Sri D.nageswara Rao

Page 1 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.810/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT BHONGIR

Present: Sri D. NAGESWARA RAO

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Friday, on the 4 th day of October, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No.810/2019

(Crime No.52/2018 of P.S. Bommalaramaram)

Between:

The State represented by its

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bommalaramaram ...Complainant

And

A1-Gaikwad Kiran, S/o. Devadasu, Aged about 21 years, Occ: Coolie. A2-Gaikwad Devashala, W/o. Devadasu, Aged about 40 years, Occ:Coolie. Both are R/o. Khazipet Village of Bommalaramaram Mandal. …Accused A1 and A2 * * * This case is coming before this Court for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Chandu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

Prosecution/Complainant and Sri M.Venkateshwarlu,learned Counsel for Accused

A1 and A2 and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Bommalaramaram filed Charge

Sheet against the Accused A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Section

448, Section 354, Section 323 and Section 504 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal

Code (In short “IPC”) in Crime No.52/2018 of P.S. Bommalaramaram.

2.The case of the Prosecution in brief is that the LW-1/Complainant is hails from

Orissa State, at present she is working in the Brick Kiln of one Jaipal Reddy situated at Pedda Vagu outskirts of Cheekatimamidi Village, the Accused A1 is also working

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 2 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.810/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

in the said Brick kiln and the Accused A2 is mother of Accused A1, the Accused A1 has developed lust over the LW-1 and decided to fulfill his sexual desire, on 16.04.2018 at about 12.00 AM, the Accused A1 has came to the room of LW1, while they were sleeping in the room, the Accused A1 caught hold her hand and dragged for fulfilling his sexual desire, due to which the LW1 has waked up and made hue and cries on hearing the same, the LW-2 and LW-3 have also waked up and caught hold the Accused A1, since the Accused A1 was intoxicate state, the LW-4 and LW-5 have decided to discuss the matter tomorrow, on 17.04.2018 at about 08.00 AM, the

Accused A1 along with his mother Accused A2 have visited the Brick Kiln in which the LW-1 is working and the Accused A2 has caught hold the LW-1 hair and beat her with hands for calling her son before mediators and also the Accused A1 and A2 have abused the LW-1 and LW-2 and beat them with hands.

Thus, the acts of Accused A1 and A2 attract for the offences punishable

under Section 448, Section 354, Section 323 and Section 504 r/w Section 34 of

IPC.

3.On the strength of Report, a case was registered by PW-3/K.Venkatesh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S, Bommalaramaram. During the course of

Investigation, he got examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and he also conducted Scene of Offence Panchanama.

After completion of Investigation, PW-3/K.Venkatesh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bommalaramaram filed Charge Sheet against the Accused A1 and A2 for theoffences punishable under 448, Section 354, Section 323 and Section 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 3 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.810/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

4.The Case was taken on cognizance against the Accused A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Section 448, Section 354, Section 323 and Section 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

5.On appearance of the Accused A1 and A2, the copies of documents, on which the Prosecution intends to rely upon, was furnished to Accused A1 and A2, in terms of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (In short ‘Cr.P.C.’).

6.The Accused A1 and A2 got examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and the Charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu language and having understood the same, they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To prove its case, the Prosecution got examined PW-1/Methuku Ram Reddy-

Eye-Witness and got marked Ex.P-1 is the Statement of PW-1 recorded under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. PW-2/Bhukya Kapura-Panch Witness for Scene of Offence got examined and got marked Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 are the Signatures of PW-2 on

Scene of Offence Panchanama along with Rough Sketch. PW-3/K.Venkatesh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bommalaramaram (Investigating Officer) got examined and got marked Ex.P-4 is the Report, Ex.P-5 is the FIR, Ex.P-6 is the

Scene of Offence Panchanama along with Rough Sketch.

