Smt B.V.Vijay Laxmi

I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division)

PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM · Vizianagaram · Andhra Pradesh

Smt B.V.Vijay Laxmi, I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), is posted at PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,940 court orders on record since 2020. 22 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

1,940

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/300136/2016 Acquitted

State Rep by Sub Inspector of Police vs Sagi Venkata Ramana Murthy

13 Apr 2023

CC.No.136 of 2016 1 dt:.13.4.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST

CLASS(EXCISE)::VIZIANAGARAM

Present : Smt. B.V.Vijay Laxmi, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram

Thursday, this the 13th day of April, 2023

C.C.No. 136/ 2016

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nellimarla police station.

…Complainant. And:

Sagi Venkata Ramana Murthy Raju, S/o.Appalaraju, aged 41 years, employee in Andhra Ferro Alloys Ltd., Garbham, r/o.Kotta Kummari colony, Anjaneyapuram, Cheepurupalli, driver of Car no. Ap 35 M 0077. … Accused.

This case coming on 3.4.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant, and of Sri.N.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the accused and having perused the material on record, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T;

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nellimarla police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.170/2014 of Nellimarla Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC.

02. The brief averments of the Charge-Sheet are that :

On 2.12.2014 morning to attend their personal work at Vizianagaram. After attending the personal work of Lw.1 both left for Nellimarla on the bike of Lw.1 i.e.,

Hero Honda motor cycle no. AP 31 BV 9486 , LW.1 was driving the bike the deceased was the pillion rider. They both were proceeding on the same bike to meet the friends of the deceased at Nellimarla and on the way when they reached the main gate of MIMS Hospital, Nellimarla at about 11.50 hrs, LW.1 tried to negotiate the lorry proceeding in the same direction and in the meanwhile in the opposite direction, the accused being the driver of Maruti Swift car no. AP 35 M 0077 came by driving the car so rashly and negligently with the high speed and hit the car against the bike of L.W 1 as are result, L.W 1 and the deceased were thrown away from the bike, fell down on the road and Lw.1 received injuries on his face, chin, fore head, left elbow joint and the deceased, the pillion rider on his back side of the head, back side of right palm. The auto driver on witnessing the accident took them to MIMS

CC.No.136 of 2016 2 dt:.13.4.2023

hospital first and later took them to government hospital, Vizianagaram and admitted there for treatment. Since the condition of the deceased was serious, he was referred to KG Hospital, Visakahapatnam for better treatment. On phone intimation, HC 1181 (L.W 18) of Nellimarla police station visited the hospital, recorded the statement of

L.W 1 and Lw.20 registered the case in Cr.no.170/14 u.sec. 338 and 337 IPC of

Nellimarla PS on 10.1.2015 at 8.00 hrs and took up investigation and original FIR submit to the Hon’ble court and also a copy of FIR along with Form-54 was submitted to the Chairman, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, as contemplated u.sec.

158(6) of MVI.Act. Thus the accused was committed the offence and also liable for punishment u.sec. 304-A and 337 IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.

03. This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence under

Section 304-A and 337 of IPC.

04. After appearance of the Accused, case copies are furnished to the accused as required u/s 207 of Cr.P.C, The Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

and the sum and substance of accusation for the said offences under Sections 304-A, and 337 of IPC are read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 14 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.19.

06.The accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

07. Thereafter, heard the arguments of Learned APP and counsel for the

Accused.

08.The point for Consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt?

09.POINT:

The PW.1 deposed in his chief examination that he know Lw.1 he do not know Lws.3,4,5,6 to 8. He do not know the accused. About 7 years ago at about 11.30 am, he was going to Nellimarla to purchase the goods regarding his restaurant on his motor cycle. In front of his motor cycle another motor cycle bearing no. AP 31 9486 was also going in which two persons were there. When they reached to Dite colony one car came in front of them from Nellimarla to Vizianagaram . At that time one lorry also came from Vizianagaram to Nellimarla. The two wheeler bearing no.

CC.No.136 of 2016 3 dt:.13.4.2023

AP 31 9486 driver tired to overtake the said lorry. At that time car bearing no. AP 35 M 0077 dashed the motor cycle bearing no. AP 31 9486. Due to which the driver of the motor cycle bearing no. AP 31 9486 and the pillion rider fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The pillion rider received injuries on the back side of the head. The driver of the motor cycle received bleeding injuries on various parts of the body. At that time one auto came there and he shifted the injured persons to the

MIMS hospital, Nellimarla . The said accident was caused due to rash and negligence act of the car driver bearing no. AP 35 M 0077. The person standing in the dock was the driver of the car bearing no. AP 35 M 0077 on the date of incident and at the time of incident.

The Pw.1 in his chief examination stated that when they reached to Diet colony, one car came in front of them from Nellimarla to Vizianagaram . At that time one lorry also came from the vizianagaram to Nellimarla. The two wheeler bearing no. AP 31 9486 driver tired to overtake the said lorry. At that time car bearing no. AP 35 M 0077 dashed the motor cycle bearing no. AP 31 9486. Due to which the driver of the motor cycle bearing no. AP 31 9486 and the pillion rider fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Whereas, the driver of the motor cycle who is examined as Pw.4 stated in his chief examination that in the year 2014 when he was going on his Karishma motor cycle at that time one car came from his back side and dashed his motor cycle. Due to which he sustained injury on his right side of face and right leg. Due to which he became unconscious. He has not seen the car driver nor the registration number of the car. The evidence of PW.1 is not corroborative with the evidence of PW.4 who is the driver of the motor cycle and in which the deceased was pillion rider. The Pw.1 stated that the car came in front of the deceased and the PW.4 whereas the Pw.4 stated that the car came from the back side and dashed the motor cycle.

The PW.1 admitted in his cross examination that it is true that there is no possibility for accident if the deceased would have followed the lorry without over taking the said lorry. It is true that it is the duty of the driver to see at the time of over taking that any vehicle coming from the front side or not. The counsel for the defence gave a suggestion which is denied by the Pw.1 that the driver of the motor cycle at the time of over taking dashed the car and the car did not dashed the motor cycle. The defence counsel also gave a suggestion which is denied by Pw.1 that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the motor cycle driver, rather than the negligence of the car driver.

The PW.2 in his chief examination stated that in the year 2015 Nellimarla SI of police, made a phone call to him in between 10.00 to 10.30 am and informed him that his brother met with an accident near MIMS hospital, Visakhapatnam. as he fell

CC.No.136 of 2016 4 dt:.13.4.2023

down from the motor cycle and he was shifted to his brother to KGH.,

Visakhapatnam. Immediately he went to the KGH., Visakhapatnam along with his villager and found his brother with injuries. And after their request the doctor treated his brother. After 20 days he shifted his brother to the Srikakulam government hospital for better treatment. The doctor at Srikakulam stated that his brother will die and instructed to shift his brother. Accordingly, he shifted his brother to his village in 108 ambulance and when they are about to reach their village his brother succumbed to injuries. He informed about the death of his brother to the Nellimarla police. Two constables of Nellimarla came to their village and send the deceased to postmortem. Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The

Pw.2 in his cross examination stated that the Lw.1 /PW.4 do not have any driving license on the date of offence.

In this case, the PW.2 he is the indirect witness to the incident . So the evidence of Pw.2 is not helpful to prove the rash or negligence act of the accused.

The PW.3 who is also examined to corroborate the evidence of Lw.1 in all material facts stated that he do not know PW.1 and 2 and other witnesses and he do not know the accused . Police not examined and not recorded his statement. By saying so he turned hostile in his 161 Cr.P.C., statement was marked as Ex.P1.

10.The PW.7 who is also shown to corroborate the evidence of Lw.1 stated in his chief examination that he do not know anything about this case. By saying so he turned hostile and his section 161 Cr.P.C., statement was marked as Ex.P6.

The Pw.5 and Pw.6 who are shown to speak about the content of scene observation dt:2.12.2014 and their attesting the same and etc., facts were examined as PW.5 and PW.6. The PW.5 in his chief examination stated that about 10 years ago the Nellimarla police called him to sign as witness accordingly he went to the

Nellimarla police station and put his signature on a written paper. He do not know the contents of the said written paper and he identified his signature/Ex.P4. By saying so he turned hostile.

The Pw.6 stated that on one day the Nellimarla SI of police called him and accordingly he went to the Nellimarla police station and Nellimarla police obtained his signature on a written paper . He do not know the contents of the said written paper and he identified his signature/Ex.P5 . By saying so he turned hostile.

In this case the PW.9 evidence is closed as the Pw.9 did not appear before the court inspite of number of adjournments given after giving part of the chief examination .

The PW.8 who is shown to corroborate the evidence of LW.5 /PW.2 in all material facts stated in his chief examination that the deceased by name Kuppili

CC.No.136 of 2016 5 dt:.13.4.2023

Laxmanarao is his son who died about 8 years ago and she do not know anything about this case. By saying so he turned hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C., statement is marked Ex.P7.

The PW.10 deposed in his chief examination that on 4.1.2017 he received a requisition from SI of police, Nellimarla ps to inspect the crime vehicle bearing no.

AP 35 M 0077 car and AP 31 BV 9486 motor cycle and accordingly he inspected the crime vehicles on 3.12.2017 at about 3.00 pm at Nellimarla ps and found the followed injuries.

