D. Ramesh Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: S RI D.RAMESH KUMAR

VI A DDL .J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE , G UNTUR

Thursday, this the 16 th day of November, 2017.

CALENDAR CASE No.321 of 2014 CALENDAR CASE No.321 of 2014

Between :

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Chebrolu P.S. (Cr.No.81 of 2014) … COMPLAINANT. AND

Md.Khadar Vali, S/o.Isaleh Mohiddin, 49 yrs, 13th ward, Repalli Mandal, Guntur dist. … ACCUSED.

This case has come up before me on 07-11-2017 for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, of Sri Chukkapalli

Ramesh and Sri Chava Nageswararao, Advocates and having stood for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chebrolu P.S, filed charge sheet in Crime No.81 of 2014 against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC.

02. The allegations in the charge sheet, in brief, may be stated as follows:-

PW.1 is younger son of deceased (Muvvala Yanadhirao). PW.2 is his wife.

PW.6 is elder son of the deceased. PW.4 is nephew of deceased. The deceased is resident of Balajiraopet, Tenali. He has two daughters and three sons. He lived by running a Photostat and DTP shop. On 20-03-2014 at about 10.30 am., he left the house by his Hero Honda Pleasure Motor Cycle bearing registration No.AP07

AZ 8871 to Guntur on some work in the office of the Joint Collector,

Guntur. On the way, when he reached near Chilli powder mill in 2

Narakoduru village, at about 11.20 am., the accused, being the driver of

Qualis Car bearing registration No. AP27 V 5350, drove the vehicle in rash or negligent manner at high speed, without blowing horn, dashed the motor cycle of the deceased from rear side. As a result of the same deceased fell down and sustained injuries on face and throat. He was admitted in Health Hospital, Tenali for treatment.

On receipt of hospital intimation, LW.11/B.Rama Krishna Vara

Prasad, Head Constable, Tenali II Town Police Station proceeded to hospital and as the deceased was unconscious, recorded the statement of

PW.1, and basing on the same PW.7 registered a case in Cr.No.81/2014 of

Chebrolu PS for the offence punishable under sec. 337 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation PW.7 visited the scene of occurrence, prepared rough sketch thereof, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses.

The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 26-03-2014 at 9.35 pm., at NRI hospital, Mangalagiri. On receipt of death intimation PW.7 altered section of law from Section 337 of IPC to Section 304-A of IPC. PW.7 drafted scene observation report attested by mediators, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the said hospital in the presence of PW.5 and others and sent the same for PM examination.

LW.9/Dr.Vijaya Bharathi, Medical Officer, Government Hospital,

Mangalagiri, who conducted autopsy of the dead body of the deceased, issued PM certificate opining that deceased died due to head injury.

LW.10/K.V.Ramarao, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Tenali, who inspected the crime vehicle, issued report opining that the accident was not occurred 3 due to any mechanical defects. After receipt of relevant documents and completion of investigation PW.7 laid charge sheet.

03.My predecessor-in-office had taken cognizance of the case for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC, and issued summons to the accused.

04.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

05.The accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. He denied the substance of the accusation levelled against him for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A IPC, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.W's.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P14, on its behalf.

07.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, to explain the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and pleaded not guilty. He stated that he has no defence evidence to adduce on his behalf.

08.Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

09.Now the point for determination is:

Whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

4 10.It is the case of the prosecution that on 20-03-2014 at about 10.30 am., the deceased Muvvala Yanadhi Rao left the house by his Hero Honda Pleasure Motor

Cycle bearing registration No.AP07 AZ 8871 to Guntur on some work in the office of the Joint Collector, Guntur. On the way, when he reached near Chilli powder mill in Narakoduru village, at about 11.20 am., the accused, being the driver of Qualis Car bearing registration No. AP27 V 5350, drove the vehicle in rash or negligent manner at high speed, without blowing horn, dashed the motor cycle of the deceased from rear side. As a result of the same deceased fell down and sustained injuries on face and throat. He was admitted in Health Hospital, Tenali for treatment.

On receipt of hospital intimation, LW.11/B.Rama Krishna Vara Prasad,

Head Constable, Tenali II Town Police Station proceeded to hospital and as the deceased was unconscious, recorded the statement of PW.1, and basing on the same PW.7 registered a case in Cr.No.81/2014 of Chebrolu

PS for the offence punishable under sec. 337 of IPC and took up investigation. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 26-03-2014 at 9.35 pm., at NRI hospital, Mangalagiri. On receipt of death intimation PW.7 altered section of law from Section 337 of IPC to Section 304-A of IPC.

