D Devendra Babu

1C.C. No.302 OF 2018

COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE SPECIAL

MOBILE CUM – II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: SANGAREDDY

Present:Sri D.Devendra Babu,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Proh. & Excise Judge, Sangareddy. FAC Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile cum-II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

Monday this the 8th day of March, 2021

C.C.NO. 302 of 2018

Between:-

The State of Telangana, Through Police Station Sadasivpet.

...Complainant

A N D

Milind Kumar S/o Shivaraj, Aged: 25 years, Caste: SC, Occ: Driver of Innova Car Bearing No. KA -32-M-4095, R/o Goonelli Village of Bidar Tq and District Karnataka State.

...Accused

This case has come up before me for final hearing on 08.03.2021 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. G. Sudhakar Goud, Sri C. Narsing Raj and Sri. Bhoopal Reddy, Learned Counsels for Accused and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both sides 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 of Police, P.S. Sadasivpet, has filed charge sheet in Crime No.104/2018 against accused person alleging that the accused committed an offence punishable Under Sections 304 (A), 337 of IPC.

2C.C. No.302 OF 2018

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that :-

On 24.04.2018 at about 17:00 hours, PW.1/Defacto complainant,

Kantigari Jagadishwar Reddy came to PS lodged a report stating that on 24-04-2018 in the morning hour he left in Maruthi 800 car bearing

NO. TS-15-EF 2869 and reached Zaheerabad, While returning from

Zaheerabad and proceeding towards Nizampur village of Sadasivapet by the time they reached Yenkepally X Road on NH 65 at about 4:15 PM, due to rash and negligent driving of Innova car bearing No. KA-32-M 4095 by the accused he dashed his Maruthi 800 car with his Innova car from behind due to which his brother-in-law sustained head injury and died on the spot, he and his driver also sustained simple injury, along with his car, Innova car also dashed the another vehicle i.e., Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.

TS-35-A-3173 which was crossing the road, at X cross due to which the rider of motor cycle and pilion rider/Lw.6 and LW.7 also sustained simple injuries.

Later in order to escape from the spot driver of Innova vehicle made a U turn at the cross road and again dashed a FZ motor cycle bearing No. TS-07-FE- 4320 which was leading towards Zaheerabad from Hyderabad as result the rider of motor cycle the LW.8/ Pundith Rathod severe bleeding injuries and thus the he requested to take necessary legal action against the accused.

3.Basing on the report lodged by the defacto complainant, LW.7.

Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.104/2018, Under sections 304 (A) and 337 of IPC and issued FIR, and entrusted the investigation to LW.18 during the course of investigation the Lw.18, P.Vijay Kumar has examined and 3C.C. No.302 OF 2018 recorded the statements of LW.1. Later visited Government Hospital,

Sadashivapet and examined LW.2-8, and conducted inquest over the dead body at the deceased in presence of LW.1 and 11, later LW.14 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PME report further

LW.18 have visited scene of offence and conducted panchanama and Rough sketch in presence of LW12 and LW.13, later forwarded the crime vehicle to the MVI for inspection, later on 24-04-2018, accused has voluntarily surrendered before LW.18 and admitted his guilt after receiving of PME and

MVI report LW.13 filed charge sheet for the after punishable Under Sections 304 (A) and 337 of IPC.

4.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable under sections 304 (A) and 337 of IPC. against the accused person.

5. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished to him under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

6. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under sections 304 (A) and 337 of IPC, the substance of accusation was read over and explained to him, for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.12 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.14, the learned APP was given-up the evidence of

LW.4, 8,, 13, 15, 17.

4C.C. No.302 OF 2018

8.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard the learned APPO and learned counsel for accused, and perused the record.

10. Now the points that arises for determination are:-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable Under sections 304 (A) and 337 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. POINT:-

The prosecution herein examined PW.1 to PW.12 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P14.

12.The brief averments of the petition is that defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that on 22-04-2018 at 17.00 hours.

