Smt Chavali Ramya

1

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

II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Smt. RAMYA CHAVALI,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem

Tuesday, this the 25 th day of April, 2023

C.C.No.229/2021

BETWEEN:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pentapadu Police Station. … Complainant

And

Addanki Sunil Kumar S/o Yudha, Age 40 years, Sagipadu Village, Undi Mandal.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 24-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Jaya Sree, I/C.Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State

for the Complainant/Prosecution and Sri K.Sudhakara Rao,

Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day and the Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1. The State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Pentapadu

Police Station has filed Charge Sheet against Accused in Crime No.61 of 2021 of Pentapadu Police Station, for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

2. Case of the prosecution in consice:

On 01-04-2021 at 07-30 am the defacto complainant reported that on 25-03-2021 himself and 35 others of his village went to pilgrimages on travels bus bearing No. AP 39 TK 5557 and after completion of pilgrimages on 31-03-2021 at about 4pm they started returning back to their village and when they reached Allampuram village stopped their bus at Sri

Charan Lakshmi Hotel by the road side to take tea and nature calls, when 2 PW.1 and deceased Ponnada Yerraiah were doing face wash by the road side margin in the mean time the accused driver of Tanker Lorry No. AP 26

U 2799 coming from Eluru side to Tanuku side drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed the deceased and ran over his both legs resulting which both legs were crushed and died on spot and on 01-04-2021 at about 7.30 am when PW.10/ASI was present at the station

PW.1 presented a written report and same is registered as case in crime

No. 61/21 U/sec 304A of IPC and submitted the original FIR to court and relevant documents to concerned authorities and took up further investigation and on same day he visited the scene of offence and took photographs and prepared scene observation report in the presence of mediators and prepared rough sketch and on the same day visited the

Mortuary shed Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem secured the presence of

PW’s 1,3,4 and LW’s 2 to 4 of blood relatives of the deceased and recorded their detailed 161 Cr.P.C statements and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the mortuary shed, Area Hospital,

Tadepalligudem and got drafted inquest report by the panchayathidars and gave requisition to doctor for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and on the same day once again visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of PW.5 and LW.8 examined them and recorded their statements and on 05-04-2021 at 10 am the crime vehicle owner LW.16/ Addanki Suresh brought the accused to the station and produced before LW.16/SI of police and disclosed his identity 1234 and after verification issued 41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and later gave requisition to the MVI for conducting inspection over the crime vehicle and MVI inspected the crime vehicle at the station and after receiving of MVI report and PM certificate and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

3

3. The said case is taken on file as Calendar Case No. 229/2021 against

Accused for the offence punishable under section 304A of IPC on the file of this Court and issued summons to accused.

4. After appearance of accused before the court, accused is examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., read over and explained to accused in telugu, during which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, P.W’s.1 to P.W.11 were examined and

Ex’s.P.1 to P.10 were marked. On behalf of accused, no witness is examined and no document is also marked.

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

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., stating the incriminating material made against him for which he reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7. Heard learned APP and learned counsel for Accused and perused the record.

8. The point for determination is: - “Whether prosecution has proved its

case against Accused for the offence punishable under section 304A of

IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?”

P O I N T:

9. At the outset, case of prosecution against accused is that “On

01-04-2021 at 07-30 am the defacto complainant reported that on 25-03-

2021 himself and 35 others of his village went to pilgrimages on travels bus

bearing No. AP 39 TK 5557 and after completion of pilgrimages on 31-03-

2021 at about 4pm they started returning back to their village and when

they reached Allampuram village stopped their bus at Sri Charan Lakshmi

Hotel by the road side to take tea and nature calls, when PW.1 and

deceased Ponnada Yerraiah were doing face wash by the road side

margin in the mean time the accused driver of Tanker Lorry No. AP 26 U

4

2799 coming from Eluru side to Tanuku side drove his lorry in a rash and

negligent manner in high speed and dashed the deceased and ran over

his both legs resulting which both legs were crushed and died on spot and

on 01-04-2021 at about 7.30 am when PW.10/ASI was present at the station

PW.1 presented a written report and same is registered as case in crime

No. 61/21 U/sec 304A of IPC and submitted the original FIR to court and

relevant documents to concerned authorities and took up further

investigation and on same day he visited the scene of offence and took

photographs and prepared scene observation report in the presence of

mediators and prepared rough sketch and on the same day visited the

Mortuary shed Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem secured the presence of

PW’s 1,3,4 and LW’s 2 to 4 of blood relatives of the deceased and recorded

their detailed 161 Cr.P.C statements and held inquest over the dead body

of the deceased at the mortuary shed, Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem and

got drafted inquest report by the panchayathidars and gave requisition to

doctor for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and

on the same day once again visited the scene of offence and secured the

presence of PW.5 and LW.8 examined them and recorded their statements

and on 05-04-2021 at 10 am the crime vehicle owner LW.16/ Addanki

Suresh brought the accused to the station and produced before LW.16/SI

of police and disclosed his identity and after verification issued 41A Cr.P.C

notice to the accused and later gave requisition to the MVI for conducting

inspection over the crime vehicle and MVI inspected the crime vehicle at

the station and after receiving of MVI report and PM certificate and after

completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.” 10. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has cited Sixteen (16) witnesses but, it has succeeded to examine only Eleven (11) witnesses as

P.W’s.1 to P.W.11 who are none other than interested witnesses, 5 investigation officers, doctor who issued PM certificate and MVI who issued accident report.

11. For better appreciation of point on hand, if we invite our attention to the evidence of P.W.1, he speaks that “ the deceased is cousin brother

and that he along with his wife, deceased, LW’s 2 & 3 and PW’s 2 to 5 had

gone to tour 1 and half hour ago in a bus and while returning back to their

village they stopped their bus at Allampalli village near Tiffin shop and

they were attending natural calls and while they were doing brush , a

tanker came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his brother and

he died on spot and the accused stopped his vehicle at a distance and

came to the accident spot and saw the deceased and again ran away

and that later he lodged report.” In his cross examination he admitted that,

“he had not stated in Ex.P1/report or 161 Cr.P.C statement that the driver of

the tanker stopped his vehicle and came back an saw the accident and

went back and that he do not have personal acquaintance with the

accused and that he had not stated before police or in Ex.P1/report that

he can identify the accused and that they have claimed for insurance.”

The remaining suggestions were denied.

The evidence of PW.2 is that, “he know the deceased Yerraiah and

about 1 and half year ago their bus bearing No. 557 had gone to tour

along with PW.1, deceased and others and while returning back at

Allampur their vehicle was stopped for attending natural calls and at that

time while they were doing brush a tanker bearing No 2799 came and

dashed the deceased at some distance and the tanker stopped and the

driver of the tanker came back and saw the place of accident and went

away.” In his cross examination he admitted that, “he is travels agent and

record will maintain by the travel bus agency for the purpose of the

vehicle going out and in general due to negligence of travels bus also

6

some accidents occurs and that there will be tickets when they visit

temples and that they have never given the tickets to the police at the

time of enquiry and that police had never conducted text identification

parade to identify the accused.” The remaining suggestions were denied.

The evidence of PW.3 is that, “the deceased Yerraiah is his father

and about 1 and half year ago his father along with other villagers and

relatives had gone to pilgrims and on 6 th day their tour he had called his

father/deceased and he informed that they were near Tadepalligudem

and would return as soon as early and they were stopping for Tiffin in the

said area and at about 6 to 6.30 am one Achibabu received phone call

that his father died and he immediately came to him and informed him

about the same and they started from their village and reached the

hospital for post mortem examination and he enquired their villagers

about the accident and came to know that while his father was doing

brush a tanker dashed him and that the accused stopped his vehicle at a

distance and came to accident spot saw his father and went away.” In his cross examination he admitted that, “he had not witnessed the accident directly.” The remaining suggestions are denied.