The Court had closed the evidences of LW1/Saritha Maji-Complainant,

LW-2/Punnami Dharva Maji-Eye-Witness, LW-3/Urmila Dharva Maji, LW-4/Kailas

Dharva, LW-5/Antharjami Podh, LW-6/Radha Namwad, LW-7/Mahadevuni

Shankaraiah are the Eye-Witnesses basing on the Report of Prosecution.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 4 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.810/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidences of

LW-9/Arvind Yadav Gaikwad-Circumstantial Witness, LW-10/Madoth Sreeramulu-

Circumstantial Witness and LW-12/Dheeravath Bixapathi-Panch Witness for Scene of Offence.

8.After closure of the Prosecution side evidence, the Accused A1 and A2 got examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material evidence in the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses, for which they denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence.

Arguments

9.Heard the oral arguments on both sides.

During arguments, Sri D.Chandu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the case is to be disposed off on merits since the material witnesses were turned hostile and did not support the Prosecution story.

10.On the other hand, Sri M.Venkateshwarlu, learned Counsel for the Accused

A1 and A2 vehemently argued the Accused A1 and A2 did not commit any of the offence as alleged by the Prosecution and the witnesses who deposed before the

Court did not support the Prosecution’s story to establish the guilt of the Accused A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt. There is no cogent evidence to prove the guilt of the Accused A1 and A2 for the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt. The

Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt. He prayed to acquit the Accused A1 and A2 on benefit of doubt.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 5 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.810/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

Point for Consideration

11. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of both parties, now the point for determination are:-

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused A1 and A2 for

the offence punishable under Section 448, Section 354, Section 323 and

Section 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not ? Appreciation of Evidence of Prosecution

12.On perusal of evidence of PW-1 (Methuku Ram Reddy) and PW-2 (Bhukya

Kapura) are the Eye-Witness and Panch Witness for Scene of Offence deposed they did not know anything about the facts of the present case. Police obtained

Signatures of PW-2 on some papers but they did not know what was written on such papers. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are Signatures of PW-2 on Scene of Offence

Panchanama along with Rough Sketch.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross-examined them but nothing is elicited to doubt their evidence.

13.On perusal of evidence of PW-3 (K.Venkatesh) the then Sub-Inspector of

Police, who is the Investigating Officer deposed on 20.04.2018 at 09.00 AM,

LW1/Saritha Maji went to Police Station and lodged Report. Ex.P.4 is the Report.

Basing on which, he registered a case in Cr.No.52/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 448, Section 354, Section 323 and Section 504 r/w section 34 of IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P.5 is FIR. Immediately, he examined and recorded statement of

LW.1.

Thereafter, he visited the Scene of Offence situated at Cheekatimamidi

Village, at Jaipal Reddy Bricks Factory, where he conducted Scene of Offence

Panchanama in the presence of PW2 and LW12 and drawn Rough Sketch. Ex.P6 is the Scene of Offence Panchanama along with Rough Sketch.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 6 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.810/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

Thereafter, he also examined PW1, LW1 to LW7, LW9 and LW10 who are

Victim and witnesses and recorded their statements.

On 25.05.2018, he apprehended the Accused A1 and affected his arrest and produced him before the Hon’ble Court for Judicial Remand. On 17.05.2018 he served a notice under Section 41 (A) (3) of Cr.P.C to the Accused A2 and directed her to appear before the Hon’ble Court as and when required.

After completion of investigation, he filed Charge Sheet against the Accused

A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Section under Section 448, Section 354, Section 323, Section 504 r/w section 34 of IPC. PW.1 stated before him as in the Ex.P.1.

During his cross-examination, he denied he never visited the Scene of

Offence and never conducted any Panchanama. He denied he never examined any of the Witnesses and he conducted table investigation and filed false Charge Sheet against Accused A1 and A2 for statistical purpose.

14. In the instant case, on perusal of the evidences of PW-1 & PW-2 they did not support the Prosecution Story in their cross-examinations by deposing that they did not know anything about the facts of the present case.

The evidence of PW-3 who is the Investigating Officer who filed Charge Sheet is only available against the Accused A1 and A2.

