IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::
KALYANDURG.
Present: BANDE SUBHAN,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Kalyandurg.
Friday, this the 17 th day of January, 2025.
C alendar C ase No. 2799 of 2022 .
(Crime No.310 of 2020 of Settur Police Station)
The State: represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police,
Settur Police Station. … Complainant.
Vs.
Gudi Narendra Naidu, aged 32 years,
Son of late Gudi Ramanjineyulu,
Resident of Narasanayanikunta Village,
OC Colony, Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal, (Stated to be rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.AP39-AN-2588).
...Accused.
* * * * *
This case came up on 16-01-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Ramakrishna, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,
Kalyanadurgam for Complainant and Sri K.Mallikarjuna, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Settur Police Station has filed a charge sheet against the accused alleging that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to
JMFC, KLD. Page 2 of 17 CC No.2799 of 2022.
2. be referred as ‘IPC’ for brevity) and Sections 184, 196 read with 146 of
Motor Vehicle Act in Crime No.310 of 2020 of his Police Station.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
a) On 11.09.2021 morning hours Golla Thimmappa (hereinafter to be referred as deceased for the sake of brevity and convenience) went to Golla Giriyappa’s fields to discuss hired charges of groundnut cutting machine. After completion of work, the deceased left the place and returned to his home by walk.
While proceeding to his house on the way near Golla Sanna
Kenchappa’s garden at about 08.00 pm., the accused bring the rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.AP39-AN-2588 leading from Kundurpi village rode the said motorcycle in a rash and negligence manner and dashed the deceased and the same was witnessed by LW.5/PW.5/Golla Govindu, who informed the same to LW.1/PW.1/Golla Govindarajulu over phone, who along with others rushed to the spot and found that the deceased lying on the road with head bleeding injuries and abrasions injuries on both legs and hands. The rider of motorcycle also ailing with blood injuries. Immediately, PW.1 and others shifted the deceased and accused/rider of motorcycle to Community Health
Center, Kalyandurg, where the duty doctors examined the deceased and declared as brought dead. The road accident occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the accused/rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.AP39-AN-2588.
b) Basing on the report of PW.1, on 12.09.2020 at about 08.00 am., LW.14/PW.8/G.Siva, the then Sub-Inspector of Police,
Settur Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.310/2020 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and investigated into.
JMFC, KLD. Page 3 of 17 CC No.2799 of 2022.
During the course of investigation, on the same day he visited the Mortuary room, Community Health Center, Kalyandurg and secured the presence of blood relatives of deceased i.e., PWs1 to 5 and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased from 09.00 am., to 11.30 am., after completion of inquest, he forwarded the dead body of deceased for autopsy through PC along with postmortem requisition to the duty medical officer,
Community Health Center, Kalyandurgam. Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, and examined witnesses cited in the memo of evidence at the scene of offence and recorded their statements under
Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. On 02.11.2020 the accused voluntarily came to the police station and appear before PW.8 by admitting the guilt in this case. Then, he verified the vehicle records and found that all are in force. Then, he served notice to the accused under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and forwarded a requisition to the
Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ananthapuramu for inspection of the vehicle. LW.12/Dr.M.Krishnaveni, Medical Officer, Community
Health Center, Kalyandurgam, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued postmortem examination report to that effect and opined that ‘the deceased died due to hemorrhage and shock because of multiple injuries’.
LW.13/Md.Ismail Khan, Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the crime motorcycle and also issued MVI report to that effect opined that ‘the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle’. The accused being the rider of crime motorcycle bearing registration No.AP39-AN-2588 rode the said motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and committed the offence and at the time of road accident, the motorcycle not covered under insurance and so, PW.8 added Section 184, 196
JMFC, KLD. Page 4 of 17 CC No.2799 of 2022.
of Motor Vehicles Act. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.
4. After perusal of the charge sheet filed under Section 173(2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for brevity) and connected documents thereon, this Court took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 304-A of IPC and Section 184, 196 of MV Act and numbered the case as C.C.No.2799 of 2022 and issued summons to him.
5. On appearance of the accused before the Court on 23.01.2024, he was supplied with copies of case documents as mandated under
Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
6. On 06.06.2024, he was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 184, 196 read with 146 of MV
Act in Telugu for which the accused denied the commission of offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW’s.1 to 8 out of fourteen listed witnesses and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.14.