The evidence of PW.4 is that, “ in the month of March of that year

they had gone to pilgrimage along with their villagers and while returning

back they stopped their vehicle at Alampur for attending natural calls and

at that time a tanker came and dashed the deceased and he sustained

bleeding injury on his legs and died on spot and later his dead body was

shifted to Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem.” In his cross examination he admitted that, “the deceased Yerraiah is no way concerned to him and that he had not given any bus tickets to the police.” The suggestions made were denied.

7 PW’s.5 & 8 turned hostile and their evidence cannot be considered.

12. The evidence of PW.6 is that, “he is working as VRO and on

01-04-2021 at about 7 am Pentapadu police asked him to come to Sri

Charan Lakshmi Venkateswara Rao tiffin centre at Allampuram high way

and he along with LW.11/VRA went to the scene of offence and found a

dead body of deceased Ponnada Yerraiah and also travels bus bearing

No.AP 39 5557 and a tanker lorry bearing No. AP 26 U 2799 and on

observing the same scene observation report was drafted and himself

along with LW.11/VRA signed on it and later at 9 am they have gone to

Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem and conducted inquest over the

dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died due to

accident by the tanker lorry present at the scene of offence while the

deceased was attending his natural calls.” in his cross he admitted that,

“ his office is at Allampuram Sachivalayam and he attends duties at about

8.30 am and that they mentioned their details of their work in the

attendance register present at the office and on receiving the phone call

from ASI of police he had gone to the scene of offence and that police

had not issued any written summons and he had obtained permission from

their higher authority through phone and that he had not produced any

document to prove that he had obtained permission from MRO through

phone and that scene observation report was drafted by LW.11/VRA.

The evidence of PW.7 is that, “on 02-04-2021 he received

requisition from SHO, Pentapadu PS regarding inspection of crime vehicle

bearing No. AP 26 U 2799 heavy goods vehicle and on the same day he

inspected the crime vehicle on the same day at Pentapadu Police station

premises at 10 am and found no damages to the crime vehicle and when

the vehicle was put to road test and found braking system of the crime

8

vehicle is effective and even action and he is of opinion that the accident

was not due to any mechanical defects and issued Ex.P5/MVI report.

The evidence of PW.9 is that, “he worked as CAS, Area Hospital,

Tadepalligudem and on 01-04-2021 at about 9.30 am he received

requisition from SHO Pentapadu police station to conduct post mortem

over the dead body of deceased Ponnada Yerraiah and found crush injury

on right lower limb from thigh to toe and crush injury left lower limb from

groin to toe and issued Ex.P7/PM certificate.”

The evidence of PW.10 is that, “he worked as Head Constable

previously and on 01-04-2021 at about 7.30 am while he was present in the

police station he received Ex.P1/report from PW.1 and same was

registered as case in crime No.61/21 U/sec 304 A of IPC and issued FIR

and the original FIR was submitted to this court and documents to

concerned authorities and visited the scene of offence and prepared

Ex.P3/scene observation report and Ex.P9/rough sketch and obtained

signatures of PW.6 and LW.11/VRA along with him and he found a bus

bearing No. AP 39 TK 5557 and a tanker lorry bearing No. AP 26 QU 2799

and also dead body of the deceased was shifted to Mortuary of

Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem and later visited the Government

Hospital, Tadepalligudem and secured the presence of PW’s 1 to 4, LW’s 2

to 4 and recorded their statements and later conducted inquest over the

dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and blood

relatives and later again visited the scene of offence secured the

presence of PW’s 5 & 8 and recorded their detailed 161 Cr.P.C statements

and a later handed over the CD file to LW.16/SI of Police and LW.16/SI of

police issued 41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused on verification and later

issued requisition to PW. 7 for inspected the crime vehicle and also to PW.9

for conducting autopsy over the death of the deceased and received PM

9

certificate and MVI report and after completion of investigation charge

sheet was filed by LW.16/SI of Police.” In his cross examination he admitted that, “as per 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 the name of the accused is no

where mentioned and that he had not seized any tickets from PW’s 1 to 5,

LW’s 2 to 4 regarding their pilgrimage and he had prepared scene

observation report and that he had examined one Sombabu and Syed

Basha at the scene of offence and had examined only PW’s 5 & 8 at the

scene of offence and the others shown in rough sketch were not examined

and that there is no village by name Allampur or Alampalli in Pentapadu

jurisdiction.

13. In view of non-support rendered by material witness to the case of prosecution, learned APP had given up evidence of remaining prosecution side witnesses.

14. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution had to prove that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and he drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which accident occurred and the deceased sustained severe injuries and died. To prove the negligent act of the accused, the prosecution had examined the eye-witnesses to the said accident i.e., PW’s 1, 2 & 4 they had deposed about the accident and that the accused came to the accident spot after the accident and saw and went away and if it so what made them not to caught hold of the accused there and then itself and hand over him to the police and except PW.1 no other eye witness had deposed that the crime vehicle was drove in rash and negligent manner and as per 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 and Ex.P1/report he had not stated that the accused came to scene of offence after the accident and the other witnesses are not eye witnesses and their evidence is hear say evidence which is no evidence in the eye of law and all the witnesses examined are interested witnesses 10 and when the prosecution had failed to prove rash and negligent act of the accused then the prosecution had failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the accused.

15. Now the crucial point for consideration is whether the vehicle was driven by the accused at the time of accident. None of the witness had seen the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle when the accident occurred though PW’s 1, 2 & 4 deposed that the accused came to the accident spot after the accident the prosecution had failed to prove that how come they came to know that the accused was driver of the crime vehicle particularly. Hence the identity of the accused is not established that he was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the said accident. Hence in such circumstances the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused was the driver at the time of accident.

16. In view of the above stated circumstances, there is no positive proof with regard to the rash and negligent act of the accused. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

17. Except the interested witness and official witnesses no other independent witness had supported the case of the prosecution and basing on only their testimonies the accused cannot be made guilty and moreover the identity of the accused was not proved by the prosecution and it is suffice to say that the case of prosecution fully and completely rests on mere surmises and conjectures without there being any positive proof to point out the guilt of accused for the offence levelled against him, beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present set of facts and circumstances of the case, accused is perfectly entitled to get a clean acquittal under law. Hence, the point is answered against prosecution and in favour of accused.

11

18. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted from the said Charge under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C., Bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 25th day of April, 2023.

Sd/ RAMYA CHAVALI

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTARATE OF I CLASS-

CUM- II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM

Appendix of Evidence:

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: - For Accused: -

P.W.1: Ponnada Atchibabu - None -

P.W.2: Simma Sriramulu

P.W.3: Ponnada Raja Rao

P.W.4: Velamala Bhaskara Rao

P.W.5: Chinimilli Durga Prasad

P.W.6: Voleti Suresh Kumar

P.W.7: P.Sitapathi Rao

P.W.8: Ambadi Hari Babu

P.W.9: M.Rajesh

P.W.10: D.V.Swamy

Documents Marked:

For Prosecution: -

Ex.P1: Complaint

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of LW.7

Ex.P3: Scene observation report

Ex.P4: Inquest report

Ex.P5: MVI report

Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW.8

Ex.P7: Post Mortem report 12 Ex.P8: FIR

Ex.P9: Rough Sketch

Ex.P10: Photos along with CD

For Accused: - NIL -

M.O.s Marked:

-NIL-

Id/ R.C II AJFCM-II AJCJ/TPG

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

CLASS MAGISTRATE: AT TADEPALLIGUDEM.