1) IN AP 35 M 0077 the Engine bonnate, radiator, front bumper, wine screen glass, right side lamp of vehicle was damaged, 2) AP 31 BV 9486 front wheel, front shock absorbers, front handle bar, front lamp of the vehicle were damaged. Accordingly he issued MV.report, Ex.P8 is the MVI.report. He was of the opinion that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect of both the vehicles.

The PW.11 deposed in her chief examination that on 2.12.2014 at about 1.15 pm she examined Pw.4 and found the following injuries. 1) Multiple abrasion all over body, she was of the opinion that the injury is simple in nature and he issued wound certificate. Ex.P9 is the wound certificate. Later, on the same day she also examined B.Shiva at about 11.50 pm and found the following injuries. Ear bleed present, patient is unconscious, pupils reacting to light. Later she sent the patient for

CT.report. The ward and surgeon opined that left frontal and left temporal and brain stem hemorrhage contusion. According to the report given by Dr.Ravi, injury is grievous in nature. Accordingly she gave opinion that the injury is grievous in nature and issued wound certificate. Ex.P10 is the wound certificate. Later she referred the patient to the KG.hospital, Visakhapatnam.

The PW.14 deposed in his chief examination that on 2.12.2014 when he was present at police station, he received medical intimation/Ex.P12 from Vizianagaram

District hospital, Vizianagaram and basing on the said intimation he sent PW.13 to record the statement of Pw.4. Basing on the Ex.P13 he registered as a case in

Cr.no.170/2014, for the offence u.sec.338 and 337 of IPC. He issued original FIR.

Ex.P14 is the original FIR. He sent the original FIR to the Hon’ble court and copies to the official concerned. Immediately he went to the Vizianagaram Government

Hospital and recorded the 161 statement of Pw.4. Then he went to scene of offence situated at near MIMS Hospital, Nellimarla. He secure the presence of Pw.5 and

Pw.6 and observed the scene of offence in their presence. He drafted the scene observation report, Ex.P15 is the scene observation report. He also drawn rough sketch at the scene of offence. Ex.P16 is the rough sketch. He secured PW.1,7,3 and examined them and recorded their statements. Pw.3 stated to him as in Ex.P1.

CC.No.136 of 2016 6 dt:.13.4.2023

Pw.7 stated to him as in Ex.P6 on 3.12.2014, the accused surrender before him and he issued 41-A Cr.P.C., notice to the accused. On the same he sent a requisition to the MVI Inspector/Pw.10 to inspect the crime vehicle accordingly he inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI.report. On 10.1.2015 while he was engaged in other duty Lw.19 received intimation about the death of the injured in this case from the

Government hospital, Palakonda. On the same day he received written report from

PW.2 regarding the death of the injured in this case by name K.Lakshmanarao.

Ex.P17 is the written report of Pw.2. Basing on the said report/Ex.P17, Lw.19 altered the section of law from 338 and 337 IPC to 304 A and 337 of IPC and filed the alteration memo. Ex.P18 is the alteration memo. On the same day the Lw.19 went to the Government hospital, Palakonda and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of Pw.9, LW.13 and Lw.14. Ex.P19 is the inquest report. Lw.19 secured the presence of PW.2, LW.6, Lw.7 and Pw.8 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C., statement, Pw.8 stated as in Ex.P7 he received wound certificate/Ex.P9 of Pw.4. He also received wound certificate/Ex.P10 of deceased by name B.Shiva. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

11.Considering the oral and documentary evidence in record it is seen that the

Pw.4 who is the driver of the motor cycle in which the deceased was the pillion rider stated that he do not know the deceased by name Kuppioli Laxmanarao and in the year 2014 when he was going on his Karishma motor cycle at that time one car came from the back side and dashed his motor cycle. Due to which he sustained injuries on his right side of his face and right leg and he became unconscious. He has not seen the car driver and the registration number of the car. And he stated that he police came to him and instructed him to signed on the written paper. He do not know the contents of the said paper and he identified his signature/Ex.P2.

The Pw.1 stated that about 7 years ago at about 11.30 am he was going to

Nellimarla to purchase the books regarding his resturent on his motor cycle in front of his motor cycle another motor cycle bearing no. AP 31 9486 was also going in which two persons were there, and when they reached to died colony one car came in front of them from Nellimarla to Vizianagaram. At that time one lorry also came from

Vizianagaram to Nellimarla . The two wheeler driver tried to over take the said lorry at that time the car bearing no. AP 35 M 0077 dashed the motor cycle bearing no. AP 31 9486. Due to which the driver of motor cycle bearing no. AP 31 9486 hence the pillion driver fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The pillion rider received injuries on the back side of his head and the driver of motor cycle received

CC.No.136 of 2016 7 dt:.13.4.2023

bleeding injuries on various parts of the body. At that time one auto came there and he shifted the injured persons to the MIMS hospital, Nellimarla. The said accident was caused to rash and negligent act of car driver bearing no. AP 35 M 0077. In this case the PW.1 stated that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the car driver bearing no. AP35 M 0077, but the evidence of Pw.1 is not corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses and the driver of the vehicle bearing no. AP 31 9486 also did not corroborated the evidence of PW.1 . He stated that he did not gave any statement to the police and denied the contents of the statement.

The PW.1 also admitted in his cross examination that it is true that there is no possibility for accident if the deceased would have followed the lorry without over taking the said lorry. It is true that it is the duty of the driver to see at the time of over taking that any vehicle is coming from the front side or not.

12.The PW.14 who is the investigating officer stated in his cross examination that it is true that the scene of offence is situated on the right side of the

Vizianagaram to Nellimarla side as shown in rough sketch. The Pw.1 also stated that at the time of accident the two wheeler was at the direction of Vizianagaram to

Nellimarla. On perusal of rough sketch /Ex.P6 it is seen that the scene of offence is right side of the road from Vizianagaram to Nellimarla. Which shows that the driver of the vehicle bearing no. AP 31 9486 was in right side of the road. The PW.2 who is the brother of deceased stated that the LW.1 do not have any driving license on the date of offence. So, the evidence of PW.1 shows that the driver of the motor cycle and the deceased was in the right side of the road and was trying to over take the vehicle. The evidence of PW.2 shows that on the date of incident the Lw.1 /PW.4 do not have driving license. So, the evidence of PW.1 that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the accused was not corroborated by PW.4 who is the driver of motor cycle and PW.2.

13.In this case the PW.2 is the indirect witness. The PW.13 stated that on 2.12.2014 when he was present at police station at that time he received intimation from the government hospital, Vizianagaram . Ex.P12 is the hospital intimation.

Basing on the said intimation he rushed to the government hospital and recorded the statement of PW.4 . Ex.P13 is the statement of PW.4. From the hospital he came to the police station and handed over the statement to LW.20. But the PW.4 stated in his chief examination that he do not gave any statement to the police and stated that he came to conscious at about 8.00 pm at that time police came to him and instructed him to sign on written paper. He do not know the contents of the said paper and his signature was identified as Ex.P2. The PW.13 in his cross examination stated

CC.No.136 of 2016 8 dt:.13.4.2023

that it is true that there is a out post police station in the government hospital,

Vizianagaram in the year 2014. The PW.14 in his cross examination stated that it is true that there is a out post at District hospital, Vizianagaram. It is true that the medical intimation will be given first to the said out post. So, the evidence of Pw.13 that he recorded the statement of PW.4 is not corroborated by PW.4 . The PW.14 stated in his chief examination that he went to the scene of offence situated at MIMS hospital, Nellimarla. He secure the presence of PW.5 and PW.6 and observed the scene of offence in their presence and he drafted the scene observation report.

Ex.P15 is the scene observation report, he also drawn the rough sketch at the scene of offence, Ex.P16 is the rough sketch. But the Pw.5 and PW.6 stated in their respective chief examination that the Nellimarla police obtained their signature on a written paper and they do not know the contents of the said written paper. So, the evidence of Pw.14 that he observed the scene of offence in the presence of PW.5 and PW.6 was not corroborated by the PW.5 and 6 . The PW.7 also did not support the prosecution and stated that he do not know anything about this case. The PW.8 who is the mother of deceased by name Kuppili Laxmanarao also stated that she do not know anything about this case and he turned hostile. The Pw.10 stated that on 4.1.2017 he received a requisition from SI of Police, Nellimarla to inspect the crime vehicle bearing no. AP 35 M 0077 and motor cycle bearing no. AP 31 BV 9486 and accordingly he inspected the motor cycle.and he issued MVI report/Ex P8. The

Pw.11 who is the doctor and who examined PW.4 and V.Shiva stated in his chief examination that 1) Multiple abrasion all over body, she was of the opinion that the injury is simple in nature and he issued wound certificate. Ex.P9 is the wound certificate. Later, on the same day she also examined B.Shiva at about 11.50 pm and found the following injuries. Ear bleed present, patient is unconscious, pupils reacting to light. Later she sent the patient for CT.report. The ward and surgeon opined that left frontal and left temporal and brain stem hemorrhage contusion. The

Pw.11 in his cross examination stated that he has not mentioned in the wound certificate of Pw.4 regarding who accompanied the PW.4 to the hospital. It is true that colour of injury and age of injury was not mentioned in the Ex.P9. It is true that the father name of B.Shiva was not mentioned in Ex.P10. Witness adds that the said injured B.Shiva was shifted through 108 ambulance. Ex.P10 does not show that

B.Shiva was referred to KGH., Visakhapatnam. In this case the Pw.1 stated that infront of his motor cycle another motor cycle bearing no. AP 31 9486 was going in which two persons were there. But the Pw.4 who is the driver of the motor cycle stated that he was going on his motor cycle but he did not stated about the deceased that the deceased was the pillion rider of his motor cycle.