11.PW.5 is one of the inquest mediators, who was present at the time of PW.7 conducting inquest on the dead body of the deceased under

Ex.P12/Inquest report. He is also cited as one of the mediators present at the time of preparation of scene observation report/Ex.P11. Coming to the evidence, PW.5 did not support the case of prosecution. He deposed that he does not know the accused and that he was informed by PW.1 that deceased met with an accident. Though he admitted his signatures on 5 mediators report and inquest report, which were marked as Ex.P6 and P7 respectively, he deposed that he does not know the contents of the said documents. However, Ex.P10 rough sketch, Ex.P11 Scene observation report, Ex.P12 Inquest report, Ex.P13 postmortem report, Ex.P14 MVI report were marked PW.7, who is the investigating officer. The recitals in the said documents remained unchallenged. As per column No.15 of

Ex.P12/Inquest report, the inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him in a road accident. The objective findings of the inquest mediators at the time of inquest are admissible in evidence as to apparent cause of death of the deceased. As seen from the recitals in Ex.P13 Postmortem examination, the Doctor LW.16, who was not examined by prosecution, opined that the deceased died as a result of head injury. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.7 and the recitals in Ex.P12 and P13 , the accidental nature of death of the deceased is established.

1.As seen from Ex.P14/MVI report, it is clear that the accident did not take place due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. From the recitals in

Ex.P10/rough sketch and P11/scene observation report, the scene of occurrence is established which is situated at GBC Road, Near Chilly powder company,

Narakoduru village.

13.Now it has to be seen whether the deceased died, due to rash or negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the accused.

14.In order to establish the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC the following ingredients are to be established.

i)An act must be done by a person resulting a death of another person.

ii) The person doing that act should not be having guilty intention or knowledge.

6 iii) That his act is likely to cause death.

iv) The person doing the act must do it rashly or negligently.

v) That the death caused by the person is not culpable homicide.

Rashly or negligently means doing an act without proper care and caution.

15.In the case on hand, admittedly there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence of the accident. PW.1 and PW.6, who are sons of the deceased, and PW.2, who is his wife, and PW.3, who is hear-say witness, did not support the case of prosecution. They did not depose anything against the accused with regard to rash or negligent act on his part in causing the accident leading to death of the deceased.

PW.1 stated that he was informed by PW.3 that his father met with an accident at

Narakoduru village and immediately he rushed to the spot and shifted the injured, who was unconscious, hospital; that he does not know how the accident occurred; that he did not witness the incident; that he does not know who is the driver of the crime vehicle, or registration number of the crime vehicle. Though he admitted the signature on report Ex.P1, he deposed that he does not the contents thereon.

PW.2 deposed in her evidence that in the month of 2014 she came to know that her husband met with an accident at Narakoduru village and immediately she rushed to the spot and shifted the injured, who was unconscious, to hospital. She further deposed that she does not know how the accident occurred; that she did not witness the incident; that she does not know who is the driver of the crime vehicle, or registration number of the crime vehicle.

PW.3 deposed that she was informed that the deceased met with an accident at Narakoduru village and died on the spot. PW.4 deposed in his evidence that he was informed that the deceased met with an accident at Narakoduru village and died on the spot.

7

Though the learned APP declared P.Ws.1 to 4 as hostile and cross-examined them with the permission of the Court, nothing has been elicited in their cross- examination to connect the accused with the offence alleged against him.

1.PW.6, who is not an eye-witness to the incident, deposed that P.W.1 is his younger brother and P.W.2 is his mother and deceased is his father; that he received a telephone message that his father met with an accident and on that he came down to Guntur and found his father undergoing treatment in the hospital, and that his father died six days after the incident.

1.P.W.7 who is the investigating officer. He deposed about the registration of the crime, visiting the scene of occurrence, preparing rough sketch and scene observation report, conducting inquest and sending the dead body to post-mortem examination, issuing requisition to MVI for inspection of crime vehicle, alteration section of law and filing charge sheet after receipt of relevant documents and completion of investigation. Nothing has elicited in his cross examination to discredit in his evidence. His evidence does not incriminate anything against the accused as to his rash or negligent act in causing death of the deceased.

20.From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the material prosecution witnesses turned hostile. The accused was not identified as the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant point of time of the accident. Therefore, there is no legal evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the accident. The prosecution failed to establish the rash or negligent act on the part of the accused in causing the accident. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged against him. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.

8 21.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted in terms of Section 255(1) Cr.P.C of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused with that of his sureties if any, shall stand cancelled after six months from the date of this judgment.

No order needs to be passed as to property since no property is collected in the case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16 thday of November, 2017.

Sd/-D.Ramesh Kumar

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : None.

PW.1: Muvvala Tarun

PW.2: Muvvala Venkata Lakshmi

PW.3: Veturi Sivaiah

PW.4: Dogiparthi Sambasivarao.

PW.5: Sk.Subhani.

PW.6: Muvvala Rama Krishna

PW.7: K.V.Reddy, SI of Police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on the report. -- Nil --

Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P6 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P7 : Statement of deceased.