C.C.No.229/2021

1. Date of offence : 01-04-2021

2. Date of release on bail : --

3. Date of filing : 01-04-2021

4. Date of Apprehension : 41-A Cr.P.C

5. Date of commencement of trial : 11-11-2021

6. Date of closing of trial : 24-04-2023

7. Date of sentence : 25-04-2023

8. Explanation for the delay, if any : There is no delay in disposing of the case.

9. The Name of the complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Pentapadu Police Station.

10. The Name of the accused : Addanki Sunil Kumar S/o Yudha, Age 40 years, Sagipadu Village, Undi Mandal

11. Offence : Punishable under section 304-A of IPC

12. Finding of Court : Accused found not guilty

Sentence/Order:

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted from the said Charge under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C., Bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Sd/ RAMYA CHAVALI Seal II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon'ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, W.G.,Eluru.

1

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

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Smt. RAMYA CHAVALI,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem

Wednesday, this the 26 th day of April, 2023

C.C.No.941/2021

BETWEEN:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police Pentapadu Police Station. … Complainant

And

Bandi Markandeyulu, S/o Narayana, Aged 50 years, Mypa Village, Palakoderu Mandal.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 24-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Jaya Sree, I/C. Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State

for the Complainant/Prosecution and Sri K.Sudhakara Rao, Advocate for

the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day and the

Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1. The State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Pentapadu

Police Station has filed Charge Sheet against Accused in Crime No.101 of 2021 of Pentapadu Police Station, for the offence punishable under section 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Case of the prosecution in consice:

On 19-05-2021 at 10.30 pm the defacto complainant reported that himself and the deceased Battula Uma Kumar are working as clerks at DP

Onion Export shop, Tadepalligudem and both are attending duties at

Tadepalligudem by PW’s 1 FZ motor cycle bearing No. AP 37 CM 8295 and asusal PW.1 and deceased who is pillion rider started from Attili village to

Tadepalligudem and when they reached Mudunuru village, Bharat petrol bunk, the accused rider of Hero Passion Plus motor cycle bearing No. AP 2 37 AV 1075 is also coming on same direction along with his wife in a rash and negligent manner without signal suddenly turned his motor cycle right side crossed the road and proceeding to petrol bunk, then PW.1 could not control his motor cycle and dashed the accused motor cycle resulting which both fell down on the road resulting which the deceased sustained swelling head injury and PW.1 sustained simple injuries on his forehead and left hand and also accused wife sustained simple injuries and the deceased shifted to Sri Star Hospital, Tadepalligudem for treatment and while undergoing treatment the deceased died on 19-05-2021 and on same day at about 10.30 pm when PW.10/HC 1824 was present at the station PW.1 presented a written report and same is registered as case in crime No. 101/21 U/sec 304A, 337 of IPC and submitted the original FIR to court and relevant documents to concerned authorities and took up further investigation and on 20-05-2021 he visited the scene of offence and took photographs and prepared scene observation report in the presence of mediators and prepared rough sketch and on the same day visited the Mortuary secured the presence of PW’s 1 to 3,8,9 and recorded their detailed 161 Cr.P.C statements and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and got drafted inquest report by the panchayathidars and gave requisition to doctor for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and on the same day once again visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of PW.4 and recorded his statements and LW.7/Bandi Venkata Lakshmi brought the accused to the station and produced before PW.10/HC 1824 and handed over the CD file to LW.14/SI of police and he took up further investigation and on 24-09-2021 accused surrendered before LW.14/SI Of police and disclosed his identity and after verification issued 41A Cr.P.C notice to the 3 accused and later gave requisition to the MVI for conducting inspection over the crime vehicle and MVI inspected the crime vehicle at the station and after receiving of MVI report and PM certificate and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

3. The said case is taken on file as Calendar Case No. 941/2021 against

Accused for the offence punishable under section 304A ,337of IPC on the file of this Court and issued summons to accused.

4. After appearance of accused before the court, accused is examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., read over and explained to accused in telugu, during which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, P.W’s.1 to P.W.10 were examined and

Ex’s.P.1 to P.12 were marked. On behalf of accused, no witness is examined and no document is also marked.

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

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., stating the incriminating material made against him for which he reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7. Heard learned APP and learned counsel for Accused and perused the record.

8. The point for determination is: - “Whether prosecution has proved its

case against Accused for the offence punishable under sections 304A, 337

of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?”

P O I N T:

9. At the outset, case of prosecution against accused is that “On

19-05-2021 at 10.30 pm the defacto complainant reported that himself

and the deceased Battula Uma Kumar are working as clerks at DP Onion

Export shop, Tadepalligudem and both are attending duties at

Tadepalligudem by PW’s 1 FZ motor cycle bearing No. AP 37 CM 8295 and

4

asusal PW.1 and deceased who is pillion rider started from Attili village to

Tadepalligudem and when they reached Mudunuru village Bharat petrol

bunk, the accused rider of Hero Passion Plus motor cycle bearing No. AP

37 AV 1075 is also coming on same direction along with his wife in a rash

and negligent manner without signal suddenly turned his motor cycle right

side crossed the road and proceeding to petrol bunk, then PW.1 could not

control his motor cycle and dashed the accused motor cycle resulting

which both fell down on the road resulting which the deceased sustained

swelling head injury and PW.1 sustained simple injuries on his forehead

and left hand and also accused wife sustained simple injuries and the

deceased shifted to Sri Star Hospital, Tadepalligudem for treatment and

while undergoing treatment the deceased died on 19-05-2021 and on

same day at about 10.30 pm when PW.10/HC 1824 was present at the

station PW.1 presented a written report and same is registered as case in

crime No. 101/21 U/sec 304A, 337 of IPC and submitted the original FIR to

court and relevant documents to concerned authorities and took up

further investigation and on 20-05-2021 he visited the scene of offence and

took photographs and prepared scene observation report in the presence

of mediators and prepared rough sketch and on the same day visited the

Mortuary secured the presence of PW’s 1 to 3,8,9 and recorded their

detailed 161 CrPC statements and held inquest over the dead body of the

deceased and got drafted inquest report by the panchayathidars and

gave requisition to doctor for conducting autopsy over the dead body of

the deceased and on the same day once again visited the scene of

offence and secured the presence of PW.4 and recorded his statements

and LW.7/Bandi Venkata Lakshmi brought the accused to the station and

produced before PW.10/HC 1824 and handed over the CD file to LW.14/SI

5

of police and he took up further investigation and on 24-09-2021 accused

surrendered before LW.14/SI Of police and disclosed his identity and after

verification issued 41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and later gave

requisition to the MVI for conducting inspection over the crime vehicle and

MVI inspected the crime vehicle at the station and after receiving of MVI

report and PM certificate and after completion of investigation charge

sheet was filed.”

10. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has cited fourteen (14) witnesses but, it has succeeded to examine only Ten (10) witnesses as

P.W’s.1 to P.W.10 who are none other than interested witnesses, investigation officers, doctor who issued PM certificate and MVI who issued accident report.

11. For better appreciation of point on hand, if we invite our attention to the evidence of P.W.1, he speaks that “ on 19-05-2021 at about 8 am

himself and deceased started from Attili to Tadepalligudem on his two

wheeler bearing No. AP 37 CM 8295 and when reached to Mudunurupadu

Petrol bunk, the accused came on his motor cycle bearing No. AP 37 AV

1075 negligently near petrol bunk without giving any auction while

entering into petrol bunk and dashed their motor cycle and that himself

and the deceased fell down and he sustained forehead and left hand

injuries and the deceased sustained injuries on his head and the accused

also fell down and sustained injuries and that they were taken to New star

hopital, Tadepalligudem and got treated there and at 4.45 pm the

deceased/Uma Kumar died and he lodged report.” In his cross examination he admitted that, “himself and the deceased are working in

a onion shop belonging to Dirisala Prabhakara Rao who is his brother in

law and that he is aged about 30 years by the date of accident and that

6

he is having valid driving licence and that he is not having helmet at the

time of accident and that both his vehicle and crime vehicle are in same

direction and that himself and driver of the crime vehicle were going on

left side of the road and the petrol bunk is on the right side.” The remaining suggestions were denied.

