proceedings towards Mahabubabad with iron rods dashed to a standing tree and cleaner of the lorry was died in the cabin and deceased legs are crushed and lower part of the body was crushed in the accident and 108 ambulances staff removed the deceased an afterward died and the accused has occurred as lorry driven by its driver in wrong side and police examined him.

12. PW4/ B. Shankar has deposed that he is resident of Shanigapurma village and police Mahabubabad never conducted any CDF panchanama and inquest in his presence and police obtained his signatures on some papers about two years back while he was working in his fields and accident has occurred near to his fields and Ex.P2 and Ex.p3 are signature identified by him.

13. Pw5/ A. Suman has deposed that he is resident of Ramsingh thanda of

Shanigapuram village and he know PW3 and about one and half year back, a lorry proceeding towards Mahabubabad with iron load dashed to a standing tree due to which one person was shifted in one ambulance which was witnessed by him and PW3 and the accident might have occurred at 4 about 7.30 a.m., and the lorry was driven by the side of the road and dashed to a standing tree.

14. PW6/P. Ranga Rao has deposed that he is working as MVI Mahabubabad and he received requisition form S.I of Police Mahabubabad Rural on 2.4.2014 and that he examined the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 36 U 3546 heavy goods vehicle. And inspected the vehicle on the same day at P.S.

Mahabubabad rural and following damages; 1. Front cabin damaging, 2.

Front bumper dent and the vehicle is road worthy conditions and as per his examination accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle and he issued the MVI Report under Ex.P-4.

15. PW7/D. Manohar Swamy has deposed that he is working as Head

Constable of P.S. Mahabubabad Rural and that on 29.3.2014 at 1:00 Pm he received ExP-1 complaint from PW.1 and basing on it he registered a case crime No.85/2014 u/Sec.304-A and issued FIR under Ex.P-5 and he recorded the statements of the P.W1 and sent original FIR to the Court and all the concerned and visited the scene of offence and noticed the dead body and conducted CDF Panchanama under Ex.P-6 in the presence of the PW4 and

LW.9 and scene offence also photographed also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at scene of offence in the presence of the relatives and mediators under Ex.P-7. Given requisition to doctor for PME and also examined LW.2 to 7 during investigation and the further investigation done by S.I.

16. Heard both sides.

17. The learned A.P.P for the state has vehemently argued that the accused is driver of the crime vehicle and accident has occurred due to the negligence of the accused as dashed to a standing tree in a wrong side by lost the control over the steering of the lorry. The deceased is cleaner of the lorry and died on the spot by crushing in the cabin of the lorry. The evidence of 5

PW1 to PW3 and W5 to PW7 is consisting that accused driven the lorry in rash or negligent manner and pleads for conviction.

18. Contra to it, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hostile of

PW4 is fatal to prosecution. Prosecution has to prove at first the accused is driver of the lorry and secondly driven it in rash or negligent manner. To that effect there is no evidence and pleads for benefit of doubt.

19. After hearing both at length the charge against the accused u/S. 304-A IPC.

20. Admittedly, PW1 is not the eye witness and he came to know about the accident. PW2 also not an eye witness. PW3 is an eye witness, though he stated in his evidence that accident has occurred as lorry driver driven it in wrong side. Further PW3 deposed that the deceased was a cleaner. PW3 not stated in his evidence that the accused is driver of the lorry. Further in the cross of PW3 elicited that he do not know whether the deceased is cleaner of the lorry or driver of the lorry. And further admitted he did not witness the accident. Mediator for seizure and inquest panchanama i.e.,

PW4 turned hostile. PW5 another eye witness stated he did not witness the lorry driver and lorry was driven by the side of the road and dashed to a standing tree. PW5 stated he witnessed injured was shifted in an ambulance. PW6 MVI deposed the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect. On perusing the above evidence, prosecution has proved that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the lorry driver, but unable to prove that the accused is driver of the said lorry at the time of the accused. Accident has occurred in the morning hours and none of the eye witnesses has stated that the accused is driver of the lorry. Further in cross of PW3 elicited he did not know whether deceased is cleaner or lorry driver. PW5 also stated he did not witness the lorry driver. Prosecution also not examined the IO who arrested the accused. Prosecution has proved 6 that accident occurred due to negligence of the accused but unable to prove that accused is driver of the lorry at the time of accident.

