Sri C. Suresh

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM – II-ADDL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::NARASARAOPET

PRESENT : SRI C. SURESH II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Dated this the 18th day of December, 2018

C.C.373/2018

Between :

State: SHO, Proh. & Excise,Sub-Inspector, Sattenapalli. (Cr.No.52/18) … COMPLAINANT

Vs.

Shaik Gouse Mohiddin @ Bujji, S/o Chinna Mahaboob Subhani,

29 years, Caste – Muslim, R/o Munagapadu, Phirangipuram Mandal. ... ACCUSED

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri G.Suresh Babu, counsel for the accused and after perusing the case records, hearing upon the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following :

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

1.Accused stand charge sheeted by the Proh. & Excise Inspector,

Sattenapalli, for offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

2.In brief, it is the case of the prosecution, that on 21-07-2018, Lw.3 to 6 and staff of Porh. & Excise Enforcement wing, Guntur, in Government hired vehicle i.e.,

TATA Sumo bearing registration No.AP07 TV 0974, while conducting patrolling for

Proh. & Excise offences and at about 9-00 am reached at Jaya Mathasri Pustaka

Bhadaru Grandhalayam Center, in Munagapadu Village, Phirangipuram Mandal and noticed the accused standing there and conducting liquor sales and on seeing the

Excise officials in uniform, the accused tried to skulk away. Having observed the same,

Lw.6 on suspicion , got detained him and on enquiry, the accused admitted possession of Liquor bottles, in the back polythene carry bag, held by him. In order to verify the said bag, in possession of accused, in the presence of mediators, Lw.6 sent Lw.3 for mediators, after some time Lw.3 returned along with Lws.1 and Lw.2 to the scene of offence. Lw.6 on verification of the said black polythene carry bag, found it contains 8- 180 ml. Any Time Fine Whisky bottles with full of liquor, company seals, labels and their

HEALs were tearing out. In the presence of mediators, on enquiry, the accused 2 furnished his name and address particulars. On further enquiry, the accused replied that he was not possessed any license or bill or permit pertaining to the said liquor bottels. In the presence of mediators Lws.1 and 2, Lw.6 had taken one bottle, as the samples for analysis and affixed identity slips to the samples, liquor bottles, seized the same and arrested accused under cover of mediators report.

Basing on the special report, this case in Cr.No.52/2018 under Section 34

(a) of A.P. Excise Act was registered by Lw.6 and produced the accused before this court, then the seized sample was sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis and report and upon receiving the analysis report and on completion of investigation, Lw.7 laid charge sheet against the accused under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

3.The charge sheet was taken on file against accused under Section 34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to her under Section 207 Cr.P.C. She was examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C. A Charge under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act was framed against her, read over and explained to her. She denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to Pw.4 examined. Exs.P1 to P4 and Mo.1 got marked.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating material available on record. he denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

7.Heard both sides and perused the case record.

8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT :

PW.1 – N.Pulla Rao deposed that on 21-7-2018 at about 9-15 a.m., while he was present at Phirangipuram inspector of police Prohibition and Excise called him over cell 3 phone and requested him to act as mediator and at his request he along with Shaik Ali visited scene of offence situated at Library in Munagapadu village and he noticed the accused and Excise officials and they found 8 liquor bottles in the possession of accused in a cover. The accused did not confess with regard to source of supply of liquor bottles but Excise officials seized 8 liquor bottles from the possession of accused under a cover of Ex.P1 mediatornama and drawn one sample from the seized bottle and seized remaining bottles. Excise officials obtained his signature on Ex.P1. Excise officials taken the accused along with liquor bottles in their vehicles. Mo.1 is the sample bottle which is drawn from the seized liquor bottles by Excise officials from the possession of accused.

10.PW.2 –V.Dasu, P & E Constable deposed that on 21-7-2018 L.W.6

G.Veeranjaneyulu and who is the C.I., of Prohibition and Excise department and other staff conducting raids Munagupadu village in Phirangipuram Mandal and when they reached Library center they found accused with a black carry bag in his hand and on seeing of them he tried to skulk away from that place then L.W.6 caught hold him with the assistance of staff and on enquiry of L.W.6 he revealed his name and descriptive particulars as Shaik Gouse Mohiddin @ Bujji and he had possession of Liquor bottles in his carry bag then L.W.6 sent him for mediators later 15 minutes he brought P.W.1 and L.W.2 for acting as mediators later L.W.6 in presence of mediators opened the carry bag and found 8 any time whisky 180 ml. Bottles and also they found Heal numbers were torn out and L.W.6 enquired about license and purchasing bills then accused revealed he did not have any license and bills according to the liquor bottles then L.W.6 drawn one sample bottle and affixed slips in the name of accused and

L.W.6 and remaining case bottles seized in the same carry bag and affixed slips and later L.W.6 seized stock and accused handed over to the L.W.7 B.Kameswara Rao

S.I., of police Prohibition and Excise department.

11.PW.3 – G.Veeranjaneyulu, P & E Inspector deposed that on 21-7-2018 he along with his staff Prohibition and Excise department and other staff conducting raids at Munagupadu village in Phirangipuram Mandal and when they reached Library center 4 they found accused with a black carry bag in his hand and on seeing them accused tried to skulk away from that place then he caught hold him with the assistance of staff and on his enquiry he revealed his name and descriptive particulars as Shaik Gouse

Mohiddin @ Bujji and he had possession of Liquor bottles in his carry bag then he sent

P.W.2 for mediators later 15 minutes P.W.2 brought P.W.1 and L.W.2 for acting as mediators later his presence of mediators opened the carry bag and found 8 any time whisky 180 ml. Bottles and also they found Heal numbers were torn out and he enquired about license and purchasing bills then accused revealed he did not have any license and bills according to the liquor bottles then he drawn one sample bottle and affixed slips in the name of accused and he remaining case bottles seized in the same carry bag and affixed slips and later he seized stock and accused handed over to the

L.W.7 B.Kameswara Rao S.I., of police Prohibition and Excise department.