On perusal of his evidence, there is no corroboration of his evidence in material particulars. Further, he failed to collect proper evidence to establish the guilt of the Accused A1 and A2. Prosecution miserably failed to produce the material

Witnesses during the course of Trial. Further more that the evidence of Investigating

Officer requires corroboration in material particulars. But, there is no corroborative

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 7 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.810/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

evidence in material particulars. Hence, it is held there is no clear, cogent and concrete evidence to establish the guilt of the Accused A1 and A2 for the alleged offence.

15.So, there is no concrete evidence on record to show that the Accused A1 and

A2 had committed the said offence beyond all reasonable doubt and the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused A1 and A2 and not proved any of the essential elements of alleged offence. So, the benefit of doubt should necessarily goes to the Accused A1 and A2.

16. Therefore, in the circumstances, as per the reasons stated above, this Court holds the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused A1 and A2 for the

offences punishable under Section 448, Section 354, Section 323 and Section

504 r/w Section 34 of IPCbeyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should necessarily goes to Accused A1 and A2. As such, the Accused A1 and A2 entitled for acquittal.

17. In the result, the Accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 448, Section 354, Section 323 and Section 504 r/w

Section 34 of IPCand accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C., and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after six Months under the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 4th day of October, 2024. (Sd/- Nageswara Rao)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 8 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.810/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL PW-1/Methuku Ram Reddy-Eye-Witness. PW-2/Bhukya Kapura-Panch Witness for Scene of Offence. PW-3/K.Venkatesh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Bommalaramaram (Investigating Officer).

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL Ex.P-1 is the Statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-3 are the Signatures of PW-2 on Scene of Offence Panchanama along with Rough Sketch. Ex.P-4 is the Report. Ex.P-5 is the FIR Ex.P-6 is the Scene of Offence Panchanama along with Rough Sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL (Sd/- Nageswara Rao)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 1 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.192/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT BHONGIR

Present: Sri D. NAGESWARA RAO

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Friday, on the 4 th day of October, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No.192/2019

(Crime No.55/2018 of P.S. Bommalaramaram)

Between:

The State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bommalaramaram

...Complainant

And

Utla Vikram Babu, S/o. Krishna Aged about 29 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Malyala Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal. …Accused * * * This case is coming before this Court for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D. Chandu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution/Complainant and Sri M. Sathyanarayana,learned Counsel for Accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Bommalaramaram filed Charge

Sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code (In short “IPC”) in Crime No.55/2018 of P.S.Bommalaramaram.

2.The case of the Prosecution in brief is that on 23.04.2018 at about 11.30 AM, the Deceased/Islavath Naresh was proceeding to his Village Botimeedithanda on his new unregistered Bajaj Pulsar Bike from Bharath Petrol Bunk, Keesara after completion of his work, when he reached at turning of Rangapuram Village of

Bommalaramaram Mandal, meantime the Accused/Utla Vikram Babu who is driver of

Lorry bearing No.TS-12-UA-0456 has drove his Lorry towards Keesara side in a rash

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 2 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.192/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to deceased bike, as a result he fell down on the road and sustained severe head injury and died on the spot.

Thus, the act of Accused attracts for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

3.On the strength of Report, a case was registered by PW-6/K.Venkatesh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S, Bhongir Rural. During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also conducted Scene of Offence Panchanama and also Inquest of the Deceased.

After collecting all the documents and after completion of Investigation,

PW.6/K.Venkatesh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhongir Rural filed

Charge Sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

4.The Case was taken on cognizance against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

5.On appearance of the Accused, the copies of documents, on which the

Prosecution intends to rely upon, was furnished to Accused, in terms of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (In short ‘Cr.P.C.’).