13.while he along with his driver and brother-in-law returning from

Zaheerabad and Proceeding towards Nizampur, Sadashivpet Mandal in a car, by the time they reached Ennkepalli X cross road about 4:15 PM, the accused drove the Innova car rashly and negligently bearing No. KA-32-M-4095 and hit our car from the behind, which resulted in head injury to his brother-in-law who died on the sport, he and his died also sustained simple injuries. Hence the complainant.

5C.C. No.302 OF 2018

14.In order to prove its case, the prosecution have examined PW.1 who is defacto complainant deposed that on 22-04-2018, he along with deceased and his driver in a car while returning from Zaheerabad to Nizampur they got hit by a Innova car bearing No. 4095 and he and his driver sustained injuries and his brother-in-law died on the spot he further deposed that he did not see the driver of the crime vehicle.

15.Later prosecution examined PW.2 and PW.3 who are the relatives of the deceased deposed that they received information about the accident through phone call but they did not witnesses the accident, further prosecution examined PW.4 who is the driver of the maruthi 800 car in which deceased died, deposed that while they are returning from Zaheerabad, one car dashed their car from behind and then he lost his conscious and did not see the accused.

16.Later prosecution examined PW.5 and PW.6 who are the mediator to the inquest panchanama, deposed that police have conducted inquest panchanama in their presence and obtained accused signature on the panchanama as in Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, further prosecution examined PW7.

Who is the panch witnesses to the scene of offence panchanama who deposed that about 2 years back police called him and obtained his Signature on some black white papers as in Ex.P.4 and Ex. P5.

6C.C. No.302 OF 2018

17.Later prosecution have examined PW.8, PW.9 who are injured deposed that while they are going on their bike, they got hit by some unknown vehicle and fell unconscious and they do not know anything about this case, further prosecution examined PW.10 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, deposed that on the requisition made by the SHO Sadashivapet he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issue reports as in Ex.P8 prosecution. Prosecution also examined PW.11 who is the owner of the crime vehicle deposed that he do not known anything about this case.

18.Further prosecution cross examined PW.12 who is the Investigation officer is this case deposed that on receiving the complainant from PW.1

LW.17 registered a case as in Ex.P10 and entrusted the investigation to him, during the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of

PW.1 in police station, Later visited government hospital, Sadashivapet, where he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of PW.5 and PW.6. Later PW.12 examined and recorded there statement of

PW.2,3,4,8,9, and LW.4, later PW.10 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased further PW.12 visited the scene of offence and conducted panchanama and rough sketch in presence of PW.7 and LW.13 and forwarded the crime vehicle to MVI for inspection, after receiving the MVI and

PME report’s he filed charge sheet, in cross examination PW.12 admitted that he did not sent the victim vehicle to MVI for inspection and further admitted that there is a delay of 4 days in forwarding the crime vehicle to MVI 7C.C. No.302 OF 2018 for inspection from date of alleged offence, also admitted that No independent witnesses were examined.

19.It is evident from the above deposition that, PW1, PW.2, PW.3 are the defacto complainant and relatives of the deceased and non have witnessed the incident or accident and they did not saw the accused, PW.4 is the Eye witness also deposed that he was not see the accused and stated that he felt un conscious. As the panch witnesses PW.7 was turned hostile the scene of offence panchanma dated. 22-04-2018 is not proved further PW.8, PW.9 have also turned hostile and deposed they do not see the accused. As it can be seen from the above depositions that none of the prosecutions have deposed any incriminating material against the accused, and when there are No independent witnesses supporting the case of the prosecution it is lightly unsafe to rely up on the versions of PW.11 who is the police official and is intrested in the out come of the prosecution of the accused.

20.It is evident that there is no identification of the accused person as there is no evidence to believe that this accused person drove the car that caused death of the deceased. So, in the circumstances, this

Court is in view that the prosecution is able to establish the death of the deceased in the accident but failed to prove that this accused is responsible for it. Accordingly, this point is decided against the prosecution.

8C.C. No.302 OF 2018

21.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Sections 304 (A) and 337 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the Accused and sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months. The unmarked case property if any shall destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 08 th day of March, 2021.