CC.No.136 of 2016 9 dt:.13.4.2023

In this case, the deceased name is Kuppili Laxmanarao but the PW.11 who is the doctor and who treated the PW.4 stated that PW.4 and one B.Shiva was examined by her.

The evidence of PW.11, PW.12, and PW.14 shows that the deceased died in the road accident. But the prosecution witnesses are unable to prove the rash or negligent act of the accused and the sole witness i.e., Pw.1 is not corroborative with any other witnesses and even the driver of the motor cycle bearing no. AP 31 9486 and the evidence of Pw.2 that the LW.1/ PW.4 that the LW.1 do not have driving license on the date of incident and the evidence of LW.14 that the accident was occurred on the right side of the road leading from Vizianagaram to Nellimarla also creates doubt in the prosecution.

14.Under the above circumstances, this court is of the view that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 304-A and 337 of IPC and he is acquitted for the said offence under Section 255(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 required under Section 437-A Cr.P,.C. in order to appear before the Appellate court if any appeal is preferred. As there is no

Material Objects marked, no M.O. order is passed.

Typed to my dictation, by the Steno (Out sourcing), corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13 th day of April,2023.

Sd/- B.V.Vijay Laxmi,

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise). Vizianagaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution : For defence: NIL.

PW.1: B. Prasad Rao. PW.2:Kuppilli Sankara Rao. PW.3:Boddana Chinna. PW.4: Pintu Kumara Gupta. PW.5: Vadiganti Venkata Satyanarayana. PW.6: Sankarapu Chandra Rao. PW.7: Jaligapu suri. PW.8:Kuppili Krishna Veni. P.W9: Jampa Rama Rao. PW.10: I.Venugopala Rao. PW.11: Dr. G Soujanya. PW.12: Dr. R Vasudeva Rao. PW.13: P. Mohana Rao.

CC.No.136 of 2016 10 dt:.13.4.2023

PW.14: T.Srinivasa Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution :

Ex.P.1: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3. Ex.P.2: Signature of Ex.P2 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 Ex.P.4: Signature on Scene Observation Report of PW.5. Ex.P.5: Signature on Scene Observation Report of PW.6. Ex.P.6:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.7 Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.8 Ex.P.8:MVI report. Ex.P.9:.Wound certificate of PW.4 Ex.P.10: Wound certificate of deceased. Ex.P.11: Postmortem certificate. Ex P.12: Hospital Intimation. Ex P.13 : Statement of P.W 4. Ex P.14 : Original FIR. Ex P.15 :Scene observation report. Ex P.16 :Rough sketch. Ex P.17 :Written report of Pw.2 Ex P.18 :Alteration memo. Ex P.19 :Inquest report.

For defence : -

Nil .

Material objects marked: NIL.

Sd/- B.V.Vijay Laxmi,

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise). Vizianagaram

CC/2/2016 Acquitted

Sub Inspector of Police, Gajapathinagaram vs Bavirisetti Durga Raju

31 Mar 2022

C C 02/20161Date 31.03.2022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,GAJAPATHINAGARAM

Present:- Smt. B.V.Vijay Laxmi Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise, Vizianagaram FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gajapathinagaram

Thursday, this the 31st Day of March 2022

CC.NO. 02 of 2016

Between:-

State Represented by Sub-Inspector

of Police, Gajapathinagaam Police Station ... Complainant

And :

A1Bavirisetti Durga Raju, S/o Durga Raju, 43 Years, Senior Officer, H R and Admin, Olam Company, Kotha Road, Gajapathinagaram

A2Patnaikuni Srinivasa Gowri Sankara Rao, S/o Kurma Appala Narasimhulu, 45 Years, Security Supervisor, Olam Company, Kotha Road, Gajapathinagaram

A3Meesala Srinivasa Rao, S/o Laxmana Rao, 40 Years Burli Veedhi, Gajapathinagaram

Vizianagaram District .. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 31.03.2022 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri U Ramesh,

Advocate for accused and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day , this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajapathinagaram Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 in Crime Number 201/2015 for the offences punishable under section 381 and 114 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the charge sheet as follows…

C C 02/20162Date 31.03.2022

That on 07.11.2015, at about 12.30 hours, LW2 Dilip Kumar came to LW1 T

Rajamini at Olam Agro India Private Limited Company situated near Marupalli vil- lage of Gajapathinagaram Mandal and on 25.10.2015 A1 sent the Scrap from the

Company for sales, LW2 asked LW1 about his share money in connection with the sales of Scrap and LW1 called Accused No.1 and asked about the Scrap and by that time A1 admitted his guilty regarding transportation of the scrap from the company unauthorizedly for sales and on enquiry LW1 came to know through LW5 that A1 managed to send the scrap from the company in a Van AP 35 X 0767 with- out making entry in the gate register, A1 and A2 colluded for the transportation of scrap from the Company un authorisedly with out his knowledge and notice and

LW2 found that A1 and A2 loaded the scrap in the van for transportation from the company and LW3 witnessed that A1 loaded the scrap in the van assisted by A2 and he went to the scrap shop of Gajapathinagaram in the Scrap load van and un loaded there and LW4 witnessed that the scrap was taken away by A3 in the van from the company without any entry in the register and LW5 witnessed that A1 told him not to enter the details in the register for out going scrap load van and

LW6 witnessed that A3 told him that he purchased scrap from Olam company and sold away to LW7 and further LW7 witnessed that A3 sold the scrap property to him for Rs.15,535 and took away the amount from him, and on a report given by

LW1, on 08.11.2015 at 00.30 hours, LW 10 registered the same as a case in Crime

No. 201/2015 for the offence under Sec. 381 and 114 of IPC of Gajapathinagaram

PS and investigated into and, during the course of investigation, on 08.11.2015, 13.00 hours, LW 10 arrested Accused No.1 near K L Puram, Vizianagaram and he voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence committed by him along with Accused No.2 and 3 and the same was recorded under thecover of mediators report Dt. 08.11.2015, arrested and at about 14.30 hours, LW 10 arrested A2 near

K L Puram, Vizianagaram and he confessed the offence committed by him along with A1 and A3 and the same was also recorded under the cover of mediators re-

C C 02/20163Date 31.03.2022 port Dt,. 08.11.2015, and further on the same day at 19.00 hours, LW 10 arrested

A3 at Konetigattu Veedhi, Gajapathinagaram and at that time, he confessed about the commission of offence committed by him along with A1 and A2 and LW 10 seized the van bearing No. AP 35 X 0767 and then and there, the same was also recorded under the cover of mediators report and later A1 to A3 were sent to judi- cial remand and after completion of investigation, LW 11 filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 3 for the offence under Sec. 381 and Sec 114 of IPC.

Hence, the charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sec. 381 and Sec 114 of IPC against the accused 1 to 3.

4. Then accused 1 to 3 was examined under section 239 of The Criminal Proce- dure Code,1973 for the offences punishable under Sec. 381 and Sec 114 of IPC and the charges for the offences punishable under Sec. 381 and Sec 114 of IPC has been read over and explained to the accused 1 to 3 in Telugu Language, whereupon they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore they were sent up for trial.

5. The prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and got marked Ex.P1 and P13 and thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.

6. Then accused were examined under section 313 of The Criminal Procedure

Code,1973 and incriminating circumstances in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.10 explained to the accused and they denied prosecution evidence as false .When the accused 1 to 3 are questioned, they reported that no defence evidence.

7. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecu- tion and the counsel for accused 1 to 3.

8. Now the point that arise for determination in the case on hand is--- “ Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of accused 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sec. 381 and Sec 114 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt “.?

C C 02/20164Date 31.03.2022

9. POINT :

The LW3 who is examined as PW1 and shown by the prosecution to speak about the transportation of the scrap in the van of A3 sent by A1, assisted by A2 is examined as PW1 and he in his chief examination stated that, he previously worked as Fabricator in Olam Company. He do not know who is the Deputy

Manager of the said company during the year 2015 and he do not know the accused and he do not know anything about the fact of the case, by saying so, he turned hostile.

10LW5 who is shown in the list of witnesses to speak about coming to know about the offence and verifying the gate register and found no entry in the gate register regarding the out going scrap van is examined as PW2, and he stated in his chief examination that he is working as a Safety Officer in the Olam Company

Gajapathinagaram and he know A1 and A2 previously A1 had worked as H R

Admin in Olam Company, and A2 worked as a Security Supervisor. In the year 2015, while he was in duty at Olam Company he came to know through office staff that the accused No.1 has misappropriated some scrap relating to Olam

Company and Company lodged report against accused. Further after some time, he came to know that, company has also lodged report against Accused No.2 police did not recorded his statement relating to this case and he did not accompanied with Gajapathinagaram police in the arrest of accused 1 to 3.

By saying so, he turned hostile.

11.LW6 who is shown in the list of witnesses to speak about coming know the offence bringing the scrap from Olam Company by A3 in van, selling of the scrap to LW7 etc ., was examined as PW3, who stated in his chief examination that, he is maintaining a scrap shop in Gajapathinagaram and he do not know A1 to A3.

He is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP 35 X 0767. He do not know LW7.

Gajapathinagaram police has brought his vehicle in the year 2015 by stating that, the said vehicle is necessary for transporting of scrap and then he got released

C C 02/20165Date 31.03.2022 his vehicle from this court in interim custody. Police did not recorded his statement in this case. The Prosecution who brought this witness to show that, the scrap was sold to LW7 stated in his chief examination that, he do not know the

LW7, K Rajasekhar and he also do not know the Accused No.1 to 3. By saying so, he turned hostile.