6.The Accused got examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation was read over and explained to him in Telugu language and having understood the same, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To prove its case, the Prosecution got examined PW-1/Islavath Nagamani-

Circumstantial Witness and wife of deceased and got marked Ex.P-1 is the

Statement of PW1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-2/Yamjala Pradeep-Eye-

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 3 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.192/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

Witness got examined and got marked Ex.P-2 is the Statement of PW2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-3/Islavath Janu-Complainant and father of Deceased got examined and got marked Ex.P-3 is the Thumb impression on Report, Ex.P-4 is the Statement of PW3 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-4/Islavath Laxmi-

Mother of Deceased got examined and got marked Ex.P-5 is the Statement of PW4 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-5/Jupalli Vijaya Ramulu-Circumstantial

Witness got examined and got marked Ex.P6 is the Statement of PW5 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-6/K.Venkatesh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Bommalaramaram (Investigating Officer) got examined and got marked Ex.P-7 is the Report, Ex.P-8 is the FIR, Ex.P-9 is the Scene of Offence Panchanama along with Rough Sketch, Ex.P-10 is the Inquest Panchanama, Ex.P-11 is the PME Report and Ex.P-12 is the MVI Report.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

LW.5/Ramidi Sreekanth Reddy-Eye-Witness, LW.7/Palle Upendar and

LW.8/Vadthya Manktha are the Panch for Scene of Offence and Inquest

Panchanama, LW.9/Dr.G.Karuna, who conducted Autopsy over the deceased dead body, LW.10/Mala Srikanth, who inspected the crime vehicle.

8.After closure of the Prosecution side evidence, the Accused got examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material evidence in the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses, for which he denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence.

Arguments

9.Heard the oral arguments on both sides.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 4 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.192/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

During arguments,Sri D. Chandu , learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued the case is to be disposed of on merits since the material witnesses were turned hostile and did not support the Prosecution story.

10.On the other hand, Sri M. Sathyanarayana, learned Counsel for the Accused vehemently argued the Accused did not commit any of the offence as alleged by the

Prosecution and the witnesses who deposed before the Court did not support the

Prosecution’s story to establish the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt.

There is no cogent evidence to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He prayed to acquit the Accused on benefit of doubt.

Point for Consideration

11. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of both parties, now the point for determination is:-

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the offence

punishable under Section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

Appreciation of Evidence of Prosecution

12.On perusal of evidence of PW-1 (Islavath Nagamani), PW-2 (Yamajala

Pradeep), PW-3 (Islavath Janu), PW-4 (Islavath Laxmi) and PW-5 (Jupally Vijaya

Ramulu) are the Complainant, Wife of Deceased, mother of Deceased, Eye-Witness and Circumstantial Witness deposed at about 5-6 years ago, they received a phone call from some unknown person that the Deceased met with an accident at

Rangapuram Village when the deceased was proceeding to Keesara Village on his bike. They did know how such accident was occurred. One constable scribed the

Report. Ex.P1 is the Thumb impression of PW-3 on Report. Police never examined them and recorded their Statement.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 5 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.192/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross-examined them but nothing is elicited to doubt their evidence.

13.On perusal of evidence of PW-6 (K.Venkatesh), the then Sub-Inspector of

Police, P.S., Bhongir Rural deposed that on 23.04.2018 at 01.00 PM, the PW.3 went to Police Station and lodged Report. Ex.P.7 is the Report. Basing on which, he registered a case in Cr.No.55/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P.8 is FIR. Immediately, he examined and recorded statement of PW-3.

Thereafter, he visited the Scene of Offence situated at Rangapuram village, on Bommalaramaram–Keesara Road where he conducted Scene of Offence

Panchanama in the presence of LW7 and LW8 and drawn Rough Sketch. Ex.P9 is the Scene of Offence Panchanama along with Rough Sketch.

Thereafter, he visited Area Hospital, Bhongir, where he conducted Inquest

Panchanama of deceased/Eslavath Naresh in the presence of LW7 and LW8.

Ex.P10 is the Inquest Panchanama of deceased/ Eslavath Naresh.

Thereafter, he also examined PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5 who are witnesses and recorded their statements. He also made requisitions to LW9/Dr. G. Karuna

Shree to conduct Autopsy. Accordingly, she conducted Autopsy over the deceased dead body and gave her report. Ex.P11 is the PME Report of deceased/Eslavath

Naresh.