Ex.P8 : Hospital Intimation.

9

Ex.P9 : First Information Report.

Ex.P10 : Rough Sketch

Ex.P11 : Scene observation report

Ex.P12: Inquest report

Ex.P13: Postmortem certificate.

Ex.P14: M.V.I Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

---- Nil ----

Id/-D.R.K.

VI A.J.C.J.

GNT.

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GUNTUR

PRESENT: SRI D.RAMESH KUMAR

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017

CALENDER CASE NO.126/2014

Between: The state: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakakani P.S.(Cr.No.341/12) … Complainant.

And

1. Shaik Subhani S/o Basha @ Palavu Basha, 22 yrs, R/o Tarakarama Nagar, Guntur,

2. Shaik Ahammad Basha @ Akram S/oAlla Bakshu, 19 yrs, Siva Colony, Pedakakani village,

3. Asodi Sambi Reddy S/o Siva Prasad Reddy, 34 yrs, Butchaiah Thota, Near Janda Chettu, Guntur. … Accused.

This case has come up on 08-11-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Smt. M. Sreevani, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakakani Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.341/2012 of Pedakakani Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 180, 181, 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2.The case of the prosecution alleged against accused is as follows:--

A1 is resident of Tarakaram Nagar, Guntur. A2 is resident of Sada Siva

Colony, Pedakakani village. A3 is resident of Butchaiah Thota, Near Janda

Chettu, Guntur. LW.1 – Tanneru Santhi is defacto-complainant. LW.2 –

Tanneru Nani Charan Kumar is her son. LW.3 – Tanneru Dasthagiri is her husband and they are residing at Chakali Colony, Chilakaluripet Town. A.1 is driver, and A.3 is owner, of Auto bearing registration No.AP07TC 3925 and

A.2 is driver of auto bearing registration No.AP07TC 3942.

On 19-11-2012 at about 11-45 am., LW.1 – Tanneru Santhi, LW.2 –

Tanneru Nani Charan Kumar, LW.3 – Tanneru Dasthagiri and LW.4 – Tanneru

Suresh proceeded to Guntur Town from Chilakaluripet by conveying a bus and that from there they boarded the auto bearing registration No.AP 7 TC 3925 in order to visit Yesu babu Thota, Pedakakani and that A1 is the driver of the auto. While so, A.1 drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and that A2, who is the driver of auto bearing registration No.AP 7 TC 3942, too drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner while plying towards

Guntur from Pedakakaki in a wrong route, and at about 2.00 pm., both the accused reached near under construction Flyover, Pedakakaki village and lost control over their autos and both the autos rammed into each other resulting which LW.2 – Tanneru Nani Charan Kumar received bleeding injuries and that LW.3 – Tanneru Dastagiri received trivial injuries while LW.1 – Tanneru Santhi and LW.4 – Tanneru Dastagiri shifted LW.2 – Tanneru Nani

Charan Kumar to Government General Hospital, Guntur.

On 20-11-2012 LW.1 – Thanneru Santhi gave statement to LW.7 –

N.Kondalarao, Head Constable of Pedakakani PS. Basing on the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.341/2012 of Pedakakani PS for the offence punishable U/sec.337 of IPC and investigated the case. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of occurrence, inspected it and prepared rough sketch of the same, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 19-12-2012 S.Srinivasasrao, formerly Inspector of Police,

Pedakakani PS levelled fine of Rs.500/- to LW.5 – Anchula Sai Kumar for the offence punishable U/s 180/177 MV Act since he allowed A2, who did not have the driving license, to drive the auto, and he paid the same and that on 20-12-2013 LW.7 – N.Kondalarao arrested A2 and released him on bail and that on 07-01-2013 LW.7 – N.Kondalarao arrested A1, added sec.181, 196 of the MV Act to the existing Section of law since A1 was not having driving license and the crime vehicle did not valid insurance policy, and sent him for remand and that on 10-01-2013 LW.7 – N.Kondalarao figured Asodi

Sambireddy as A3 U/s 180 of MV Act as he allowed A1, who did not have driving licence, to drive his auto, and that on the same LW.7 – N.Kondalarao served notice to A3 U/s 41-A Cr.P.C after explaining the facts fo the case to accused and that the doctor who treated LW.2 opined that his injuries are grievous in nature and hence LW.8 – A.Jagath Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Pedakakani PS, altered the section of law to Sec.338 of IPC from Sec.337 of

IPC, and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet..

03.My predecessor-in-office had taken cognizance of the case for the offences punishable U/Secs.338 of IPC and Sections 180, 181, 196 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 and issued summons to the accused.

04.On appearance of the accused, copies of relevant case records were furnished to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

05.The accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. They denied the accusation levelled against them for the offences punishable u/Sec.338

IPC and 181, 180 and 196 of the MV Act, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the trial, the prosecution has examined LW.1 and LW.2 as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3, on its behalf. The evidence of LW.3 to LW.8 was given up by the prosecution.

