Smt.D.Satyavathi

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE::

WEST GODAVARI, KOVVUR.

Present: Smt D.Satyavathi,

IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tanuku,

FAC/-IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kovvur.

Wednesday, this the 23rd day of October, 2024

CRL.APPEAL NO.335/2019

From what Court the appeal is: Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Class Jangareddigu preferreddem. No. of the case in the Lower : C.C.No.121/2018 Court No. of the Criminal Appeal: Criminal Appeal No.335/2019

Name and Description of the Ap-: Sri Kanuri Madhubabu, S/o Srinivasa Rao, pellant20 years, Private Employee, Nandamuri- garuvu Village, Veeravasaram Mandal. Names and description of theThe State, represented through its Station RespondentHouse Officer, Buttaigudem P.S. Rep. by Additional Public Prosecutor, West Godavari District, Kovvur.

Conviction and SentenceDt.11-07-2019: The trial court sentenced passed by the trial court andthe accused to undergo Simple Imprison- datement for a period of six months and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, the ac- cused shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A of Indian Penal Code. Whether reversed/ Confirmed/: Modified, if modified, the Mod- REVERSED ification. Date of presentation 06-08-2019

Date of filing 09-08-2019

Date of notice issued by the 09-08-2019 Court to appear

Date of Bail bond issued --- 2

On which date the Appellant or- 31-10-2019 dered to appear

Date of hearing 21-10-2024

Date of Judgment 23-10-2024

This appeal came up for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Visveswara Rao, learned advocate for appellant and of Sri K.Gopala Krishna, learned Addi- tional Public Prosecutor for respondent and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T::

The accused in C.C.No.121/2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Jangareddigudem (in short ‘trial court’) preferred this appeal challenging the impugned calendar and judgment, dated 11-07-2019, conviction and sen- tence passed there under for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of In- dian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C’), sentencing him to undergo simple Imprison- ment for six months and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The appellant was the accused and the respondent was the complainant

before the trial court and they will be hereinafter referred to as accused and com-

plainant for convenience.

2. The Case of the prosecution, in short, are as follows: The P.W.1 is the resident of Peda Kapavaram Village, Buttaigudem Mandal and he is the third son of the deceased. On 16.02.2018 during morning time the deceased was going to bus stop centre in her village on foot and at about 9 a.m, the accused who is the rider of Hero Passion Pro Motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 CL 6485, rided the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a re- sult, the deceased received severe bleeding injuries over her chest and head and fell on the road. By knowing the same, the P.W.1 and his brother Sariyam

Venkatesh rushed there and immediately shifted the deceased to Jangareddigu- dem by 108 ambulance and admitted in Government Hospital, Jangareddigu- 3 dem for treatment. But at about 10.45 a.m the deceased died while undergoing treatment. Hence, P.W.1 presented a report in Buttiagudem Police Station. Bas- ing on the report of P.W.1, the P.W.7 registered a case in Cr.No.39/2018 Under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and took up investigation and his investiga- tion reveals prima facie case against the accused for the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code , as such after completion of investigation, obtaining all reports he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. The trial court took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code secured the presence of the accused by is- suing summons, complied with Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’). The accused was examined under section 251 Criminal Proce- dure Code. The substance of the accusation leveled against him under section 304-A of I.P.C was read over and explained to him in Telugu to which the ac- cused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial the prosecution got examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked

Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8. The evidence of L.W.2 Sariyam Kannayya, L.W.3 Sariyam Pen- tayya, L.W.4 Sariyam Venkatesh, L.W.5 Sariyam Srinu, L.W.6 Dharmula Ku- mari, L.W.7 Kovvasi Ravi Kumar, L.W.10 Sariyam Venkanna Babu, L.W.14 Kur- sam Durga Rao and L.W.15 Sariyam Mallayya is given up by the learned A.P.P.