Thereafter, he also made requisition to LW10/MVI to inspect the crime vehicle. Accordingly, on 26.04.2018 LW10 inspected the crime vehicle and gave his

Report. Ex.P12 is the MVI Report.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 6 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.192/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

On 25.04.2018, he served a notice under Section 41 (A) (3) of Cr.P.C to the

Accused and directed him to appear before the Hon’ble Court as and when required.

After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, he filed Charge Sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

During his cross-examination, he denied he never visited the Scene of

Offence and never conducted any Panchanama. He denied he never examined any of the Witnesses and he conducted table investigation and filed false Charge Sheet against Accused for statistical purpose.

14. In the instant case, the evidences of PW-1 to PW-5 are the Complainant,

Wife of deceased, mother of deceased, Eye-Witness and Circumstantial Witness did not support the Prosecution Story in their Chief-Examinations by deposing that they did not know how such accident was occurred and they did not know anything about the facts of the present case. They were cross-examined by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor, during their cross-examination, they deposed that the matter was compromised out of the Court.

The evidence of PW-6 who is the Investigating Officer who filed Charge Sheet is only available against the Accused.

On perusal of his evidence, there is no corroboration in material particulars and further he failed to collect proper evidence to establish the guilt of the Accused.

His evidence requires corroboration in material particulars. But, there is no corroborative evidence in the present case. Hence, it is held there is no clear, cogent and concrete evidence to establish the guilt of the Accused for the alleged offence.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 7 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.192/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

15.So, there is no concrete evidence on record to show that the Accused had committed the said offence beyond all reasonable doubt and the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused and not proved any of the essential elements of alleged offence. So, the benefit of doubt should necessarily goes to the Accused.

16. Therefore, in the circumstances, as per the reasons stated above, this Court holds the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPCbeyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should necessarily goes to Accused. As such, the Accused is entitled for acquittal.

17. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPCand accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled after six Months under the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 4th day of October, 2024. (Sd/- Nageswara Rao)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL PW-1/Islavath Nagamani-Wife of Deceased. PW-2/Yamjala Pradeep-Eye-Witness. PW-3/Islavath Janu-Complainant and Father of Deceased. PW-4/Islavath Laxmi-Mother of Deceased. PW-5/Jupally Vijaya Ramulu-Circumstantial Witness. PW-6/K.Venkatesh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Bommalaramaram (Investigating Officer).

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 8 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.192/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL Ex.P-1 is the Statement of PW1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-2 is the Statement of PW2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-3 is the Thumb impression of PW3 on Report. Ex.P-4 is the Statement of PW3 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-5 is the Statement of PW4 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-6 is the Statement of PW5 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-7 is the Report. Ex.P-8 is the FIR. Ex.P-9 is the Scene of Offence Panchanama along with Rough Sketch. Ex.P-10 is the Inquest Panchanama. Ex.P-11 is the PME Report. Ex.P-12 is the MVI Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL (Sd/- Nageswara Rao)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 1 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.498/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT BHONGIR

Present: Sri D. NAGESWARA RAO

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Friday, on the 4 th day of October, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No. 498 /2019

(Crime No.105/2018 of P.S. Bommalaramaram)

Between:

The State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Bommalaramaram.

...Complainant

And

Thejavath Laxman, S/o. Kotya, Aged about 34 years,Occ:Driver, R/o. Kandlakunta Thanda, Bommalaramaram Mandal. …Accused * * *

This case is coming before this Court for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Chandu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution/Complainant and Sri S.Sreekanth,learned Counsel for Accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Bommalaramaram filed Charge

Sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code (In short “IPC”) and Section 196 of Motor Vehicle Act in

Crime No.105/2018 of P.S. Bommalaramaram.

2.The case of the Prosecution in brief is that on 03.10.2018 at about 1.30 PM, the Deceased/Pamulaparthy Yellaiah Chary was proceeding to Post Office at their

Village for bringing the Old-Age Pension on foot, when he reached near Gandhi

Statue in the Maryala Village, meantime the Accused who is driver of Auto bearing

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 2 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.498/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

No.AP-29-W-2106 has drove his Auto in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the deceased on his back side, as a result the deceased fell down on the road and sustained severe head injuries and right leg. Immediately he was shifted to Raghavendra Hospital, ECIL, where the Medical Officer got first aid treatment and referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment, while undergoing treatment he was died.