07.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the examination of the accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with, since there are no incriminating circumstances made against the accused from the prosecution evidence.

08.Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the entire evidence brought on record.

09.Now the point for determination is:

Whether prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A1 and A2

for the offences punishable U/Sec. 338 of the IPC and Sec.181 of

MV Act and the guilt of A3 for the offence punishable U/sec. 180,

196 of MV Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

09.It is the case of prosecution that on 19-11-2012 at about 11-45 am., LW.1 – Tanneru Santhi, LW.2 – Tanneru Nani Charan Kumar, LW.3 –

Tanneru Dasthagiri and LW.4 – Tanneru Suresh proceeded to Guntur Town from Chilakaluripet by conveying a bus and that from there they boarded the auto bearing registration No.AP 7 TC 3925 in order to visit Yesu babu

Thota, Pedakakani and that A1 is the driver of the auto. While so, A.1 drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and that A2, who is the driver of auto bearing registration No.AP 7 TC 3942, too drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner while plying towards Guntur from Pedakakaki in a wrong route, and at about 2.00 pm., both the accused reached near under construction Flyover, Pedakakaki village and lost control over their autos and both the autos rammed into each other resulting which LW.2 – Tanneru

Nani Charan Kumar received bleeding injuries and that LW.3 – Tanneru

Dastagiri received trivial injuries while LW.1 – Tanneru Santhi and LW.4 –

Tanneru Dastagiri shifted LW.2 – Tanneru Nani Charan Kumar to Government

General Hospital, Guntur.

10.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the injured person as P.W.1. She did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile in toto. P.W.1 deposed that she does not know how the accident took place, or who was the driver of the crime vehicle and its registration number, and that she never witnessed any accident.

Though she identified his signature in report which is marked as

Ex.P1, she went to the extent of deposing that she does not know the contents of the report.

P.W.2 is cited as an injured witness. He is aged 11 years by the date of giving evidence. Since he is a child witness, this Court put some preliminary questions. He gave rationale answers. After being satisfied that he is able to understand the questions and give rationale answers, this Court started recording his evidence. He deposed that P.W.1 is her mother and that he does not know how the accident took place, who is the driver of the crime vehicle or its registration number and that he never witnessed any accident.

11.So as seen from the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2, they have given a complete go-by to their earlier versions as given before the Police and turned hostile. Even though the learned A.P.P declared them as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the court, nothing has been elicited to connect the accused with the offences alleged against them. The Prosecution has given-up the evidence of rest of the witnesses.

12.In view of the hostile attitude of material prosecution witnesses, there is no legal evidence to find the accused guilty and the prosecution failed to prove the offence levelled against the accused.

Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.

13.In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 338 IPC and 181 of the M.V.Act and A.3 is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 180 and 196 of the MV Act, and accordingly, they are acquitted in terms of

U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C of the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused with that of his sureties if any shall stand cancelled after six months from the date of this Judgment.

No order needs to be passed as to property since no property

is collected in this case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court, on this 16 th

day of November, 2017.

Sd/-D.Ramesh Kumar

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : None.

PW.1: Tanneru Santhi.

PW.2: Tanneru Charan Kumar.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on the statement. -- Nil --

Ex P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

Ex P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

---- Nil ----

Id/-D.R.K.

VI A.J.C.J.

GNT.

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: S RI D.RAMESH KUMAR

VI A DDL .J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE , G UNTUR

Saturday, this the 18th day of November, 2017.

CALENDAR CASE No. 149 of 2016 CALENDAR CASE No. 149 of 2016

Between :

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Guntur Urban District. (Cr.No.24/2016) … Complainant

And

1. Rachakula Chandra Sekhar S/o.Late Sambasivarao, 40 yrs, Kandulavari Street, Vijayawada.

2. Rachakula Srinivasarao S/o.Late Sambasivarao, 50 yrs, Kandulavari Street, Vijayawada.

3. Rachakula Rajeswari W/o.Late Sambasivarao, 45 yrs, Kandulavari Street, Vijayawada.,

4. Rachakula Ramesh S/o.Late Sambasivarao, 48 yrs, Kandulavari Street, Vijayawada.

5. Rachakula Vijaya Lakshmi W/o.Ramesh, 35 yrs, Kandulavari Street, Vijayawada. … Accused

This case came up before me on 16.11.2017 for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and the accused appeared party-in-person and having stood for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a case filed by the State represented by the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Guntur Urban, against 2

A1 to A5 for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A, 506 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'IPC') and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 alleging as follows :-

PW.1 – Rachakula Lakshmi is second daughter of LW.2 –

Thorati Venkayamma and LW.3 – Thorati Sambasivarao. LW.4 –

Thorati Prasad is her senior paternal uncle. A1 is her husband. A2 and A4 are her brothers-in-law. A3 is wife of A2. A5 is wife of A4.