21. Hence, from the above discussion, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and accordingly, he is acquitted.

22. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty and acquitted u/S. 255(1)

Cr.P.C for the offences u/Ss. 304-A IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 7 th day of October, 2016)

Sd/- B. Srinivasulu

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mahabubabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1 P. Nagaraju -None- PW.2 M. Srinivas PW.3 B. Ramji PW.4 B.Shankar PW.5 A. Suman PW.6 P.Ranga Rao PW.7 D. Manohar Swamy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution Ex.P-1 is the Complaint Ex.P-2 is the signature of PW4 on CDF panchanama Ex.P-3 is the signature of PW4 on Inquest panchanama Ex.P-4 is the MVI report Ex.P-5 is the FIR Ex.P-6 is the CDF panchanama Ex.P-7 is the Inquest panchanama

For Defence: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/- B. Srinivasulu

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mahabubabad

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MAHABUBABAD

Friday, this the 7 th day of October, 2016

Present: B. Srinivasulu Addl Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mahabubabad

CALENDAR CASE NO. 201/2014

Between:- The State of Telangana represented by Sub-Inspector of Police

P.S.Mahabubabad Rural. ....Complainant

And

Eluka Krishnamurthy S/o Pullaiah,

40 years, R/o Parwathagiri village ....Accused

This case is coming for final hearing, before me in the presence of A.P.P representing the State/Complainant and of Sri.D. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate for the accused and the Court made the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Mahabubabad Rural has laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.133/2014 u/Ss. 353 and 506 IPC, by alleging that on 14.5.2014 at 7.45 p.m., at Parvathagiri village, the accused used criminal force and abused PW1 and assaulted while discharging the duties.

On the same day PW1 set the criminal law into motion and the same was registered as mentioned above and after due investigation laid charge sheet.

2. This Court took the Cognizance for the offences punishable u/Ss. 353 and 506 of IPC.

3. On appearance of the accused, Copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/S 207 Cr.P.C.

4. Accused is examined U/S 251 of Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2 5. On behalf of prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex. P1 to Ex.P3. On behalf of defence no evidence is adduced and no documents are marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused has been examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C, for which he deny the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, through evidence on record and pleaded false implication and on his behalf reported no defence evidence.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable u/Ss. 353 and 506 IPC?” 8. PW1/M. Subash is Police Constable has deposed that on 14.5.2014 due to assembly elections himself, HC Manohar Swamy, PC Satish left the PS for patrolling duty, accordingly they reached VS Laxmipuram and from there reached Parvathagiri village at about 7.40 p.m., they received information and went to shop of the accused and on seeing them the accused ran away from his shop by leaving the counter and then HC sent him to collect the villagers as panchas for seizure of the liquor and he asked the accused to stand as mediator for seizure panchanama then the accused revolted and stated that no case should be registered against the accused and threaten them they cannot leave the village and also abused him then returned to PS and same is informed to their HC and given complaint to SI at about 9,00 p.m., and Ex.P1 is the complaint given to him and SI recorded his statement.

9. PW2/ D. Manohara Swamy is Head Constable has deposed that he is working in Mahabubabad Rural PS as Head Constable and he know PW1 and that on 14.5.2014 himself, PW1 and PC 3280 left the PS as per the instructions of the SI with regard to election patrolling i.e., Assembly

Elections and they reached Parvathagiri village at about 7.45 p.m., and they received information that one Ramesh selling liquor bottles at counter of kiranashop and they went to the shop of Ramesh ran away and he sent 3

PW1 to secure mediators and then the accused was standing on the road and abused PW1 no case will be registered against the Ramesh and abused

PW1 and then PW1 lodged the complaint and after registering the case examined him.

10. PW3/ K.Satish another constable has deposed that on 14.5.2014 himself

PW1 and PW2 left the PS accordingly while they reached Paravathagiri village about 7.40 p.m., and received information that one Edla Srinivas has selling liquor in his kiranashop at Parvathagiri village and on seeing them said Srinivas left the shop and ran away and PW2 sent PC Subash to secure mediators and he came to know that accused stated that no case will be registered against the Srinivas and then PW1 told the same to PW2 and he came to know that accused abused PW1 and also tried to assault and after registered a case SI examined..