PW.1 is the informant-cum-son of deceased; PWs.2 to 5 are the wife, daughter, younger brother and relatives respectively;PW.6 is the neighbour as well as same villager stated to be the direct eye witness.
PW.7 is the one of inquest panchayathdar. PW.8 is the Investigating
Officer in this case; Exhibit P.1 is the signature of PW.1 on alleged report, dated 12.09.2020. Exhibits P.2 to P.7 and P.9 are Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C statements of PWs.1 to 7 respectively; Exhibit P.8 is the inquest report of deceased Thimmappa. Exhibit P.10 is the First
Information Report in Crime No.310 of 2020 of Settur Police Station;
JMFC, KLD. Page 5 of 17 CC No.2799 of 2022.
Exhibit P.11 is the written report of PW.1, dated 12.09.2020. Exhibit
P.12 is the postmortem report of the deceased/Thimmappa. Exhibit
P.13 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence; Exhibit P.14 is the
Motor Vehicle Inspection report.
8. As material witnesses PW’s.1 to 7 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses cited in the memo of evidence i.e., LW.6/Golla Chitthappa, LW.7/Golla Sivanna, LW.9/
M.Ramakrishna, LW.11/Golla Sivanna, LW.12/Dr.M.Krishnaveni, Civil
Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, Kalyanadurgam and
LW.13/Md.Ismail Khan, Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, MVI office,
Ananthapuramu, since no purpose would be served if they would be examined on behalf of the prosecution.
9. After completion of prosecution side evidence on 16.01.2025, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu. The accused denied the evidence as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.
10.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and the learned defence counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.
11.Now the point for determination is:
i) Whether Golla Thimmappa died due a road accident?
ii) Whether the death of said Golla Thimmappa was caused by a
motorcycle bearing registration No.AP39-AN-2588 during the
accident ?
iii) If so, whether accused was the rider of the said motorcycle
JMFC, KLD. Page 6 of 17 CC No.2799 of 2022.
bearing registration No.AP39-AN-2588 at the time of accident?
iv) If so, whether the death of Golla Thimmappa was caused due
to rash or negligent riding of the accused?
v) If so, whether the act of the accused is not amount to culpable homicide?
vi) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the
accused or the offence charged under Section 304-A of IPC and
Section 184, 196 read with 146 of MV Act beyond all reasonable
doubt?
12.The gravamen of the allegations against the accused is that on On 11.09.2021 morning hours the deceased/Golla Thimmappawent to
Golla Giriyappa’s fields to discuss hired charges of groundnut cutting machine. After completion of discussion, the deceased returned to his home by walk. While proceeding to his house on the way near Golla
Sanna Kenchappa’s garden at about 08.00 pm., the accused bring the rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.AP39-AN-2588 coming from Kundurpi village rode the said motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased and the same was witnessed by
PW.5, who informed the same to PW.1 over phone, who is son of deceased, in turn he along with others rushed to the spot and found that the deceased lying on the road with head bleeding injuries and abrasions injuries on both legs and hands. The rider of motorcycle also ailing with blood injuries. Immediately, PW.1 and others shifted the deceased and also accused to Community Health Center, Kalyandurg for treatment, where the duty doctors examined the deceased and declared as brought dead. Whereas the defence of the accused is total denial and he submitted that he never involved in causing the road accident and he never committed any offence as alleged against him.
Therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish its case
JMFC, KLD. Page 7 of 17 CC No.2799 of 2022.
against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
13.To bring home the guilt of the accused for the said offences, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 8 and placed reliance on
Exhibits P1 to P14.
14. POINT NO.I:
In order to prove an offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, the essential elements are that i) there must be the death of a person; ii) the death must be caused by the act of the accused; iii) the death must be caused due to any rash or negligent act of the accused; and iv) the act of the accused must not amount to culpable homicide.
15.The prosecution’s first witness - PW.1, who is son of deceased testifies that in the year, 2020 on a day at about 8.30 pm., while he was at his house, some of his villagers informed him that his father
G.Thimmappa met with an accident, while he was proceeding from
Kundurpi to Kambalapalle by walk on Kalyandurg to Kambalapalle village road near Kenchappa’s Mango garden. Immediately, he along with his relatives went there and found the deceased with injuries.