Marriage of PW.1 with A1 was performed on 08-03-2007 at

Kalyanamandapam in Vijayawada City in the presence of elders as per Hindu traditions and customs. At the time of marriage, her parents gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry on their demand. After the marriage, she joined with A1 to lead conjugal life. A2 to A4 are residing same house. PW.1 was treated well by the accused for 4 years after the marriage and thereafter started subjecting her to cruelty both physically and mentally stating that she is a barren women and she brought meager dowry and that had they performed marriage of A1 with another lady, they would have got more dowry and accordingly demanded her to bring

additional dowry on Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. PW.1 tolerated

the torture for some time. About 3 ½ years prior to lodging the report, A1 to A5 picked up quarrel wit her, abused her, beat her and demanded to bring additional dowry of Rs.1.00 lakh from her parents’ house and necked from their house. When she went to house of her parents, the latter approached A1 to A5 in Vijayawada and tried to settle issue, but A1 to A5 reiterated the demand of the 3

additional dowry. While so, 6 months prior to 29-01-2016, A1 came

to parental home of PW.1 at Arundhatinagar, Guntur, picked up quarrel with her and demanded to give divorce otherwise threatened her to kill. Inspite of the same, she waited with hope that accused will mend their attitude. About one week prior to 29- 01-2016 her parents went to the house of accused in Vijayawada and requested accused to take back PW.1 for leading marital life.

At that time also, all the accused demanded additional dowry and threatened to give divorce.

On the report lodged by P.W.1, police registered a case in

Crime No.24/2016 of Women Police Station, Guntur Urban for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. During the course of investigation

LW.6 – G.Ch. Babu Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses inspected it, visited scene of occurrence and prepared rough sketch thereof. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

02.This Court had taken cognizance of the case for the offences punishable U/Secs.498-A, 506 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 and issued summons to A1 to A5.

03.On appearance of A1 to A5, copies of relevant case records were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4

04.The accused Nos.1 to 5 were examined under Section 239 of

Cr.P.C., and charges for the offences under Sec.498-A and 506 of

IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed, read over and explained the same to the accused in Telugu, to which, the accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.During the trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1, and got marked Exs.P1 & P2, on its behalf.

06.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, examination of

A1 to A5 under Sec.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with, since there are no incriminating circumstances made out against A1 to A5 from the prosecution evidence.

07.Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the entire evidence brought on record.

1

08.Now the point for determination is:

Whether prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of

A1 to A5 for the offences punishable under Sec.498­A

and 506 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,

beyond all reasonable doubt?

09.POINT :

It is the specific case of the prosecution that PW.1 –

Rachakula Lakshmi is second daughter of LW.2 – Thorati 5

Venkayamma and LW.3 – Thorati Sambasivarao. LW.4 – Thorati

Prasad is her senior paternal uncle. A1 is her husband. A2 and A4 are her brothers-in-law. A3 is wife of A2. A5 is wife of A4. Marriage of PW.1 with A1 was performed on 08-03-2007 at

Kalyanamandapam in Vijayawada City in the presence of elders as per Hindu traditions and customs. At the time of marriage, her parents gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry on their demand. After the marriage, she joined with A1 to lead conjugal life. A2 to A4 are residing same house. PW.1 was treated well by the accused for 4 years after the marriage and thereafter started subjecting her to cruelty both physically and mentally stating that she is a barren women and she brought meager dowry and that had they performed marriage of A1 with another lady, they would have got more dowry and accordingly demanded her to bring

additional dowry on Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. PW.1 tolerated

the torture for some time. About 3 ½ years prior to lodging the report, A1 to A5 picked up quarrel wit her, abused her, beat her and demanded to bring additional dowry of Rs.1.00 lakh from her parents’ house and necked from their house. When she went to house of her parents, the latter approached A1 to A5 in Vijayawada and tried to settle issue, but A1 to A5 reiterated the demand of the

additional dowry. While so, 6 months prior to 29-01-2016, A1 came

to parental home of PW.1 at Arundhatinagar, Guntur, picked up quarrel with her and demanded to give divorce otherwise threatened her to kill. Inspite of the same, she waited with hope 6 that accused will mend their attitude. About one week prior to 29- 01-2016 her parents went to the house of accused in Vijayawada and requested accused to take back PW.1 for leading marital life.

At that time also, all the accused demanded additional dowry and threatened to give divorce. Hence, P.W.1 lodged the report to police.

10.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the victim/defacto-complainant as P.W.1. She did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile in toto. She deposed in her evidence that she does not know anything about the facts of the case and she compromised the matter at the instance of caste elders.