Thus, the act of Accused attracts for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 196 M.V.Act.

3.On the strength of Report, a case was registered by PW-3/K.Venkatesh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S,Bommalaramaram. During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also conducted Scene of Offence Panchanama and also Inquest of the Deceased.

After collecting all the documents and after completion of Investigation,

PW.3/K.Venkatesh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bommalaramaram filed

Charge Sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 196 M.V.Act.

4.The Case was taken on cognizance against the Accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 196 M.V.Act.

5.On appearance of the Accused, the copies of documents, on which the

Prosecution intends to rely upon, was furnished to Accused, in terms of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (In short ‘Cr.P.C.’).

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 3 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.498/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

6.The Accused got examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation was read over and explained to him in Telugu language and having understood the same, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To prove its case, the Prosecution got examined PW-1/Pamulaparthy

Ramakrishna Chary-Complainant and son of Deceased got marked Ex.P-1 is the

Signature on Report, Ex.P2 is the Statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. PW-2/Pamulaparthy Sreenivasa Chary-Circumstantial Witness got examined and got marked Ex.P-3 is the Statement of PW-2 recorded under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C.PW-3/K.Venkatesh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.

Bommalaramaram (Investigating Officer) got examined and got marked Ex.P-4 is the

Report, Ex.P-5 is the FIR, Ex.P-6 is the Inquest Panchanama of Deceased, Ex.P-7 is the PME Report and Ex.P-8 is the Scene of Offence Panchanama along with

Rough Sketch, Ex.P-9 is the MVI Report.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidences of

LW.2/Pamulaparthy Kanthamma-Circumstantial Witness, LW-3/Pamulaparthy

Balaiah Chary-Circumstantial Witness, LW-5/Thota Shakunthala-Eye-Witness, LW- 6/Rallabandi Chandramouli Chary, LW-7/Kandukuri Bala Chary are the Panch for

Inquest Panchanama, LW-8/Cheerala Sreekantha Reddy-Panch for Scene of

Offence Panchanama, LW-9/Moku Vijay Kumar Reddy-Panch for Scene of Offence,

LW-10/Dr.G.Lavanya Kowsil, who conducted Autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued PME Report, LW11/M.Vishnu Deepak Reddy, who inspected the Crime Vehicle.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 4 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.498/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

8.After closure of the Prosecution side evidence, the Accused got examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material evidence in the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses, for which he denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence.

Arguments

9.Heard the oral arguments on both sides.

During arguments,Sri D.Chandu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued the case is to be disposed off on merits since the material witnesses were turned hostile and did not support the Prosecution story.

10.On the other hand, Sri S.Sreekanth, learned Counsel for the Accused vehemently argued the Accused did not commit any of the offence as alleged by the

Prosecution and the witnesses who deposed before the Court did not support the

Prosecution’s story to establish the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt.

There is no cogent evidence to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He prayed to acquit the Accused on benefit of doubt.

Point for Consideration

11. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of both parties, now the point for determination are:-

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the

offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 196 M.V.Act

beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 5 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.498/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

Appreciation of Evidence of Prosecution

12.On perusal of evidence of PW-1(Pamulaparthy Ramakrishna Chary) and

PW-2 (Pamulaparthy Sreenivasa Chary) are the Complainant and son of deceased and Circumstantial Witness deposed that at about 6years ago, they came to know that the Deceased met with an accident and sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. But, they did not know how such accident was occurred. On the narration of some constable some unknown person scribed the complaint in which they took PW1 signature. But they did not know the contents of such report. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on

Report. Police never examined them and recorded their statements.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross-examined them but nothing is elicited to doubt their evidence.