The evidence of PW.2 is that, “the deceased/Uma Kumar is brother

in law and that PW.1 and deceased are working at DP Exports,

Tadepalligudem and they both go to work on the bike of PW.1 bearing No.

AP 37 CM 8295 and on 13-05-2021 at about 7 to 7.30 am both PW.1 and

deceased started on their motor cycle and when they reached Bharat

petrol bunk, Mudunuru Village a motor cycle bearing No. AP 37 AB 1075

drove by the accused without giving any signals negligently turned his

motor cycle into the petrol bunk resulting the motor cycle of PW.1 skid and

both PW.1 and deceased fell down and sustained injuries and at about

8.30 am he received phone call about the accident and he immediately

rushed to the accident spot and came to know that both were shifted to

Star hospital Tadepalligudem and while undergoing treatment at 4.00 pm

deceased died.” In his cross examination he admitted that, “he had not

witnessed the accident directly and cannot say the colour of the motor

cycle which caused the accident and at the instance of police he stated

the crime vehicle motor cycle number.” The remaining suggestions were denied.

The evidence of PW.3 is that, “PW.1 and deceased/Uma Kumar used

to work in his shop and on 19-05-2021 while they were coming to shop on

the motor cycle bearing No. AP 37 CM 8795 of PW.1 one unknown person

coming on motor cycle had negligently turned his motor cycle to the

petrol bunk between pippara to Tadepalligudem and both of them fell

7

down and sustained injuries and were admitted at Star Hospital,

Tadepalligudem and while undergoing treatment deceased died and

came to know that the crime vehicle driver is Bandi Markandeyulu and his

motor cycle bearing No. AP 37 AV 1075.” in his cross examination he admitted that, “he had not witnessed the accident directly and cannot

say the colour of the motor cycle which caused the accident and that at

the instance of police he have stated the crime vehicle motor cycle

number.” The remaining suggestions are denied.

PW’s 4, 8 & 9 turned hostile and their evidence cannot be considered.

The evidence of PW.5 is that, “she is working as VRO and on 20-05-

2021 at about 5 am she received phone call from Pentapadu PS and

informed about the accident and asked to come scene of offence for

preparing scene observation report and she went to the scene of offence

by obtaining permission from Tahsildhar through phone and found blood

strains on the road and prepared scene observation report and later went

to Government Hospital, Tanuku and conducted inquest over the dead

body of the deceased and prepared inquest report and came to know

that the deceased/Uma Kumar died in accident.” In his cross examination he admitted that, “after obtaining permission from MRO she had gone to

accident spot and that by the she reached the accident spot no vehicles

and no persons were present and cannot state whether the blood strains

found at the accident spot belongs to human being or any animals and

that she had not seen the deceased at the accident spot.” The suggestions made were denied.

The evidence of PW.6 is that, “ he worked as CAS Specialist District

Hospital, Tanuku and on 20-05-2021 he received requisition from SI of

8

police Pentapadu P.S to conduct post mortem of deceased Uma Kumar

and he conducted the same and found injuries stated in Ex.P5/PM

certificate and had also examined PW.1 and found injuries stated in

Ex.P6/wound certificate.”

The evidence of PW.7 is that, “she worked as AMVI and on

24-09-2021 she received requisition from SHO, Pentapadu P.S to inspect

the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 37 AV 1075 Hero Honda passion plus

motor cycle and she inspected the same at about 12.15 pm at the

premises of Pentapadu P.S and found damages as stated in Ex.P7/report.”

In his cross examination she admitted that, “the accident took place on

19-05-2021 and the crime vehicle was inspected on 24-09-2021 as the

requisition was given on the said date and there is possibility of change of

physical features due to delay.”

The evidence of PW.8 is that, “on 19-052021 at about 10.30 pm

while he was present in the police station he received Ex.P1/report along

with death intimation from PW.1 and same was registered as case in crime

No.101/21 U/sec 304 A, 337 of IPC and issued FIR and the original FIR was

submitted to this court and documents to concerned authorities and on

the next day visited the scene of offence along with PW.5 and

LW.9/Addagarla Satish and prepared Ex.P3/scene observation report and

Ex.P12/rough sketch and obtained signatures of PW.5 and LW.9/Addagarla

Satish and took photos at the scene of offence and later visited the Area

Hospital, Tanuku and secured the presence of PW’s 1,2,5,8 & 9 and

recorded their detailed 161 Cr.P.C statements and later conducted

inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of

panchayathidars and got prepared inquest report and gave requisition to

PW.6/Doctor to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased

9

and again visited the scene of offence and examined PW.4 and recorded

his statement and handed over the CD file to LW.14/SI of Police and he

gave requisition to PW.7/MVI on 24-09-2021 for inspecting the crime

vehicle and on the same day LW.7/Bandi Venkatalakshmi surrendered the

accused before LW.14/SI of police and after verification 41A Cr.P.C notice

was issued to the accused and later received the PM certificate of

deceased, wound certificate of PW.1 and MVI report and after completion

of investigation charge sheet was filed.”

12. In view of non-support rendered by material witness to the case of prosecution, learned APP had given up evidence of remaining prosecution side witnesses.

13. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution had to prove that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and he drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which accident occurred and the deceased sustained severe injuries and died and injured sustained simple injuries. To prove the negligent act of the accused, the prosecution had examined the eye-witness to the said accident i.e., PW. 1, he had deposed about the accident and that the accused driver of the crime vehicle had negligently without giving caution while entering into petrol bunk dashed his motor cycle but as per the investigation PW.1 had dashed the motor cycle of the accused when accused had negligently turned his motor cycle into the petrol bunk without caution and from the evidence of PW.2 there was no dash of motor cycles and that PW.1 motor cycle got skid due to negligent act of the accused and as per the evidence of PW.3 when accused negligently turned his motor cycle PW.1 and deceased fell down and sustained injuries where an adverse inference can be drawn with the version of the prosecution as there 10 contradictions with evidence of prosecution witnesses. Here though PW’s 1 to 3 deposed that the accused negligently acted and accident occurred but had not stated what is the negligence caused by the accused at the time of accident. Here PW.1 is injured and he himself stated that accused also sustained injuries, they the duty is on part of the prosecution to prove that the negligence is on part of the accused at the time of accident as

PW.1 himself stated that he dashed the motor cycle of the accused and

PW.1 is an interested witness as is also one of the injured and when the prosecution had failed to prove rash and negligent act of the accused then the prosecution had failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the accused.

14. In view of the above stated circumstances, there is no positive proof with regard to the rash and negligent act of the accused. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

15. Except the interested witnesses and official witnesses no other independent witness had supported the case of the prosecution and basing on only their testimonies the accused cannot be made guilty and the prosecution fully and completely rests on mere surmises and conjectures without there being any positive proof to point out the guilt of accused for the offence levelled against him, beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present set of facts and circumstances of the case, accused is perfectly entitled to get a clean acquittal under law. Hence, the point is answered against prosecution and in favour of accused.

16. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted from 11 the said Charge under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C., Bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 26 th day of April, 2023. Sd/ RAMYA CHAVALI

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTARATE OF I CLASS-

CUM- II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM

Appendix of Evidence:

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: - For Accused: -

P.W.1: Satti Durga Prasad - NIL -

P.W.2: A.Pavan Kumar

P.W.3: B.Veera Venkata Satyanaryana

P.W.4: M.Chanti Babu

P.W.5: Matta Veeta Venkata Maha Lashmi

P.W.6: Dr. Ragani Lakshmana Jethanand

P.W.7: C. Geethajali

P.W.8: Battula Uma Maheswara Rao

P.W.9: Inti Gangajalam

P.W.10: G. Venkateswara Rao

Documents Marked:

For Prosecution: -

Ex.P1: Report

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

Ex.P3: Scene Observation report

Ex.P4: Inquest report

Ex.P5: Post Mortem Certificate

Ex.P6: Wound certificate

Ex.P7: MVI report

Ex.P8: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8

Ex.P9: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.9

Ex.P10: Death intimation

Ex.P11: FIR

Ex.P12: Rough Sketch

For Accused: - NIL -

M.O.s Marked: -NIL- Id/ R.C II AJFCM-IIAJCJ/TPG

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

CLASS MAGISTRATE: AT TADEPALLIGUDEM.