11.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, she has given a complete go-by to her earlier version as given before the police. The learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor declared her hostile and cross- examined her with the permission of the court. Even during the cross-examination, except marking Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of

P.W.1 as Ex.P2, nothing has been elicited to connect A1 to A5 with the offences alleged against them. Though P.W.1 admitted her signature on the report lodged to police, which is marked as Ex.P1, she went to the extent of deposing that she does not know the contents of the report. The prosecution has given up the evidence of rest of the witnesses.

7 12.In view of the hostile attitude of the material witness/P.W.1, there is no legal evidence to find A1 to A5 guilty of the offences alleged and the prosecution failed to prove the offences levelled against A1 to A5. Hence, A1 to A5 are entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.

13.In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sec.498-A and 506 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 and accordingly, they are acquitted in terms of Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C of the said offences. The bail bonds of

A1 to A5 with that of their sureties, if any, shall stand cancelled after six months from the date of this Judgment.

No order needs to be passed as to property since no property is collected in this case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court, on this 18th day of November, 2017.

Sd/-D.Ramesh Kumar

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

PW.1 : Rachakula Lakshmi.None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on the report. -- Nil -- Ex P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

---- Nil ----Id/-D.R.K.

VI A.J.C.J. GNT.

8

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: S RI D.RAMESH KUMAR

VI A DDL .J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE , G UNTUR

Thursday, this the 30 th day of November, 2017.

CALENDAR CASE No.142 of 2016 CALENDAR CASE No.142 of 2016

Between :

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakakani P.S., (Cr.No.34/2016) … COMPLAINANT. AND

A1 – Pagadala Manikya Rao @ Chanti S/o Koteswararao, 38 yrs,

A2 – Bulla Durga Rao S/o Thirupathaiah, 48 yrs,

A3 – Bulla Ashok S/o Durga Rao, 20 yrs,

A4 – Bulla Siva Kumar S/o Bhaskararao, 25 yrs,

A5 – Bulla Yesuraju S/o Ramarao, 22 yrs,

A6 – Pagadala Yesudasu S/o Koteswararao, 40 yrs,

A7 – Pagadala Nani S/o Manikya Rao,

A8 – Pagada Ankamma W/o Nageswararao, 50 yrs,

A9 – Pagadala Seta W/o Manikya Rao, 32 yrs.

A10- Pagadala Budamma W/o Venkateswararao, 55 yrs,

All are residents of Venigandla Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur Dt. … ACCUSED.

This case has come up before me on 29-11-2017 for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, of

Sri K.Sudhakar, Advocate for the Accused Nos.1 to 10 and having stood for consideration, till today this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

2

01.This is a case filed by the State represented by the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Pedakakani P.S, against the Accused Nos.1 to 10 for the offences punishable U/Sec.323, 294, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (for brevity 'IPC') alleging as follows :-

Accused are residents of Venigandla Village of Pedakakani

Mandal. PW.1 is also resident of Venigandla Village, Pedakakani Mandal.

He lives by cultivation. On 05.01.2016 at about 9.30 pm., A1 demanded

LW.3 – Nari Aruna for sexual favours and followed her to contact to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest and threatened her with dire consequences if she does not agree therefor.

On 06.01.2016 she gave a report against A1 and basing on the same case, a case in Cr.No.06/16 of Pedakakani PS for the offence punishable u/Sec.354-A & D and 506 of IPC was registered. Thereafter A1 made a call to LW.2- Nari Prasad Babu, who is younger brother of PW.1, from mobile

No.8886004653 on 07-02-2016 at 8-00 am and threatened him with dire consequences. All the accused went to the house of PW1 and assaulted him and threatened go away with his life and of his family members. On that PW.1 lodged a police report.

Basing on the same case, a case in Cr.No.34/15 of Pedakakani PS for the offence punishable u/Sec.323, 294, 506 r/w 34 IPC was registered.

During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of occurrence, inspected it and prepared rough sketch thereof, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. After completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet.

02.My predecessor-in-office had taken cognizance of the case for the offences punishable U/Secs.323, 294, 506 r/w 34 IPC, and issued summons to the accused.

3

03.On appearance of the accused, copies of relevant case records were furnished to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

04.The accused were examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable u/Secs.323, 294, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC, read over and explained the same in Telugu to which, the accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.During the trial, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 on its behalf.

06.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, examination of the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with since there are no incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

07. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the entire evidence brought on record.

08. Now the point for determination is:

Whether prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A1 to A10 for the offences punishable Under Sections 323,

294, 506 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

09.It is the case of prosecution that on 05.01.2016 at about 9.30 pm.,

A1 demanded LW.3 – Nari Aruna for sexual favours and followed her to contact to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest and threatened her with dire consequences if she does not agree therefor. On 06.01.2016 she gave a report against A1 and basing on the same case, a case in Cr.No.06/16 of Pedakakani PS for the offence punishable u/Sec.354-A & D and 506 of IPC was registered. Thereafter A1 made a call to LW.2- Nari Prasad Babu, who is younger brother of PW.1, 4 from mobile No.8886004653 on 07-02-2016 at 8-00 am and threatened him with dire consequences. All the accused went to the house of PW1 and assaulted him and threatened go away with his life and of his family members. On that PW.1 lodged a police report.