11. PW4/ L.Pavan Kumar is SI has deposed that he received complaint on 14.5.2014 at 9.00 p.m., PW1 came to PS and presented complaint under

Ex.P1 and basing on it he registered the case in Cr.No. 133/2014 u/s 353, 290 and 506 IPC and issued the FIR under Ex.P2 and recorded the statement of PW1 and sent the FIR to the court and all concerned and during investigation examined LW2 and LW4 and in the presence of LW5 and LW6 prepared CDF panchanama under Ex.P3 and Ex.P3 prepared on 15.3.2014 he arrested the accused and sent to judicial custody and subsequently ASI laid charge sheet.

12. Heard both sides.

13. The learned A.P.P., has stated that the evidence of PW1 to PW4 is consisting and inspiring confidence. Nothing has elicited to disprove the testimony of PW1 to PW4. There is corroboration in the evidence of PW1 to

PW4 and the accused assaulted and abused and obstructed the duties of

PW1 and pleads for stringent conviction.

4 14. Contra, the learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that there is no independent eye witness evidence. PW1 to PW4 belongs to

Police Department. No GD entry filed before the Court that PW1 to PW3 went to Parvathagiri village for patrolling duty. The biased testimony of

PW1 to PW3 cannot rely. Non examination of any of the independent eye witness is fatal to prosecution. PW1 to PW3 belongs to police department as such they supported the case of prosecution without any corroboration from the independent evidence, the accused cannot be convicted and entitled for benefit of doubt.

15. After hearing both at length, the charge u/S. 353 and 506 IPC. On perusing the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Ex.p1 there is no specific threatening words stated by the PW1 to PW3. PW1 is victim constable and de facto complainant also not stated what were the specific threatening words and abusive words. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for the charge u/S. 506 IPC.

16. Another charge against the accused u/S. 353 IPC. On perusing the evidence of PW1 he categorically stated that the accused revolted against the PW1 that no case should be registered against his villager and threatened that police cannot leave the village. PW2 not an eye witness but he sent PW1 to secure the mediators. PW2 also testifies in his evidence that accused standing on the road abused PW1 and no case will be registered. Pw3 who was present along with PW2 also stated that accused tried to assault PW1.

17. On perusing the cross examination of PW1 to PW3 nothing has elicited in favour of the accused. Police went to Parvathagiri village and conducted raid over the shop of Edla Srinivas to seize the liquor for that PW2 sent PW1 to secure mediators. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated with Ex.p1. PW1 obstructed and assaulted by using criminal force while discharging the duties.

5 18.

As per Sec. 353 IPC. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from

discharge of his duty:- ‘whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

19. The evidence of PW1 to PW4 is consisting as the accused obstructed the duties of PW1. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused is not tenable that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 cannot be taken into consideration. In each and every case insisting of independent eye witnesses cause injustice to the society. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 is inspiring confidence; this Court cannot reject their evidence or brush aside their evidence as they belong to Police Department. PW1 having no personal animosity with the accused and they went to Parvathagiri village, after passing VS Laxmipuram village, as such, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is trustworthy and inspiring confidence.

20. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty and convicted u/S. 255(2) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/S. 353 IPC. The accused is found not guilty and acquitted u/S. 255 (1) Cr.P.C., for the offence u/S. 506 IPC.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 7 th day of October, 2016) [ Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mahabubabad 21. On perusing the case facts, I am not inclined to apply Probation of

Offenders Act.

6 22. On questioning the quantum of sentence accused requested the mercy of the Court and stated that he is an agriculturist and no criminal cases against him and requested to take lenient view.

23. After hearing the quantum of sentence and on considering the case facts, imposing of fine will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly,, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable u/S. 353 IPC, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for three(03) months.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 7 th day of October, 2016)

Sd/- B. Srinivasulu

[ Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mahabubabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1 M. Subash -None- PW.2 D. Manohara Swamy PW.3 K. Sathish PW.4 L. Pavan Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution Ex.P-1 is the Complaint Ex.P-2 is the FIR Ex.P-3 is the CDF panchanama

For Defence: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/- B. Srinivasulu

[ Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mahabubabad

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MAHABUBABAD

Friday, this the 7 th day of October, 2016

Present: B. Srinivasulu Addl Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mahabubabad

CALENDAR CASE NO. 386/2014

Between:-

The State of Telangana represented by Sub-Inspector of Police

P.S. Kuravi ....Complainant

And

P. Sheshagiri Rao S/o Koteshwar Rao, 40 years, driver, R/o Thummapalem village, Ibrahimpatanam Mandal,

Krishna District. ....Accused

This case is coming for final hearing, before me in the presence of A.P.P representing the State/Complainant and of Sri. G. Yadagiri, Advocate for the accused and the Court made the following:- ::J U D G M E N T::

1. The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Kuravi has laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.73/2014 u/S. 304-A and 338 IPC.