12.LW1 who is shown in the list of witness to speak about coming to know about the offence his internal enquiry his report to the police for taking necessary action and etc., facts was examined as PW4,, and he in his chief examination stated that, previously he worked as a Deputy Manager at Olam Company at

Marupalli village and now he is working as Deputy Manager in Olam Company at

Gurguon, Delhi. He know the accused No.1 and he worked in the Olam Company as H R Officer. He also know the A2 who worked in the Olam Company as Security

Supervisor. LW2 is a private contractor for Olam Company. He came to know that, accused No.1 committed theft of the scrap of metal and also mixed scrap belongs to LW2 ( D Kumar ) and Olam Company from the premises of Olam

Company and that the Accused No.2 also assisted accused No.1 and he did not made entries in the outward register at the main gate of Olam Company and the accused No.1 has shifted the entire stolen scrap from the Olam Company in a vehicle to some scrap shop and the approximate value of the stolen scrap is

Rs.20,000/- to 25,000/- and LW2 D Dilip Kumar can identify the stolen scrap and then he gave report to the Gajapathinagaram police station and the report of PW1 given to Gajapathinagaram PS Dt. 08.11.2015 is marked as Ex.P4 and that the police examined him and recorded his statement.

13.The PW4 in his cross examination stated that, his company has conducted preliminary enquiry about the theft of the scrap on 07.11.2015, but he has not submitted enquiry report of his company to the Gajapathinagaram police. He did not hand over any records along with his report to the police. The offence was committed on 25.10.2015 as per his report, they have records for the storage of

C C 02/20166Date 31.03.2022 scrap material. He did not submit said records for storage of scrap material to the police. 25Th 10.2015 falls on Sunday and the Sunday is a holiday for the Olam company. Every one should sign in the records at main gate before entering into the Olam Company. It is true that, entire Olam Company is covered with CC

Cameras. He did not mentioned in his report about the description of stolen scrap material. It is true that, he mentioned in his Ex.P1 report that both inward and outward entries are not made in the register. He gave report on 07.11.2015 in the morning hours. Before police came to his company on 06.11.2015, in the evening hours, before lodging report. Gajapathinagaram Police took the custody of A1 and

A2 for interrogation. One supervisor and Two guards will be available even on the public holiday at the main gate of his Company. He did not mentioned in his report about the names of the Guard who were present at the time of leaving of the vehicle with scrap by the company. LW2 also given report to police as well as to his company. Police examined him on 07.11.2015, and he did not visit any place after lodging report. And he do not know the salary of accused No.1 at present and no third party visited his company after lodging Ex.P4 report and further he denied to the suggestion that, he gave a false report at the instigation of Abhijit Wagh of his Company and that Accused No.1 and 2 did not commit theft of scrap from his company.

14.LW2 who is shown to speak about the transportation of scrap, from the Olam company by A1 and informing the same to LW1 coming to know the offence and etc., facts was examined as PW5, and he in his chief examination stated that, previously he worked as a contractor in Olam Company at Marupalli village and he know PW1 who is an employee of PW1 and he know accused No.1 but he do not know A2 and he has scrap material in Company in dealing with his business and on 25.10.2015 at about 10.00 AM, he observed accused No.1 standing at the

Scrap in the Olam Company and then he asked the accused No.1 about his presence and then he informed him that he intended to sell the Scrap of Olam

C C 02/20167Date 31.03.2022

Company and then he instructed accused No.1 to sell his scrap along with scrap of

Olam Company to the scrap of Olam Company for disposal and he was present at the time of loading of scrap into the vehicle along with accused No.1 and he did not receive any amount for the disposal of his scrap and then he informed to PW4 about the taking of scrap by accused No.1 and no payment of his amount for the scrap and then PW4 lodged report to police, and the police examined him and recorded his statement and he can identify his scrap. The PW5 who stated that, he came to know about the offence and inform the LW1/PW4 stated in his cross examination that he did not gave any report to the police and he did not gave the details about the number of the vehicle in which the scrap was loaded. He has given the name of the person who loaded the scrap in the vehicle. PW1 was also accompanied the vehicle. He did not gave the details about the quantity as well as the value of the scrap. He never visited the Gajapathinagaram police station after recording the statement by police. He did not know about the records with regard to the storage of scrap belongs to Olam Company.

15.The LW4 who is shown in the list of witness to speak about the offence sending of scrap from the Olam Company in the Van by A1 assisted by A2 and etc., facts was examined as PW6 and he in his chief examination stated that, he is working as a Electrical Engineer in Olam Company since three years, and he know

A1 and A2 and he know PW4 and 5, there was a issue happened in the Olam

Company with regard to scrap at about 1 ½ years back. PW4 did not ask him about the issue of the said scrap police did not examined him and recorded his statement and by saying so, he also turned hostile.

16.LW7 who is shown in the list of witness to speak about the bringing of the scrap to his shop by A3 purchasing of scrap from A3 further coming to know the offence and etc., facts is examined as PW7 and he stated in his chief examination that, he is doing selling and buying scrap at Vizianagaram. He do not know the accused No.1 to 3, Gajapathinagaram police did not seized any scrap from his

C C 02/20168Date 31.03.2022 shop at Vizianagaram police did not examined him and recorded his statement in this case and by saying so, he also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

Even though the PW7 turned hostile, but his chief examination cannot be denied entirely. The prosecution who has shown this witness to speak about selling and purchase of the scrap from A3, stated in his chief examination that he do not know the accused and the police never seized any scrap from his shop at

Vizianagaram.

17.The LW8 who is shown as witness to speak about the scene of offence and his attestation on the observation report and arrest of A1 to A3 seizure of stolen scrap and his attestation on the mediator report Dt. 08.11.2015 is examined as

PW9 and he in his chief examination stated that, previously he worked as VRO for

Madhupada village previously he worked as incharge VRO for Puritipenta village.

On 08.11.2015, at about 08.00 AM, he went to Olam Company as a mediator at the request of LW10, D Sai Krishna.

The PW9 stated that, on 08.11.2015 he went to the Olam Company about 08.00

AM at the request of LW10 for observing the scene of offence. But the LW 10 who is examined as PW 10, stated that on 08.11.2015 at about 12.30 hours, while he was present in the police station the PW4 came to the police station and gave written report / Ex.P4. Basing on the same he registered it as a case in Crime No.

201/2015 for the offence under Sec. 381, 114 of IPC Ex.P9 is the Orignal FIR and sent the original FIR to the Hon’ble Court and copies to the officials concerned and later he recorded the statement of LW1 in the police station. On the next day morning, he went to the scene of offence situated at Olam Company and recorded the statement of PW1, PW2 and PW5 and PW6. Later he secured the mediators

PW8 and PW9 and inspected the scene of offence and drafted the scene observation report Ex.P7 and later prepared rough sketch.

18.Going to the evidence of PW9 and PW10, the PW9 stated that he went to the scene of offence on 08.11.2015 at about 08.00 AM, and LW 10 observed the scene

C C 02/20169Date 31.03.2022 of offence prepared scene observation report at the scene of offence and himself and PW8 has attested the said report. Observation report of the scene of offence

Dt. 08.11.2015 is marked as Ex.P7.

19.The PW 10 stated that he observed the scene of offence on the next day of 08.11.2015, but the PW9 stated that they observed the scene of offence and drafted the scene observation report on 08.11.2015. The version of the PW9 and 10 are quite contrary to each other, and creates doubt with regard to the observation of the scene of offence and also the drafting of scene observation report Ex.P7.

20.Then the PW9 stated in his chief examination that, on 08.11.2015 at about 01.00 PM in the after noon hours, himself, PW8, PW2, LW 10 / PW 10 and other police staff went to K L Puram of Vizianagaram and then PW2 shown one person by stating that, the said person is accused No.1 by name B Durga Raju. The PW 10 stated that, later on the next day morning of 08.11.2015, he received a credible information regarding Accused No.1 and on that, he along with his mediators and his staff, went to K L Puram of Vizianagaram Town and caught hold the accused No.1 and recorded his confessional statement. The accused No.1 confessed before him and his staff and mediators PW 8 and PW9 that, he committed theft of scrap in Olam Company Ex.P11 is the Confessional Statement of Accused No.1 Dt. 08.11.2015. Basing on the confession of A1, he along with his mediators and staff went to Olam Company and caught hold the A2 and recorded his confessional statement. Ex.P12 is the Confessional Statement of accused

No.2, Dt. 08.11.2015.

21.The Pw 10 in his chief examination stated that on the next day morning i.e., on the next day of 08.11.2015 he arrested the accused on credible information, but at the same time, he stated that he recorded the confessional statement on 08.11.2015. If the accused was arrested on 09.11.2015, then how he recorded the confessional statement of accused No.1 on 08.11.2015.

C C 02/201610Date 31.03.2022

22.The PW 10 stated in his chief examination that he recovered the property from PW7 where as the PW7 stated that Gajapathinagaram police did not seized any scrap from his shop at Vizianagaram.