10.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the injures person as P.W.1. P.W.1 did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile in toto. He deposed in his evidence that he does not know the case facts; that accused never beat him or scolded him or threatened him at any point of time and he never sustained injuries.

11.So, perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that he has given a complete go-by to his earlier version as given before the Police and turned hostile. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor declared him hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of the court. Even during the cross-examination, except marking the 161 Cr.P.C statement of

P.W.1 as Ex.P2, nothing has been elicited to connect the accused with the alleged offences. P.W.1 even went to the extent of the stating that he does not know the contents of the report lodged by him before the police, though he admitted his signature on it. Ex.P1 is the signature of P.W.1 on the report. The prosecution has given up the examination of rest of the witnesses.

12.In view of the hostile attitude of P.W.1, there is no legal evidence to find the accused guilty of the offences alleged and the prosecution failed to prove the offences levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.

5 13.In the result, A1 to A10 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323, 294, 506 r/w 34 IPC, and accordingly, they are acquitted in terms of Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C of the respective offences. The bail bond of the accused with that of their sureties if any shall stand cancelled after six months from the date of this Judgment.

No order needs to be passed as to property since no property is collected in this case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me, in the open court, on this 30 thday of November, 2017.

D.Ramesh Kumar

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

None.

PW.1: N.Lakshmaiah

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on the report. -- Nil --

Ex P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

---- Nil ----

Id/-D.R.K.

VI A.J.C.J.

GNT.

6

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.142 of 2016

DATE OF :- Offence:05-01-2016 Filing:07-02-2016 Apprehension of accused:-- Released on bail:-- Commencement of trial:23-08-2017 Close of trial:29-11-2017 Sentence or order:30-11-2017

Complainant:State :Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakakani P.S. (Cr.No.34 of 2016) Name of the accused :

A1 – Pagadala Manikya Rao @ Chanti S/o Koteswararao, 38 yrs, A2 – Bulla Durga Rao S/o Thirupathaiah, 48 yrs, A3 – Bulla Ashok S/o Durga Rao, 20 yrs, A4 – Bulla Siva Kumar S/o Bhaskararao, 25 yrs, A5 – Bulla Yesuraju S/o Ramarao, 22 yrs, A6 – Pagadala Yesudasu S/o Koteswararao, 40 yrs, A7 – Pagadala Nani S/o Manikya Rao, A8 – Pagada Ankamma W/o Nageswararao, 50 yrs, A9 – Pagadala Seta W/o Manikya Rao, 32 yrs. A10- Pagadala Budamma W/o Venkateswararao, 55 yrs, All are residents of Venigandla Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur Dt.

Offence: U/Sec.323, 294, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

Plea of accused: Not Guilty

Finding: Found not guilty

Explanation for delay: After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused on 21-12-2017. On 07-07-2017 the accused were examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. P.W.1 was examined in chief and Ex.P1 and P2 got marked on 29.11.2017, the prosecution evidence was closed and U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with. On the same day heard arguments. Judgment is pronounced on 30.11.2017.

Sentence or Order: In the result, A1 to A10 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323, 294, 506 r/w 34 IPC, and accordingly, they are acquitted in terms of Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C of the respective offences. The bail bond of the accused with that of their sureties if any shall stand cancelled after six months from the date of this Judgment. No order needs to be passed as to property since no property is collected in this case.D.Ramesh Kumar

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban.

7

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GUNTUR

PRESENT: SRI D.RAMESH KUMAR

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017

CALENDER CASE NO.547/2017

Between: The state: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakakani P.S.(Cr.No.299/17) … Complainant.

And

Alhasan Sabah Mansour S/o Sabah, 22 yrs, ANU Campus, ISH Room No.306, B.Pharmacy Final Year, … Accused.

This case has come up on 29-11-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Smt. L.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for accusedand having stood for

consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakakani Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.299/2017 of Pedakakani Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 338 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 and Section 196-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2.The case of the prosecution alleged against accused is as follows:--

On 01-10-2017 PW.1, who is resident of Mangalagiri Town, left to

Guntur by his motor cycle and when he reached near scene of occurrence situated on NH-16 Express Road, under Y Junction Fly Over Bridge,

Pedakakani Mandal, at about 6.30 pm., the accused being the rider of black colour Honda Activa bearing No. AP07AT 3595 drove the vehicle in rash or negligent manner at a high speed, without blowing horn and dashed motor cycle of PW.1 from rear side and ran away. As a result of the same PW.1 fell down from the motor cycle and sustained bleeding injuries to his left hand, both legs and heart. Later he was shifted to Lalitha Hospital, Guntur for treatment.