12.PW.4 –B.Kameswara Rao, P & E Inspector deposed that on 21-07-2018 at about 12.30 pm he received case property, case papers along with accused in this case from his station centry. Basing on Ex.P1 he registered a case in Cr.No.52/2018,

U/s 34 (a) of AP Excise Act, 1968, Ex.P2 is Original FIR, he produced the accused

before this court and sample was sent to chemical examiner Guntur who reported

under Ex.P3 that the sample is containing alcohol and it is Indian liquor. He also addressed a letter to deputy commissioner Prohibition and Excise, Guntur seeking orders for confession of remaining case property under Ex.P4. After completion of investigation and after receipt of chemical examiner report he filed charge sheet.

14. Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, it is the main contention of the learned defence counsel that as all the witnesses are official witnesses, their evidence shall be discarded. But, it is settled law that when only the police person has been examined, their evidence is not liable to be discarded, but it should be weighed with utmost care and caution. Admittedly Pw.1 is not neighbour of scene of offence and he visited scene of offence from Phirangipuram and scene of offence is not situtated in

Phirangipuram, but it is situated in Munagapadu Village. Pw.2 deposed that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality. Pw.3 also deposed that the scene of offence is 5 situated in a busy locality and it is a residential locality. He also deposed that no written summons are issued on any independent witness at scene of offence. In such situation, it is also the duty of court to see whether there is a possible opportunity for the police officer to secure the mediators and whether the arresting police officials made any effort to secure mediators. However, when there is possible opportunity for the police officer to secure the mediators and if he fails to do so, it can be considered as a lapse on the part of the investigating agency.

15.In BABU SAHEB ALIAS BABU V/S STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP. The Hon’ble High Court observed in Para No.17 that:

17. “Of course it cannot be said the evidence of a witness who accompanied the police, cannot be always believed nor it can be discarded only on the ground that the accompanied the excise of police officials. But where, in a case, the excise officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any effort to take such mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case, admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of the local mediators.

22. There are other reasons for disbelieving the testimony of Pws 1 and 2.

Admittedly there was another mediator name B.Janakiramaiah and three other excise officials who accompanied PW.2. Neither the other mediator nor the excise officials were examined in this case. The prosecution has not assigned specific reasons for not examining those witnesses. For the reason of not making efforts to take independent respectable local mediator, the evidence of Pw.1 loses its credibility. If we exclude the evidence of PW.1 there remains the evidence of Pw.2 only.

27. It was also observed that when the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become equal to the police officials. When once they become equal to police officials, the confession recored by them in the proceedings become inadmissible. Therefore, Ex.P5 seizure panchanama, is hit by

Section 25, 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ans section 161 of Cr.P.C.

27. The evidence let in by prosecution must create confidence and must be reliable since no efforts were made to take independent mediator in this case, it 6 appears that it is not desirable to convict the accused on the evidence of Pws 1 and 2.

the court below did not consider the importance of taking local respectable independent mediators, hence their judgments resulted in miscarriage of justice and liable to be set a side. In the circumstances, it appears that there is no need to consider the other points referred above, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner”.

16. In this case the mediators are not secured at scene of offence and they are brought from some distance. Admittedly there are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and there are discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

17. In such facts and circumstances of the case, when the excise officials failed to secure independent persons as mediators, though they have a possible opportunity and thus failed to follow the procedure for seizure, the court is of view that in absence of any independent evidence, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 convicting the accused.

18. For the foregoing reasons and in the light of principles of ratio laid down by Hon’ble High Court in above case I am of the opinion that there is no convincing and satisfactory evidence to prove that accused was found in possession of liquor bottles as alleged, Ex.P1 could not be relied upon. Though Ex.P3 discloses that the contents of Mo.1 contained the Indian alcohol, as there is no convincing evidence to prove that the contents of Mol.1 were drawn from seized liquor bottles said to be found from the possession of accused Ex.P3 could not be relied upon. Thus, the court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused for offence punishable u/Sec.

34(a) of A.P Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt and thus accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.34(a) of

A.P Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the same. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in 6 months as per Sec.437 A Cr.P.C. Mo.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of December, 2018.

Sd/-C.Suresh.

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Pw1 –N.Pulla Rao NIL Pw2 –V.Dasu P & E Constable Pw3 –G.Veeranjaneyulu Pw4 –B.Kameswara Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – Mediatornama Nil Ex.P2 – Original FIR of PW.2 Ex.P3 – Analysis Report. EX.P4 – Letter addressed to Deputy Commissioner for confiscation orders.

M.O’s MARKED

Mo.1 – Sample bottle

Sd/-C.Suresh

II-AJCJ,NRT.

// True Copy //

II-A.J.C.J,NRT.

8

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM – II-ADDL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::NARASARAOPET

CALENDER AND JUDGEMENT

C.C.NO.373/2018

Date of offence : 21-07-2018 Date of report/complaint : 21-07-2018 Date of apprehension of accused : --- Date of release on bail : –- Taking of cognizance : 27-10-2018 Furnishing of copies to the accused : 02-11-2018 Recording plea of the accused : 05-11-2018 Date of commencement of trial : 20-11-2018 Date of closure of trial : 17-12-2018 Examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C. : 17-12-2018 Date of Judgment : 18-12-2018 Explanation for delay : No delay. Name of the complainant: SHO, Proh. & Excise Station,Sattenapalli. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of the Accused

Shaik Gouse Mohiddin @ Bujji, S/o Chinna Mahaboob Subhani, 29 years, Caste – Muslim, R/o Munagapadu, Phirangipuram Mandal. __________________________________________________________________

Offence U/Secs. : 34-(a) of AP. Excise Act.