2. BRIEF FACTS: The accused is driver of lorry bearing No. AP 16 TV 1049 and driven it in a rash or negligent manner with high speed while proceeding towards Narsampet and dashed to the opposite TATA Ace trolley driven by the deceased on 17.4.2014 at 4.00 a.m., at the outskirts of Kuravi due to which TATA Ace driver by name Raju died while undergoing treatment at

MGM Hospital on 19.4.2014. PW2, LW6 and PW3 have sustained grievous and simple injuries who travelled in the TATA ACE vehicle along with deceased. Father of the deceased lodged the complaint on 20.4.2014 and same was registered as mentioned above and after due investigation laid charge sheet.

3. This Court took the Cognizance for the offences punishable u/S. 304-A and 338 IPC.

2 4. On appearance of the accused, Copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/S 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused is examined U/S 251 of Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation is read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex. P1 to Ex.P8. On behalf of defence no evidence is adduced and no documents are marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused has been examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C, for which he deny the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, through evidence on record and pleaded false implication and on his behalf reported no defence evidence.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether prosecution has proved that the accused is driver of the lorry bearing NO. AP 16 TV 1049 and driven it in rash or negligent manner on 17.4.2014 at 4.00 a.m., and dashed to the opposite TATA ACE vehicle at Kuravi proper and caused the death of driver of TATA ACE vehicle and injuries to PW2, 3 and LW6 and thereby committed the offences punishable u/Ss. 304-A and 338 of IPC?” 9. PW1/ M. Ramulu has deposed that he is resident of Venkatapuram village of Nekkonda Mandal and occupation Agriculture and deceased Raju is his son and he is driver of TATA ACE and that about two years back his son along with one Vasu, Anil and Srinivas while proceeding towards

Vijayawada when they reached Kuravi PS at about 4.00 a.m., accident was occurred as opposite lorry dashed to TATA ACE driven by his son, due to which his son sustained severe injuries and shifted to Area Hospital

Mahabubabad in 108 ambulance and for better treatment his son shifted to

MGM Hospital, Warnagal and while undergoing treatment succumbed to injuries and he given complaint to police and he came to know that accident has occurred due to negligence of lorry driver and Ex.p1 is the complaint given to the police and that police examined him.

3 10. PW2/ B. Anil has deposed that he is resident of Venkatapuram village of

Nekkonda Mandal, Warangal and the deceased by name Raju driver of the

TATA ACE vehicle and LW6 and 7 are also his village and about two years back himself, LW6 and LW7 while proceeding in TATA ACE vehicle which was driven by Raju and they passed Mahabubabad town at about 4.00 a.m., and he was in sleep and he do not know which vehicle caused the accident and he sustained injury over his chin area and also teeth lost and also lost his conscious and regained conscious at Area Hospital,

Mahabubabad and he came to know that Raju was died while undergoing treatment in MGM hospital after two days of the accident and on that day they are proceeding to Vijayawada and they left the Venkatapuram at about 3.30 a.m.

11. PW3/ M.Srinivas has deposed that he is resident of Venkatapuram village of Nekkonda Mandal, Warangal and the deceased by name Raju driver of the TATA ACE vehicle and about two years back himself, PW2 and LW6 while proceeding in TATA ACE vehicle which was driven by Raju and they passed Mahabubabad town at about 4.00 a.m., and he was in sleep and he witnessed after accident one lorry dashed to their vehicle in opposite manner and on that day they are proceeding to Vijayawada and the lorry was stopped but he did not witnessed the lorry driver at the time of the accident and he cannot say by whose negligence accident has occurred and that he called 108 ambulance.

12. PW4/ Dr. B. Anil Guptha has deposed that he is running Dental Hospital at

Mahabubabad in the name and style of Ravichander Super Specialty Dental

Hospital, Mahabubabad and that on 20.4.2014 injured PW.2 came to hospital and he examined and found the fracture and lower mandible at right cannon region fracture in right Coronad process and issued wound certificate under Ex.P-4.

4 13. PW5/ V. Bheemesh has deposed that he is working as S.I of Police, Kazipet and previously he worked as S.I of Police Kuravi and he received complaint on 20.04.2014 from PW.1 under Ex.P-1 and basing on it he registered the case in Crime No.73/2014 U/Sec.304-A and 337 IPC and issued the FIR Ex.P- 5 and recorded the statements of Lw.1 and sent the FIR to the Court and later he visited the scene of offence and observed the same in the presence of Lw.8 and 9 and conducted CDF Panchanma under Ex.P-6 by drafting CDF and on the same day went to MGM Hospital, Warangal their he examined

Lw.2 to 4 and in the presence of Lw.10 and 11 and blood relatives and conducted inquest at MGM mortuary and the mediators are opined that deceased died due to road accident injuries and then he given requisition to the Doctor for PME to the MGM Hospital Doctor. Pw.2, 3 stated to him as in Ex.P-2 and P-3 and during investigation examined Lw.6 and 7 and on 22.4.2014 accused was arrested and send him to judicial remand, after collecting PME that the deceased died in road accident injuries, he laid charge sheet. Ex.P-7 is the Inquest and Ex.P-8 PME Report.

14. Heard both sides.

15. The learned A.P.P for the state and the defence counsel have submitted that injured and the accused are compromised, due to which injured and eye witnesses are not stated anything against the accused.

16. After hearing both at length the charge against the accused u/S. 304-A IPC.

17. Admittedly, PW1 is not an eye witness and his evidence is only circumstantial in nature. The hostile of PW2 who sustained grievous injuries and PW3 who also sustained simple injuries is fatal to prosecution.

18. On perusing the cross examination PW2 and PW3 nothing has elicited by the learned A.P.P., PW2 andPW3 are the star witnesses who travelled in the

TATA ACE along with deceased. Except the evidence of PW2, PW3 and

LW6 no evidence that the accused is driver of lorry and driven it in rash or 5 negligent manner. LW6 also not examined by the prosecution due to hostile nature. Hostile of PW2 and PW3 is fatal to prosecution. PW5 also not send the crime vehicle to MVI. The same is also admitted in his cross examination. And further admitted he did not collect any ownership particulars of lorry. PW5 not collected any documents that the accused is driver at the time of the accident. As per prosecution, the accused transporting paddy to Narsampet. Certainly, there will be way bill or commercial tax receipt will be available.

19. Prosecution has proved the death of the deceased, but unable to prove that the accused is driver of the lorry and driven it in rash or negligent manner.

20. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty and acquitted u/S. 255(1)

Cr.P.C for the offences u/Ss. 304-A IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 7 th day of October, 2016)

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mahabubabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1 M. Ramulu -None- PW.2 B. Anil PW.3 M. Srinivas PW.4 Dr. B. Anil Gupta PW.5 V. Bheemesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution Ex.P-1 is the Complaint Ex.P-2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P-3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P-4 is the Wound Certificate Ex.P-5 is the FIR Ex.P-6 is the CDF panchanama Ex.P-7 is the Inquest panchanama Ex.P-8 is the PME Report For Defence: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mahabubabad

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MAHABUBABAD

Friday, this the 7 th day of October, 2016

Present: B. Srinivasulu Addl Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mahabubabad

CALENDAR CASE NO. 424/2014

Between:-

The State of Telangana represented by Sub-Inspector of Police

P.S. Kuravi. ....Complainant

And

Maloth Babulal ....Accused

This case is coming for final hearing, before me in the presence of A.P.P representing the State/Complainant and of Sri. M. Suresh Reddy, Advocate for the accused and the Court made the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Kuravi has laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.55/2013 u/S. 379 or 411 IPC, by alleging that the accused committed theft in the fertilizer shop of PW1 on the night of 22.3.2013 by breaking the ventilator and stolen Rs.5000/- amount from the cash box and accused was arrested by the police on 1.8.2014 and recovered Rs.2000/- amount from the house of the accused on his confession and accused also admitted committing of theft at Government School at Mogilicherla village and stolen kirana provisions from the store room of the school.

2. This Court took the Cognizance for the offences punishable u/S. 379 or 411

IPC.