23.In this case, there is no direct evidence to show that the Accused No.1 has committed the theft of the scrap from the Olam Company situated at Marupalli being an employee of the said company and that the accused No.2 being a

Security Officer of the said company assist the Accused No.1 in bringing out the scrap from the said Olam Company. The PW4 himself admitted that, his company has conducted a preliminary enquiry about the theft of the scrap on 07.11.2015, but has not submitted any enquiry report of his company to the

Gajapathinagaram Police. Further, PW4 also admitted that, one supervisor and two guards will be available even on the public holiday at the main gate of his company and he did not mentioned in his report about the names of the guards who are present at the time of leaving of the vehicle with scrap from the

Company. Further, PW4 admitted in the cross examination that, on 25.10.2015 which falls on Sunday and the said day is a holiday for the Olam Company and every one should sign in the record at the main gate before entering into the

Olam Company. Further, he admitted that the entire Olam Company is covered with C C Camera. He did not mentioned in his report about the description of the stolen scrap material. The evidence of PW10 shows that, he being an investigating officer do not know whether there is any CC TV Footage in the said

Olam Company and it is the duty of the Deputy Manager to inform the same, that they are having the CC TV Footage in the said Olam Company and by searching the CC TV Footage, the fact would have brought out, but the reasons best known to the PW4, the same was not informed to the investigation officer., which creates doubt in the case of the prosecution.

24.In the result, accused 1, 2 and 3 are found not guilty of the offences punish- able under sections 381 and 114 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. Hence accused

C C 02/201611Date 31.03.2022 1, 2 and 3 are acquitted under section 248(1) of The Criminal Procedure ode,1973 for the offences punishable under sections 381 and 114 of The Indian Penal

Code,1860. The bail bonds of the accused 1, 2 and 3 shall stand cancelled. The un marked property, if any, shall be ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. The MO 1 shall be auctioned by the police and the auction amount shall be confiscated to the State and file the compliance report to the court.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st Day day of March, 2022.

Sd/- Smt. B.V. Vijay Lakshmi

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise,VZM FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gajapathinagaram

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution :

P.W.1:G Ganesh P.W.2: Y Shravan Kumar P.W.3:A Ramesh P.W.4: T Rajamini P.W.5: Dilip Kumar P.W.6 : G Satyanarayana Raju P.W.7 : K Raja Sekhar P.W8 : N. China Asirivadu P.W9 : K Vishnu Murthy P.W.10 : D Sai Krishna For Defence : Nil

Exhibits marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P1 Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 Ex.P2 Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 Ex.P3 Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3 Ex.P4 Report of PW1 given to the police on Dt, 08.11.2015 Ex.P5 Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW 6 Ex.P6 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW 7 Ex.P7 Scene Observation Report Dt. 08.11.2015 Ex.P8 Mediators Report Dt. 08.11.2015 Ex.P9 Original FIR in Crime No. 201/2015 Ex.P10 Rough Sketch Ex.P11 Confession Statement of Accused No.1 Dt. 08.11.2015 Ex.P12 Confession Statement of Accused No.2 Dt. 08.11.2015 Ex.P13 Confession Statement of Accused No.3 Dt. 08.11.2015

C C 02/201612Date 31.03.2022

Exhibits marked for Defence : Nil

Material Objects Marked : MO 1 one CD with five photos of 1195 Kg of scrap of iron and fiber pieces.

Sd/- Smt. B.V. Vijay Lakshmi

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise,VZM FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gajapathinagaram

CC/130/2018 Acquitted

State represented by S.I. of Police, Andra vs Damalapati Ramunaidu

25 Nov 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST

CLASS::GAJAPATHINAGARAM

Present : Smt. B.V.Vijay Laxmi, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram FAC/Judicial Magistrate of the First Class , Gajapathinagaram

Thursday, this the 25th day of November, 2021

C.C.NO. 130/2018

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra Police Station. … Complainant.

And:

1. Damalapati Ramu Naidu,S/o. Katamayyam, 22 years,T.Kapu, Chinthadavalasa village,Ment ada mandal, Driver of Tractor No.AP 35 X 6191,Trailer No. AP 35 X 9681.

2. Gedala Rama Murthy, S/o. Late Appala Naidu, 70 years, Kapu, Chinthadavalasa village, Mentada Mandal,Owner of Tractor No. AP 35 X 6191, Trailer No. AP 35 X 9681.

… Accused.

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant, and of Sri G.Vidyasagar Naidu, Advocate for the accused and having perused the material on record, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 132/2017 of Andra Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 of IPC and Section 180,181, 134(A) and (B) of M.V.Act.

2. The brief averments of the Charge-Sheet are that:

LW.1/PW.1 is the defacto complainant-cum-injured. The incident took place on 07-12-2017 evening at about 18-45 hours while PW.1 and the deceased Kavuluri Satyanarayana @ Chanti (hereafter referred as deceased for 2 the sake of brevity ) were returning from Kompangi village and proceeding towards to their village on the motor cycle of the deceased bearing No.AP 35

AD 6500, when they reached near Meesalapeta Road, at that time,the accused being the driver of Tractor No.AP 35 X 6191 and Trailer No.AP. 35 X 9681,drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed against their motor cycle of the deceased, resulting of which the rider of motor cycle/deceased fell on the road, received severe injuries on his back on the head,right leg and right hand. Due to which the deceased died on the spot and in this accident LW.1 also received injury on his left leg knee joint.

3.So,basing on the statement of PW.1, PW.7/L.W 17 visited the scene of offence, prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, made an observation report, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for

Postmortem examination and during the course of investigation, PW.7 also served the notice against A.1. During the investigation it was revealed that A.1 is not having driving license and that PW.7 secured the A.2 who is the owner of the said crime vehicle as A.2 allowed the A.1 for driving of the crime vehicle without having license. So, the prima-facie is proved against A.1 who is driver of crime vehicle and A.2 who is owner of the crime vehicle and after receiving of MVI report, medical certificates and after completion of the investigation as prescribed under law, PW.7 filed the charge sheet and that thereby the accused are liable for punishment under the above sections of law. Hence, the charge sheet.

4. This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence under Sections 304-A, 337 of IPC and Section 180, 181, 134(A)(B) of M.V. Act.

5. After appearance of the Accused, case copies are furnished to the accused Nos 1 and 2 as required u/s 207 of Cr.P.C, The Accused Nos 1 and 2 3 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and the sum and substance of accusation for the offences under Sections 337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 181 and 187 of M.V.Act against A1; and the sum and substance of accusation for the ofences under Section 180 of M.V.Act against A.2, are read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.7 After closure of the prosecution side the Accused Nos 1 and 2 were examined U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C and they reported no defence evidence.

7. Thereafter, heard the arguments of Learned APP and counsel for the

Accused.

8.The point for Consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused

Nos 1 and 2 for the accusation leveled against them beyond all reasonable

doubt?

9.POINT:

To prove the guilt of Accused the prosecution cited as many as 17 witnesses, out of them eight witnesses were examined as Pws 1 to 8 and the remaining witnesses were given up by the prosecution, and the prosecution also exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.7. As seen from the evidence of Pws 3,4,6, they turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution at any point of time.

So, the witnesses remains Pws 1,2,5,7 and 8

10.As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he deposed that on 7-12-2017 in the morning hours, himself and the deceased went to Kompangi village in the motor cycle bearing No. AP 34 AD 6500 and himself and deceased have started at Kompangi village in the evening hours after completion of works on 4 the same motor cycle and deceased was the rider of the said motorcycle and then when they reached to Meesalapeta village road at about 06.45 P.M., one tractor and Trailer bearing NO.s AP 35 X 6191 and AP 35 X 9681 came in opposite direction from Dasaripeta village side and the driver of the said

Tractor drove the Tractor in a speed and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, then he fell on the road from the motorcycle and he received injury on his left leg knee,the deceased received injuries on his head and right leg and died on the spot. PW.1 further deposed the the driver of the said tractor did not stop the tractor after the accident. PW.1 identified the accused in the court dock . He further deposed that he lodged Ex.P.1 report before the police.

11.During his cross examination, he admitted that the road at which accident was happened is a single road and every vehicle should go in slow manner due to single road at which the accident was happened and his motor cycle is a scooty and the deceased drove the motor cycle at a speed of 40 kilometers per hour nearly at the time of accident and the company name of the said tractor trailer is Jandl. His motor cycle mirror was damaged and police took his vehicle to the police station and the incident was happened in the late evening hours. He further deposed that he did not observe any current poles at the edges of the road leading from Kompangi to scene of offence and he did not get any unconscious after the accident and he fallen at a distance of three meters from motorcycle. PW.1 further deposed that he got up immediately after the accident and reached to the deceased and he has seen the face of driver of tractor while he was coming in front of them and he did not see the face of driver of tractor after the accident and he has seen the tractor and trailer numbers at the time of accident.

12.The P.w1 in his chief examination stated that the driver of the said tractor did not stop the tractor after the accident. At the same time the P.W 1 in his cross examination stated that PW.1 further deposed that he got up immediately after the accident and reached to the deceased and he has seen the face of driver of tractor while he was coming in front of them and he has 5 seen the tractor and trailer numbers at the time of accident. The evidence of

P.W 1 creates doubt in the prosecution case as the P.W 1 in his chief stated that the accused A1 did not stopped the tractor after the accident and on the other hand during his cross examination the P.W 1 stated that he saw the face of the driver of tractor while he was coming in front of them.. The P.W 1 also admitted that the accident was occurred during late evening hours. He did not observe any current poles at the edges of the road leading from Kompangi to scene of offence. The evidence of P.W 1 shows that the accident was occurred in the late evening and the there are no electric poles near the scene of offence. The evidence of P.W 1 creates doubt regarding prosecution evidence that if the accident was occurred in the late night and as there are no electric poles near the seace of offence then how the P.w 1 able to see the face of the driver of the tractor at the time of incident.