13.On perusal of evidence of PW-3 (K.Venkatesh) the then, Sub-Inspector of

Police, P.S.Bommalaramaram deposed on 04.10.2018 at 08.00 AM, the PW.1 went to Police Station and lodged Report. Ex.P.4 is the Report. Basing on which, he registered a case in Cr.No.105/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P.5 is FIR. Immediately, he examined and recorded statement of PW-1.

Thereafter, he visited Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he conducted

Inquest Panchanama of deceased/Pamulaparthy Yellaiah Chary in the presence of

LW6 and LW7. Ex.P6 is the Inquest Panchanama of deceased/Pamulaparthy

Yellaiah Chary.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 6 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.498/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

Thereafter, he also examined LW2, LW3, PW2 and LW5 who are Witnesses and recorded their statements. He also made requisitions to LW10/Dr. G. Lavanya to conduct Autopsy. Accordingly, she conducted autopsy over the deceased dead body and gave her report. Ex.P7 is the PME Report of deceased/Pamulaparthy Yellaiah

Chary.

Thereafter, he visited the Scene of Offence situated at Mariyala Village, near

Gandhi statue where he conducted Scene of Offence Panchanama in the presence of LW8 and LW9 and drawn Rough Sketch. Ex.P8 is the Scene of Offence

Panchanama along with Rough Sketch.

Thereafter, he also made requisition to LW11/MVI to inspect the crime vehicle.

Accordingly, on 27.10.2018 LW11 inspected the crime vehicle and gave his Report.

Ex.P9 is the MVI Report.

On 09.10.2018, he served a Notice under Section 41(A)(3) of Cr.P.C to the

Accused and directed him to appear before the Hon’ble Court as and when required.

The Accused failed to submit valid insurance of crime vehicle.

After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, he filed Charge Sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, Section 196 of MV Act. PW.1 and PW.2 stated before him as in the

Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3.

During his cross-examination, he denied that he never visited the Scene of

Offence and never conducted any Panchanama. He denied that he never examined any of the witnesses and he conducted table investigation and filed false Charge

Sheet against Accused for statistical purpose.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 7 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.498/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

14. In the instant case, the evidences of PW-1 and PW-2 are the Complainant and Circumstantial Witness did not support the Prosecution Story in their Chief- examinations by deposing that they did not know anything about the facts of the present case. During their Cross-examinations, they admitted they were compromised the matter out of Court.

The evidence of PW-3 who is the Investigating Officer who filed Charge Sheet is only available against the Accused.

On perusal of his evidence, he failed to collect proper evidence to establish the guilt of the Accused. His evidence requires corroboration in material particulars.

But, there is no corroborative evidence in material particulars. Hence, it is held there is no clear, cogent and concrete evidence to establish the guilt of the Accused for the alleged offences.

15.So, there is no concrete evidence on record to show that the Accused had committed the said offences beyond all reasonable doubt and the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused and not proved any of the essential elements of alleged offence. So, the benefit of doubt should necessarily goes to the Accused.

16. Therefore, in the circumstances, as per the reasons stated above, this Court holds the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 196 M.V.Actbeyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should necessarily goes to Accused. As such, the Accused is entitled for acquittal.

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

Page 8 of 8

Judgment in C.C.No.498/2019

Dated:04-10-2024

17. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 196 M.V.Actand accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled after six Months under the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 4th day of October, 2024. (Sd/- Nageswara Rao)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL

PW-1/Pamulaparthy Ramakrishna Chary-Complainant and son of Deceased. PW-2/Pamulaparthy Sreenivasa Chary-Circumstantial Witness. PW-3/K.Venkatesh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Bommalaramaram (Investigating Officer)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL

Ex.P-1 is the Signature on Report. Ex.P-2 is the Statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P-3 is the Statement of PW-2 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P-4 is the Report. Ex.P-5 is the FIR Ex.P-6 is the Inquest Panchanama. Ex.P-7 is the PME Report. Ex.P-8 is the Scene of Offence Panchanama along with Rough Sketch. Ex.P-9 is the MVI Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL (Sd/- Nageswara Rao)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Bhongir

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- PRINCIPAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT BHONGIR

PRESENT: SRI D.NAGESWARA RAO

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir

Tuesday on the 01 st day of October, 2024

O.S. No.82 of 2021

BETWEEN:-

Alamuri Murali, S/o.Late Subba Rao, Aged about 61 years, Occ:Retired Employee and Agriculture, R/o.H.NO.1-24-31, Adarsh Nagar, Venkatapuram, Secunderabad.