3. On appearance of the accused, Copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/S 207 Cr.P.C.

4. Accused is examined U/S 239 of Cr.P.C and the contents of charge read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2 5. On behalf of prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex. P1 to Ex.P4 and MO1. On behalf of defence no evidence adduced and no document marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused has been examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C, for which he deny the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, through evidence on record and pleaded false implication and on his behalf reported no defence evidence.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offence u/S. 379 or 411 IPC?” 8. PW1 is de facto complainant has deposed that on 22.3.20013 night he closed fertilizer shop and went to house. On 23.3.2013 morning at 8.00 a.m., he went to shop and opened it and noticed that through ventilator unknown person gained entrance and committed theft of cash of Rs.5000/- by breaking the cash box in his shop. Then lodged the complaint under

Ex.P1 and MO1 is cash of Rs.2000/- given to interim custody.

9. PW2 deposed that on 23.3.2013 at 1200 hours he received Ex.P1 from PW1 and on basing on it he registered thecase in Cr.No. 55/2013 u/s 457 and 380 of IPC and issued FIR and recorded the statement of PW1 and sent the

FIR to Court and to all concerned. Later visited the scene and conducted

CDF panchanama under Ex.P3 in the presence of the LW4 and LW5.

10. PW3 IO who arrested the accused has deposed that he received credible information about the accused accordingly on 1.8.2013 at 11.30 hours while conducting route watch noticed the accused in suspicious manner and apprehended him and on thorough inquiry while he was in a mood to confess the offence secured the mediators and recorded the confession of the accused and the accused confession committing theft of kirana provision from the school and used it and also confessed committing theft in the fertilizer shop at Rajolu and part of the stolen amount spend by him.

3

In pursuance of confession made by the accused went to the house of the accused and recovered Rs.2000/- from the house of accused under panchanama. Ex.P4 is the panchanama, accused sent to judicial remand.

MO1 cash deposited vide CPR No. 84/2014.

11. Police filed memo on 21.9.2016 by stating that mediator for seizure panchanama LW6 died and LW7 whereabouts are not known.

12. Heard both.

13. The learned A.P.P., for the stated has vehemently argued the factum of theft proved by the prosecution. Theft occurred in the month of March and

Rs.2000/- recovered in the month of August 2013. Soon after occurrence of theft property recovered from the house of the accused, hence, accused has to disprove the possession of the cash as per Sec. 114-a of Indian Evidence

Act.

14. Contra to this, the learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that except the testimony of PW3 no evidence that cash recovered from the house of the accused. Further, the learned counsel has argued that the theft has occurred in the month of March and cash recovered in the month of August, there is nearly five months gap. Moreover, cash is not an identifiable article. Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and pleads for benefit of doubt.

15. After hearing both at length, as per prosecution theft occurred on 22.3.2013 and complaint given on 23.3.2013 and the accused was arrested on 1.8.2013 and stolen property i.e., part of the amount recovered from the house of the accused. The mediators for Ex.P4 are not examined due to death and whereabouts are not known of another witness.

16. On perusing Ex.P4 door number of the accused also not mentioned. The cash is not an identifiable item. Rightly, the learned counsel has argued the above point. Ex.P4 is not proved by the prosecution and there is no 4 corroborating evidence to the evidence of PW3. Hence, from the above grounds, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted.

17. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty and acquitted u/S. 248(1)

Cr.P.C for the offence u/S. 379 or 411 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over. MO1 cash of Rs.2000/- interim custody with PW1 vide CPR No. 48/2014 shall be made absolute, after appeal time is over.

(Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 7 th day of October, 2016)

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mahabubabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1 K. Narayana Rao -None- PW.2 K. Surya Prasad PW.3 V. Bheemesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution Ex.P-1 is the Complaint Ex.P-2 is the FIR Ex.P-3 is the CDF panchanama Ex.P-4 is the seizure panchanama

For Defence: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 is cash of Rs.2000/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mahabubabad

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MAHABUBABAD

Friday, this the 7 th day of October, 2016

Present: B. Srinivasulu Addl Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mahabubabad

CALENDAR CASE NO. 385/2014

Between:-

The State of Telangana represented by Sub-Inspector of Police

P.S. Kuravi. ....Complainant

And

Maloth Babulal ....Accused

This case is coming for final hearing, before me in the presence of A.P.P representing the State/Complainant and of Sri. M. Suresh Reddy, Advocate for the accused and the Court made the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Kuravi has laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.13/2013 u/S. 457 and 380 IPC, by alleging that the accused committed theft of oil, onions, eggs, potatos, dal and sugar from the kitchen room of the Government UPS school of Mogilicherla on 26.1.2013, by breaking the lock of the kitchen room of the school.