Then, he and his relatives shifted the deceased to Community Health
Center, Kalyandurg on a 108 ambulance vehicle for treatment. There the duty doctor examined his father and declared as brought dead due to injuries caused in the accident. While he present at dead body of deceased, the police came there and obtained his signatures on some written papers, he does not know the contents of those written papers and he does not know anything about the facts of the case. He does not know the manner of the accident and particulars of the crime vehicle as well as the accused in this case and further he does not know with whose negligence this accident was occurred. He does not
JMFC, KLD. Page 8 of 17 CC No.2799 of 2022.
know the registration number of two wheeler of the accused. Except his signature on alleged report, dated 12.09.2020, he does not know the contents of report and what purpose the police obtained signatures. He deposes that he does not know the manner of the accident and who is responsible for that accident and he was not examined by the police. Though, the PW.1 deposes in his evidence that his father i.e., the deceased succumbed to the injuries in a road accident, but his evidence is quite contrary to the report said to have been given by him to the police. Hence, Exhibit P1-report is of no avail to the case of prosecution as the prosecution failed to prove the contents of the same.
16.The second, third, fourth and fifth witnesses for the prosecution –
PWs.2 to 4, who are wife, daughter and younger brother of deceased respectively and also deposes in the same lines of PW.1.
17.The testimony of other witnesses for the prosecution viz., PWs.5 and 6, who are stated to be the direct eye witnesses to the occurrence of road accident, also does not support the version of prosecution case.
Since the PWs.1 to 6, who are said to be the material witnesses, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has put some leading questions to them in the form of cross-examination with the permission of the Court, but nothing could be elicited from their evidence except marking of the signature of PW.1 in the report as Exhibit P1 and the Sec.161(3)
Cr.P.C statements of PW’s.1 to 6 as Exhibits P2 to P7 respectively.
18.On coming to the evidence of PW.7, who is stated be acted as inquest panchayathdar at the time of inquest, his evidence goes to show that in the year, 2020 on a day at about 7.00 pm., while he was at his
JMFC, KLD. Page 9 of 17 CC No.2799 of 2022.
house, some of his villagers informed him that G.Thimmappa met with an accident, while he was proceeding from Kundurpi to Kambalapalle by walk on Kalyandurg to Kambalapalle village road near Kenchappa’s
Mango garden. Immediately, he along with his relatives went there and found the deceased with injuries. Then, they shifted the deceased to
Community Health Center, Kalyandurgam on a 108 amublance vehicle for treatment. There the duty doctor examined him and declared as brought dead due to injuries caused in the accident. While he was present at the dead body of deceased, police came there and enquired about his name and address particulars. Then, PW.8 requested him to act as mediator for inquest of dead body of deceased. Accordingly, himself, LW.9/Ramakrishna and LW.11/Golla Sivanna were acted as inquest panchaythdars. Then, the police have obtained the signatures of PW.7, LW.9/Ramakrishna and LW.11/Golla Sivanna on Exhibit P8-
Inquest report of deceased/Thimmappa, dated 12.09.2020 and they were opined that the deceased/Thimmappa died due to injuries caused in the road accident. He does not know the manner of accident, particulars of crime vehicle and driver of the crime vehicle and with whose negligence the road accident occurred. Except, these details he does not know anything about facts of the case. Therefore, from the evidence of the PWs’1 to 7, it is very clear that deceased
Golla Thimmappa died due to a road accident. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution.
19. POINT NO.II:
On coming to the evidence of PW.8, who conducted investigation in this case, it goes to show that on 12.09.2020 at about 08.00 am., while he was in Settur police station, PW.1 came with a written report.
Basing on Exhibit P11-written report of PW.1, dated 12.09.2020, he registered a case in Crime No.310 of 2020 for the offence punishable
JMFC, KLD. Page 10 of 17 CC No.2799 of 2022.
under Section 304-A of IPC of Settur Police Station and issued Exhibit
P10-First Information Report. Thereafter, he left the police station along with PW.1 went to the Community Health Center, Kalyana- durgam at about 9.00 am., there he found the dead body of deceased/Golla Thimmappa. Then, he secured the presence of blood relatives of deceased and inquest panchayathdars viz., PW.2, PW.3,
PW.4 and PW.5, LW.7/Sivanna and PW.7 and LW.9/Ramakrishna.