Finding : Found not guilty.

Result:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sec.34(a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the same. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in 6 months as per Sec.437 A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/-C.Suresh

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET

Copy Submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur for favour of information. Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

// True Copy //

II-A.J.C.J,NRT.

1

CALENDER OF CASES TRIED BY II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARASARAOPET.

CALENDER AND JUDGEMENT

C.C.NO.79/2018

Calendar of cases tried by Sri C.Suresh, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet

Date of Offence: 02-11-2017 Date of Report or Complaint: 04-11-2017 Date of Apprehension of accused : --- Date of Release on bail: --- Date of Commencement of trial:25-09-2018 Date of Close of trial:06-12-2018 Date of sentence of Order:20-12-2018 Explanation of delay and remarks:Due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NO.79 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT, NARASARAOPET

Name of Accused :Kunchala Bhargav

Aged: 25 yrs,

Father’s Name: Punna Rao

Calling: Driver

Religion: Hindu

Residence: 4/3 lane, Nallacheruvu,

District : Guntur

Offence: U/Sec.304-A IPC.

Plea of accused : Not guilty

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 337 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per sec.437-A Cr.P.C. There is no property as to order.

Sd/-C.Suresh

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

Copies submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble Chief Judl.Magistrate-cum-Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

// True Copy //

II-A.J.C.J.NRT.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR. CIVIL JUDGE: NARASARAOPET

PRESENT:- Sri C.SURESH

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASARAOPET.

DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

Calendar Case No.79/2018

Between: State : Sub-Inspector of Police,

Phirangipuram, PS., ...Complainant

(Cr. No.252/2017)

And

Kunchala Bhargav S/o Punna Rao, aged 25 years, Vaddera, 4/3 lane, Nallacheruvu, Guntur City, Driver of Verma Car bearing No.AP09BS 1777.

...Accused

Deceased: Paleti Nagendram S/o Yesaiah @ Yesu, 55 years, Madiga, Lakkarajugarlapdu Village, Sattenapalli Mandal.

This case is coming on this day i.e., on 06-12-2018 before me for arguments in the presence of learned A.P.P. for State and of Sri P.Jaya Ratnam, Advocate for accused, upon hearing and considering the material, on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case of causing death of person and causing injuries to a person by rash and negligent act by alleged accused which is an offence punishable under section 304-A , 337 of IPC, in Cr.No.252/2017 of Phirangipuram, Police station.

2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is: On 02-11-2017 the deceased and Lw.3 went to

Sathuluru village to attend final rites on the latter's motor bike bearing No. AP 7 AA 3326.

After completion of funeral formalities while they were returning to their village when they reached the link road which leads to Merikapudi village at 5.30 pm the accused driver of car bearing No.AP09 BS 1777 who is coming in opposite direction i.e., from

Guntur side towards Narasaraopet side drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, lost control over the vehicle thus dashed against their bike as a result the deceased and Lw.3 fell to the ground and the deceased sustained bleeding injury on left ear, invisible injuries on neck, spine while the rider Lw.3 sustained 3 injuries on both of his hands. As soon as they witnessed the occurrence, Lws 4, 5 and others engaged 108 Ambulance and shifted to them to Narasaraopet Govt. Hospital. As

Lw.3 informed the entire episode to Lw.1 over phone, she rushed to Narasaraopet Govt.

Hospital and found the deceased left ear cut to some extent and bleeding. He also sustained bleeding injuries on left portion of forehead, left eye region and left cheek. In addition to that the deceased sustained grievous invisible injury on neck and unable to speak. Lw.3 sustained bleeding injuries on right wrist and left shoulder and taking treatment in Narasaraopet Govt. Hospital, Immediately she made the doctors to render first aid to the deceased and rushed him to GGH, Guntur in a private ambulance and got admitted him for treatment. Shile she was carrying her husband towards Guntur in a private Ambulance and got admitted him for treatment. While she was carrying her husband towards Guntur in the Ambulance she phoned to her son in law, Gaddam

Vijayedra (Lw.2) and alerted him. By this time of their arrival to GGH, Guntur, Lw.2 present there got admitted her husband in NST 360 ward for treatment and on 24-11- 2017 discharged. Though the deceased was suffering from pain from the wounds they again rushed to GGH, Guntur on 10-12-2017 and got admitted him for treatment. As the doctors discharged him on 12-12-2017 at 3.00 pm as his body is not supported them to administer an operation on him as advised them to take him to the Hospital sometime later, they took him to their home. But at 5.30 pm on the same day her husband succumbed to the injuries in their home, sustained at the time of accident.

3. Basing on the report given by the Lw.1/Paleti Chittemma,Lw.16/ SriK.Sambasiva

Rao, ASI of Police registered as a case in Cr.No.252/2017 U/s 304-A, 337 IPC of

Phirangipuram and after completion of Investigation Lw.18/Sri S.Ujval Kumar Sub-

Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/s 304-A, 337 of IPC.

03.Cognizance was taken under section 304-A, 337 IPC. against sole accused.

04.After appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents was furnished to him as required under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C) and the accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C, for the accusation for the offence 4 under section 304-A, 337 IPC for which accused denied as false, pleaded not guilty and claims to be trial. Hence for trial.