C.C.No.941/2021

1. Date of offence : 19-05-2021

2. Date of release on bail : --

3. Date of filing : 19-05-2021

4. Date of Apprehension : 41(A) Cr.P.C

5. Date of commencement of trial : 14-07-2022

6. Date of closing of trial : 24-04-2023

7. Date of sentence : 26-04-2023

8. Explanation for the delay, if any : There is no delay in disposing of the case.

9. The Name of the complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Pentapadu Police Station.

10. The Name of the accused : Bandi Markandeyulu, S/o Narayana, Aged 50 years, Mypa Village, Palakoderu Mandal.

11. Offence : Punishable under section 304-A of IPC

12. Finding of Court : Accused found not guilty

Sentence/Order:

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted from the said Charge under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C., Bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Sd/ RAMYA CHAVALI Seal II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, W.G.,Eluru.

1

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

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Present: - Smt. RAMYA CHAVALI,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem

Monday, this the 24 th day of April, 2023

C.C.No.805/2021

BETWEEN:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pentapadu Police Station. … Complainant

AND

Tatipudi Prakash, S/o Apparao, Age 32 years, R/o Navabpeta.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 21-04-23 for final hearing in the presence of Smt Jaya Sree, I/C.Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant / Prosecution and Sri V. Leela Krishna, Advocate for the Accused, having stood over for consideration till this day and the Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1. The State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Pentapadu Police

Station, has filed Charge Sheet against Accused in Crime No. 63 of 2021 of Pentapadu Police Station, for the offence punishable U/s 338 of Indian

Penal Code.

2. Case of the prosecution in consice:

On 04-04-2021 at 7 pm the complainant Masana Kasi Viswanadham stated that his father/injured Masana Venkata Ratna Rao went to his fields on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 37 BF 1796 and after completion of his work proceeding towards Allampuram Petrol Bunk and when reached

Jaya Gardens the accused driver of Swift Dezire Car bearing No. AP 37 BN 4546 coming from Tanuku side drove his car in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the injured motorcycle from behind resulting grievous bleeding injuries over his right leg and head and after 2 first aid he was shifted to Government Hospital, Tanuku and from there he referred to Bollineni Hospital, Rajahmundry for better treatment and on the same day while PW.6 was present at the station received MLC intimation from Bollineni Hospital, Rajahmundry and statement of PW.1 and same is registered as case in Crime NO. 63/21 U/sec 338 of IPC and issued FIR and submitted the original FIR to this Court and documents to concerned officials and on 05-04-2021 PW.6 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and also visited Bollineni Hospital, Rajahmundry and secured the presence of PW’s 1 & and LW’s 3 & 4 and recorded their detailed 161 Cr.P.C statements and again visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of PW.4 and recorded his detailed 161 Cr.P.C statement and on 06-04-2021, LW.9/SI of Police received the CD file and on the same day accused himself surrendered before him and on verification 41A Cr.P.C notice was issued later gave requisition to PW.5/MVI to inspect the crime vehicle and he had inspected the crime vehicle and after assuming charge by LW.10/SI of Police he take up further investigation and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

3. The said case is taken on file as Calendar Case No. 805/2021 against

Accused for the offence punishable U/s 338 of IPC on the file of this Court and issued summons to accused.

4. After appearance of accused before the court, accused is examined U/s 251 of Cr.P.C., read over and explained to accused in telugu, during which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, P.W’s.1 to 6 were examined and Ex’s.P.1 to 6 were marked. On behalf of accused, no witness is examined and no document is also marked.

3

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

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., stating the incriminating material made against him for which he reported no defence evidence on his behalf .

7. Heard learned APP and learned counsel for Accused and perused the record.

8. The point for determination is: -“Whether prosecution has proved its

case against Accused for the offence punishable U/s 338 of IPC, beyond

reasonable doubt?”

P O I N T

9. At the outset, case of prosecution against accused is that “On

04-04-2021 at 7 pm the complainant Masana Kasi Viswanadham stated

that his father/injured Masana Venkata Ratna Rao went to his fields on his

motorcycle bearing No. AP 37 BF 1796 and after completion of his work

proceeding towards Allampuram Petrol Bunk and when reached Jaya

Gardens the accused driver of Swift Dezire Car bearing No. AP 37 BN 4546

coming from Tanuku side drove his car in a rash and negligent manner

with high speed and dashed the injured motorcycle from behind resulting

grievous bleeding injuries over his right leg and head and after first aid he

was shifted to Government Hospital, Tanuku and from there he referred to

Bollineni Hospital, Rajahmundry for better treatment and on the same day

while PW.6 was present at the station received MLC intimation from

Bollineni Hospital, Rajahmundry and statement of PW.1 and same is

registered as case in Crime NO. 63/21 U/sec 338 of IPC and issued FIR and

submitted the original FIR to this Court and documents to concerned

officials and on 05-04-2021 PW.6 visited the scene of offence and

prepared rough sketch and also visited Bollineni Hospital, Rajahmundry

and secured the presence of PW’s 1 & and LW’s 3 & 4 and recorded their

detailed 161 Cr.P.C statements and again visited the scene of offence and

4

secured the presence of PW.4 and recorded his detailed 161 Cr.P.C

statement and on 06-04-2021 LW.9/SI of Police received the CD file and on

the same day accused himself surrendered before him and on verification

41A Cr.P.C notice was issued later gave requisition to PW.5/MVI to inspect

the crime vehicle and he had inspected the crime vehicle and after

assuming charge by LW.10/SI of Police he take up further investigation and

after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.”

10.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has cited Ten (10) witnesses but, it has succeeded to examine only Six (06) witness as P.W’s.1 to 6 who are none other than interested witnesses and investigation officers, MVI and doctor.

11. Now let us see Section 338 IPC, it deals with causing of grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endnager human life or personal safety of others.

12. To prove the same prosecution has to establish that the accused had caused:-

1. caused grievous hurt,

2. by doing any act so rashly or negligently,

3. to endanger human life or personal safety.

13. For better appreciation of point on hand, if we invite our attention to the evidence of prosecution witnesses PW.1 speaks from his chief that,

“ he knows the accused and his father regularly goes for cultivation and

on the 03-04-2021 at about 5 pm his father went to fields on his motor

cycle bearing No. AP 37 BV 1796 and he had gone to the petrol Bunk at

Allampuram and while he was going from the petrol bunk at Allampuram

and while he was going from the petrol bunk a Swift Dezire car bearing No.

4546 dashed his father in a negligent manner and he received a phone

call from L.W.4/Govind that his father met with an accident and he had

5

gone to Government Hospital, Tanuku as his father was shifted in

ambulance and he found his father bleeding on his head and also all over

the body and was unconscious and later his father was shifted to Bollineni

Hospital, Rajahmundry and he had seen the accused at Government

Hospital, Tanuku for the first time as he introduced himself that he was the

driver of the crime vehicle and later police came to Rajahmundry, Hospital

and recorded his statement as his father was unconscious and that his

father got surgery to his both legs and 3 months later he had under gone

brain surgery and at present his father is identifying persons for last 1 year

and later Pentapadu police enquired and recorded his statement and that

he can identify the driver of the car.” In his cross examination he admitted that, “he is not direct eye witness to the accident and that his statement

was recorded by the police constable at the hospital and that he have not

seen the accused at the place of offence.”