13. As seen from the evidence of PW.2, he narrated the manner of accident how it was happened and he further deposed that he received a phone call from one person about the accident and that he went to the accident place and he came to know about the accident. During the course of cross examination he categorically admitted that he did not witness the accident and he did not stated the police about the motorcycle number of the deceased and tractor trailer number.

14.So,PW.2 is hearsay witness, but not a direct witness. He only came to know the accident and he deposed to that effect only. His evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution.

15.As seen from the evidence of PW.5, he deposed that about one year back police has conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of himself and other inquestdars at CHC.,Gajapathinagaram and during his inquest, he found injuries on the legs and hands of the deceased and during inquest he opined that the deceased has received injuries in a accident and he attested on Ex.P.3/inquest report. But, during his cross 6 examination he deposed that he is not a surpanch of Budipeta village and he attested on Ex.P.3/Inquest report in the evening hours.

16.As seen from Ex.P.3/inquest report, it is noticed that PW.5 was cited in Sl.No.4 of list of inquestdars and on perusal of the contents of

Ex.P.3/Inquest report, it was noticed that the inquest report was reduced in writing at 9 A.M. on 08-11-2017 and completed at 11 A.M. But, PW.5 admitted during the course of cross examination that he attested on Ex.P.3 in the evening hours. So, it creates doubt about the presence of PW.5 at the time of conducting of inquest over the dead body of the deceased.

17.As seen from the evidence of PW.8, he deposed that on 19-12- 2017 he received a requisition from SHO., Andra police station for examination of crime vehicle bearing No.AP35X 6191 and A.P. 35 x 9681 and on the same day he inspected the same and found no damages in the said vehicle and road test was conducted and found brake system is good,efficient and even inaction and accordingly he issued Ex.P.7/MVI report and he opined that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. During the course of cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not examine crime vehicle and he issued Ex.P.7 report by sitting in his office without any examination.

18.The evidence of the P.w 8 that she inspected crime vehicle and found not damages in the said vehicle creates doubt in the prosecution case.

19.As seen from the evidence of PW.7, he deposed that on 7-12- 2017 at about 20.15 hrs., PW.1 lodged a report,basing on the same he registered as a case in crime no.132/2017 for the offence U/Ss. 304-A and 337 of IPC and issued Ex.P.5/FIR and he went to the scene of offence situated that

Kompangi village road and observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediator, prepared the observation reportand he also prepared Ex.P.6/rough sketch of the scene of offence, conducted inquest over the dead body,conducted postmortem examination ,recorded the statement of witnesses, sent requisition to MVI for inspecting the crime vehicle tractor 7 bearing no AP 35 X 6191 and trailer No. AP35 X 9681, issued 41-A Cr.P.C.

notices to A.1 and A.2 and during his investigation, it disclosed that A.1 did not give information to police about the incident and also did not give medical aid to PW.1 and A.1 failed to produce his driving license. PW.7 further deposed that A.2 has given his vehicle to A.1 though he has no valid driving license and he received postmortem certificate of deceased, MVI report, Wound certificate of PW.1 and after completion of the investigation,he filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos 1 and2.

20.During the course of cross examination he admitted that he cannot say whether PW.1 visited his police station after visiting hospital or not.

There is a distance of 12 Kilometers from his police station to the scene of offence. P.W 1 alone came to the police station, and he went to the scene of offence at about 21.00 hrs., on 7-12-2017 and he did not site PC 1700 as witness in this case and he did not see the crime vehicle at the scene of offence. He further admitted that he did not observe any skid marks at the scene of offence and he did not collect any blood stain at the scene of offence and he did not seized any items relating to the deceased. It is further admitted that the village Dasarapeta was not mentioned in Ex.P.6.

21.The P.W 7 stated in his chief examination that he went to the scene of offence situated that Kompangi village road and observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediator, prepared the observation report. But the

P.W 6 who is shown as mediator to the scene observation report stated that he is a resident of Budipeta village, the SI of police Andra PS did not request him to act as a mediator to observe the scene of offence at Meesalapeta road , SI did not observe the scene of offence in his presence. SI of police requested him to sign on a written paper and he signed on the said report. The signature on the observation report of the scene of offence belongs to him and his signature is marked as Ex p4. The evidence of P.W 6 creates doubt in the prosecution case regarding observation of the scene of offence.

22.The evidence of PW.7 shows the nature of the investigation done by him.

23.In order to establish criminal liability for the commission of offences punishable 304A of IPC , it was necessary for prosecution to establish that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on a public way in a manner so rash and negligent as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others and while so driving his vehicle the accused had caused an accident resulting in either simple or fatal injuries on the person of the victim of the said accident.

In other words, firstly, prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accident in question has been caused by the offending vehicle being driven by the accused. Secondly, prosecution was also required to prove that the impugned vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at the time of occurrence of the accident in question. Thirdly, prosecution was required to establish that the act of the accused of driving his vehicle rashly and negligently was the proximate and the most immediate cause of the injuries sustained by the victim of the accident in question.

24.In this case the prosecution failed to prove that the accused A1 is the driver of the crime vehicle as except P.W 1 none of the prosecution witness identified the driver of the crime vehicle. The P.W 1 only stated in his chief examination that Acussed No. 1 who is sitting in the dock is the driver of the said tractor trailer at the same time the P.W 1 in the chief examination stated that the accused A1 did not stopped the tractor after the accident and on the other hand during his cross examination the P.W 1 stated that he saw the face of the driver of tractor while he was coming in front of them. The P.W 1 also admitted that the accident was occurred during late evening hours. He did not observe any current poles at the edges of the road leading from Kompangi to scene of offence. The evidence of P.W 1 creates doubt regarding prosecution evidence that if the accident was occurred in the late night and as there are no electric poles near the scene of offence then how the P.w 1 able to see the face of the driver of the tractor at the time of incident. Under these 9 circumstances the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 and as the prosecution failed to prove about the driver of the crime vehicle as such the prosecution also failed to prove the guilt of the A2. In view of the above discussion, court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused NO.1 was driving the the crime vehicle and the prosecution also failed to prove the acquisition leveled against A.1 and A.2 with regard to the M.V.Act. .

25.Under the above circumstances, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused Nos 1 and 2 for the offences levelled against them beyond all reasonable doubt.

26.IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A IPC, 337 of IPC , Section 181 of M.V.Act and

Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and further the Accused No.2 is also found not guilty for the offence under Section 180 of Motor Vehicle Act.

Accordingly,they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused Nos 1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment as required under Section 437-A Cr.P,.C. in order to appear before the Appellate court if any appeal is preferred. As there is no Material Objects marked, no M.O. order is passed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 25 th day of November, 2021.

Sd/-B.V.Vijay Laxmi

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise).

Vizianagaram,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gajapathinagaram 10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution : For defence:NIL.

PW.1: Chinthada Naveen,

PW.2: K. Ravi,

PW.3: K. Madana Mohana Rao,

PW.4: K. Bhuvana,

PW.5:T.YellamNaidu,

PW.6: B.Venu,

PW.7: S.Bhaskara Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra P.S.

PW.8: P.V.Gangadhara Rao, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Salur.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution :

Ex.P.1: Report given by PW.1 to the police/Dated:7-12-2017

Ex.P.2:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3/Dated:8-12-2017.

Ex.P.3: Inquest report/Dated:8-12-2017.

Ex.P.4:Scene Observation report

Ex.P.5:First Information Report/Dated:7-12-2017

Ex.P.6: Rough sketch/Dated: 8-12-2017

Ex.P.7: Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report/Dated:19-12-2017

For defence : -

Nil -

Material objects marked: NIL.

Sd/-B.V.Vijay Laxmi

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise).

Vizianagaram,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gajapathinagaram 11

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS::

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

Calendar and Judgment * * * Dates of offence:7-12-2017 Date of report or complaint:7-12-2017 Date of apprehension of accused:Issued 41-A Cr.P.C Date of release, if any on bail: – -- Date of commencement of trial:17-12-2018 Date of closure of trial:21-06-2019 Date of sentence or order:25-11-2021 Explanation for delay and remarks:- The prosecution did not produce its witnesses from time to time, and hence the delay in disposal of the case.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.NO.130/2018 (in Crime No.132/2017 of Andra Police Station) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Gajapathinagaram.

Complainant:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra Police Station. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused, Age, Father’s Name, calling, Religion, Residence, Mandal.

1. Damalapati Ramu Naidu,S/o. Katamayyam, 22 years,T.Kapu, Chinthadavalasa village,Ment ada mandal, Driver of Tractor No.AP 35 X 6191,Trailer No. AP 35 X 9681.

2. Gedala Rama Murthy, S/o. Late Appala Naidu, 70 years, Kapu, Chinthadavalasa village, Mentada Mandal,Owner of Tractor No. AP 35 X 6191, Trailer No. AP 35 X 9681.

Offence :- 304-A IPC, 337 of IPC , Under Sections 180, 181 and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act.

Finding:- Not guilty. Sentence:-IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A IPC, 337 of IPC , Section 181 of M.V.Act and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and further the Accused No.2 is also found not guilty for the offence under Section 180 of Motor Vehicle Act. Accordingly,they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused Nos 1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment as required under Section 437-A Cr.P,.C. in order to appear before the Appellate court if any appeal is preferred. As there is no Material Objects marked, no M.O. order is passed.