…PLAINTIFFS // A N D // (1) Vadithya Shankar, S/o.Late Manya, Aged about 55 years, Occ:Business, (2) Vadithya Lakka, S/o.Late Manya, Aged about 53 years, Occ:Labour.

(3) Vadithya Chandu, S/o.Late Manya, Aged about 50 years, Occ:Labour.

(4)Vadithya Beena, S/o.Late Vadithya Omla, Aged about 50 years, Occ:Agriculture.

(5) Vadithya Eeramma, W/o.Late Manya, Aged about 60 years, Occ:House hold.

(6) Vadithya Shanthi, W/o.Late Bhanu, Aged about 50 years, Occ:House wife.

All are R/o.Boinapally Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal.

...DEFENDANTS

Claim:-This suit is filed for Perpetual Injunction in respect of Suit Schedule Property under Order 7 Rule 1 of C.P.C. r/w Section 26 C.P.C.

This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri S.Sreekanth, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, Sri Ch.Narendra Prasad learned counsel for Defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

:: DOCKET ORDER DATED:01-10-2024::

The case is advanced on this date vide Orders in I.A.No.407/2024,

dated:01.10.2024.

The learned Counsel for Plaintiff called present. Plaintiff also called present.

The learned Counsel for Plaintiff filed a memo by stating that the matter was compromised out of the Court, as such they are willing to not press the suit and prayed to allow them not press the suit.

Heard. Perused the record.

Since, the Plaintiff as well as the learned Counsel for Plaintiff filed a memo by stating that the matter was compromised out of the Court between the parties amicably, hence, I am inclined to allow them to not press the suit.

In the result, the suit is hereby dismissed as not pressed.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF THE COURT ON THIS THE 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024.

Sd/-(Nageswara Rao)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir.

w-c

Docket Orders C.C.No.129 OF 2024 Dated: 09.10 .2024 Docket Orders Accusedpresent.Complainant/Victim

Dated: 09.10. 2024

present. Heard on the ground that both parties are As per the Judgment “Y.P. Baju Vs. State of willing to compromise the matter amicably. Kerala 2008 Crl.LJ 928” the Hon'ble High Court of Complainant/Victim/LW-1 is present andKerala held “even though absent or NBW pending against him-Compromise can be recorded when the Accused present, filed a petition under Section 320 Defacto-complainant/victim comes forward for (2)ofCr.P.C.,reportedthe compromise-the case can be compounded”. Complainant/victim/injured voluntarily compromisedParties compromised the matter before Lok Adalath and the matter is settled amicable before the matter. the Lok Adalath. Further, the learned APP through Hence, Accused is hereby acquitted under concerned SHO has filed Petition under SectionSection 320 (8) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. 321 of Cr.P.C., by stating to withdraw the Section The bail bonds of the accused shall stands 3 and Section 4 of DP Act under Section 321 cancelled. Cr.P.C., as the main offence is compoundable, noThe unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed or confiscated accordingly. The orders of need to continue minor offences as per the interim custody of property granted if any is made established principles and citations of Hon'ble High absolute. Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Office is directed to send the information to concerned accused regarding their acquittal if On perusal and having circumstances of the he/they is/are not present. case and in view of National Lok Adalat, the Court is

Sd/-(D. Nageswara Rao)

inclined to withdraw of Section 3 and Section 4 of Presiding Officer-cum DP Act. Hence, withdrawn. Prl JCJ-cum-JMFC Bhongir On perusal and having circumstances of the case, the Court is permitted to compound the offence Section 498-A of IPC. Hence the matter is referred to Lok Adalath.

Hence the matter is referred to Lok Adalath.

Sd/-(D. Nageswara Rao)

Prl JCJ-cum-JMFC Bhongir