The evidence of PW.4 is that, “on 03-04-2021 at about 6 pm he came

to know that his father/LW.3 met with an accident at Allampuram petrol

bunk and immediately he rushed to Government Hospital, Tanuku and

found his father was unconscious with injuries on both legs and head as his

father condition was serious and he was shifted to Bollineni Hospital,

Rajahmundry and his father got surgery to his both legs and head and at

present his father mental condition is not good and he is on bed till date

from the date of accident and he came to know that the swift dezire car

bearing No. AP 37 BN 4546 proceeding from Tanuku to Eluru had dashed

his father motor cycle bearing No. AP 37 BF 1796 in a speed and rash

manner.” In his cross examination he admitted that, “he had not

witnessed the accident directly and police constable had recorded the

statement of PW.1 and his statement was recorded at hospital.” 6 The evidence of PW.3 is that, “he is working as Causality Medical

Office, KIMS Bollineni Hospital, Rajahmundry and he had examined PW.3

on 04-04-2021 at about 11.33 am and issued Ex.P3/wound certificate.” In his cross examination he admitted that, “ he have not stated the exact

injuries caused to PW.3 in his 161 Cr.P.C statement and that there is

possibility of getting injured as per Ex.P2/report if a person falls down from

a motor cycle or a building.”

PW.4 turned hostile and his evidence cannot be considered.

The evidence of PW.5 is that, “on 06-04-2021 he received requisition

from SHO, Pentapadu PS to inspect the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 37 BN

4546 Maruthi Swift and on the same day at about 9.30 am he inspected teh

crime vehicle at Pentapadu police station premises and found wind screen

glass/bonnet/bumper assembly/head lights/radiator assembly/ shell

damaged and that the vehicle not put to road test due to damages but on

physical inspection found that the brakes and braking system are intact

and in order and issued Ex.P4/MVI report.” In his cross examination he admitted that, “ he had received requisition on 06-04-2021 inspected the crime vehicle on the same day but the accident was occurred on

03-04-2021 and the crime vehicle was inspected at Jaya Gardens

Allampuram and that he had verified the Engine and chases number of the

crime vehicle as per the registration certificate.”

The evidence of PW.6 is that, “ on 04-04-2021 while he was present at

police station he received intimation from PW.1 and he registered the

same as case in Crime No. 63/21 U/Sec 338 of IPC and issued FIR and

submitted the original FIR to this court and relevant documents to the

concerned authorities and on 05-04-2021 he visited the scene of offence

and prepared rough sketch and on the same day he visited Bollineni

Hospital, Rajahmundry and recorded the statements of PW’s 1,2 & LW’s 3 &

7

4 and visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of PW.4 and

examined and recorded his statement and later handed overed the CD

file to LW.9/SI of Police and on 07-04-2021 LW.9/SI of police issued 41A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused and issued requisition to PW.5/MVI and on

28-04-2021 Ex.P4/MVI report was received and on 06-09-2021 received

Ex.P2/wound certificate from PW.3 and after completion of investigation

LW.9/SI of police filed charge sheet and the witness identified the signature

of LW.9/SI of police in charge sheet.” In his cross examination he admitted that, “ he registered FIR soon after receiving intimation from hospital and

that he had not obtained the signature of PW.1 on Ex.P5/FIR in column

No.14 and he have not prepared scene of observation report at the scene

of offence and have not examined the person who took PW.1 to hospital

and the driver of the ambulance in which PW.1 was shifted to hospital and

have not called MVI to the scene of offence soon after he reaching scene

of offence and had not marked the crime vehicle and other vehicle at the

scene of offence and at the time of registering Ex.P5/FIR the accused is

unknown person and he had not conducted T.I.Parade to identify the

accused with the witnesses examined by him and the MVI had inspected

the crime vehicle at the police station premises after many days of the

accident

14. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution had to prove that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and he drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which accident occurred and injured sustained grievous injuries. To prove the negligent act of the accused, the prosecution had not examined any eye-witnesses to the said accident and PW’s 1 & 2 are the interested witnesses and they are not eye witnesses to the accident and the evidence of PW’s 1 & 2 is hear say evidence which is no evidence in the eye of law. Here though PW.1 had 8 stated that he had seen the accused first time at Tanuku Government

Hospital he had not taken any steps against him and moreover at the time of registering FIR also the accused is unknown person. Here it can also be noticed that in the charge sheet it was mentioned PW.6 received intimation from PW.1 but from the evidence of PW.6 it can be clearly noticed that MLC was received along with statement of PW.1 and same was registered as FIR where contradictions can be observed and except hear say evidence and official witnesses there is no positive proof to show that the accused is the drive of crime vehicle and he drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and the identity of the accused is not established that he was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the said accident. Hence in such circumstances the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.

15. In view of the above stated circumstances, there is no eye witnesses to the accident with regard to the rash and negligent act of the accused. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

16. Except the interested witness and official witnesses none others had supported the case of the prosecution and basing on only their testimonies the accused cannot be made guilty and moreover the identity of the accused was not proved by the prosecution and it is suffice to say that the case of prosecution fully and completely rests on mere surmises and conjectures without there being any positive proof to point out the guilt of accused for the offence levelled against him, beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present set of facts and circumstances of the case, accused is perfectly entitled to get a clean acquittal under law.

9 Hence, the point is answered against prosecution and in favour of accused.

17. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/s 338 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted from the said Charge U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bond of accused if any shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 24 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/ RAMYA CHAVALI II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge Tadepalligudem.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: - For Accused: -

P.W.1: Masana kasiviswanadham - NIL- P.W.2: Masana Satyasri Venugopal P.W.3: Dr. Ch. Ramesh P.W.4: Sanamandra Aadam P.W.5: P.Sitapathi Rao P.W.6: K. Satyanarayana

Documents Marked:

For Prosecution: -

Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Wound Certificate Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW.4 Ex.P4: MVI report Ex.P5: FIR Ex.P6: Rough Sketch

For Accused: -NIL -

M.O.s Marked: -NIL-

Id/ R.C II AJMFC- II AJCJ/TPG.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

CLASS MAGISTRATE: AT TADEPALLIGUDEM.

C.C.No.805/2021

1. Date of offence : 03-04-2021

2. Date of release on bail : --

3. Date of filing : 04-04-2021

4. Date of Apprehension : 41(A) Cr.P.C

5. Date of commencement of trial : 09-12-2021

6. Date of closing of trial : 21-04-2023

7. Date of sentence : 24-04-2023

8. Explanation for the delay, if any : There is no delay in disposing of the case.

9. The Name of the complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Pentapadu Police Station.

10. The Name of the accused : Tatipudi Prakash, S/o Apparao, Age 32 years, R/o Navabpeta.

11. Offence : Punishable under section 338 of IPC

12. Finding of Court : Accused found not guilty

Sentence/Order:

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 338 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted from the said Charge U/s 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The Bail bond of accused if any shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/ RAMYA CHAVALI Seal II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, W.G.,Eluru.