Sd/-B.V.Vijay Laxmi

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise).

Vizianagaram,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gajapathinagaram 12

CC/4/2018 Acquitted

State represented by S.I.of Police, pedamanapuram vs Varri Sankar

10 Mar 2022

CC 04/20181Dated 10.03.2022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,GAJAPATHINAGARAM

Present:- Smt. B.V.Vijay Laxmi Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise, Vizianagaram FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gajapathinagaram

Thursday, this the 10th day of March, 2022

CC.NO. 04 of 2018

Between:-

State Represented by Sub-Inspector

of Police, Pedamanapuram Police Station ... Complainant

And :

Varri Sanker, S/o Sriram, 21 Years, Arikathota Village,

Ramabhadrapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District .. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 04.03.2022 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri K Ramu Naidu,

Advocate for accused and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day , this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police , Pedamanapuram Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime Number 85 /2017 for the offences punish- able under section 11(1)(D)(E) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 and

Section 5 and 6 of A.P. Prohibition of Cow slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977.

2. The brief facts of the charge sheet as follows…

That on 03.07.2017, at 10.00 hours, on receipt of credible information about the illegal transportation of cattle’s in a Bolero, LW2/ N Kumar, ASI with LW1/M

Appanna, PC proceeded towards Railway Gate, Pedamanapuram and at about 10.45 hours, found the bolero bearing NO. AP 35 X 0340 and they stopped the

CC 04/20182Dated 10.03.2022

vehicle, and found transporting the cattle without following norms, and on en- quiry, the accused disclosed his identity particulars and also he stated that, he is the owner of the cattle and engaged to transport the cattle with his Bolero to

Slaughter house for slaughtering and on that, the accused was arrested and seized the 06 cattle and the crime vehicle under the cover of occurrence report and basing on the same, registered it as a case in Crime No. 85/2017 for the of- fence under Sec. 11(1)(D)(E) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act 1960 and Sec.

5 and 6 of Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act of Pedamanapuram PS and later served Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C notices against the accused and after closure of investiga- tion filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sec. 11(1)

(d)(e) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, Sec 5 and 6 of APPCS Act against the accused.

4. Then accused was examined under section 239 of The Criminal Procedure

Code,1973 for the offences punishable under Sec. 429 r/w 511 of IPC 1860, Sec.

11(1)(D)(E) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and under Sec. 10 of A P

Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act and the charges for the offences punishable under Sec. 429 r/w 511 of IPC 1860, Sec. 11(1)(D)(E) of

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and under Sec. 10 of A P Prohibition of

Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act has been read over and explained to the accused in Telugu Language, whereupon he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore he was sent up for trial.

5. The prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 and thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.

6. Then accused was examined under section 313 of The Criminal Procedure

Code,1973 and incriminating circumstances in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4

CC 04/20183Dated 10.03.2022

explained to the accused and he denied prosecution evidence as false .When the accused is questioned , he reported that no defence evidence.

7. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecu- tion and the counsel for accused.

8. Now the point that arise for determination in the case on hand is--- “ Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of accused for the offences punishable under section 429 IPC, 11(1)(d)(e) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal

Act, 1960 and Section 10 of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Ani- mal Preservation Act, 1977, beyond all reasonable doubt “.?

9. POINT :

10.For proving the guilty of accused, prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

11.PW1, who is a police constable, in his evidence stated that on 03.04.2017 at about 10.00 AM, on information himself, LW2 N Kumar and other constables while conducting ride at Pedamanapuram Railway Gate, found one Bolero Van bearing

No. AP 35 X 0340 having cattle in it, and passing towards Gajapathinagaram side, and they stopped the said vehicle and on examination of the van, there are five cattle present in the van by tying their legs and necks with ropes and without providing food and water to the said animals and then they questioned the driver of the van about his identity and the owner of the cattle and the transportation of cattle, and on that, the driver of the said van disclosed his identity as V Sankar, and also further stated that he is the owner of the said cattle and transporting the same to sellers at Visakhapatnam for slaughtering and the said driver is accused in this case and accused disclosed that he has no license for transporting of cattle and then they intimated accused that transportation of cattle by tying them cru- elly and inconveniently like getting pain to them, without providing drinking water

CC 04/20184Dated 10.03.2022

and feeding facility and without following norms properly for cutting is offence and he can identify the accused and then LW2 N Kumar arrested the accused and seized the Bolero van bearing No. AP 35 X 0340 and five cattle under occurrence report as no body available to act as mediators.

12.PW2, who is the owner of the crime vehicle, deposed in his evidence that he is a resident of Arikathota village and he know the accused and that he is the driver of his vehicle and he has given his vehicle for vegetable load but accused has transported cattle’s in his vehicle without consent of him and on 03.07.2017 and caught hold by Pedamanapuram police and then he came to know the said in- cident through Pedamanapuram police and then police examined him and recorded his statement, and he got released his vehicle from the court,

13.PW2 in his cross examination deposed that, he did not seen the seized cattle in this case.

14.PW3 is one of the investigating officer in this case, and he in his evidence, deposed that presently he is working as S I of Police at I Town PS, Vizianagaram and previously he worked as a Sub Inspector of Police at Pedamanapuram and he verified the investigation done by LW2 N Kumar and after completion of investiga- tion, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under

Sec. 11(1)(D)(E) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act and Sec 5 and 6 of A P Pro- hibition of Copws Slaughter and Animal Prevention Act.

15.PW3 in the cross examination denied to the suggestion put forth by the counsel for accused that accused did not commit any offence and that, he is giv- ing false evidence,.

16.PW4 is a retired S I, and previously he worked as ASI of Pedamanapuram PS, and he in his evidence deposed that, on 03.04.2017, at about 10.45 AM, himself

CC 04/20185Dated 10.03.2022

and PW1 were conducting raid at Pedamanapuram Railway gate as per the credi- ble information and at that time, they found one bolero van bearing No. AP 35 X 0340 having six cattle with the legs and neck tied with the rope in a cruel manner without providing food and water to the said animals and he enquired to the driver of the said vehicle and on enquiry he disclosed his name and he loaded the said cattle at his village and taking the said cattle for slaughtering and then they informed the accused that, the act done by him is an offence and by saying so, they arrested the accused and seized the Bolero van along with Six Cattle under the cover of an occurrence report, and drafted by PW1 and they brought the seized Bolero van along with six cattle, Accused, Occurrence report to the police station and basing on the said occurrence report, he registered a case in

Crime No. 85/2017 for the offence under Section 11(1) 11(D), 11(E) of Prevention of Cruelty of Animal Act and Section 5 and 6 of A P Prohibition of Cow Slaughter

Act and Animal Preservation Act, and he issued original FIR Ex.P1 is the

Occurrence Report and Ex.P2 is the Original FIR and he issued Sec. 41 A Cr.P C

Notice to the accused.

17.PW4 in his cross examination admitted that, in order to come from Ram- abadrapuram to Manapuram, one has to cross Burjavalsa and Ramabhadrapuram police stations and that the railway employees will be available for 24 hours at

Manapuram railway gate. PW1 in his cross examination stated that it is true one should cross two police stations from Ramabhadrapuram to Pedamanapuram railway gate

18.P.W 4 in this cross examination that there is a distance of 50 feet from the said railway gate to Manapuram village and that it is not mentioned in the

CC 04/20186Dated 10.03.2022

occurrence report. The P.W 1 in his cross examination stated that the scene of of- fence is a busy locality area and P.W 4/LW2 N Kumar did not secure any mediators.

19.P.W 1 in his cross examination stated that the measurements of each cattle not stated in the occurrence report and P.W 4 did not send the cattle to veterinary doctor for examination and P.W 4 did not obtain the information about the name of the person from whom accused purchased the said cattle and that LW2 N

Kumar did not mention in occurrence report about the slaughtering houses details and the value of seized cattle not stated in the occurrence report and that they did not seize ropes attached to animals and van.

20.The P.W 4 stated in his cross examination that it is not mentioned in the occurrence report Ex.P1 that they tried to secure mediators, but none were came forward and that he did not mention the size and shape of six cattle in the occur- rence report and that he has not seized the rope with which the six cattle were tied and that the witness adds that the ropes were with the six cattle and that he has not produced the said cattle before the veterinary doctor and did not obtain any certificate from the doctor and when question the accused stated that the to- tal six cattle belongs to accused and that he did not enquire with the accused re- garding the slaughter house to which he was taking the cattle.

21.The P.W 1 and P.W 4 admitted that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality but no independent and the local mediators were not shown in this case and the evidence of P.W 1 that the P.W 4 did not tried to secure the mediators cre- ates doubt in the prosecution case.

22.The P.W 1 and P.W 4 also admitted that the ropes with which the cows were tied were not seized by them and also the evidence of P.W 1 and P.W 4 shows that the they did not produce the seized cattles before the veterinary doctor and

CC 04/20187Dated 10.03.2022

did not obtain any certificated from the doctor. This evidence clouds doubt on the point of cruelty against the cattles.

23.The evidence of P.W 1 and P.W 4 that they did not enquire with the accused regarding the slaughter house to which the accused was taking the cattle creates doubt in the prosecution case.

24. Under these circumstances the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

25. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable un- der section 429 IPC, 11(1)(d)(e) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 and

Section 10 of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preserva- tion Act, 1977. Hence , accused is acquitted under section 255(1) of The Criminal

Procedure Code,1973 for the offences punishable under section 429 IPC, 11(1)(d)

(e) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 and Section 10 of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled. The unmarked case property ( ie six cattle ) , and vehicle bearing number. AP 35 X 0340 which was given to accused as interim custody shall holds good, after expiry of appeal time.