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and excise offences Court, FAC JMFC. Special Mobile Court, Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW1: K. Jagadeshwer Reddy NIL

PW2: B. Sangeetha

PW3: Ravishekar Reddy

PW4: Chathri Prveen

PW5: G. Ram Reddy

PW6: G. Asireddy

PW7: C. Srisailam

PW8: Athmakur Shankariah

PW9: Athmakur Padma

PW10: B. Srinivas Reddy

PW11: Syed Mahfooz Ali

PW12: P.Vijaykumar 9C.C. No.302 OF 2018

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P.1 is the Report of PW.1 NIL

Ex.P.2 is the Signature on Inquest panchanama of PW.5

Ex.P.3 is the Signature on Inquest panchanama of PW.6

Ex. P.4 is the Signature on scene of offence panchanama of PW.7

Ex.P.5: is the rough sketch of PW.7

Ex.P.6: is 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P.7: is 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P..8: is the PME report

Ex.P.9: is 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P.10: is the FIR

Ex.P.11: is the Panchanama

Ex.P.12: is the rough sketch

Ex.P.13: is the inquest panchanama

Ex.P.14: is the MVI report

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Spl.Proh. & Excise Judge, FAC JFCM., Special Mobile cum-II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

TSSN040012692015

Presented on : 11-10-2018 Registered on : 12-10-2018 Decided on : 11-10-2021 Duration : 3 years, 0 months, 0 days

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

AT SANGAREDDY ,MEDAK

(Presided Over by Ms Patlolla Tejasri)

CC/200293/2018

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): PS Ramchandrapuram Through Police Station Officer , PS Ramchandrapuram

SANGAREDDY MEDAK

PS Ramchandrapuram VERSUS : Ragam Bixapathi Yadav Age: 35 Occupation : H no 2-51 Nalagandla Sherilingampally Rangareddy Dist 2:Ragam Ramesh Yadav Age: 24 Occupation :

3:Ragam Babesh Yadav Age: 27 Occupation :

4:Ragam Nagesh Yadav Age: 22 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for Ragam Bixapathi Yadav Advocate , , appearing for , , , 2, 3, 4 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 447,427.506,504,323 of INDIAN PENAL

CODE,

of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 11-10-2021) Both parties are present, after negotiations and appraisal by the lok adalat members, the defacto/ complainant /Victim has agreed to compound the offence against the accused and to settle the matter amicably. The lok adalat award was prepared, signed submitted in physical/electronically by the parties to the office of the district legal services authority. In the Video conference held for virtual lok adalat the presiding officer and the members of the lok adalat verified the ifdentify of the parties through court police/counsel for the complainant and confirmed their signatures on the submitted award. As the parties amicably settled the matter and as the offence charged is compoundable in nature, the lok adalat bench is satisfied and is of the opinion that the case may be compounded. Accordingly the compromise is recorded. The Accused is / are acquitted under section 320 (8) of Cr.P.C. for the offence under section/s 447, 427, 506, 509, 323 of IPC bail bonds of accused stands canceled and is/are set at liberty. The un marked case property shall be returned to the defacto/ complainant/owner of the property immediately after disposal of the main case, as the case may be destroyed

ORDER

Date : 11-10-2021 (Ms Patlolla Tejasri)

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Sangareddy

SANGAREDDY MEDAK

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Ms Patlolla Tejasri) Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

SANGAREDDY MEDAK

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSSN040012502019

Presented on : 26-11-2019 Registered on : 26-11-2019 Decided on : 11-10-2021 Duration : 1 years, 10 months, 15 days

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

CC/1049/2019

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Ps Ramachandrapuram Through Police Station Officer Ramachandrapuram 248 , Ps Ramachandrapuram

SANGAREDDY MEDAK

Ps Ramachandrapuram VERSUS : Marchetti Prasad Age: 35 Occupation : H.No 4-R-C/1182/18, Marthanda New Afeezpet, Miyapur 2:Kalvagadda Praveen Kumar Age: 27 Occupation :

3:Yennavaram Harikumar Age: 32 Occupation -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

APP for State }: App, Advocate for appearing for Marchetti Prasad Advocate , appearing for , , 2, 3 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 420,409 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 11-10-2021)