Then, in the presence of PW.7 and LW.9/Ramakrishna, he held inquest over the dead body of deceased and prepared Exhibit P.8- inquest report. At the time of inquest, he examined PWs1 to 5 and recorded their detailed statements in part – II CD. Thereafter, he made a requisition to the Duty Doctor for conducting postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased. Accordingly, LW.12/
Dr.M.Krishnaveni conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased and issued Ex.P12-postmortem certificate of deceased Thimmappa. After completion of postmortem examination, he handed over the dead body of deceased to his relatives and obtained proper acknowledgment. Then, he left the hospital and visited the scene of offence, which is situated at Kalyanadurgam to Kundurpi road at near Jayaram Reddy’s agricultural fields. There, he observed the scene and drew rough sketch under Exhibit P13. In the scene of offence he found one two wheeler bearing registration No.AP-39-AN- 2588. Then, he shifted the said two wheeler to the police station through PC for motor vehicle inspection purpose. Thereafter, at the scene of offence he secured the presence of LW.6/Golla Chittappa,
LW.7/Golla Sivanna and PW.6 examined them and recorded their statements. He further deposes that on 17.10.2020, he received postmortem certificate of deceased from LW.12/Dr.M.Krishnaveni,
CHC, Kalyanadurgam. During the course of further investigation, he made a requisition to MV Inspector for the inspection of crime vehicle.
JMFC, KLD. Page 11 of 17 CC No.2799 of 2022.
Accordingly, LW.13/ M.D.Ismail Khan, AMVI, inspected the crime vehicle and issued Ex.P14-Motor vehicle inspection report opining that “the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle”. On 02.11.2020, when he was present in the police station, the accused voluntarily appeared before him and admitted guilty of the offence. Then, he ascertained the identity and address particulars of accused and received crime vehicle records from the accused. After serving Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice upon the accused, he released the accused with a direction to appear before the Court whenever required and released the crime vehicle to the registered owner after proper identification and acknowledgment. After completion of the entire investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case against the accused. PWs 1 to 7 stated before him as in Exs.P2 to P7 i.e., their respective statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C.
20.A perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that an accident occurred on 12.09.2020 at about 08.00 pm., near Golla Sanna Kenchanna’s garden, situated at Kalyandurgam to Kundurpi road at near Jayaram
Reddy’s agricultural fields, wherein the deceased sustained severe head injury and other injuries and that the deceased succumbed due to heavy head injuries. The prosecution has prosecuted the accused by fixing the responsibility upon him stating he was the rider of the crime vehicle motorcycle bearing registration No.AP39-AN-2588 at the time of the accident and rode the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the deceased, who proceeding by walk and thereby he caused the accident as well as death of the deceased. In order to prove the same, the prosecution has relied upon the direct evidence of PWs.5 and 6 as well as indirect evidence of Pws.1 to 4, 7 and 8.
21.The PWs.5 and 6, who are stated to be the direct eye-witnesses to the
JMFC, KLD. Page 12 of 17 CC No.2799 of 2022.
accident, did not support the case of prosecution as already stated above. The prosecution also examined the son, wife, daughter and younger brother of deceased as PWs.1 to 4 to corroborate the evidence of PW.5 and 6, but they too turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case as stated supra. Since the PWs.1 to 7 are turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has put some leading questions to them in the form of cross-examination with the permission of the
Court, but nothing could be elicited from their evidence except marking of their Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements as Exhibits P2 to P7 and P9 respectively. Since the Exhibits P2 to P7 and P9 statements are meant for only to contradict its makers, this Court is of view that the said statements are of no avail to the prosecution. The Investigating
Officer/PW.8 testifies that the procedural aspects of the investigation done by him subsequent to the accident. But, no document has been filed to connect the criminal liability to motorcycle bearing registration
No.AP-39-AN-2588 during the accident. From these oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove that the death of said Golla Thimmappa was caused by a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-39-AN-2588 during the accident. Therefore, this point is answered against the prosecution.
22. POINT NO.III:
Since the PWs’ 1 to 4 and 6 are not the eye-witnesses to the accident, their evidence is of no avail to the case of prosecution to establish that the accused was the rider of the crime vehicle at the time of accident.
Further, the prosecution has not placed any oral or documentary evidence to show that accused was the rider of the said motorcycle bearing registration No.AP39-AN-2588 at the time of accident.
Therefore, this Court safely comes a conclusion that the accused was
JMFC, KLD. Page 13 of 17 CC No.2799 of 2022.
not the rider of the said motorcycle bearing registration No.AP39-AN- 2588 at the time of accident. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.