5.In the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW1 is P.Chittemma, PW2 is

G.Vijayendra Rao, PW3 is P.Bhagyam, Pw.4 is N.Koteswara Rao, Pw.5 is M.Joseph

Kumar

Pw.6 is K.Padmavathi, P.w7 is K.Sambasiva Rao, Pw.8 is M.Ananda Rao and got Ex.P1 is Signatures on Report of Pw.1, ExP2 is 161 Statement of Pw. 1, Ex.P3 is 161

Statement of Pw. 2, Ex.P4 is 161 Statement of Pw. 3, Ex.P5 is 161 Statement of Pw. 4,

Ex.P6 is 161 Statement of Pw. 5, Ex.P7 is Hospital Intimation , Ex.P8 is Statement of

Pw.1, Ex.P9 is Original First Information Report, Ex.P10 is Scene observation report,

Ex.P11 is Inquest Panchanama.

6.After closing prosecution the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C for incriminating evidence appeared against him for which, he denied the offence. He reported no evidence in his behalf.

7.Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.

8.POINT :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused for the

offence punishable under section 304-A, 337 of IPC against sole accused, beyond

all reasonable doubts ?

9. In order to prove its case, prosecution relied on oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 8 coupled with Exs. P.1 to P.11.

10. Pw.1 deposed that at about 12 months ago on one day at about 6.30 or 7 p.m., while he was present at cotton mill for her coolie work she received a phone call from her neighbours and she was informed that her husband met with an accident while he was proceeding from Sathuluru to her village on the bike of L.W.3 at 4.30 or 5 p.m., and due to which he sustained injuries and he was shifted to Area Government Hospital,

Narasaraopet and from there he was shifted to G.G.H., Guntur and immediately herself and her relatives went to G.G.H., Guntur they noticed her husband with severe injuries on his neck and left ear while under going treatment he passed away after 20 days of 5 the incident. She does not know how the accident was occurred and who is responsible for the accident. She does not know registration number of any vehicle involved in this accident. Police obtained her signature on a written paper under Ex.P1 and she does not know the contents therein.

11. PW.2 deposed that at about 12 months ago on one day at about 6.30 or 7 p.m., while he was present at cotton mill for her coolie work he received a phone call from his neighbours and he was informed that his father-in-law met with an accident while he was proceeding from Sathuluru to his village on the bike of L.W.3 at 4.30 or 5 p.m., and due to which he sustained injuries and he was shifted to Area Government Hospital,

Narasaraopet and from there he was shifted to G.G.H., Guntur and immediately himself and his relatives went to G.G.H., guntur they noticed his father-in-law with severe injuries on his neck and left ear while under going treatment he passed away after 20 days of the incident. He does not know how the accident was occurred and who is responsible for the accident. He does not know registration number of any vehicle involved in this accident.

12. Pw.3 deposed that he does not know anything about this case. Deceased and himself never travelled on his motor cycle to Satuluru and never accident was occurred in his presence.

13. PW.4 deposed that he does not know anything about this case. No accident was occurred in his presence.

14. PW.5 deposed that he does not know anything about this. No accident was occurred in his presence and no body sustained injury nor any body was died in that accident.

15. PW.6 deposed that she does not know about the accident and her car never involved in any accident.

16. PW.7 deposed that on 04-11-2017 he received hospital intimation along with statement of Pw.1 where in Pw.1 stated that she is a resident of Lakarajugarlapadu village of Sattenapalli Mandal and on 02-11-2017 her husband Nagendram along with her relative Paleti Bhagyam i.e., PW.3 went to Narasaraopet to visit their relatives house 6 as one of her relatives was died and after completion of ceremonies while they were proceeding from Narasaraopet on the bike of Pw.3 bearing No.AP 7AA 3326 and reached Merikapudi out skirts at 5.30 pm a car bearing No.AP 09 BS 1777 with rash and negligent driving of driver of car dashed against them due to which her husband and Pw.3 sustained injuries and they were shifted to Area Government Hospital,

Narasaraopet in an ambulance and from there her husband was shifted to GGH, Guntur and basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.252/2017 U/s 337 IPC. Ex.P7 is hospital intimation, Ex.P8 is statement of Pw.1, Ex.P9 is Original FIR. He submitted original FIR to this court and copies to all concerned officials. During his investigation he examined and recorded the statements of Pw.1 to 6 and Lw.7 Malleswari. He also visited scene of offence situated on the road leads from Narasaraopet to Guntur at the out skirts of Merikapudi and he prepared a rough sketch of scene of offence under

Ex.P10. He issued a notice U/s 41A Cr.P.C against the accused. On 12-12-2017 he received death intimation of Nagendram basing on which he altered a section of law from 337 IPC to 304A IPC. He shifted the body of deceased to Area Government

Hospital Narasaraopet and he conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators under Ex.P11 later he handed over CD file to

Lw.17 Sri Ananda Rao SI of Police, Pw.1 to 5 stated before as Ex.P2 to P6 respectively.

17. Pw.8 deposed that he conducted some investigation and he examined some witnesses and he prepared a rough sketch of scene of offence and he handed over CD file to him and during his investigation he verified the investigation of Pw.7 found to be on correct lines. He received wound certificate of injured P.Bagyam later he handed over CD file to Pw.7 for further investigation.

18. Record shows that prosecution has examined total 8 witnesses out of 18 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. Pw.1 is defacto complainant and wife of deceased, Pw.2 is son-in-law of deceased, Pw.3 is son of deceased and injured in this case and he turned hostile to the case of prosecution, Pw.4, Pw.5 said to have witnessed the accident turned hostile to the case of prosecution, Pw.6 is owner of crime car and she also turned hostile to the case of prosecution, Pw.7, Pw.8 are investigating Officers. Pw.1 to 7

Pw.6 turned hostile to the case of prosecution with regard to identity of accused as they did not depose how the accident was occurred and who is responsible for the accident.

