Smt. D. Geetha Rani

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: AT KHAMMAM.

Present: Smt. D.Geetha Rani, M.A.,LL.M., II A.J.M.F.C, Khammam.

Dated this the 24th day of April, 2018

C.C.No.664 of 2017

[Cr.No.207 of 2017, P.S Khanapuram haveli] Between: The State, through S.I of Police,

Khanapuram haveli P.S. .... Complainant.

And

Mohammad Mathin, S/o Mohammad Shakeel, 25 Years, Driver of auto No. AP 20 TA 1434, R/o H.No.8-9-215/2, Killa Bazar, Khammam, Khammam District

...Accused

-o0o-

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P for the State and Smt. Y.Kranthi Kumari, Learned Legal Aid Counsel for accused, upon hearing on both sides, 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 Khanapuram haveli laid charge sheet against the above accused for the offence U/sec. 356, 379 r/w 511 of I.P.C against accused in Cr.No.207 of 2017 with a prayer to punish the above accused for the alleged offences.

2.) Brief facts: The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is resident of 15th street, Madhuranagar, Khammam and working in Zoom Colour Lab.

On 20-4-2017 at 2000 hours P.W.1 after completion of her work, came to near

Khajana Jewellery and boarded the auto bearing No. AP 20 TA 1434 to go to her house, on the way when the auto reached near Mamatha Hospital, new gate, mean while the accused, while running the auto the accused attempted to use criminal force and taken away the cell phone of P.W.1, when she raised hues and cries, on that the accused thrown the victim from the auto, on listen the cries, the tenants reached there, on seeing them, the accused fled away by leaving the cell phone and auto there itself.

3.) On 20-04-2017 at 2230 hours, PW.1 lodged a written report with the police, basing on which F.I.R in Cr.No. 207 of 2017 U/Sec. 356, 379 IPC was registered by

P.W.7 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1, visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statement of P.W.2, P.W.3, L.W.3 Kothapalli Vijay, L.W.4 Jolaboina 2

Narasimha Rao, L.W.5 Nookala Narasimha Rao, drafted the crime details form and seized auto bearing no. AP 20 TA 1434 in the presence of L.W.7 Mulagundla Venu

Babu and L.W.8 Mamillapalli Venugopala Rao. On 27-4-2017 the accused was arrested by P.W.6 in Cr.No.121/17 U/Sec. 420, 379 IPC of Gopalapuram P.S,

Secunderabad and interrogated the accused in the presence of panchas P.W.4 and

P.W.5. On interrogation the accused confessed the commission of offence in this case and other cases. Later the accused sent for judicial custody by P.W.6 in that case. On 5-5-2007 the accused was produced on PT warrant before the Hon’ble

Court and sent him to judicial custody. Basing on the investigation, I.O came to the conclusion that the above accused committed an offence punishable U/sec. 356, 379 r/w 511 of IPC against Accused and filed charge sheet against the above said accused. Hence, the case.

4.) Considering the charge sheet and material on record, this court took the case on file for the offence punishable U/sec. 356, 379 r/w 511 of IPC against accused and issued process. In reply to the process, the accused entered his appearance and he was provided with the copies of documents on which the prosecution is relying to prove the proposed guilt.

5.)Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C, charges U/sec. 356, 379 r/w 511 of IPC against Accused was framed, read over and explained to accused, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.)In pursuance of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6.

7.)After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the available incriminating material against him for which, accused denied the same and adduced no evidence on his behalf.

8.)Head arguments on both sides. The learned APP argued that eye witness supported the prosecution case and identified the accused and prayed this court to convict the accused. The learned Legal Aid Counsel for accused reported arguments on merits.

9.)Now, the point that arises for determination is:-

“Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record a conviction

against the above accused person for the offence punishable U/sec. 356, 379

r/w 511 of IPC?” 10.)Evidence on record: As stated above, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 3 and exhibited Ex.P.1 to 6 documents. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, P.W.2 is eye witness, P.W.3 is the owner of the crime vehicle, P.Ws.4 and 5 are the panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama, P.Ws.6 and 7 are the investigating officers. With regard to exhibits, Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the signature of the P.W.4 in confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P.3 is the signature of P.W.5 in confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P.4 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P.5 is the first information report, Ex.P.6 is the crime details form.

11.) POINT:- Coming to the evidence on record, P.W.1 deposed that she know

P.W.2 and L.W.3 K.Vijay, L.W.4 T.Narasimha Rao and L.W.5 N.Narasimha Rao. She was working as Receptionist at Zoom colour lab situated at Municipal Office road,

Khammam. On 20-4-2017 at about 0830 pm after completion of his work in the lab to go to her house she boarded auto near Khajana Jewellery shop to go to

Madhuranagar. When the auto reached near Mamatha Hospital Road the auto driver caught hold her hand and due to fear she made hue and cries and the auto driver took her cell phone and pushed her away from the auto and she fell down.

Immediately the persons in the near by houses came there then the auto driver left the auto and her cell phone there and fled away. She did not remember the auto bearing number. The person who is present in the court hall is the auto driver. On the same day she lodged complaint. During the cross examination she deposed that she was residing at Madhuranagar 15th street. After the incident she never saw the accused. She denied the suggestion that the accused never caught hold her hand and never took her cell phone and that she was deposing false at the instance of police.

12.)P.W.2 deposed that he was residing at Raghaviah nagar, Gollagudem road.

About 4 months back on one day at about 0800 or 0830 pm he was standing on the road near his house. At that time he heard some hues and cries of female lady from auto about 50 meters away from his house. He immediately ran on the back of the auto then the auto driver stopped the auto and trying to fled away and he tried to caught hold him but he fled away. Then he enquired female lady in the auto then she told to him that the driver of the auto caught hold her hand and she also informed to him that she is working in one Colour lab near Municipal office and she boarded the auto near Municipal office to go to Madhuranagar. The incident occurred near Mamatha Hospital new gate. During the cross examination he deposed that the scene of offence is a busy road. He admitted that he did not witness the driver of the auto who drove the auto. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing false at the instance of P.W.1 and police. After the incident he never 4 saw P.W.1.

13.)P.W.3 deposed that she know accused and he is present in the court hall. He was having own auto and he gave that auto for hire to accused. About 4 months back, he gave that auto for hire to accused but he did not paid auto hire amount to her. On one day police came to her and informed her that accused took one lady in auto and taken her mobile and pushed her as some body came there and meanwhile the accused left the auto and fled away. During the cross examination she stated that police came to her house and enquired her whether she gave her auto for hire to accused or not. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing false at the instance of police that the accused took one lady in auto and taken her mobile and pushed her as some body came there and mean while accused left the auto and fled away and that she was deposing false at the instance of police.

14.)In this case, confession cum seizure panchas P.Ws.4 and 5 not supported the prosecution case.

15.)P.W.6 who is investigating officer stated that on 21-4-2017 at 0830 hours he received complaint from one Kona Nagamani, basing on that he registered a case in

Cr.No.121/2017 U/Sec. 420, 379 IPC of P.S.Gopalapuram and issued FIR.

Examined and recorded the statement of Kona Nagamani at police station. During his course of investigation on 27-4-2017 at 0915 hours near Secunderabad Railway station he found the accused in suspicious circumstances and he enquired him and also found one bag with him and brought him to police station and immediately called panchas P.Ws.4 and 5 and conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in their presence and accused confessed that he committed theft in several cases in various places like Secunderabad and Khammam and seized two tulas gold chain and two tulas gold black beeds chain from the accused and sent him for judicial remand. Subsequently, he informed the same to SHO, P.S.Khanapuram haveli.

During the cross examination he denied the suggestion that his investigation is a table made investigation. He admitted that he conducted panchanama at police station. He denied the suggestion that accused is no way concerned with the offence.

16.)P.W.7 who is investigating officer stated that on 20-4-2017 at 1030 hours he received complaint from P.W.1, basing on that he registered a case in

Cr.No.207/2017 U/Sec. 356, 379 r/w 511 IPC and issued FIR. Examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1 at police station. On the next day he visited the scene of offence and examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.2, 3 and L.W.3

K.Vijay, L.W.4 J.Narasimha Rao and L.W.5 N.Narasimha Rao and conducted Crime details form and drafted rough sketch in the presence of L.W.7 M.Venu Babu and 5

L.W.8 M.Venu Gopala Rao and seized one auto bearing No. AP 20 TA 1434 of Bajaj

Company which is left by accused at scene of offence. Subsequently, on 27-4-2017 he received information from P.S.Gopalapuram that accused was apprehended in their crime and subsequently, he filed PT warrant before this court and brought the accused before this court and sent him for judicial custody. After the completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. During the cross examination he stated that he did not shown in rough sketch in crime details form that he seized the auto. But he had mentioned the same in Column No.7 of crime details form. He denied the suggestion that he did not visited the scene of ofence and not conducted crime details form in the presence of L.W.7 and L.W.8. He denied the suggestion that his investigation is table made investigation by sitting at police station and that he was deposing false.

17.)In the present case on hand, the allegation of the prosecution is that the accused attempted to commit theft. P.W.1 clearly stated that on 20-4-2017 at 8:30 pm she boarded the auto near Khazana Jewellery after completion of work to go to her house at Madhuranagar. When the auto reached near Mamatha Hospital road the auto driver caught hold her hand and due to fear she made hue and cries and the auto driver took her cell phone and pushed her from the auto and she fell down. Immediately the persons nearby houses came there then the auto driver left the auto and her cell phone and pushed her away from the auto and she fell down.

P.W.1 identified the accused and stated he is the auto driver. P.W.2 also corroborated with each other and stated about four months back on one day about 8 or 8:30 pm he heard some hues and cries of female lady from the auto immediately he ran on the back side of the auto and the auto driver stopped the auto and trying to fled away and he tried to caught hold him but he fled away.

Then he enquired that lady then she informed him about the incident. Further

P.W.3 also corroborated that she gave her auto to accused on hire basis. The investigating officers also corroborated that the accused committed several offences at Secunderabad and Khammam. Though in this case the confession cum seizure panchas not supported the prosecution case. But the prosecution proved the case against the accused that he attempted to commit offence. The prosecution proved the offence U/Sec.511 of IPC and miserably failed to prove the case U/Sec. 356, 379 IPC.

18.) In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence u/sec. 511

IPC against accused and accordingly, he is convicted u/sec. 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the steno-typist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, on this the 24 th day of April, 2018.

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class,

KHAMMAM.

6

When the accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him for the offence u/sec. 511 of IPC, the accused stated that his mother was died about 4 months back and he is having two small children and he is only earning member in his family. Considering the facts and circumstances of the accused and nature of the offence, I am not inclined to invoke the benevolent provisions of P.O Act. Hence the accused is entitled for conviction.

In the result, the accused is found guilty and convicted for the offence u/sec. 511 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties if any shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property i.e., Bajaj Diesel auto bearing

No. AP 20 TA 1434 shall be returned to its registered owner after expiry of appeal time on proper identification and acknowledgement. Remand period already undergone by the accused shall be setoff u/sec.428 of Cr.P.C. The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against the Judgment of this court.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24 th day of April, 2018.

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class,

KHAMMAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined: For Prosecution: For defence: P.W.1: P.Adilaxmi -None- P.W.2: M.Appa Rao P.W.3: Sk.Sulthana P.W.4: Ahamed Malik P.W.5: S.Anil P.W.6: A.Shankar P.W.7: G.Mogili Documents marked: For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Complaint, Ex.P.2: Signature of P.W.4 in Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P.3: Signature of P.W.5 in confession cum seizure panchanam Ex.P.4: Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P.5: First information report Ex.P.6: crime details form For defence: -NIL- Material objects marked: -NIL-.

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class,

KHAMMAM

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: AT KHAMMAM.

Present: Smt. D.Geetha Rani, M.A.,LL.M., II A.J.M.F.C, Khammam.

Dated this the 25th day of April, 2018

C.C.No. 497 of 2012

[Cr.No.134 of 2012, P.S.Mudigonda] Between The State, through then S.I of Police,

Mudigonda P.S .... Complainant.

And

Gunja Pedda Roshaiah, S/o Chinna Ramulu, 40 years, Vaddera, Lorry driver, R/o Vallabhi village.

...Accused

-o0o-

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P for the State and Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the accused; upon hearing on both sides, 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.Mudigonda laid charge sheet for the offence U/sec.342, 324 of IPC against Accused in Cr.No.134/2012 with a prayer to punish the above accused for the alleged offence. 2.)Brief facts: That as per the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the complainant and injured and resident of Vallabhi village. The accused is the husband of P.W.1. Before 10th November, 2012 a petty quarrel happened in between

P.W.1 and accused due to which brother of accused took her to Jaggaiahpeta. Later on 12-11-2012 the accused returned to home and quarreled with P.W.1, wrongfully confined her in a room, by gagged her mouth with towel, beat her indiscriminately, in the mean time P.W.3 and P.W.8 rescued her from the hands of accused. Later on 14-11-2012 morning at 0800 hours P.W.1 went to canal to wash the cloths. In the mean time the accused went to her from back side thrown her in the canal, beat her with iron rod over her right leg due to which she received injury to her leg, at that time P.W.2 witnessed and rescued the P.W.1 from the hands of the accused.

3.) On 14-11-2012 at 1330 hours, PW.1 lodged a written report with the police

P.W.10, then P.W.10 shifted P.W.1 to Government Hospital, Khammam for treatment and wound certificate for taking necessary action. On 21-11-2012 at 1600 hours P.W.10 received medical certificate of the injured from Govt. hospital,

Khammam, basing on which on which F.I.R in Cr.No.134 of 2012 u/Sec. 342, 324

IPC was registered by P.W.10 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, P.W.10 examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1. On 22-11- 2 2012 he visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of

P.Ws.2 to 5 and 8, prepared crime details form and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 7. On 13-12-2012 at 1200 hours the

L.W.11 P.Sarvaiah arrested the accused and produced before the Court for judicial remand. P.W.9 treated the injured and issued wound certificate. Basing on the investigation, I.O came to the conclusion that the above accused committed an offence punishable U/sec. 342, 324 IPC against Accused and filed charge sheet.

Hence, the case.

4.) Considering the charge sheet and material on record, this court took the case on file for the offence punishable U/Sec. 342, 324 IPC against Accused and issued process. In reply to the process accused entered his appearance and he was provided with the copies of documents on which the prosecution is relying to prove the proposed guilt.

5.) Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C, the charges U/sec. 342, 324 IPC was framed against Accused, read over and explained in Telugu, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.) In pursuance of the prosecution case, prosecution examined ten witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9.

7.) After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the available incriminating material against him for which, accused denied the same and adduced no evidence on his behalf.

8.)Heard arguments on both sides and reported on merits..

9.)Now, the point that arises for determination is:-

“Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record a conviction for

the offence punishable U/sec. 342, 324 IPC against Accused ?” 10.)Evidence on record: As stated above, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and exhibited Ex.P.1 and 9 documents. P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant and victim, P.Ws.2 to 4 and 8 are eye witnesses, P.W.5 is the circumstantial witness,

P.Ws.6 and 7 are the panch witnesses for crime details form, P.W.9 is the medical officer, P.W.10 is the investigating officer. With regard to the exhibits, Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.2, Ex.P.3 is the relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3, Ex.P.4 is the relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.5, Ex.P.5 is the signature of P.W.6 in crime details form, Ex.P.6 is the signature of P.W.7 in crime details form, Ex.P.7 is the medical certificate of P.W.1, Ex.P.8 is the first information report, Ex.P.9 is the crime details form 11.) POINT:- Coming to the evidence on record, P.W.1 deposed that she know

P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.8 is her brother. P.W.4 is her daughter. P.W.5 is her son-in- 3 law. Accused is her husband. In the month of November, 2012, on one day while she was doing household work at about 1000 am her husband came to house from

Jaggaiahpeta and suddenly kept cloth in her mouth and beat severely by keeping previous grudge in between them. She received injuries all over her body. The neighbour P.W.3 came and rescued her. Thereafter, she went to her daughter’s (P.W.4) house and stayed there. After two days she went to canal for washing the clothes at about 0800 am at that time accused came to her with iron rod and also with spade and beat her on her right leg. She made hue and cries and at that time

P.W.2 came to her and rescued her. Thereafter, she went to police station and lodged complaint. On her dictation police scribed the complaint and she signed on it. Later the police sent her to government hospital for treatment. During the cross examination she deposed that on her dictation her villager scribed the Ex.P.1

Complaint. She know the contents of Ex.P.1 At the time of scribing Ex.P.1 itself the dates on Ex.P.1 were overwrited. She stated to police in her 161 Cr.P.C statement that the accused beat her with spade. After the incident P.W.3 came to her and rescued her and P.W.3 is cousin sister of accused. She denied the suggestion that she fell down and received injuries and that she did not know who beat her as she sustained injuries to her back side and that she was not residing in Vallabhi village and that at the instance of one Potla Prasad she lodged complaint against accused and that the accused never beat her and she was deposing false and that Ex.P.1 is a false report as such there are overwritings with regards to dates.