Both parties are present., after negotiations and appraisal by the lok adalat members, the defacto/ complainant /Victim has agreed to compound the offence against the accused and to settle the matter amicably. The lok adalat award was prepared, signed submitted in physical/electronically by the parties to the office of the distreict legal services authority. In the Video conference held for virtual lok adalat the presiding officer and the members of the lok adalat verified the ifdentify of the parties through court police/counsel for the complainant and confirmed their signatures on the submitted award. As the parties amicably settled the matter and as the offence charged is compoundable in nature, the lok adalat bench is satisfied and is of the opinion that the case may be compounded. Accordingly the compromise is recorded. The Accused is / are acquitted under section 320 (8) of Cr.P.C. for the offence under section/s 420 of IPC bail bonds of accused stands canceled and is/are set at liberty. The un marked case property shall be returned to the defacto/ complainant/owner of the property immediately after disposal of the main case, as the case may be destroyed

ORDER

Date : 11-10-2021

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana

Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Sangareddy

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSSN040054882021

Presented on : 11-10-2021 Registered on : 11-10-2021 Decided on : 11-10-2021 Duration : 0 years, 0 months, 0 days

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

CC/3443/2021

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION):

STATE OF TELANGANA

Through Police Station Officer PATANCHERU-PS 430 , Patancheru Police Station H.No.9-65,Opp PTC Bus Stand Patancheru Village and Mandal

SANGAREDDY MEDAK

STATE OF TELANGANA

VERSUS : Kammari Veeresham Age: 35 Occupation : Nethaji nagar,Ramchandrapuram,Bandlaguda,Cyberabad,Telangana ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for Kammari Veeresham Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under :

379 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 11-10-2021)

Both parties are present., after negotiations and appraisal by the lok adalat members, the defacto/ complainant /Victim has agreed to compound the offence against the accused and to settle the matter amicably. The lok adalat award was prepared, signed submitted in physical/electronically by the parties to the office of the distreict legal services authority. In the Video conference held for virtual lok adalat the presiding officer and the members of the lok adalat verified the identify of the parties through court police/counsel for the complainant and confirmed their signatures on the submitted award. As the parties amicably settled the matter and as the offence charged is compoundable in nature, the lok adalat bench is satisfied and is of the opinion that the case may be compounded. Accordingly the compromise is recorded. The Accused is / are acquitted under section 320 (8) of Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 379 of IPC bail bonds of accused stands canceled and is/are set at liberty. The un marked case property shall be returned to the defacto/ complainant/owner of the property immediately after disposal of the main case, as the case may be destroyed

ORDER

Date : 11-10-2021 Special

Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition

and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases

under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Sangareddy

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSSN030027102021

Presented on : 28-08-2021 Registered on : 28-08-2021 Decided on : 28-09-2021 Duration : 0 years, 1 months, 0 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Sangareddy

AT SANGAREDDY,MEDAK

CC/1321/2021

Ps Sangareddy Town Through Police Station Officer Sangareddy Rural PS-2 86, Ps Sangareddy Town

SANGAREDDYMEDAK

VERSUS

Vadde Narimulu Age: 40 R/o. Hunnapur, Chowtakur 2:JCL No.2 MD Sameer Age: 15 R/o. dhanasir ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APP, Advocate for appearing for Vadde Narimulu Advocate appearing for , 2 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

Accused they are produced before the Jail Adhalath and they are admitted the offence U/Sec. 379 IPC through petition. They plea appears to be voluntarily made and is accepted and convicted U/Sec. 241 Cr.P.C. They are sentenced to undergo S.I/R.I for 3 months and fine of Rs. 50 each and in default to suffer S.I of 10 Days/ Months. The sentenced in each offence shall run concurrently the total fine amount of Rs. 50. The remand period from 11-08-2021 to 28-09-2021 undergone by the accused shall be set off U/Sec. 248 Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property vide CPR No. 173/15/2021 shall be returned to the defacto omplainant/Owner of the property immediately after disposal of the main case as the case may be. The superintendent Dist. Jail, Sangareddy is directed to release the accused forthwith, if the period of imprisonment is completed and if he is not required in any other case.

Date : 28-09-2021 Sd/-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Sangareddy

SANGAREDDYMEDAK