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVI JUDGE- CUM –

I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Smt. RAMYA CHAVALI,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, FAC: I Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem

Thursday, this the 20 th day of April, 2023

C.C.No. 253/2020

a) The serial number of the case : C.C.No.253/2020.

b) Date of commission of offence : 21.02.2020

c) Name of the Complainant, if any : The Sub Inspector, Nidamarru

Name of the accused person, : Gorrela Venkatarao, S/o Sanyasirao, A: 48 her/his parentage and residence, if years, Bavaipalem Village Nidamarru any Mandal.

e) Offence complained of or proved : Punishable u/sec. 34-a of AP Excise Act, 1968

f) Plea of the accused and his Accused pleaded not guilty examination, if any

This case has come up on 19.04.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri T. Leela Madhav, Advocate

for the Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the

following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector, Nidamarru Police Station had filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 64/2020 for the offence punishable under Section. 34-a of AP. Excise Act, 1968.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief: On 21.02.2020 at about 07.00 pm PW.1 the Sub Inspector, Nidamarru Police Station along with PW.1 and staff proceeded Gorrela Venkateswara Rao House, Bavaipalem Village, Nidamarru Mandal and while conducting raid and found the accused with white colour mica bag and on seeing the raid party in uniform he tried to escape and with the help of staff detained and questioned about his escape for which he replied that the bag contains Liquor bottles. Then, PW.1 questioned about the liquor bottles and his details for which he disclosed his personal details and also stated that he purchased 7 Old Admiral Deluxe Quarter liquor bottles from GROs, Tadepalligudem shop and brought the same for selling the same for higher price for illegal gain and finally was caught by the excise officials. On enquiry by PW.1 with regard to the permit he failed to produce. Later PW.1 drawn 1 bottle, from the property for chemical analysis and affixed identification slips duly signed by the officials and also by the accused, sealed and seized the remaining property and arrested the accused under the cover of mediators report drafted at the scene of offence by informing about his arrest. PW1 left the place along with the accused, property and staff and returned to Nidamarru station and registered the FIR as case in Cr.No.64/2020 under section 34(a) of AP excise Act (Amendment Act 17 of 2020). During the course of investigation PW.1 sent samples to the Govt., Chemical Examiner for analysis and received a report. The entire property except the sample was produced before the Superintendent of Police, Eluru for confiscation and destruction and after completion investigation charge sheet was filed.

2

3. The cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 34(a) of AP excise Act 1968.

4. On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to her as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused were examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/sec 34(a) of AP excise Act 1968, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the offence, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and Ex’s.P-1 to P5 and MO.1 were marked on its behalf.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., stating the incriminating material made against him for which he reported no defence evidence and no documents adduced on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.P1 to P5 and MO-1 would establish and prove the charge against the accused and the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, thus, she sought conviction of the accused for the offence U/s. 34(a) of AP excise Act , 1968.

10. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the accused vehemently argued that there are so many infirmities and inconsistencies crept in the evidence of prosecution witness. The Prosecution also failed to examine any one of the independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband, which is fatal to the prosecution case, as such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and thus, he sought to acquit the accused.

11. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34(a) of AP excise Act 1968, beyond all reasonable doubt?

12. POINT: To prove the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP excise Act 1968, the prosecution has to prove that the accused was found in possession of the seized 7 Old Admiral Deluxe Quarter liquor bottles and the same was being sold without license or permit. To prove the same the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 who are official witness.

The evidence of PW.1/Head Constable, Nidamarru Police Station is that on 20.02.2020 at about 07.00 pm he along with PW.1 and staff to Bavaipalem Village of Nidamarru mandal and while conducting raid reached Gorrela Venkata Rao Situated at bavaipalem Village and found accused carrying mica bad in his right hand and on seeing the raid party in uniform he tried to escape, on suspicion caught him. The bag was verified in the presence of PW.1 , found liquor bottles . On verifying the bag found 7 Old Admiral Deluxe Quarter liquor bottles without heals and company labels for sale in AP only and found it as duty paid liquor and registered a case in Cr.No. 64/2020 of Nidamarru PS under Sec 34-(A) of AP Excise Act, 2020 and examined LW.1 and 2 recorded their statements, later PW.1 released the accused on self bail and further investigation done by SI of police.

Here denied the suggest that he has seized liquor bottles from the accused and the accused has committed offence and the case was foisted against him for their statistical purpose and he has not conducting investigation entire investigation.

3

13. PW.2/H Naga Raju, SI of Police, Nidamarru PS on 23.02.2020 he drew 1 bottle as sample for the purpose of chemical examination. On enquiry by the PW.2 accused himself disclosed his identity and failed to produce license or permit for selling the said liquor bottles. The seized Liquor bottles and the accused were taken into custody and transmitted to the station and send sample to chemical examiner and received report and also sent proposals for destruction and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

Here admittedly he did not owner of MO.1 and did not obtain the signatures of accused on MO.1. He denied the suggestion that he has not seized any liquor bottles from the accused and the accused has not committed any offence and the case was foisted against him for their statistical purpose.

14. It is not the case of the prosecution witnesses that they examined any independent witnesses present at the scene of offence in as much as no person was cited as independent witness in this case. The entire case of the prosecution relied on the sole testimony of PW.1 who is official witness. It is the duty of the prosecution to explain as why it could not secure independent witnesses. Non-mentioning of the reasons for not securing independent witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Hon'ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case reported on 27-11-2001 Yeduru Srinivasulu

Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh observed that the prosecution has to bring on record while charging the accused that they have followed the procedure contemplated u/s. 100(4) of the code. If it fails to prove that they had followed such procedure the search and seizure becomes vitiate. Before making a search under this chapter the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or any other locality if no such inhabitants of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. The observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of UP Vs. Arun Kumar Gupta, reported in AIR 2003 SC 801. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited judgmentobserved that 'the prosecution must offer reasonable explanation as to why they did not secure the residents of the houses in the immediate proximity of the alleged incident particularly when there was large number of people were present at the time of recovery. In this case, it is not the case of the prosecution that the alleged place where the seizure was made is busy locality, and that there were houses and no persons were available to act as mediators at the time of alleged recovery. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said citation, this Court is of the opinion that securing of the residents of the locality to act as mediators makes this Court to disbelieve the very recovery of the contraband from the possession of the accused.

15.The point to be noted is that as per the section 56 of AP Excise Act 1968 the prohibition & Excise Officer in the matter of investigation for the offence u/s. 34(a) are vested with the powers and shall be deemed to be the officers in charge of the police station u/s. 156 of Cr.P.C 1973 as per sec.57 of Excise Act the report submitted by the Excise Officers shall be deemed to be a police report. Any confession made to the Excise officers by the accused while in their custody is hit by sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

16. With regard to the seizure the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Observed that if any seizure is made in contravention of Section 100 (4) of Cr. P.C. entire seizure proceedings are deemed to have been vitiated. In this case also the search was made in the absence of any independent witnesses. The observations of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the case of S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP, are very much relevant which are extracted hereunder:

4

17. Here it can be noticed that except the sole testimoney of PW.1 no other independent witness evidence is produced by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and admittedly no independent witnesses were examined in this case except the sole testimony of PW.1 who is interested witness. Thus, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be believed unless there is corroboration from independent witness. Further, without there being any corroboration from independent witnesses, basing on the evidence of police officials, it is not safe to conclude that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused. Hence it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

17. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of AP excise Act 1968, and he is acquitted U/sec 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancelled and MO-1 (sample) shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20thday of April, 2023.

Sd/-Ch. Ramya

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC: I ADDL. JUDL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution : For Defence: PW.1 : Sri. B. Srinivasa Rao -Nil— PW.2: Sri H.Naga Raju, SI of Police,

Exhibits marked

Prosecution: For Defence

Ex.P1: Occurrence Report --Nil-- Ex.P2: FIR Ex.P3: Letter of Advice Ex.P4: Analysis report ] Ex.P5: Destruction Proceedings.

No. of Material Objects marked

MO.1 : 100 ml of Old Admiral Whisky

IIAJCJ, FAC: IAJCJ,TPG.

5

CALENDAR & EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : TADEPALLIGUDEM.

CALENDER CASE No.253/2020

1. Date of offence : 21.02.2020

2. Date of complaint or report : 21.02.2020

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 21.02.2020

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : 41-A Cr.PC

5. Date of commencement of trial : 20.02.2023

6. Date of close of trial : 03.04.2023

7. Date of sentence or Order : 17.04.2023

8. Explanation of delay if any : No delay COMPLAINANT: The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nidamarru Police Station.

ACCUSED: Gorrela Venkatarao, S/o Sanyasirao, A: 48 years, Bavaipalem Village Nidamarru Mandal. Cr.No. : Cr.No.64/2020 Section of Law : Under Section 34 (a) of AP Excise Act Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty Finding of Court : Found not guilty Sentence/Order:

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of AP excise Act 1968, and he is acquitted U/sec 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancelled and MO-1 (sample) shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/-Ch. Ramya

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

Seal FAC: I ADDL. JUDL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Copy submitted To the Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District through CD.

6

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE - CUM - I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Smt. RAMYA CHAVALI,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, FAC: I Addl Judl Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem.

Monday, this the 24 th day of April, 2023

C.C.No.18/2020

BETWEEN: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru WOMEN P.S … Complainant

And

1.Seshapu Srinu, S/o Late Apparao, A: 29 years, Patta Syamala Vari Street, Dharga Centre, Narasapuram.

2.Seshapu Durga, W/o Apparao, A: 44 years, Patta Syamala Vari Street, Dharga Centre, Narasapuram.

3.Pattiwada Hemalatha, W/o Durgarao, A: 31 years, Chinamiram, Bhimavaram Mandal.

4.Seshapu Ravi, S/o Apparao, A:35 years, Patta Syamala Vari Street, Dharga Centre, Narasapuram.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 24.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/ Prosecution and Sri A. Vijay Ratnam, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day and the Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1. The State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru Women Police Station has filed Charge Sheet against Accused 1 to 5 in Crime No.57 of 2019 of Eluru Women Police Station, for the offence punishable under section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec 3 and4 of DP Act, of Indian Penal Code.

2. Case of the prosecution in consice: 01.04.2017 LW1/S. Sirisha was performed with A1 in the presence of elders as per their caste and customs at Krovvidi Village of Nidamarru Mandal at that time Rs. 15 lakhs and 20 sovereigns of gold were given to A1 to A4 as per their demand, later LW.1 and A1 were leading conjugal life happily at matrimonial house, later, by the insist of A1’s mother, both started harassing the LW.1 both physically and mentally and also demand for additional dowry, on that LW.1’s parents gave Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused toward additional dowry, which was demanded by the accused and also suspect her adulterous with her maternal uncle/LW.2 and by picking up disputes with her for every trivial matter in their domestic life and finally A1 necked out her from their house. On that LW.1 lodged a report in Eluru Women PS against the A1 to A4, then Lw.9 registered a case in Cr.No. 57/2019 under Section 498-A, 342, 354(b) r.w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 2 4 of D.P.Act of Eluru Women PS and took up investigation into this case, during the course of investigation LW.9 examined the witness and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and he issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the A1 and A2. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, 1961. Later, defacto complainant filed protest petition against the A3 and A4 to take charges against them. Hence, this court allow the protest petition against the A3 and A4.

3. The said case is taken on file as Calendar Case No. 18/2020 against Accused 1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/s.498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec 3 and 4 of DP Act, on the file of this Court.

4. After appearance of Accused before the court, copies furnished to him as per Sec 207 of Cr.P.C. and he is examined U/s 239 of Cr.P.C C for the offence punishable U/sec 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec 3 and 4 of DP Act, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.3 were marked. On behalf of accused, no witness is examined and no document is also marked.

6. As all the witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution there was no incriminating material made out against the accused, hence the examination under section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C, 1973 was dispensed with.

7. Heard learned APP and learned counsel for Accused and perused the record.

8. The point for determination is: - “Whether prosecution has proved its case against Accused 1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/s 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec 3

and 4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

P O I N T:

9. At the outset, case of prosecution against accused 1 to 4 are that “01.04.2017 LW1/S. Sirisha was performed with A1 in the presence of elders as per their caste and customs at Krovvidi Village of Nidamarru Mandal at that time Rs. 15 lakhs and 20 sovereigns of gold were given to A1 to A4 as per their demand, later LW.1 and A1 were leading conjugal life happily at matrimonial house, later, by the insist of A1’s mother, both started harassing the LW.1 both physically and mentally and also demand for additional dowry, on that LW.1’s parents gave Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused toward

additional dowry, which was demanded by the accused and also suspect her adulterous

with her maternal uncle/LW.2 and by picking up disputes with her for every trivial matter in their domestic life and finally A1 necked out her from their house. On that LW.1 lodged a report in Eluru Women PS against the A1 to A4, then Lw.9 registered a case in Cr.No. 57/2019 under Section 498-A, 342, 354(b) r.w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act of Eluru Women PS and took up investigation into this case, during the course of investigation LW.9 examined the witness and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and he issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the A1 and A2. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, 1961. Later, defacto complainant filed protest petition against the A3 and A4 to take charges against them. Hence, this court allow the protest petition against the A3 and A4.” 3 10. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has cited Fourteen (09) witnesses but, it has succeeded to examine only two (02) witness as P.W.1. and P.W.2 who are none other than interested witnesses. But, to the dismay of the case of prosecution, they did not render any support whatsoever to the case of prosecution and had turned hostile.

11. In view of non-support rendered by material witness to the case of prosecution, learned APP had given up evidence of remaining prosecution side witness.

12. Therefore on perusal of the record, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, which is deposed by the prosecution witnesses. Hence the evidence available on record is not at all sufficient to convict the Accused for which he is charged. Therefore, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the light of hostile evidence of P.W’s.1 and 2, the accused is found not guilty.

13. IN THE RESULT, Accused 1 to 4 are Found Not Guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec 3 and 4 of DP Act, 1961. Accordingly, they are acquitted from the said Charge U/s.255 (1) of Cr.P.C., Bail bonds of Accused if any shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2023.

SD/-Ch.Ramya

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC: I ADDL. JUDL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Appendix of Evidence: Witnesses Examined:

For Prosecution: - For Accused: - P.W.1: Seshapu Sireesha -None- P.W.2: Nallamilli Venkata Srinivas

Documents Marked:

For Prosecution: - Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 Ex.P2: 161 CrPC statement of PW.1 Ex.P3: 161 CrPC statement of PW.2

For Accused: - - N I L-

M.O.s Marked: - N I L- IIAJCJ, FAC: IAJCJ,TPG.

4

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

CALENDAR CASE No.18/2020

1. Date of offence :08.07.2019

2. Date of complaint or report :08.07.2019

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 08.07.2019

4. Date of release on bail of Accused :41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused.

5. Date of commencement of trial :24.04.2023

6. Date of close of trial :24.04.2023

7. Date of sentence or Order :24.04.2023

8. Explanation of delay if any :Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution

COMPLAINANT:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru Women PS. ACCUSED:

1.Seshapu Srinu, S/o Late Apparao, A: 29 years, Patta Syamala Vari Street, Dharga Centre, Narasapuram.

2.Seshapu Durga, W/o Apparao, A: 44 years, Patta Syamala Vari Street, Dharga Centre, Narasapuram.

3.Pattiwada Hemalatha, W/o Durgarao, A: 31 years, Chinamiram, Bhimavaram Mandal.

4.Seshapu Ravi, S/o Apparao, A:35 years, Patta Syamala Vari Street, Dharga Centre, Narasapuram. . Cr.No 57/2019

Section of Law Under Sections 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec 3 and 4 of DP Act

Finding of Court Found not guilty

Sentence/Order:

IN THE RESULT, Accused 1 to 4 are Found Not Guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec 3 and 4 of DP Act, 1961. Accordingly, they are acquitted from the said Charge U/s.255 (1) of Cr.P.C., Bail bonds of Accused if any shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

SealSD/-Ch.Ramya

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC: I ADDL. JUDL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G.Godavari District.

5