23. POINT NO.IV:
Basing upon the above discussion and evidence on record, the Court concluded that the accused was not the rider of the said motorcycle bearing registration No.AP39-AN-2588 at the time of accident as negatively answered in Point No.III. The question of accused rode the said vehicle at high speed and in negligent manner, thereby he was responsible for the said accident does not arise. Though, the prosecution could establish that the deceased met with an accident on 11.09.2020 at about 08.00 pm., near Golla Sanna Kenchappa’s garden on Kalyandurg to Kambalapalle road of Kalyandurg Mandal and succumbed with severe head injury with the aid of Exhibit P8-
Inquest report, but failed to establish that the accused was responsible for that accident. According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. It will be seen that a fact may be said to be proved under one of the two possible situations – 1) either the Court believes that the fact exists, or 2) the Court considers existence of the fact probable. There is no indication in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act that a fact can be said to be proved, even when the Court entertains a reasonable doubt as to whether the fact exists or not. Thus, in the absence of cogent and convincing evidence, it cannot be safe to fasten the liability on the accused that he was the rider of crime vehicle as on the date of accident and thereby he drove the same in a rash and negligent
JMFC, KLD. Page 14 of 17 CC No.2799 of 2022.
manner and caused the accident. Therefore, it can be concluded that the death of Golla Thimmappa was not caused due to rash or negligent driving of the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered against prosecution.
24. POINT NO.V:
Since the Point No’s. III and IV are answered against the prosecution, it is not necessary to answer Point No.V.
25. POINT NO.VI
It is settled Law that in a criminal trial that it is the prosecution who alleges that the accused has committed the offence and so the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the same. In criminal cases, the guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is, the benefit will go the accused. At this juncture it is pertinent to refer a decision made in Botcha Raju vs. State Rep.
By the Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle 1 , wherein it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. Further, in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ashok Kumar
Srivastava 2, it was observed that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. Thus, a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court about the guilt of the accused.
1 1994 (2) ALT (Criminal) 69 (AP). 2 1992 Crl.LJ 1104.
JMFC, KLD. Page 15 of 17 CC No.2799 of 2022.
26. It is also alleged by the prosecution that the accused not uninsured crime vehicle at the time of accident and rode the same in rash and negligent manner, due to which he dashed the deceased Golla
Thimmappa while proceeding by walk and caused to his death. As discussed in Point No.I to V, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused used the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Further, there is no whisper in the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses that the accused rode crime vehicle which was not insured and thereby drove the same in negligent manner. Therefore, the Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sections 184, 196 read with 146 of Motor Vehicle
Act besides Section 304A of IPC, beyond the reasonable doubts.
Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.
27.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of view that the
prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC
and Section 184, 146 read with 196 of MV Act beyond all
reasonable doubt. Thus, the accused is entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.
28.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 184, 146 read
with 196 of Motor Vehicles Act.
a) Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Section 255(1) of
Cr.P.C. for the said offence.
b) The bail bonds of the accused if any and his sureties executed earlier shall be treated as bail bonds in view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the
JMFC, KLD. Page 16 of 17 CC No.2799 of 2022.
judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 17.01.2025.
c) No property was produced in this case before the Court. Hence, no orders passed regarding property.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17 th day of January, 2025.
Sd/- BANDE SUBHAN,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Kalyandurg.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1: Golla Govindarajulu (Son of deceased Thimmappa).
PW.2: Golla Thayamma (Wife of deceased Thimmappa).
PW.3: Golla Padmavathi (Daughter of deceased Thimmappa).
PW.4: Golla Giriyappa (Younger brother of deceased Thimmappa).
PW.5: Golla Govindu (stated to be blood relative of deceased
Thimmappa).
PW.6: Vadde Ganganna (stated to be eye witness).
PW.7: Golla Chittappa (stated to be inquest-witness).
PW.8: G.Siva, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Settur Police Station.
FOR DEFENCE:
-None-
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
Exhibit P.1: Signature of PW1 on alleged report, - Nil-
dated 12.09.2020.
JMFC, KLD. Page 17 of 17 CC No.2799 of 2022.
Exhibit P.2: Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1.
Exhibit P.3: Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2.
Exhibit P.4: Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3.
Exhibit P.5: Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4.
Exhibit P.6: Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5.
Exhibit P.7: Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6.
Exhibit P.8: Inquest report of deceased Thimmappa.
Exhibit P.9: Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7.
Exhibit P.10: First Information Report in Cr.No.310/2020,
dated 12.09.2020.