In cross-examination of Pw.1 to Pw.6 also nothing was elicited by prosecution against the accused. There are no other eye witness in this case. The remaining evidence is evidence of Pw.7 and Pw.8 who are investigating Officers. Investigating Officers did not collect any documentary evidence to show that the accused only drove crime vehicle at the time of accident and due to his rash or negligent act only the deceased was died and Pw.3 sustained injuries.

17. In view of the hostility of the material witnesses it transpires that an accident was occurred, and deceased Paleti Nagendram was died and Pw.3/Paleti Bhagyam sustained injuries in that accident but the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the accident and has failed to show that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the accused only and due to which only the deceased was died.

Hence, I am of opinion that it is not desirable to convict the accused basing on the above evidence and the accused is entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt and the point is also answered accordingly.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilt of the offence u/sec.304-A, 337 of IPC, and he is acquitted u/sec.255(1). Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force of 6 months as per section 437(A) Cr.P.C. There is no property as to order.

Typed by the Personal Assistant, on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of December, 2018.

Sd/-C.Suresh

II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: --- Nil ---

LW.1/PW1 –P.Chittemma LW.2/PW2 –G.Vijayendra Rao LW.3/PW3 –P.Bhagyam Lw.5/Pw.4 –N.Koteswara Rao Lw.4/Pw.5 – M.Joseph Kumar LW.6/Pw.6 –K.Padmavathi Lw.16P.w7 –K.Sambasiva Rao Lw.15/Pw.8 –M.Ananda Rao 8

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 – Signatures on Report of Pw.1 ExP2 - 161 Statement of Pw. 1 Ex.P3 –161 Statement of Pw. 2 Ex.P4 –161 Statement of Pw. 3 Ex.P5 –161 Statement of Pw. 4 Ex.P6 –161 Statement of Pw. 5 Ex.P7 – Hospital Intimation Ex.P8 –Statement of Pw.1 Ex.P9 – Original First Information Report Ex.P10 -Scene observation report. Ex.P11 –Inquest Panchanama

Mos. Marked: -

N I L -

Sd/-C.Suresh

II-AJCJ,NRT.

// True Copy //

II-A.J.C.J.NRT.

1

CALENDER OF CASES TRIED BY II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARASARAOPET.

CALENDER AND JUDGEMENT

C.C.NO.45/2018

Calendar of cases tried by Sri C.Suresh, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet

Date of Offence: 29-12-2017 Date of Report or Complaint: 29-12-2017 Date of Apprehension of accused : --- Date of Release on bail: --- Date of Commencement of trial:23-10-2018 Date of Close of trial:13-12-2018 Date of sentence of Order:19-12-2018 Explanation of delay and remarks:Due to non production of witnesses to the prosecution.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NO.45 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT, NARASARAOPET

Name of Accused :Yaganti Srinivasa Rao

Aged: 45 yrs,

Father’s Name:Chinna Hanumaiah

Calling: Driver

Religion: Hindu

Residence:Adigoppala Village of Durgi Mandal

District : Guntur

Offence: U/Sec.304-A IPC.

Plea of accused : Not guilty

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, and he is acquitted under Section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be inforce for a period of 6 months as per sec.437-A Cr.P.C. There is no property as to order.

Sd/-C.Suresh

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

Copies submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble Chief Judl.Magistrate-cum-Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

// True Copy //

II-A.J.C.J,NRT.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR. CIVIL JUDGE: NARASARAOPET

PRESENT:- Sri C.SURESH

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASARAOPET.

DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

Calendar Case No.45/2018

Between: State : Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nekarikallu, PS., ...Complainant

(Cr. No.273/2017)

And

Yaganti Srinivasa Rao, S/o Chinna Hanumaiah, 45 years, C/Kamma, Adigoppala Village of Durgi Mandal. Driver cum owner of Ashok layland trally bearing No.AP 07TJ 1755.

...Accused

Deceased: Jadapalli Moulisa D/o Ramaswamy, 10 years, C/Vaddera, Edlapadu Village and Mandal driver of Gullapalli Village of Nekarikallu Mandal.

This case is coming on this day i.e., on 19-12-2018 before me for arguments in the presence of learned A.P.P. for State and of Sri B.Suresh, Advocate for accused, upon hearing and considering the material, on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case of causing death of person by rash and negligent act by alleged accused which is an offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC, in Cr.No.273/2017 of

Nekarikallu, Police station.

2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is: Lw.1 is resident of Lambady colony Edlapadu

Village and Mandal now at Gullapalli Village and Nekarikallu Mandal. Since 3 months Lws 1to 3 and deceased along with children came to Gullapalli village and living by doing works at Venkata reddy crusher. While so on 29-12-2017 at about 8.00 am Lw.1 instructed Lw.3 and deceased to bring idly to Lw.2 who is suffering with ill health. In this connection both

Lw.3 & deceased proceed to centre of Gullapalli village and reached near canal on the road by walk at about 8.30 am in their opposite direction the driver of Ashok Lay Land trally bearing No.AP07 TJ 1755 drove with high speed in rash and negligent manner without 3 blowing horn and hit to deceased, as result the deceased fell down by the road side margin with severe backside head injury and causing oozing blood from the ear and nose. On seeing the incident by Lws 3 & 6 and some others informed the same to Lw.1, then Lws 1 & 2 and others came there and found that deceased was fell down road side margin with severe head injuries with oozing blood from the nose and ear and on observation she was died.

3. Basing on the report given by the Lw.1/Jadapalli Rama Swamy, Lw.12/ Sri G.Anil

Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police registered as a case in Cr.No.273/2017 U/s 304-A IPC, 181

MV Act of Nekarikallu and after completion of Investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/s 304-A, of IPC.

03.Cognizance was taken under section 304-A, IPC. against sole accused.

04.After appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents was furnished to him as required under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C) and the accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C, for the accusation for the offence under section 304-A, IPC and 181 MV Act for which accused denied as false, pleaded not guilty and claims to be trial. Hence for trial.

5.In the course of trial, prosecution has examined Pw.1 is J.Rama Swamy, PW2 is

J.Ramana, PW3 is J.Siva Sankar, Pw.4 is K.Lakshmi, Pw.5 is G.Anil Kumar, and got Ex.P1 is Statement of Pw.1, ExP2 is 161 Statement of Pw. 1, Ex.P3 is 161 Statement of Pw. 2,

Ex.P4 is 161 Statement of Pw. 3, Ex.P5 is161 Statement of Pw. 4, Ex.P6 is Report, Ex.P7 is

First Information Report Hospital Intimation, Ex.P8 is Rough Sketch, Ex.P9 is Observation

Report, Ex.P10 is Inquest, Ex.P11 is Post Mortem Report, Ex.P12 is MVI Report, Ex.P13 is

Certificate Motor Vehicles claims tribunal.

6.After closing prosecution the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C for incriminating evidence appeared against him for which, he denied the offence. He reported no evidence in his behalf.

7.Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.

8.POINT :

4

Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A, of IPC against sole accused, beyond all reasonable doubts ?

9. In order to prove its case, prosecution relied on oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 5 coupled with Exs. P.1 to P.13.

10.Pw.1 deposed that in the month of December, 2017 at about 8.00 am while he was present at his work place, at that time he told his daughter and Lw.3 to bring Idly to

Lw.2 and at that time she was suffering with ill health. Then Lw.3 and deceased went to

Gullapalli Village and reached near cannel on the road by walk. At about 8.30 am one lorry which was coming opposite to them with a rash and negligence driving of the lorry and hit the deceased due to which she fell down on the road side margine and received severe injury on her back side head and causing oozing blood from the ear and nose and she died on the spot and after information himself and some other people went to the scene of offence. Later they shifted the deceased to AGH, Narasaraopet. At the hospital police obtained his signature on the report but he does not know the contents therein.

11. PW.2 deposed that in the month of December, 2017 at about 8.00 am while she was present at her work place, at that time she told her daughter and Lw3 to bring idly to her and at that time she was suffering with ill health. Then Lw3 and deceased went to Gullapalli village and reached near cannel on the road by walk. At about 8.30 am one lorry which was coming opposite to them with a rash and negligence driving of the lorry and hit the deceased due to which she fell down on the road side margin and received severe injury on her back side head and causing oozing blood from the ear and nose and she died on the spot and after information herself and some other people went to the scene of offence.

Later they shifted the deceased to AGH, Narasaraopet.

12. Pw.3 deposed that in the month of December, 2017 at about 8.00 am while himself and deceased went to Gullapalli village and reached near cannel on the road by walk to bring idly to his mother. At about 8.30 am one lorry which was coming opposite to them with a rash and negligence driving of the lorry and hit the deceased due to which she fell down on the road side margin and received severe injury on her back side head and 5 causing oozing blood from the ear and nose and she died on the spot and he does not know the registration number of the lorry. He did not observe the driver of the lorry as he fell unconscious immediately after the accident. Later her parents and some other people came to the scene of offence. Later they shifted the deceased to AGH, Narasaraopet.

13.PW.4 deposed that she does not know anything about this case. She never witness any accident pertaining to this case no accident was occurred in her presence.

14. PW.5 deposed that on 29-12-2017 at about 9.30 am he received complaint from

PW.1 where in he reported that on 29-12-2017 at 8.00 am his son Siva Sankar and his daughter Molisa went to bring Idly and at about 8.30 am he came to know that his daughter met with an accident near a canal at the outskirts of Gundlapalli village and immediately he along with his wife and others rushed to spot and noticed his daughter was died with bleeding injury on her head and blood was oozing out from her ears and mouth and they noticed an Ashok Leyland Mini tralley bearing No.AP 07 TJ 1755 was fell down in the fields near to scene of offence and on enquiry he came to know that the driver of said tralley with his rash and negligent driving dashed against the deceased. Basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.272/2017 U/s.304-A IPC. Ex.P6 is report. Ex.P7 is original FIR. He submitted original FIR to this court and copies to all concerned officials. During his investigation he visited scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P8 he also prepared a scene observation report under Ex.P9 and he seized the crime vehicle and he examined and recorded statements of PW.1 to 4, Lw.4/Vijaya Durga,

Lw.5/Srinu and he conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased in the presence of LW.7 and Lw.9 under Ex.P10. He produced the dead body

Lw.10/Sri.Lakshmana Rao CAS and he produced the crime vehicle before LW.11/Sri Kiran

Prabhakar MVI. He issued a notice under section 41A Cr.P.C on accused. After completion of investigation and after receipt of Postmortem certificate under Ex.P11 and MVI report under Ex.P12 and a certificate from motor vehicles claims tribunal chairman at Guntur under 159(8) MV Act under Ex.P13 he filed charge sheet u./sec.304-A IPC, 181 MV Act as the accused is not having a valid driving license on the date of offence.

15. Record shows that prosecution has examined total 5 witnesses out of 12 witnesses 6 cited in the charge sheet. Pw.1 is defacto complainant and father of deceased, Pw.2 is mother of deceased, Pw.3 is brother of deceased, Pw.4 is said to have witnessed the incident and she turned hostile to the case of prosecution, Pw.5 is investigating Officer.

Pw.1 to Pw.4 turned hostile to the case of prosecution with regard to identity of accused as they did not depose how the accident was occurred and who is responsible for the accident. In cross-examination of Pw.1 to Pw.4 also nothing was elicited by prosecution against the accused. There is no other eye witness in this case. The remaining evidence is evidence of Pw.5 who is investigating Officer. APP has rightly given up evidence of other witnesses basing on evidence of Pw.1 to 4 and there is no other eye witnesses to the accident. Pw.3 the eye witness deposed that one lorry dashed against the deceased and

Pw.4 another eye witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Investigating Officer did not collect any documentary evidence to show that the accused only drove crime vehicle at the time of accident and due to his rash or negligent act only the deceased was died.

16. In view of the hostility of the material witnesses it transpires that an accident was occurred, and deceased Jadapalli Moulisa was died in the incident but the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the accident and has failed to show that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the accused only and due to which only the deceased was died, it is not desirable to convict the accused for the offence U/s 181 MV

Act. Hence, I am of opinion that it is not desirable to convict the accused basing on the above evidence and the accused is entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt and the point is also answered accordingly.

17. In the result the accused is found not guilt of the offence u/sec.304-A of IPC, Section 181 of MV Act. He is acquitted u/sec.255(1). Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force of 6 months as per section 437(A) Cr.P.C. There is no property as to order.

Typed by the Personal Assistant, on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of December, 2018.

Sd/-C.Suresh

II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: --- Nil --- LW.1/PW1 –J.Rama Swamy LW.2/PW2 –J.Ramana LW.3/PW3 –J.Siva Sankar Lw.6/Pw.4 –K.Lakshmi Lw.12/Pw.5 – G.Anil Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 - Statement of Pw.1 ExP2 - 161 Statement of Pw. 1 Ex.P3 –161 Statement of Pw. 2 Ex.P4 –161 Statement of Pw. 3 Ex.P5–161 Statement of Pw. 4 Ex.P6 - Report Ex.P7 –First Information Report Hospital Intimation Ex.P8 – Rough Sketch Ex.P9 – Observation Report

Ex.P10 - Inquest Ex.P11 – Post Mortem Report Ex.P12 – MVI Report Ex.P13 –Certificate Motor Vehicles claims tribunal

Mos. Marked : - N I L - Sd/-C.Suresh

IIAJCJ,NRT.

// True Copy //

II-A.J.C.J,NRT.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NARASARAOPET

PRESENT: SRI C.SURESH II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

DATED THIS, THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

C.C. 278 OF 2017

Between: The state: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nekarikallu, P.S.(Cr.No.179/2017) ...Complainant.

And

Karna Koti Reddy, S/o Venkata Koti Reddy, R/o Kunkalaguntla Village of Nekarikallu Mandal. … Accused.

This case is coming on 18-12-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri. K.Narapa Reddy Advocate

for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered

the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub -Inspector of Police, Nekarikallu Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.179/2017 of Nekarikallu Police Station for the offences

Under Sections 326 of Indian Penal Code with the following allegations:-

Lw.1 is complainant and injured. Lw.2 is son, LW.3 is brother of Lw.1, Lw.4 to 6 are direct witnesses to the occurrence and all are residents of Kunkalagunta are one and same community. There is gossip in the mind of accused that Lw.1 had illegal intimacy with his wife for which they both frequently quarreling each other. On 23-09-2017 at about 8.00 hours Lw.1 came to Lord Rama Temple and sit on billet(Plinth) front of said temple, while chitchatting each other the accused came there by holding stick (being used as cloggy to buffalo) and beat Lw.1 on head in twice by abusing in filthy language (Emira Naa Kodaka Naa Bharyatho

Akramasambandam Pettukuntava) Lw.1 received bleeding injuries on head.

Basing on the report of PW.1/M.Nagi Reddy, PW.5/Sri G. Anil Kumar

Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.179/17 for the offence Under 2 Sections 326 of Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation he filed charge-sheet.

2.This court took cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable Under Sections 326 of Indian Penal Code.

3.After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4.Accused were examined under Section 239 Criminal Procedure Code, for which they denied the same an a charge Under Sections 326 and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus the case was posted for trial.

5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined total 5 witnesses as Pw.1 to 5 and Exs.P1 to P10 got marked.

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined

Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which, the accused denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel on behalf of the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is :

1) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable Under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.It is the main accusation of prosecution against accused that on 23-09-2017 at about 8.00 hours accused came there by stick (being used as cloggy to buffalo) and beat Lw.1 on head in twice by abusing in filthy language (Emira Naa Kodaka Naa

Bharyatho Akramasambandham Pettukuntava) due to which Lw.1 received bleeding injuries on head and there by accused committed offence punishable Under Sections 326 of Indian Penal Code .

3

10. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined Pws. 1 to 5 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P10.

11. The case of the prosecution in brief as unfolded by the prosecution witnesses is as follows:-

Pw.1 deposed that he does not know any thing about the case. The accused never assaulted him but at about 7 months ago he sustained injury on his head and he was shifted to hospital there police obtained his thumb impression on the written paper and he does not know the contents there in.