2. This Court took the Cognizance for the offences punishable u/S. 457 and 380 IPC.

3. On appearance of the accused, Copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/S 207 Cr.P.C.

4. Accused is examined U/S 239 of Cr.P.C and the contents of charge read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex. P1 to Ex.P4. On behalf of defence no evidence adduced and no document marked.

2 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused has been examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C, for which he deny the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, through evidence on record and pleaded false implication and on his behalf reported no defence evidence.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offences u/Ss. 457 and 380 IPC?” 8. PW1 is midday meals worker of the school has deposed that about three years back she is worked in the school as a cook for midday meals. About three years back in the morning hours she noticed theft in the kitchen room and 25 kgs of red gram dal, one bag of onion, 12 liters of oil, 4 cases of eggs and some potatos are committed theft by the unknown offenders by breaking the lock of the store room. She informed the same to Head Master by name Satyanarayana presented the complaint and who is no more.

9. PW2 deposed that on 27.1.2013 LW1 HM came to PS at 2.00p.m and presented a written complaint to him. Ex.p1 is the written complaint presented by HM and basing on it he registered the case in Cr.No. 13/2013 u/S 457 and 380 of IPC and issued the FIR under Ex.P2, recorded the statement of LW1 and sent the FIR to all concerned and later visited the scene and examined LW2 to LW4 and conducted CDF panchanama in the presence of the LW5 and LW6 under Ex.P3.

10. PW3 IO who arrested the accused has deposed that he received credible information about the accused accordingly on 1.8.2013 at 11.30 hours while conducting route watch noticed the accused in suspicious manner and apprehended him and on thorough inquiry while he was in a mood to confess the offence secured the mediators and recorded the confession of the accused and the accused confession committing theft of kirana provision from the school and used it and also confessed committing theft 3 in the fertilizer shop at Rajolu and part of the stolen amount spend by him.

In pursuance of confession made by the accused went to the house of the accused and recovered Rs.2000/- from the house of accused under panchanama. Ex.P4 is the panchanama, accused sent to judicial remand.

11. Police filed memo on 21.9.2016 by stating that mediator for seizure panchanama LW6 died and LW7 whereabouts are not known.

12. Heard both.

13. The learned A.P.P., for the stated has vehemently argued the factum of theft proved by the prosecution. The evidence of PW3 is consisting and under Ex.P4 cash was recovered from the house of the accused in other crime and these kirana provisions spent by the accused and pleads for conviction.

14. Contra to this, the learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that except the testimony of PW3 no evidence that cash recovered from the house of the accused. Further, the learned counsel has argued that the theft has occurred in the month of March and cash recovered in the month of August, there is nearly five months gap. Moreover, no articles seized from the possession of the accused under Ex.p4 of this case. Hence, prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and pleads for benefit of doubt.

15. After hearing both at length, as per prosecution theft occurred in the school on 26.1.2013 and complaint given on 27.1.2013. In pursuance of Ex.P4 no property recovered of this case. Moreover, cash also not identifiable article. Due to the death of the seizure mediator and whereabouts are not known of other mediator, prosecution has not proved the Ex.P4. Except the testimony of PW3 no evidence to corroborate.

16. On perusing Ex.P4 door number of the accused also not mentioned. The cash is not an identifiable item. Rightly, the learned counsel has argued the 4 above point. Ex.P4 is not proved by the prosecution and there is no corroborating evidence to the evidence of PW3. Hence, from the above grounds, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted.

17. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty and acquitted u/S. 248(1)

Cr.P.C for the offences u/Ss. 457 and 380 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over. .

(Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 7 th day of October, 2016)

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mahabubabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1 N. Jayamma -None- PW.2 K. Surya Prasad PW.3 V. Bheemesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution Ex.P-1 is the Complaint Ex.P-2 is the FIR Ex.P-3 is the CDF panchanama Ex.P-4 is the seizure panchanama For Defence: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Mahabubabad