Exhibit P.11: Written report of PW.1, dated 12.09.2020.
Exhibit P.12: Postmortem certificate of deceased Thimmappa.
Exhibit P.13: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.
Exhibit P.14: Motor Vehicle Inspection Report.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-NIL-
Sd/- BANDE SUBHAN,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Kalyandurg.
//True copy//
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Kalyandurg.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::
KALYANDURG.
Present: BANDE SUBHAN,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Kalyandurg.
Friday, this the 17 th day of January, 2025.
Calendar in C.C.No. 2799 of 2022.
(As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Criminal Trial
Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re. vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh ’ 3 )
FORM – A & B
ComplainantThe Sub-Inspector of Police, Settur Police Station.
Represented byAssistant Public Prosecutor
AccusedGudi Narendra Naidu, aged 32 years, Son of late Gudi Ramanjineyulu,Residentof Narasanayanikunta Village, OC Colony, Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal, (Stated to be rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.AP39-AN-2588).
Represented bySri K.Mallikarjuna, Advocate, Kalyandurg.
Nature of offenceSection 304-A of IPC and Section 184, 146 read with 196 of MV Act.
Date of offence 11-09-2020
Date of F.I.R.12-09-2020
Date of Charge Sheet15-12-2022
Date of framing of Charges06-06-2024
Date of commencement of03-01-2025 evidence 3(2021) 10 SCC 598
Date of which Judgment is17-01-2025 reserved
Date of the sentencing the17-01-2025 orders if any
Finding of the CourtFound not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 184, 146 read with 196 of MV Act.
Explanation for delayThis case is taken on file on 15.12.2022; on 23.01.2024 copies furnished to the accused; on 06.06.2024, he was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. and he pleaded not guilty; on 03.01.2025,07.01.2025, 08.01.2025 and 10.01.2025 PWs1 to PW.8 are examined, Exs.P.1 to P.14 are marked, on 16.01.2025, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and on 17.01.2025 heard arguments from both sides and on the same day the Judgment pronounced (Vide Separate Judgment). Hence the delay.
Sentence or Order : The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 184, 146 read with 196 of MV Act. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused if any and his sureties executed earlier shall be treated as bail bonds in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 17.01.2025. No property was produced in this case before the Court. Hence, no orders passed regarding property.
ACCUSED DETAILS
Rank ofName ofDateDate ofOffenceWhetherSentencePeriod of AccusedAccusedofrelease onchargedAcquittedimposeddetentio arrestBailwithorn convictedundergo ne during trial for purpose of Section 428 Cr.P.C. SoleGudi ------304-AAcquitted-------- Narendra of IPC, Naidu184, 146 r/w 196 of MV Act
FORM - C
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES
PROSECUTION
PW.1Golla GovindarajuluDefacto-complainant
PW.2Golla ThayammaHearsay witness
PW.3Golla PadmavathiHearsay witness
PW.4Golla GiriyappaHearsay witness
PW.5Golla GovinduDirect eye-witness
PW.6Vadde GangannaDirect eye-witness
PW.7Golla ChittappaInquest panchayathdar
PW.8G.SivaPolice witness
DEFENCE WITNESSES IF ANY
Nil
COURT WITNESSES IF ANY
Nil
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS
PROSECUTION
Sl.No.Exhibit No.Description 1Ex.P.1Signature of PW.1 on alleged report, dated 12.09.2020 2Ex.P.2161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1.
3Ex.P.3161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2.
4Ex.P.4161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3.
5Ex.P.5161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4.
6Ex.P.6161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5.
7Ex.P.7161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6.
8Ex.P.8Inquest report of deceased Thimmappa, dated 12.09.2020 9Ex.P.9161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7.
10Ex.P.10First Information Report, dated 12.09.2020 11Ex.P.11Written report of PW.1, dated 12.09.2020.
12Ex.P.12Postmortem certificate of deceased Thimmappa.
13Ex.P.13Rough sketch of the scene of offence.
14Ex.P.14Motor Vehicle Inspection Report.
DEFENCE EXHIBITS
Nil
COURT EXHIBITS
Nil
MATERIAL OBJECTS
Sl.No.MaterialObject Description
Number -NIL-
Sd/- BANDE SUBHAN,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Kalyandurg. Copy Submitted to: The Hon`ble First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.
//True copy//
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Kalyandurg.
DIS.No._______, Dt.17-01-2025.