5. After closer of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined un- der section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The substance of incriminating evi- dence deposed against him was read over and explained to the accused in Tel- ugu, for which he denied the incriminating material made against him. Further, he did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his side.

6. Upon hearing the arguments of both the counsel, the trial court found the ac- cused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal

Code, convicted, and sentenced him as stated in para 1 of this judgment.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned calendar and judgment, conviction, and sentence passed there under, the accused preferred this appeal on various grounds run- ning into 4 pages. The gist of the grounds of appeal is nothing but a reitera- tion of the defence set up before the trial court and it is as follows:

4 i.That the judgment passed by the trial court is contrary to law, weight of evi- dence and probabilities of the case.

ii.That the Judgment of the trial court is violated by the several irregularities and illegalities on both the facts and law.

iii.That the P.Ws.1 to 4 are hearsay witnesses but the trial court took wrong view and inserted that there is a corroboration for P.W.1 with P.W.3 and 4 who were present at the time of accident are false.

iv.That the trial court convicted the appellant/accused on presumptions and assumptions without considering the real fact.

v.That the sentence imposed by the trial court is quite unwarranted under the circumstances of the case.

Therefore, for the above and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing the appeal, the Appellant/accused prays the Court to set aside the con- viction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem dt.11-07-2019 in C.C.121/2018.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued in the lines of appeal grounds noted above and further mainly argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 coupled with Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 is not at all sufficient to prove against the accused and the evidence of prosecution witnesses suffered with several contradictions, omissions and the prosecution failed to establish that the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and caused the death of the de- ceased and this case is falsely foisted against the accused for getting insurance benefits to the family members of the deceased and finally prayed to set aside the conviction passed by the learned trial court. On the other hand upon receipt of the notice, the learned Additional public prosecutor appeared and during arguments mainly contended that the Trial Court considered the material properly and rightly convicted the Accused/Appellant, which needs no interference by this Court. He further contended that the entire evidence available on record established that due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the accused, the acci- dent is occurred, thereby he committed the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and argued totally in support of the findings of the 5 trial court and prayed for, confirming the impugned calendar and judgment, con- viction and sentence passed there under.

9. Therefore considering rival contentions and upon perusing the material avail- able on record including the impugned calendar and judgment of the trial court, the points for determination is:

i. Whether the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Hero Passion

Pro Motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 CL 6485 at the time of accident?

ii. Whether the accused is guilty of culpable rashness and negligence in

driving the crime vehicle Hero Passion Pro Motor cycle bearing No.AP

37 CL 6485 and caused death of Sariyam Ramamma by his rash and

negligent act?

iii. Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in this

case for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code

sustainable?

10. Points i and ii Answered: The points 1 and 2 are answered under one head to avoid repetition of facts and for clarity. The case of the prosecution, main de- fence of the accused and the facts leading to the present stage of this first appeal are already stated supra in detail. Hence, the same is not restated. The Court of

First Appeal is obligated to reappraise the entire evidence, notwithstanding the findings recorded by the trial court. Therefore, this court would like to reappraise the entire material on record to come to an independent conclusion.

11.On careful perusal of the entire material in the record in support of their case the prosecution in total cited 16 witnesses. Among them the prosecution ex- amined P.Ws.1 to 7. Further, the evidence of L.W.2 Sariyam Kannayya, L.W.3

Sariyam Pentayya, L.W.4 Sariyam Venkatesh, L.W.5 Sariyam Srinu, L.W.6 Dhar- mula Kumari, L.W.7 Kovvasi Ravi Kumar, L.W.10 Sariyam Venkanna Babu,

L.W.14 Kursam Durga Rao and L.W.15 Sariyam Mallayya is given up by the learned A.P.P. The P.W1 who is the son of the deceased, deposed about know- ing of the occurrence of accident through his brother, death of the deceased and giving of report to the police and such other facts known to him. Ex.P.1 is his re- port.

During the cross examination, the learned defence counsel gave sugges- tion to P.W.1 that no motor cycle hit to his mother , but he denied the same.