Partly typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, and partly prepared by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of March, 2022.

Smt. B .V. VIJAY LAXMI

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise,VZM FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gajapathinagaram

CC 04/20188Dated 10.03.2022

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For prosecution :

P.W.1: M Appanna

P.W.2: P Sekhar Babu

P.W.3: KSKNGA Naidu

P.W.4: N Kumar

For Defence : Nil

Exhibits marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P1 Occurrence Report

Ex.P2 Original F I R

Exhibits marked for Defence : Nil

No of Material Objects Marked : Nil

Smt. B .V. VIJAY LAXMI

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise,VZM FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gajapathinagaram

CC/380/2017 Acquitted

State represented by S.I. of Police, Andra vs Penki Anil Kumar

26 Nov 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS::

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

Present: Smt. B.V.Vijay Laxmi, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act-Cum-III Addl. Junior Civil Judge Vizianagaram,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of the Frist Class, Gajapathinag aram

Friday, this the 26th day of November, 2021

CALENDER CASE No. 380 of 2017

BETWEEN:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra Police Station.

… Complainant.

AND

A.1: Penki Anil Kumar, S/o. Rama Rao,32 years,Kapu,Ravuvariveedhi,Bobbili.

A.2: Penki Ramanamma,W/o.Rama Rao, 57 years,Kapu Ravuvariveedhi,Bobbili;

A.3: Penki Rama Rao,S/o. Late Venkata Rao, 69 years, Kapu, Ravuvari veedhi,Bobbili;

A.4: Bhogi Subbamma @ Appayyamma,W/o.late Appala Swamy,90 years, Kapu,Ravuvari veedhi,Bobbili;

A.5: Bhogi Satya Rao,S/o. Lat Appalaswamy, 60 years,Kapu Ravuvari veedhi,Bobbili;

A.6: Bhogi Appala Narasamma,D/o.late Appalaswamy, 55 years,Kapu,R avuvari veedhi,Bobbili;

A.7: Kattamuri Rupa Vani, W/io. Rama Rao, 36 years, Mahabuba Bad, Warangal District;

A.8: Kattamuri Rama Rao,S/o. Appa Rao,40 years,Kapu ,Mahabubabad Warangal District;

A.9: Penki Kiran Kumar, S/o.R ama Rao,34 years, Kapu,Ravuvari veedhi, Bobbili;

A.10: Penki Kalyani, W/o.Rama Rao,28 years, Kapu,Ravuvari veedhi,Bobbili.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on 26-11-2021 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri M. Simhachalam,Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing both sides, considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- 2

::JUDGMENT::

1. This is a case filed by Sub Inspector of Police, Andra Police Station against the Accused in Cr.No. 70/2017 for the offence under Section 498-A

IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that, A.1 is the husband of PW.1,

A.2 is mother-in-law of PW.1, A.3 is father-in-law of PW.1 and A.9 and A.10 are brother-in-law and co-sister of PW.1 and all of them are the residents of

Ravuvari veedhi, Bobbili Municipality. The marriage of PW.1 was performed with A.1 on 23-3-2016 at Laxmi Function Hall,Bobbili and the said marriage was performed as per their caste customs and at the time of marriage on the request of her -in-law (A.1,A.2,A.3, A.9 and A.10), Lws Pws 2 and 3 gave Rs.

6,00,000/- and also gave an amount of Rs. 60,000/- towards Adapaduchu lanchanamulu, Rs.85,000/- towards motor cycle and also attended an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards Saresamanulu. Further Pws 2 and 3 gave wg. 2 1/2 tula gold (bracelet). Later, A.1 took PW.1 properly at Bobbili and after that A.1 to A.3, A.9 and A.10 started to harass PW.1 both mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry from the parents of PW.1. As PW.1 expressed her inability, A.1, A.2, A.3, A.9 and A.10 pushed PW.1 from their house and that

PW.1 went to her parents house and informed the harassment made by them.

While so, during that time, A.1 to A.3 came to the house of PW.1 at

Gurrammavalasa and argued with PW.1,PW.2 and PW.3 and warned them to bring additional dowry or write a land to Anil Kumar (A.1) instead of additional dowry. As such, the matter was placed before the elders, but invain. So, basing on the complaint given by PW.1, the police registered the same as a case and investigated into and during the course of investigation, the police served the notices on the accused as required under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and after completion of the entire investigation as prescribed under law, the complainant filed the charge sheet.

3. On the receipt of the charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence Under Sec.498-A of IPC r/w 34 of IPC, 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act. On appearance of the Accused (A.1 to A.10), copies of the case documents are furnished to them as contemplated Under Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, and they were examined Under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. A charge for the offence Under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A.1 to A.10; and a charge under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A.1 to A.3 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

4 During the trial, on behalf of the prosecution Pws.1 to 3 are examined and Ext:P1 to P3 were marked.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7. Now the point arise for my determination are:

“Whether the prosecution has proved and established the guilt of the Accused Nos 1 to 10 for the charges levelled against them?

8.Point:

This Court has gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and exhibits exhibited. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are very much available on record in the form of deposition and thus it is not necessary to reproduce the same again in the Judgment. However,

before going into merits of the case it is just and proper to know the gist of

their testimonies.

9. In order prove the guilt of Accused for the offences state Supra, the prosecution has placed reliance upon testimony Pws 1 to 3 coupled with

Ex.P1 to P3.

10. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, she deposed that her marriage with A.1 was performed at Bobbili in Kalyana Mandapam on 23-3- 2016 and her parents presented Rs. 6,00,000/- cash and Rs.85,000/- for purchasing bike, Rs.60,000/- towards adpaduchu lanchanalu and also presented Five Tulas of gold Rs. 1,00,000/- towards sarisamanulu to A1 his family and later PW.1 joined with A.1 to lead marital life at Bobbili; that A.2 to

A.6,A.9 and A.10 are also residing with A.1 and A.1 and his family members looked after her for a period of two months and then A.1 and his family members started harassment towards her both physically and mentally for bringing additional dowry; that she did not inform about the harassment of A.1 and his family members to her parents for some time.

11. The evidence of PW.1 is deferred and later she was sworn for continuation of chief examination by the learned APP on 18-11-2021 and on that day her evidence goes to show thatshe placed the matter before her parents and her parents asked the accused about the harassment along with elders, for which A.1 to A.10 promised to look after her well and from then,

A.1 to A.10 look after her well. PW.1 further deposed that A.1 to A.10 never demanded her for any additional dowry and never harassed her for anything and her elders obtained her signature on written paper. PW.1 further deposed that she does not know the contents of the written report and the learned

APP confronted the signature on the written report and that PW.1 stated that the signature on the written report is not that of her.

12.The learned APP declared PW.1 as hostile and PW.1 was cross examined by learned APP, but nothing was elicited during the course of cross 5 examination of PW.1. PW.1 denied her 161 Cr.P.C. statement which was marked as Ex.P.1.

13.As seen from the evidence of parents of PW.1 who were examined as Pws 2 and 3 respectively , they also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and they also denied their 161 Cr.P.C.

statements which were marked as Ex.P.2 and P.3 respectively.

14.In the present matter the star witness of the prosecution was the complainant, however, she turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution as she did not depose anything on the lines of her complaint.

Similarly, the parents of PW.1 who were examined as Pws 2 and 3 also not supported the case of prosecution and that no offence is proved against accused. As Pws 1 to 3 turned hostile, the learned A.P.P. given up remaining list of witnesses. Hence, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its allegations levelled against the Accused Nos 1 to 10. In view of the above discussion and considering the material, available on record, the guilt of the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the point is answered.

15.IN THE RESULT, the Accused Nos 1 to 10 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Sections 498-A of IPC and under Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, A.1 to A.3 are also found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly they are acquitted Under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused No.s 1 to 10 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of

Judgment as envisaged Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. in order to appear

before the appellate court if any appeal is preferred.

(Typed to my Dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 26 th day of November, 2021.

Sd/-B.V.Vijay Laxmi

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise) Vizianagaram FAC/Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gajapathinagaram 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW.1 Penki Dhana Laxmi PW.2Tallaparthy Tulasi PW.3 Tallaparty Nageswara Rao

WITNESS EXAMINED OF BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1/Dated:9-8-2017 Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2/Dated:9-8-2017 Ex.P.3161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3/Dated:9-8-2017

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--NIL--

Sd/-B.V.Vijay Laxmi

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise)

Vizianagaram

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Gajapathinagaram

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS::

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

Date of offence: After two months from the date of marriage of PW.1 with A.1 which was performed on 23-3-2016.

Date of report or complaint: 9-8-2017 Date of apprehension of accused: Issued 41-A Cr.P.C. Notice to all the accused.

Date of release, if any on bail: -- Date of commencement of trial: 3-7-2019 Date of close of trial: 18-11-2021 Date of sentence or order: 26-11-2021 Explanation for delay and remarks :- --

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.380/2017 (Crime No.70/2017 of Andra Police Station)on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,Gajapathinagaram.

Complainant:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra Police Station. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused, Age, Father’s Name, calling, Religion, Residence, Mandal. A.1: Penki Anil Kumar, S/o. Rama Rao,32 years,Kapu,Ravuvariveedhi,Bobbili.