On receipt of hospital admission intimation LW.5 – J.Murali, Head

Constable went and recorded statement of PW.1 on 03.10.2017 at 4.30 pm and forwarded the same to Pedakakani PS on the point of jurisdiction.

Basing on the same, LW.6 registered a case in Cr.No.299/2017 of Pedakakani

PS for the offence punishable u/Section.337 of IPC. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of occurrence, inspected it, prepared rough sketch thereof, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses.

LW.4 – Dr.P.Gnaneswara Rao, who examined PW.1, issued wound certificate opining that the injuries sustained by him are grievous in nature. Basing on the same, the Section of Law was altered from Section 337 of IPC to Section 338 of IPC. The crime vehicle was not having valid insurance policy by the date of accident. After completion of investigation police laid charge sheet.

03.This Court had taken cognizance of the case for the offences punishable U/Secs.338 of IPC and Section 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and issued summons to the accused.

04.On appearance of the accused, copies of relevant case records were furnished to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

05.The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. He denied the accusation levelled against him for the offence punishable u/Sec.338 IPC and 196 of the MV Act, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the trial, the prosecution has examined LW.1 as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2, on its behalf. The evidence of LW.2 to LW.7 was given up by the prosecution.

07.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, examination of the accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with, since there are no incriminating circumstances made against the accused from the prosecution evidence.

08.Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the entire evidence brought on record.

09.Now the point for determination is:

Whether prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for

the offences punishable U/Sec. 338 of the IPC and punishable U/sec.

196 of MV Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

09.It is the case of prosecution that on 01-10-2017 PW.1, who is resident of Mangalagiri Town, left to Guntur by his motor cycle and when he reached near scene of occurrence situated on NH-16 Express Road, under Y

Junction Fly Over Bridge, Pedakakani Mandal, at about 6.30 pm., the accused being the rider of black colour Honda Activa bearing No. AP07AT 3595 drove the vehicle in rash or negligent manner at a high speed, without blowing horn and dashed motor cycle of PW.1 from rear side and ran away.

As a result of the same PW.1 fell down from the motor cycle and sustained bleeding injuries to his left hand, both legs and heart. Later he was shifted to Lalitha Hospital, Guntur for treatment.

10.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the injured person as P.W.1. He did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile in toto. P.W.1 deposed that he does not know the case facts and he cannot identify the driver of the crime vehicle; that he does not know the accused. Though he identified his signature in report which is marked as Ex.P1, he deposed that he does not know the contents of the report and he compromised the matter before the elders.

11.So as seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he has given a complete go-by to his earlier version as given before the Police and turned hostile. Even though the learned A.P.P declared him as hostile and cross examined him with the permission of the court, nothing has been elicited to connect the accused with the offences alleged against him. The Prosecution has given-up the evidence of rest of the witnesses.

12.In view of the hostile attitude of material prosecution witnesses, there is no legal evidence to find the accused guilty and the prosecution failed to prove the offence levelled against the accused.

Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 338 IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted in terms of U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused with that of his sureties if any shall stand cancelled after six months from the date of this Judgment.

No order needs to be passed as to property since no property

is collected in this case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court, on this 30 th

day of November, 2017.

Sd/-D.Ramesh Kumar

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : None.

PW.1: Abdul Fareed

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on the statement. -- Nil --

Ex P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

---- Nil ---- Id/-D.R.K.

VI A.J.C.J. GNT.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR

C.C.No.547/2017

Date of OffenceFilingApprehenReleasedCommenceClosureSentence sionon bailment ofof theOrder/ trialtrial 01.10.1703.10.17-----28.11.1729.11.1730.11.17 EXPLANATION FOR DELAY: On 28.11.17 on appearance of accused, copies of relevant case records were furnished to the accused. On the same day accused was examined u/s. 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s.338 IPC and P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. The evidence of remaining prosecution witnesses was given up by learned A.P.P. Examination U/s. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as no incriminating evidence is found in the evidence of prosecution side witnesses. Heard the arguments on both sides. On 30-11-107 Judgment pronounced.

Name of the complainant: The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddakakani Police station. Name of thefather’s agereligioncallingVillage. accusedname

Alhasan Sabah Mansour S/o Sabah, 22 yrs, ANU Campus, ISH Room No.306, B.Pharmacy Final Year,

Offence : U/s. 338 IPC

Finding : Not Guilty

Sentence or Order :In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 338 IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted in terms of U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused with that of his sureties if any shall stand cancelled after six months from the date of this Judgment. No order needs to be passed as to property since no property is collected in this case.

Sd/-D.Ramesh Kumar

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

Copy to :

The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban.