Sri Ch Yugandhar

1 CC.383/2018 Dt.05.06.2020

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (MOBILE)

FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER P.C.R. ACT-CUM- VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, KAKINADA.

Calendar Case No.383/2018

Date of Offence: 12.10.2017

Date of Report of Complaint: 12.10.2017

Date of Apprehension of accused: 14.10.2017

Date of Release on Bail: 14.10.2017

Date of Commencement of trial: 14.10.2019

Date of Closure of trial: 12.03.2020

Date of Sentence of Order: 05.06.2020

Explanation of delay and remarks: Due to non production of

Witnesses by prosecution

Name of the Complainant:

State represented by Inspector of Police, Peddapuram Circle.

Name of the Accused:

Dharnala Jeevanandam, S/o.Adinarayana, aged 41 years, R/o.Peddada Village, Pedapudi Mandal, Driver, Staff No.E-602339, APSRTC, Ramachandrapuram Depot.

Offence : U/Sec.304-A of IPC

Plea of accused: Not Guilty

Finding: Found not guilty

Result: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted for the said offence under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no case property, hence no order is passed.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) For Trial of Cases Under P.C.R Act-cum- VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

2 CC.383/2018 Dt.05.06.2020

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (MOBILE)

FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER P.C.R ACT-CUM- VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, KAKINADA.

Present : Sri Ch.Yugandhar, Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate

Friday, this the 5th day of June, 2020

C.C.383/2018

Between: State represented by Inspector of Police, Peddapuram Circle.

.. Complainant

And

Dharnala Jeevanandam, S/o.Adinarayana, aged 41 years, R/o.Peddada Village, Pedapudi Mandal, Driver, Staff No.E-602339, APSRTC, Ramachandrapuram Depot.

.. Accused

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 20.03.2020 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Complainant and in the presence of Sri.D.Subrahmanyam, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record and upon stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Inspector of Police, Peddapuram Circle filed charge sheet against the accused alleging the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC in Cr.No.248/2017.

2.The brief contents of the charge sheet are that on 12.10.2017 morning the deceased by name Kanchumarthi Mangayamma came to Anjaneyaswamy temple center, G.Mamidada Village to catch bus in order to go Prathipadu. At about 10.00

AM, while she was crossing the road by walk from Godavari Canal side towards northern side bus shelter and sweet stall of Padala Venkatarao, the R.T.C. Bus bearing

No.AP28 Z 5364 of Ramachandrapuram RTC Depot, being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn, came from Biccavole side on its way from Ramachandrapuram to Samalkota as Passenger service and dashed the deceased. Due to which, the deceased fallen on the road, then the wheels of the said R.T.C. bus run over her two legs and caused severe fractures. One

Kanchumarthi Rayudu and Achanta Venkannababu who noticed the accident, rushed to the deceased. On seeing the incident, the passersby on the road and others raised cries, then the accused stopped the bus ahead to the place of accident. Later the 3 CC.383/2018 Dt.05.06.2020 deceased got shifted to G.G.H., Kakinada on 108 ambulance, where the duty doctor examined and declared that the deceased was brought dead to hospital.

3.On 13.10.2017 at 7.30 AM, on receipt of Death intimation from G.G.H.,

Kakinada, H.C.No.2381 of Samalkota P.S. visited G.G.H., Kakinada, recorded the statement of Kanchumarthi Rayudu. Later handed over the same to Sub Inspector of

Police, Samalkota P.S. Basing on the death intimation and the statement of

Kanchumarthi Rayudu, Sub Inspector of Police, Samalkota P.S. registered a case in

Cr.No.248/2017, U/Sec.304-A IPC. On 14.10.2017 the Inspector of Police, Peddapuram

Circle took up further investigation. During course of investigation, Sub Inspector of

Police, Samalkota P.S. visited the scene of offence, examined it, prepared rough sketch, got drafted an observation report by the mediators, took photographs of the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and blood relatives of the deceased and sent the dead body for Post

Mortem Examination. The Inspector of Police, Peddapuram Circle arrested the accused on 14.10.2017 at 10.00 AM and subsequently released him on bail. Dr.P.Phani

Kiran, Asst. Professor, Rangaraya Medical College, G.G.H., Campus, Kakinada conducted Post Mortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased, issued Post

Mortem Certificate and opined that the deceased died due to shock as a result of

Polytrauma. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kakinada who inspected the crime vehicle i.e.,

RTC bus bearing No.AP28 Z 5364, issued accident report and opined that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the said vehicle. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

4.On perusal of charge sheet and other documents filed by the police under section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, this case was taken on file for the offence

U/Sec.304-A of IPC. The copies of this case documents are furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5.Accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC was read over and explained to 4 CC.383/2018 Dt.05.06.2020 him in Telugu language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P8 on their behalf.

7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the entire incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now, the point arises for determination is that, “whether the prosecution

could prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

U/Sec.304-A of IPC”?

10.POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that on 12.10.2017 at about 10.00 AM when a woman by name Kanchumarthi Mangayamma (Deceased) crossing the road on foot at the bus stop near Anjaneyaswamy temple center, G.Medapadu Village, the accused being the driver of crime vehicle i.e., A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP28 Z 5364, has driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said woman. Due to that the said woman fell on the ground and said bus run over through the legs of the said woman and caused serious fracture injuries over her legs. Later she was shifted to hospital, however she was not survived and she was succumbed to injuries. On receipt of death intimation from G.G.H., Kakinada and statement of P.W.1 who is son of the deceased (Ex.P1) a crime was registered against the accused as Cr.No.248/2017 for the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC by S.I. of Police (P.W.9) and took up the investigation.

Later the Inspector of Police (P.W.10) had continued the investigation by arresting the accused and filed the charge sheet for the said offence against the accused.

11.During trial, the prosecution examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 10.

5 CC.383/2018 Dt.05.06.2020

12.P.W.1 is the son of the deceased, deposed that on 12.10.2017 at about 10.00

AM, when his mother was crossing road at Anjaneyaswamy temple in Medapudu, one

R.T.C. bus bearing No.5364 which was coming from Biccavolu towards Samalkota came in rash manner and dashed against his mother and the wheels of the said bus run over through the legs of his mother. Then himself and one Venkannababu who were there by the time, rushed to his mother. Meanwhile some of public gathered and called 108

Ambulance and got shifted his injured mother to G.G.H., Kakinada. On reaching the hospital, when the doctors examined his mother and declared to be dead.

13.He further deposed that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle R.T.C. Bus at the relevant time of the incident as he has seen him at the time of the incident.

14.He further deposed that while he was in hospital, the police recorded his statement under Ex.P1.

15.Coming to the evidence of P.W.2 who alleged to have been present along with

P.W.1 at the place of incident and witness the occurrence. According to him, at about two years back one day at 10.00 AM, when he was present at Anjaneyaswamy temple center in Medapudu in order to pick up P.W.1. At the same time, one R.T.C. bus bearing No.5364 coming from Biccavolu towards Samalkota in rash manner and dashed against the deceased while she was crossing the road. The wheels of the said bus run over through the legs of the deceased. Then himself and P.W.1 got shifted the injured to G.G.H., Kakinada through ambulance. On reaching the hospital, the doctors examined the injured and declared to be dead.

16.He further deposed that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle R.T.C. Bus at the relevant time of the incident as he seen him at the time of said incident.

17.Coming to the evidence of P.W.3 who is running cycle mechanic shop nearby the said bus stop in Medapadu Village. According to him, at the time of the incident he was attending works in his shop. At the same time he came to know that some accident was taken place at bus stop which is at a distance of 20 feet from his shop.

There he found that one old age woman sustained injuries at her legs. One R.T.C. bus 6 CC.383/2018 Dt.05.06.2020 dashed against her and the said incident was occurred. However he pleads ignorance about the register number of the said R.T.C. bus.

18.Coming to the evidence of the Conductor (P.W.4) who was attending duties in the crime vehicle R.T.C. Bus at the relevant time. As per his version, on 12.10.2017 at 8.25 AM, they started from Ramachandrapuram to Samalkota through their bus. At the time the accused was the driver of the said bus and he was attending duty as

Conductor in the said bus. On reaching G.Medapadu bus stop, some passengers alighted from the bus and some passenger got into the bus. After moving the said bus, at a distance of 100 meters they heard some sounds and cries from the public behind the bus. Then they stopped their bus. He got down from the bus and found one woman who sustained bleeding injuries over her legs. He further deposed that he does not know what was happened and how the said woman received such injuries.

Meanwhile the accused also got down from the bus and came to them and he made a bandage with a cloth to the injuries of the said woman. He called 108 ambulance.

Meanwhile, the relatives of the injured woman came there. Then the injured woman was shifted to Government Hospital through 108 ambulance. At the time, the accused was also accompanied the injured and her relatives to the hospital through the said 108 ambulance. He stayed at their bus itself. Meanwhile, their department men came to the spot and enquired and recorded his statement. Later they took the said bus to the police station.

19.P.W.5 who is one of the mediators of the scene observation report (Ex.P2), deposed that on 12.10.2017 at about 4.30 P.M. the Police observed the scene of offence at Anjaneyaswamy temple center in G.Medapadu Village in his presence. At the scene of offence, they observed one RTC Bus bearing No.AP28 Z 5664 and also found one female dead body at the scene. The police got drafted the scene observation report through him under Ex.P.2.

20.Coming to the evidence of another eye witness who examined as P.W.7.

According to him, he know the deceased who belongs to their village and on 7 CC.383/2018 Dt.05.06.2020 12.10.2017 at about 10.00 AM when he was getting repair of his motorcycle at the bus stop of their village G.Medapadu, at the same time he found one bus came from

Biccavolu and stopped at the bus stop and some of the passengers got in the bus.

Meanwhile, the deceased crossed the canal and came on the front side of the bus in order to get in the bus. At the time, the driver of the said bus did not observe her and proceeded further. As such, the deceased fell under the bus and her two legs were crushed under the wheels of the said bus. The driver of the said bus did not observe the person who fell under the bus and run further. Then he run after the bus and got it stop. The driver of the said bus got down from the bus and came back and found the incident what was happened. Meanwhile, the public was gathered there.

Meanwhile the son of deceased was also came there. They called 108 ambulance and got shifted the injured to the hospital. Later he came to know that she was succumbed to injuries.

21.He further deposed that the register number of the said bus number i.e., AP28

Z 5364 and the accused was the driver of said crime vehicle bus at the relevant time of the incident who provided water to the injured.

22.P.W.8 is the Asst. Professor of Department of Forensic Medicine, R.M.C.,

Kakinada who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased at the request of S.I. of Police, Samalkota P.S. After completion of the autopsy, he issued Post

Mortem Report by giving opinion that the cause of death is due to shock as a result of

Polytrauma.

23.P.W.9 is the then S.I. of Police, Samalkota P.S. who have conducted major portion of investigation in this case deposed the chronological events of the investigation right from the receipt of Hospital intimation, statement of P.W.1 under

Ex.P1 and visiting the scene of offence, observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, thereafter holding inquest over the dead body. Later got conducted

Post Mortem Examination through the Doctor, in meanwhile examined various witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 7. Later the C.D. file was handed over to Inspector of Police 8 CC.383/2018 Dt.05.06.2020 (P.W.10) who had received the C.D. file from P.W.9 on 14.10.2017 and after verifying the investigation done by P.W.9 and found the same on correct lines. Then he proceeded to arrest the accused and released on station bail. Later he got inspected the crime vehicle through M.V.I. and after collecting P.M.E. and M.V.I. reports, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC.

24.A perusal of entire evidence and material available on the record, the version of the prosecution as well as the evidence let in by the witnesses particularly P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.7 who are claimed to be the eye witnesses to the incident depicts that while the deceased woman crossing the road, the accused being the driver of the crime vehicle drove in rash manner and dashed against the deceased and got the vehicle run over through the legs of woman and caused serious injuries over the legs of the deceased and subsequently the deceased was dead due to such injuries.

25.At the outset it can be said that there is no dispute in the identification of the accused to be the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of the incident. It is also no longer a dispute the crime vehicle i.e., A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP28 Z 5364 involved in the said incident. It is also not in dispute that the deceased died in road accident. So the crucial question to be examined is that whether there was any rashness or negligence on the part of the accused in causing the death of the deceased.

26.In order to ascertain the fact of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused being the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of the incident, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.7 assumes much significance as they are claimed to be eye witnesses to the incident. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 must be scrutinized with careful circumspect to ascertain the veracity of their evidence.

27.It is relevant to note that, during cross examination P.W.1 stated that his mother came to the bus stop to get the bus in order to proceed Prathipadu Village.

P.W.7 also deposed the same that the deceased came on front side of the bus in order to get the bus, at the time the said incident was occurred.

9 CC.383/2018 Dt.05.06.2020

28.So, in view of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.7, it was made clear that the deceased came to the bus stop in order to get the bus.

29.The learned defence counsel vehemently contended that if the bus dashed against the deceased woman while the said woman actually crossing the bus, only her legs alone cannot be mutilated and there is every possibility the other parts of the body like head, face and hands etc., could have got injured. But in this case the deceased had received only injuries at her legs alone and the other parts of the body are intact and as it is. So, it is highly improbable to say that the bus dashed the woman in opposite side. The learned counsel further suggested to the witnesses in the form of defence which was taken that the deceased while getting into the bus in hurry manner skidded from the heap of mud and gone her legs under the rear wheels of the bus on the left side, as such her legs alone were caused to injured and there is no truth as stated by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.7 or as presented by the prosecution of its case. Moreover, the learned defence counsel contended that P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.7 were planted as eye witnesses only in order to claim compensation.

30.In the light of facts and circumstances, the defence put forth on behalf of the accused cannot be ruled out since the deceased had received only injuries on her legs.

The photographs of the deceased also visible that her legs were alone in crushed manner and other entire body of the deceased is in normal. Moreover, the prosecution version is also discernible that the deceased had received only injuries at her legs. Even through post mortem examination report (Ex.P3), the external injuries which are noted by the medical officer (P.W.8) in his post mortem examination Ex.P3 that 1) a reddish contused abrasion of 6 x 4 cm over right occipital region over the scalp, 2) A bond deep reddish laceration of 4 x 3 cm below the left knee, 3) crush injury over the left lower leg with foot. The internal injury is hematoma of 6 x 4 cm present over right occipital region under the scalp. The opinion of the medical officer is that the cause of death is due to ‘shock as a result of Polytrauma’.

10 CC.383/2018 Dt.05.06.2020

31.In view of the post mortem examination, the injuries 1 and 2 are only contusion and laceration injuries. If the vehicle dashed against the deceased in opposite direction, grave injuries could have been resulted instead of simple injuries like contusion and laceration and those contusion and laceration injuries might have ensued while she was falling down. During cross examination of first investigation officer (P.W.9) it was categorically elicited the information that no blood marks on the front portion of the crime vehicle was found and the said incident was taken place at the proper of the bus stop. It is further elicited that there was some heap of mud nearby the scene of offence. It is further elicited that generally no vehicles can run in speed manner at the scene of offence since it is a busy locality and there is a bus stop.

32.In view of the circumstances, certainly the defence which was taken on behalf of the accused makes probablize that while the deceased getting into the bus in hurry manner skid from heap of mud and due to her old age, she could not control her and her legs gone under the wheels, in meantime the vehicle was in moving condition, as a result her legs were mutilated under the wheels and due to that she might have shocked and resulted into her death.

33.Moreover, it is a strange circumstances to believe that the bus all of sudden running in rash or negligent manner after starting from the bus stop. When a bus came to the bus stop and stopped to facilitate the passengers to alight from the bus and as well as to get them into the bus, thereafter the bus cannot be expected to move either in a rash or negligent manner. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.7 the bus was stopped at about 5 or 6 feet after the said incident. It being so, it does not make any scope to infer that the said bus was running either in rash or negligent manner at the relevant time of incident. So, the assertion of P.W.7 who claimed to be eye witness that itself sufficient to say that there was no fault on the part of the accused who being the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of the incident in causing the death of deceased. Even the evidence of P.W.4 who is the Bus conductor discloses that after moving the bus at a distance of 100 meters they could 11 CC.383/2018 Dt.05.06.2020 hear some havocs of public behind the bus, then they stopped the bus. So the circumstances as revealed by the bus conductor within short distance, the bus was able to stop. Unless the bus is moving in slow condition, the bus cannot be stopped at distance of 100 meters even. Further, if the woman fell in front of the bus, there is no possibility to run even to the extent of 100 meters, otherwise the entire body of the deceased should have crushed under the front wheels of the said bus. This was not case of the prosecution. Having regard of these circumstances, it can be said that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 are not sufficient to establish the circumstances as to the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. Further P.W.3 is not eye witness and his evidence goes to show that he heard about the incident through some other.

Hence, he is hear say witness, his evidence does not attach much significance. Hence, it can be said that the essential ingredients i.e., rashness or negligence on the part of the accused to prove the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC has not been proved.

34.Be that as it may, the evidence of P.W.5 who is one of the mediator of the scene of offence observation, disclosed that in his presence the police conducted scene observation at G.Medapadu village, where they observed and found the female dead body at the scene. Infact, soon after the incident the injured was shifted to hospital through ambulance as per evidence of all the witnesses. Therefore, there is no chance to keep the body again at the scene. When this witness making assertion that he has found the female dead body at the scene, that itself makes falsified his version and also affecting the investigation done by the investigating officer.

35.So, in the light of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered view, that there is no evidence to show that rash or negligent act of the accused caused the death of the deceased. Mere identification of accused alone is not sufficient to inculpate the accused in the said offence unless proving the death was result of rashness or negligent act of accused. As such, he is entitled for acquittal.

36.Having regard of these circumstances, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

12 CC.383/2018 Dt.05.06.2020

37.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted for the said offence under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no case property, hence no order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant on computer in the chamber of Presiding Officer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 5th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) For Trial of Cases Under P.C.R Act-cum- VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant: For Defence:

PW.1: Kanchumarthi Rayudu --- NIL --- PW.2: Achanta Venkannababu PW.3: Kona Ramesh PW.4: Pedidadakala Samudra Rao PW.5: Someswarapu Babji PW.6: Achanta Suryanarayana PW.7: Bathula Rajendra Prasad PW.8: Dr.P.Phani Kiran PW.9: S.Lakshmi Kantham PW.10: S.Prasanna Veerayya Goud

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant: For Accused:

Ex.P.1: Statement of P.W.1 --- Nil --- Ex.P.2: Scene Observation Report Ex.P.3: Post Mortem Report Ex.P.4: F.I.R. Ex.P.5: Three photographs of the scene of offence Ex.P.6: Rough Sketch Ex.P.7: Inquest Report Ex.P.8: M.V.I. Report

Material Objects:

–- NIL –-

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) For Trial of Cases Under P.C.R Act-cum- VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

1 CC.542/2018 Dt.20.03.2020

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (MOBILE)

FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER P.C.R. ACT-CUM- VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, KAKINADA.

Calendar Case No.542/2018

Date of Offence: 13.09.2017

Date of Report of Complaint: 13.09.2017

Date of Apprehension of accused: 29.09.2017

Date of Release on Bail: 29.09.2017

Date of Commencement of trial: 05.12.2019

Date of Closure of trial: 12.03.2020

Date of Sentence of Order: 20.03.2020

Explanation of delay and remarks: Due to non production of

Witnesses by prosecution

Name of the Complainant:

State represented by Inspector of Police, Peddapuram Circle.

Name of the Accused:

Nune Lava Kumar @ Chinni, S/o.Pothuraju, aged 43 years, R/o.D.No.11-22/1, Katravulapalli Village, Jaggampeta Mandal, Now at F.C.I. Colony, Valasapakala, Kakinada Rural Mandal.

Offence : U/Sec.304-A of IPC

Plea of accused: Not Guilty

Finding: Found not guilty

Result: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted for the said offence under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no case property, hence no order is passed.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) For Trial of Cases Under P.C.R Act-cum- VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

2 CC.542/2018 Dt.20.03.2020

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (MOBILE)

FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER P.C.R ACT-CUM- VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, KAKINADA.

Present : Sri Ch.Yugandhar, Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020

C.C.542/2018

Between: State represented by Inspector of Police, Peddapuram Circle.

..Complainant

And

Nune Lava Kumar @ Chinni, S/o.Pothuraju, aged 43 years, R/o.D.No.11-22/1, Katravulapalli Village, Jaggampeta Mandal,

Now at F.C.I. Colony, Valasapakala, Kakinada Rural Mandal. .. Accused

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 16.03.2020 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Complainant and in the presence of Sri.D.V.Sastry and T.Radha Krishna, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record and upon stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Inspector of Police, Peddapuram Circle filed charge sheet against the accused alleging the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC in Cr.No.216/2017.

2.The brief contents of the charge sheet are that on 13.09.2017 in the early morning at about 4.00 AM, the deceased started from his house on his cycle to attend coolie work at Bhimeswara Swamy temple area, went to Balla Market centre,

Samalkota, met some Jattu coolies and again proceeded along with his co-coolie i.e.,

Dasari Peda Kapu on their respective cycles and both of them crossed the Railway track side toward Iron bridge constructed on Godavari Canal to go to Bhimeswara

Swamy temple and while crossing so, exactly at the southern side road margin, near the iron bridge, Bajaj Platina motorcycle bearing No.AP05 BL 1803 being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn, came from Kakinada side and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained bleeding injuries over his head and body and lost his consciousness. The accused motorcyclist also fallen down and sustained simple injury. Dasari Pedakapu and

Pragada Apparao has also witnessed the accident. On knowing the same, his son and 3 CC.542/2018 Dt.20.03.2020 daughter rushed to spot and shifted the deceased and accused on 108 ambulance and admitted in G.G.H., Kakinada for treatment. Subsequently, on 26.09.2017 at 11.05 AM, the deceased died due to injuries while undergoing treatment in G.G.H., Kakinada.

3.On 13.09.2017 at 7.30 AM, on receipt of MLC intimation, A.S.I. of Police, G.G.H.

O.P.P.S., Kakinada recorded the statement of Kona Siva Prasad and sent the same to

S.H.O. Samalkota P.S. on the point of jurisdiction. Basing on the MLC intimation and the statement of Kona Siva Prasad, Woman Sub Inspector of Police, Samalkota P.S.

registered a case in Cr.No.216/2017, U/Sec.337 IPC and investigated the case. On 26.09.2017 at 2.00 PM, on receipt of death intimation regarding the death of deceased, altered the section of law from 337 IPC to 304-A IPC and continued further investigation. On 28.09.2017 Inspector of Police, Peddapuram Circle took up further investigation. During the course of investigation, Sub Inspector of Police, Samalkota

P.S. examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, examined it, prepared rough sketch, got drafted an observation report by the mediators, took photographs of the scene of offence, altered the section of law from 337 IPC to 304-A IPC on 26.09.2017 at 2.00 PM, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and blood relatives of the deceased and direct witnesses and sent the dead body for Post Mortem Examination. The Inspector of Police, Peddapuram Circle attested the accused on 29.09.2017 at 6.00 PM and released on bail. Dr.P.Phani Kiran, Asst. Professor, R.M.C. G.G.H. Campus, Kakinada conducted Post Mortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased, issued P.M.

Certificate. G.Radhika Devi, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kakinada inspected the crime vehicle, issued accident report and opined that the said accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the said vehicle. Dr.Giridhar, C.M.O. G.G.H., Kakinada treated the injuries of accused, issued wound certificate and opined that the injury sustained by the accused is simple in nature. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

4.On perusal of charge sheet and other documents filed by the police under section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, this case was taken on file for the offence 4 CC.542/2018 Dt.20.03.2020 U/Sec.304-A of IPC. The copies of this case documents are furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5.Accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation for the offence under Section 304-A IPC was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P11 on their behalf.

7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the entire incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now, the point arises for determination is that, “whether the prosecution

could prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

U/Sec.304-A of IPC”?

10.POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Kona Satyanarayana and the injured P.W.2 Dasari Peda Kapu who are co-workers. As such, on 13.09.2017 in the early hours at about 5.00 AM, they both proceeded towards Bheemeswara swamy temple, Samalkota in order to attend work over there. On the way after crossing the

Railway track at the Samalkota Railway Station and crossing the road on their respective bicycles to other side of the road to reach their work place, the accused being the driver of the motorcycle Bajaj Platinum bearing No.AP05 BL 1803 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased cycle. Due to that, the deceased fell down on the road and got severe injury over his head and succumbed to injury subsequently. In that incident, the injured Peda Kapu (P.W.2) had also received injuries, as he was following the deceased on his cycle. In meanwhile, the information 5 CC.542/2018 Dt.20.03.2020 was passed to the family members of the deceased. Accordingly, the son of the deceased i.e., P.W.1 and some other his relatives rushed to the spot and found his father in pool of blood. Then took him to G.G.H., Kakinada through 108 ambulance for treatment. However, his father i.e., deceased died while undergoing the treatment. At the same time, the police who having knowledge of the incident had taken the statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P1 in order to initiate the criminal prosecution against the accused.

11. During trial, the prosecution examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 9.

12.P.W.1 is the son of the deceased. Infact, he is not the eye witness to the incident, he after receives the information about the incident rushed to the spot and shifted his father to G.G.H., Kakinada for treatment. However, his efforts went invain.

Meanwhile, his statement was recorded by the police at G.G.H., Kakinada and registered the crime basing on his statement (Ex.P1) for the offence U/Sec.337 IPC initially. It is pertinent to note that besides narration about receiving the information of the incident, P.W.1 had also added that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle AP05 BL 1805 and is the person responsible for the death of his father. As he is not the eye witness to the actual occurrence of the incident, his testimony with regard to the identification of the accused to be the driver of the crime vehicle does not attach much weight. Be that as it may, the identification of the accused through this witness is to be appreciate along with evidence of other witnesses and circumstances of the case.

13.Hence, coming to the evidence of P.W.2 who claimed to be the co-worker of the deceased, his narration goes to show that he was also following the deceased on his bicycle and when crossing the road at Railway cross level, Samalkota and crossing towards Bheemeswara Swamy temple bridge, the accused being the driver of the crime vehicle came in speed manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to that the deceased fell down from the cycle and received severe injury at his head and blood was oozed from his ear. Then he immediately telephone to the daughter of the deceased and informed about the incident. Meanwhile, the son and daughter of 6 CC.542/2018 Dt.20.03.2020 deceased i.e., P.W.1 and L.W.3 Gayatri came to the spot. Thereafter, they shifted the injured through 108 Ambulance to G.G.H., Kakinada. At the time the accused was also taken to same hospital as he was also received some injuries in the said incident. But he could not give the details of the crime vehicle which said to have driven by the accused.

14.Coming to the evidence of P.W.3 who is V.R.O. in her presence the police observe the scene of offence and got prepared scene observation report under Ex.P2 and also drawn rough sketch and also hold inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the premises of G.G.H., Kakinada where she being the elder of the inquest concluded that the deceased died in road accident.

15.As the incident or the place of incident are not in dispute, therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 became trivial and does not attach much significance. However, on observation of the rough sketch Ex.P10, no skid marks were noted. It is one of the relevant aspect to be taken note of it.

16.P.W.4 is claimed to be eye witness to the incident. According to him, on 13.09.2017 at about5.00 AM, he is the auto driver by profession picked up the passengers at Samalkota Railway Station to his auto and proceeding towards

Bheemeswara Swamy temple, on reaching the said spot at about 5.40 AM, the deceased and P.W.2 while crossing the road on their respective cycles, at the same time, the accused who came on his motorcycle in speed manner and dashed against the deceased. Immediately the deceased fell on the ground and hit to ground. In that impact, his head was injured and he became unconscious. The accused has also fell down from his motorcycle and received injuries. He further went to deposed that

P.W.2 has also received simple injuries due to impact of the incident. However, P.W.2 passed the message to the said incident to the family members of the deceased who within 15 minutes came to the spot and got shifted the deceased to G.G.H., Kakinada through 108 ambulance. Later he came to know the deceased died while undergoing treatment.

7 CC.542/2018 Dt.20.03.2020

17.P.W.5 is Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspect the crime vehicle on the requisition of Inspector of Police, Peddapuram Circle on 04.12.2017 at 8.15 AM in the premises of Samalkota Police Station. As per the evidence of P.W.5 no damages were found over the said crime vehicle and she has also put the vehicle to road test and found the breaks and breaking system are intact or in order. The Motor Vehicle

Inspector has inspected the crime vehicle after 82 days of the incident.

18.P.W.6 was the medical officer who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found four anti mortem external injuries and three internal injuries. As per his opinion, the deceased died due to complication of cranio cerebral injury (Head Injury). Accordingly, he issued P.M.E. Report.

19.P.W.7 is one of the investigating officer in this case who received death intimation of the deceased on 26.09.2017 at 2.00 PM and issued altered F.I.R. by altering the offence from 337 IPC to 304-A IPC and hold inquest over the dead body of the deceased and examined some witnesses.

20.P.W.8 is also one of the investigating officer who initially received hospital intimation along with statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P1 and registered the case in

Cr.No.216/2017 for the offence U/Sec.337 of IPC and took up the investigation by proceeding to G.G.H., Kakinada and examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and thereafter proceed to the scene of offence and in the presence of mediators he observed the scene of offence and got prepared scene observation report and drawn rough sketch.

Thereafter he handed over the C.D. file to C.I. of Police i.e., P.W.9 who arrested the accused on 29.09.2017 and released on station bail and after receipt of P.M.E. and

M.V.I. report, he proceeded to file charge sheet.

21.On perusal of entire evidence and material available on record, P.Ws.2 and 4 are the eye witnesses to the incident, except them there are no other witnesses. Now the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 shall be scrutinized in order to see whether their evidence is reliable and trust worthy in order to implicate the accused for the said offence.

8 CC.542/2018 Dt.20.03.2020

22.As regards to the veracity of the evidence of P.W.2, he is no other than the co- worker of deceased, therefore, he can be treated as partisan witness.

23.He nowhere stated that he had also received any injury in that incident. But

P.W.4 who is another claimed to be eye witness reported that P.W.2 had also received in the said incident, however, the said injuries are simple in nature. But there was no whisper in prosecution case in anywhere. The investigating officer P.W.8 categorically admitted during cross examination that P.W.2 did not receive any injuries in the said incident. P.W.1 also, did not whisper anything about the receiving of injuries by P.W.2 in the said incident. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.4 goes to show that the motorcyclist i.e., accused also fell down from his motorcycle and received injuries and he was also taken to the hospital. This was also not established by the prosecution in any manner except through the evidence of P.W.4. Had the accused received any injuries, the prosecution ought to have brought the said fact to the notice of this court through proper evidence by filing the medical reports of the accused. But there is no such cogent evidence. In the absence of such cogent evidence, the evidence of

P.W.4 cannot be taken into consideration. Further, if the accused dashed against the cyclist in speed manner, certainly he would have also fell down from the motorcycle because of failure in controlling the vehicle and the vehicle also certainly got damaged. Here it is pertinent to note that the evidence of M.V.I. (P.W.5) there was no damage was found over the crime vehicle motorcycle. Be that as it may, during cross examination the cross examination of P.W.4, it was elicited that he is also residing in the same area of the deceased i.e., China Veedhi of Samalkota Town and it is further elicited that he was examined by the police at the time of postmortem examination at about 10.00 AM on that day.

24.The prosecution has projected P.W.4 to be the independent witness in this case.

Infact, P.W.4 when found the same local inhabitant of locality where the deceased is residing gives rise to suspicion as to credibility of his testimony. Moreover, if he got really occasion to witness the incident, his statement would have recorded by the police on the same day. But as per his own assertion, his statement was recorded by 9 CC.542/2018 Dt.20.03.2020 the police at the time of postmortem examination. Usually the postmortem examination will conduct after completion of inquest procedure. Here the inquest was done by the police on 27.09.2017 at 8.00 AM as per the evidence of P.W.3. It means after 14 days of the incident, the inquest was done and even as per Ex.P5 postmortem examination report and the evidence of the medical officer P.W.6, the postmortem examination was also held on 27.09.2017. So, the statement of P.W.4 was seems to have recorded by the police during the inquest or the postmortem examination that was done on 27.09.2017 which is after 14 days of the incident as the actual incident was taken place on 13.09.2017. Having regard of these circumstances, it can be said that P.W.4 was planted for the purpose of this case and his evidence is not inspiring confidence that he was witness the actual occurrence of the incident as alleged by him. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 cannot be taken into consideration.

25.As observed above P.W.2 is found to be partition witness, moreover, even if the evidence of P.W.2 is taken into consideration that the accused was driver of the crime vehicle, again the duty caste upon the prosecution to make establish the essential ingredients for the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC i.e., rashness or negligence on the part of the accused in causing the said incident. Infact, the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 nowhere stated that the accused driven the motorcycle either in rashness or negligent manner. However, they stated that the accused came on his motorcycle in speed manner. It is settled legal position that mere running of the motorcycle in speed manner does not constitute the act of either rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. Further, it has to be seen the deceased was seems to be senior citizen and the photographs of the deceased also showing that he was very lean man.

Therefore, it cannot be ruled out the defence which was put forth on behalf of the accused that without observing the traffic while crossing the road, the deceased himself might have confused and fell on the ground and received such injury and the accused has nothing to do the said injury. Thereby, the inference can be drawn in furtherance of surrounding circumstances where the motorcycle had not received any damages over it and no injuries over the body of accused in the said incident.

10 CC.542/2018 Dt.20.03.2020

26.Having regard of these circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC.

27.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted for the said offence under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no case property, hence no order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant on computer in the chamber of Presiding Officer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) For Trial of Cases Under P.C.R Act-cum- VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant: For Defence:

PW.1: Kona Siva Prasad --- NIL --- PW.2: Dasari Peda Kapu PW.3: Undavalli Venkata Suneetha PW.4: Pragada Apparao PW.5: G.Radhika Devi, Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kakinada PW.6: Dr.P.Phani Kiran, Asst. Professor PW.7: S.Lakshmi Kantham, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Samalkota P.S. PW.8: L.Srinu, Sub Inspector of Police, Samalkota P.S. PW.9: S.Prasanna Veerayya Goud, Inspector of Police, Peddapuram Circle.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant: For Accused:

Ex.P.1: Statement of P.W.1 --- Nil --- Ex.P.2: Scene Observation Report Ex.P.3: Inquest Report Ex.P.4: M.V.I. Report Ex.P.5: Post Mortem Examination Certificate Ex.P.6: Death Intimation Ex.P.7: Altered F.I.R. Ex.P.8: Hospital Intimation Ex.P.9: F.I.R. Ex.P.10: Rough Sketch Ex.P.11: Two Photographs of the scene along with C.D.

Material Objects:

–- NIL –-

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) For Trial of Cases Under P.C.R Act-cum- VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

1

Fair Judgment in O.S No.399/2019, dt.20.03.2020

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAKINADA.

Present : Sri Ch.Yugandhar, VI Additional Junior Civil Judge Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020

Original Suit No.399 of 2019

Between:- Polisetti Satish... Plaintif

And

1. Bharatala Jyothi

2. Bharatala Kannayya…Defendants

This suit coming on 18.03.2020 for final hearing before this court in the presence of Sri.N.Ramadass, Advocate for Plaintif and Defendants Nos.1 and 2 are remained set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Suit for recovery of money basing on promissory note.

2.The brief averments of the plaint is that on 26.10.2017 both the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintif for the purpose of family expenses and discharge of sundry debts and jointly executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintif on the even date and agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest at Rs.2/- p.c.p.m. either to the plaintif or his order. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintif, the defendants did not pay any amount to the plaintif and the defendants postponed the same on one or other pretext and the plaintif got issued a legal notice on 23.04.2019 to the defendants demanding to repay the amount. But the defendants did not pay any amount due under the said promissory note to the plaintif even after the issuance of the legal notice. Hence, this suit.

3.It is further averred that the defendants are not agriculturist, as such they are not entitled to the benefits of Act 4/1938, Act 7/1977, A.P. Act 45/1987 and Amended

Act 2/1990 and any other subsequent debt relief laws.

4.Hence, the plaintif prayed to pass a decree in his favour against the defendants for the sum of Rs.3,40,500/- together with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization and to grant costs and other reliefs.

2

Fair Judgment in O.S No.399/2019, dt.20.03.2020

5.Though summons served on the defendants, the defendants called absent and set exparte.

6.The point for consideration is that “Whether the plaintif is entitled for recover the amount of Rs.3,40,500/- as prayed for?

7.POINT:

The plaintif himself examined as P.W.1 and filed chief examination affidavit in lieu of his chief examination by reiterating the same averments of his plaint and also he relied on the documentary evidence Exs.A.1 and A.2 viz., Ex.A.1 is original promissory note, dt.26.10.2017 for Rs.2,50,000/- executed by the defendants in favour of plaintif, Ex.A.2 is office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintif to the defendants along with postal receipt, dt.23.04.2019.

8.Scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note was examined as P.W.2, who deposed that in his presence both the defendants jointly borrowed sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintif on 26.10.2017 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note and at the time, he scribed Ex.A1 promissory note.

9.In view of the unchallenged version of P.Ws.1 and 2 besides documentary evidence clearly goes to show that the P.W.1 has successfully proved his case that the defendants borrowed money under Ex.A.1. Consequently, the plaintif is entitled to recover the same from the defendants.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.3,40,500/- with future interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principle amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 20th day of March,2020.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar

VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

3

Fair Judgment in O.S No.399/2019, dt.20.03.2020

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Plaintiff: For Defendants: P.W.1/10.02.2020Polisetti Satish --- Nil --- P.W.2/18.03.2020Chamarthi Surya Rao

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Original promissory note, dt.26.10.2017 for Rs.2,50,000/- executed by the defendants in favour of plaintif

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice got issued by plaintif to the defendants along with postal receipt, dt.23.04.2019

For Defendants: Nil

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar

VI A.J.C.J.

:: IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : RAJAHMUNDRY.

Sri.CH.Yugandhar, I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.

Saturday the 25th day of September, 2021

C.C.No. 2656 of 2021

Between : State Sub-Inspector of Police,

Gokavaram Police Station. ... Complainant

And

Degala Narayana Rao S/o. Venkata Ramana, A/30 years Divanam Veedhi, Rampa Yarrampalem Village, … Accused

This case coming on 25-09-2021 this day for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P for state and the accused admitted the offence and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :- // J U D G M E N T //

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gokavaram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.269 IPC in Cr No.336/2021.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution is that: On 22-06-2021 at 17-15 hours

L.W.3 Sub-Inspector of Police, Gokavaram found the accused at Divanam Veedhi Rampa

Yarrampalem Village, Gokavaram Village, by violating Sec.144 Cr.P.C which was in force at that time to prevent the spread of Covid -19 and caught the accused. On the strength of occurrence report L.W.3 Sub-Inspector of Police, Gokavaram registered the same as F.I.R in

Cr.No.336/2021 u/sec.188, 269 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation the arrested accused was released on station bail on the same day ie., on 22- 06-2021. During the course of investigation Sub-Inspector of Police alter the section of law from 188 IPC to 269 IPC. Due to the accused avoid the rules of Covid-19. Hence the charge.

3. Case has been taken on file U/sec.269 IPC.

4. Accused present and copies of case documents furnished U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. The substance of acquisition for the offence u/sec.269

IPC is read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded guilty. On my enquiry, the admission is found voluntary. Hence accepted the admission. Accordingly,

Accused is found guilty for the offence U/Sec.269 IPC and he is convicted u/sec.252 Cr.P.C and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence U/sec.269 IPC. Total fine amount of Rs.100/- shall be confiscated to state. Indefault of payment of fine the accused shall sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days.

Typed to my dictation by the steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 25th day of September, 2021.

I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of evidence -- Nil ---

I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

:: IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : RAJAHMUNDRY.

Sri.CH.Yugandhar, I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.

Saturday the 25th day of September, 2021

C.C.No. 2661 of 2021

Between : State Sub-Inspector of Police,

Gokavaram Police Station. ... Complainant

And

Machepalli Naga Veera Surya Balaraju S/o. Srirama Chandramurthy, A/26 years Thantikonda Village, Gokavaram Mandal. … Accused

This case coming on 25-09-2021 this day for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P for state and the accused admitted the offence and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :- // J U D G M E N T //

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gokavaram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.269 IPC in Cr No.351/2021.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution is that: On 27-06-2021 at 16-15 hours

L.W.3 Sub-Inspector of Police, Gokavaram found the accused at Gokavaram Village, by violating Sec.144 Cr.P.C which was in force at that time to prevent the spread of Covid -19 and caught the accused. On the strength of occurrence report L.W.3 Sub-Inspector of

Police, Gokavaram registered the same as F.I.R in Cr.No.351/2021 u/sec.188, 269 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation the arrested accused was released on station bail on the same day ie., on 27-06-2021. During the course of investigation Sub-

Inspector of Police alter the section of law from 188 IPC to 269 IPC. Due to the accused avoid the rules of Covid-19. Hence the charge.

3. Case has been taken on file U/sec.269 IPC.

4. Accused present and copies of case documents furnished U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. The substance of acquisition for the offence u/sec.269

IPC is read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded guilty. On my enquiry, the admission is found voluntary. Hence accepted the admission. Accordingly,

Accused is found guilty for the offence U/Sec.269 IPC and he is convicted u/sec.252 Cr.P.C and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence U/sec.269 IPC. Total fine amount of Rs.100/- shall be confiscated to state. Indefault of payment of fine the accused shall sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days.

Typed to my dictation by the steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 25th day of September, 2021.

I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of evidence -- Nil ---

I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.