12.)In this case, P.W.2 and P.W.3 not supported the prosecution case.

13.)P.W.4 deposed that P.W.1 is her mother. She know P.W.2. P.W.3 is her grand mother. P.W.8 is her junior paternal uncle. P.W.5 is her husband. Accused is her father. In the year 2012 on one day her mother came to her house and informed her that her mother and father (accused) quarreled with each other and her father kept cloth in her mouth and beat her. Then P.W.3 came to her and rescued her.

While she is in her house after two days she went to canal for washing the clothes at about 0700 am at that time her father beat her on leg with iron rod and she came to her house at about 1000 am with swelling of her leg. At the time of washing the clothes P.W.2 came and rescued her. Subsequently, P.W.1 and she went to Government Hospital for treatment. During the cross examination she admitted that she was not eye witness to the incident.

14.)P.W.5 also not supported the prosecution case. P.Ws.6 and 7 who are panch witnesses for crime details form also supported the prosecution case.

15.)P.W.8 deposed that P.W.1 is his sister. He know PWs.2 to 5 and they are his relatives. Accused is his brother-in-law. P.W.1 is wife of accused. Prior to this case also there are disputes between accused and P.W.1. About 3 years back on one day at about 0600 am P.W.1 went to canal for washing clothes, at that time accused 4 went to her and beat her with iron rod on right leg ankle and pushed her in the canal and beat her severely. Some of his relatives informed him about the incident as such he came to Vallabhi and later P.W.1 lodged complaint and he accompanied

P.W.1 to hospital for treatment. During the cross examination he admitted that he was not eye witness to the incident. At about 0900 am or 1000 am her relatives informed about the incident. Immediately he came to Vallabhi and from there they went to Government hospital for treatment of P.W.1. He admitted that since 7 or 8 years onwards P.W.1 stays at Jaggaiahpeta. He denied the suggestion that the accused never beat P.W.1 and he was deposing false. During the re-examination he stated that after the incident P.W.1 came to him and residing with him at

Jaggaiahpeta.

16.)P.W.9 deposed that on 14-11-2012 at about 0220 pm she received requisition from P.S.Mudigonda to examine P.W.1, basing on that she examined the injured and found the injuries and she advised the patient to take X-ray and report is given as no bony injury noted. Accordingly, she issued medical certificate of P.W.1.

During the cross examination she admitted that there is possibility of sustaining these injuries if a person falls on smooth surface.

17.)P.W.10 deposed that on 14-11-2012 at 1300 hours he received complaint from P.W.1, basing on that he registered a case in Cr.NO.1134/12 u/Sec.342, 324

IPC and issued FIR. Examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1 at police station and sent her to Government Hospital, Khammam for treatment. On 21-11- 2012 he visited the scene of offence and examined and recorded the statements of

P.Ws.2 to 5 and P.W.8 and conducted crime details form and drafted rough sketch in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 7. Later he handed over the CD file to L.W.11

P.Sarvaiah. During his course of investigation, on 13-12-2012 at 1200 hours he arrested accused at his house at Vallabhi village and brought him to police station and produce him before the court for judicial remand. After the completion of investigation and collecting the medical certificate of P.W.1 he filed charge sheet

before the court. He can identify the signature of L.W.11. During the cross

examination he stated that even though he received complaint on 14-11-2012 he did not registered FIR and he made GD entry immediately. After receipt of MC of

P.W.1, he registered the FIR on 21-11-2012. The complainant herself corrected the dates in Ex.P.1. He himself recorded the 161 Cr.P.C statements of witnesses at

Vallabhi on 22-11-2012. He denied the suggestion that due to political pressure he registered FIR as such the dates in the Ex.P.1 were corrected and that he did not went to the scene of offence and did not made any investigation and the accused is no way concerned with the offence.

18.)In the present case on hand, the allegation of the prosecution is that the accused beat P.W.1 and she received injuries. P.W.1 stated in the month of 5

November, 2012 while she was doing household work at about 1000 am her husband came to house from Jaggaiahpeta and suddenly kept cloth in her mouth and beat severely by keeping previous grudge in between them and she received injuries all over her body. The neighbor P.W.3 came and rescued her.

Subsequently, she went to her daughter’s house and stayed there. After two days she went to canal for washing the clothes about 8 am at that time accused came to her with iron rod and also with spade and beat her on her right leg. She made hues and cries and at that time P.W.2 came to her and rescued her. Thereafter she lodged complaint. But both the P.Ws.2 and 3 not supported the prosecution case.

Though P.W.4 who is daughter of P.W.1 was examined by the prosecution and she clearly deposed that she is not eye witness to the incident. She came to know about the incident through her mother (P.W.1) when she came to her house.

Further P.W.8 who is brother of P.W.1 deposed about the incident but in the cross examination he admitted that he was not eye witness to the incident and he came to know about the incident through some of his relatives. In this case crime details form panchas not supported the prosecution case. Further the investigating officer did not seized the iron rod and spade which was used by the accused in committing the offence. Though the Doctor was examined and deposed that P.W.1 came to hospital and she gave treatment to her and during the cross examination she admitted that there is every possibility of sustaining the injuries if a person falls on smooth surface. The investigating officer clearly admitted that after receiving the medical certificate from the hospital he registered the FIR. Though P.W.1 deposed about the incident but eye witness not supported the prosecution case. Basing solely on the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.8, the accused cannot be held guilty. Hence the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

19.)IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 342, 324

IPC against Accused, accordingly he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall stands canceled after expiry of six months. Police did not seized any material objects during the course of investigation, hence no order to disposal of property.

The jail authorities are hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in other case or crime.

Dictated to the steno-typist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 25 th day of April, 2018.

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class,

KHAMMAM.

6

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined: For Prosecution: For defence: P.W.1: G.Nagamani -None- P.W.2: Ch.Laxmaiah P.W.3: Ch.Radhamma P.W.4: Ch.Venkata Ramana P.W.5: Ch.Nagaraju P.W.6: J.Krishna P.W.7: A.Laxmi Narasimha Rao P.W.8: Ch.Ramulu P.W.9: K.Sandhya Rani P.W.10: V.Rama Das Documents marked: For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.3: Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.4: Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.5: Signature of P.W.6 in crime details form Ex.P.6: Signature of P.W.7 in crime details form Ex.P.7: Medical certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P.8: First information report Ex.P.11: Crime details form

For defence: --Nil-- Material objects marked: -NIL-

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class,

KHAMMAM

IN THE COURT OF

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Khammam

AT KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM

(Presided Over by Ms.Yepuri Bindu Priya)

STC/300026/2018

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): S.H.O. Mudigonda Through Police Station Officer

VERSUS

Puttabanthi Upendar ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APP, Advocate for appearing for Accused Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 185 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,

ORDER

Accused present copies furnished. Examined U/s 251 of crpc. He pleaded guilty and I accepted the same being voluntary. Accordingly the accused is convicted under section 252 of Cr.P.C for the offence Under section 185 of MV Act and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 2000/- each, for each count , in default to suffer S.I for one month for each count, in total 2000/-.

(Ms.Yepuri Bindu Priya) II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Khammam

IN THE COURT OF

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Khammam

(PROSECUTION):

KHAMMAM

VERSUS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APPO, -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

Suomotto advanced to today as the learned Counsel filed joint memo filed by both the parties. Both parties present and reported that the matter has been settled outside the Honble Court on the intervention of the elders and prayed to refer the matter to DLSA for recording terms of the compromise. Hence the matter is referred to DLSA.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Khammam

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

IN THE COURT OF

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Khammam

(PROSECUTION):

KHAMMAM

VERSUS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APPO, -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

As per the proceedings of Honble Prl. District and Sessions Juge, Khammam vide Dis No. 2152 dated 17-4-2018 this case is treated as LPC and assigned number LPC /18

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Khammam

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