12. Pw.2 deposed that he does not know anything about this case. Accused never beat his father.

13. Pw.3 deposed that he does not know anything about this case. Accused never beat his father.

14. Pw.4 deposed that on 23-9-2017 at 12-30 p.m., He received hospital intimation from G.B.R., Super Specialty Hospital Narasaraopet and immediately he rushed to hospital and found the injured Madhuri Nagi Reddy i.e., P.W.1 and he stated that he is a resident of Kunkalagunta village and name of his wife is

Koteswaramma and they have three sons and further past some days the accused threatened him by making false allegations that P.W.1 has illicit intimacy with the wife of accused and on 23-9-2017 at 8 a.m., while himself and his brother-in-law Anji

Reddy, Rami Reddy, Bhaskara Redy, Bapath Rami Reddy were other were present in front of Ramulurivari temple on the pial the accused armed with weapon “GUDI

BANDA” and assaulted him on his head with that weapon by stating that P.W.1 has illicit intimacy with the wife of accused and neighbours rescued him. Later he read over the contents of statement to P.W.1 and obtained his thumb impression and obtained signature of doctor and forwarded the intimation and statement of P.W.1 to

S.H.O., P.S. Nakarikallu. Ex.P4 is the statement, Ex.P5 is hospital intimation.

15. Pw.5 deposed that on 23-09-2017 at 6.00 pm he received hospital intimation along with statement of PW.1 and basing on which he registered a case in

Cr.No.179/2017 U/s 324 IPC Ex.P6 is Original FIR. He submitted FIR to this court and 4 copies to all concerned officials. During his investigation he examined and recorded statements of Pw.3, Lw.4/Bhaskara Reddy, Lw.5/Rami Reddy and he prepared rough sketch under Ex.P7 and he collected wound certificates of Pw.1 and he altered the section of law ie.,324 IPC to 326 IPC basing on wound certificate of Pw.1 that the injury is grievous in nature. Ex.P8 is alteration memo. Ex.P9 is wound certificate of

Pw.1. On 12-10-2017 he arrested the accused and he confessed his guilt in this case in the presence of mediators under Ex.P10 and he seized Mo.1 property which is allegedly used by accused in this case. After receipt of wound certificate of Pw.1 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Pw.1 to 3 sated before him as in Ex.P2 to P4 respectively.

16.To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution has examined total 5 witnesses as Pw.1 to 5 out of 10 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. The evidence of Pw.1 to 3 shows that they turned hostile to the case of prosecution and nothing was elcited by

APP in cross-examination of Pw.1 to 3. Basing on the evidence of Pw.1 to 3 learned

APP has rightly given up the evidence of other other witnesses.

17.In view of the hostility of victim and material witnesses, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

18. In the result, The accused is found not guilty of the offence U/s 326 IPC. He is acquitted under 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for 6 months as per section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of December, 2018.

Sd/-C.Suresh

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: NIL PW1/LW1 –M.Nagi Reddy PW2/LW2 –M.Venkata Rami Reddy 5 PW3/LW3 –Y.Anji Reddy Pw.4/Lw.9 –Sk.China Mastan Pw.5/Lw.10 –G.Anil Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution:For Defence: Ex.P1 – 161 Statement of Pw.1 Ex.P2 – 161 statement of Pw.2 Ex.P3 – 161 Statement of Pw.3 Ex.P4 – Statement Ex.P5 - Hospital Intimation Ex.P6 - First Information Report Ex.P7 –Rough Sketch Ex.P8 – Alteration Memo Ex.P9 - Wound Certificate of Pw.1 Ex.P10 – confession statement

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil.

Sd/-C.Suresh

II AJCJ, NRT

// True Copy //

II-A.J.C.J,NRT.

6

CALENDER OF CASES TRIED BY II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARASARAOPET.

CALENDER AND JUDGEMENT

C.C.NO.278/2017

Date of offence :23-09-2017 Date of report/complaint :23-09-2017 Date of apprehension of accused : --- Date of release on bail : –- Taking of cognizance :30-10-2017 Furnishing of copies to the accused :14-11-2017 Recording plea of the accused : 28-12-2017 Date of commencement of trial : 10-01-2018 Date of closure of trial :13-12-2018 Examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C. :17-12-2018 Date of Judgment :18-12-2018 Explanation for delay : Due to non production of witnesses by prosecution Name of the complainant: Nekarikallu, P.S Sub-Inspector. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Description of the Accused

Karna Koti Reddy, S/o Venkata Koti Reddy, R/o Kunkalaguntla Village of Nekarikallu Mandal. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence U/Secs. : 326 of Indian Penal Code. Finding : Found not guilty. Result: In the result, The accused is found not guilty of the offence U/s 326 IPC. He is acquitted under 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for 6 months as per section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

Sd/-C.Suresh

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur for favour of information. Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

// True Copy //

II-A.J.C.J,NRT.

Case Historyhttp://172.17.63.2/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.ph..

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :I Addl Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :PRC/0100016/2016 Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural PS Vs Nula Chennakesavulu and 3 others

Date : 04-04-2018

Business: Accused present. Orders pronounced (VSO). Perused record. Prima facie the record reveals that the accused A2 to A4 committed the offence u/s 120 B of IPC and sec. 27 Arms Act which is triable by the court of session. Therefore the case against the A2 to A4 is committed to Hon\''ble Court of session u/s 209 (a) Cr.P.C. As Accused are on bail and are permitted to remain on bail during and until the conclusion of trail in the court of sessions u/s 209 (b) Cr.P.C. Submit the entire records together with case property if any to the court of session u/s 209 (c) Cr.P.C. Notify the public prosecutor about the commitment of the case to the sessions court u/sec. 209 (d) Cr.P.C. through the concerned police. Nature of Disposal: COMMITTED TO SESSIONS Disposal Date: 04-04-2018 I Addl Junior Civil Judge 1 of 121/11/24, 17:13