6

12.The P.W.2 is the Village Revenue Officer, Buttaigudem Village, deposed that on 16.02.2018 at about 12.15 p.m, police observed scene of offence in their presence at R and B road, Pedakapavaram near Bus Stop and got prepared scene observation report which is marked as Ex.P.2. At about 2 p.m police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and got prepared inquest under

Ex.P.3. They opined that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by her in motor cycle accident.

During the cross examination, the learned defence counsel gave sugges- tion to P.W.2 that the reports were prepared at police station and that they did not go to scene of offence, but he denied the same.

13.The P.W.3 and 4 are the neighbours and co-coolies to the deceased. They deposed that the accident taken place near to Bus Stand to their village at about 8.30 a.m on 16.02.2018. They further deposed that themselves, deceased and some others were proceedings to their work on 16.02.2018 and at about 8.30 a.m they were crossing the road near the bus stand of their village. At that time the accused came on motor cycle and drove the same with high speed and hit the deceased, as a result the deceased fell down and sustained severe in- juries on her head and other parts of the body, later the deceased was shifted to hospital and succumbed to injuries.

During the cross examination, they stated that the deceased is their distant relative and they are 10 persons were proceedings on the said road at the time of alleged accident.

14.The P.W.5 is the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, deposed that on 23.02.2018 he received requisition from Station House Officer, Buttaigudem P.S to inspect the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 37 CN 6485 Hero Passion Pro Motor

Cycle in Cr.No.39/2018 for the offence Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal

Code. On 24-02-2018 , he visited the premises he checked the crime vehicle and found no damages to that vehicle and all breaks were efficient and even in action. He opined that the accident was not caused due to any mechanical de- fects of the crime vehicle . Ex.P.4 is the motor vehicle inspector report.

During the cross examination, the learned defence counsel gave sugges- tion to P.W.5 that to facilitate insurance claim to the deceased family the police 7 with the assistance of him foisted false case and he issued Ex.P.4 report, but he denied the same.

15.The P.W.6 is the Medical Officer, deposed that on 16.02.2018, he con- ducted autopsy over the dead body opined that the deceased Sariyam Ra- mamma died due to neurogenic shock or hammaragic shock, which leads to death due to severe head injuries. During cross examination he stated that there may be possibility of death due to head injury if a person falls on road.

16. The P.W.7 the then Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem P.S, is in- vestigation officer in this case and he deposed about registration of F.I.R based on the report of P.W.1, conducting investigation by visiting the scene of offence, got conducting the inquest, Postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, securing the material witnesses, recording of their statements, sur- rendering of the accused before the police, releasing of the accused under 41- A

Cr.P.C, receiving of M.V.I report, Post mortem certificate and about filing of charge sheet before the concerned Court.

17. The requirements of Section 304 A IPC are that the death of any person must have been caused by the accused by doing any rash or negligent act. In other words, there must be proof that the rash or negligent act of accused was the prominent cause of the death of the deceased and that there must be direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash or negligent act of the ac- cused. Further Section 304-A Indian Penal Code applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sec- tions 299 and 300 of Indian Penal Code. The provision applies only to such acts which are rash or negligent and are directly cause of death of another person.

Therefore negligence or rashness are essential elements under Section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code .

18. Further to record conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, it is the duty of prosecution to prove culpa- ble rashness or negligence of the accused. The word ‘culpable rashness and negligence’ was not defined anywhere in the Indian Penal Code. The Hon’ble

Apex Court defined ‘culpable negligence’ in an unreported judgment in Mo- 8 hammed Aynuddin @ Miyam Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein their

Lordships Justice R.P.Sethi and K.T.Thomas, defined what is culpable rashness and negligence on the part of crime vehicle driver in the accident. Their Lordships held that: "A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negli- gence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precau- tions guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particu- lar. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."

19. Now this Court would consider the documentary evidence on record. The de- tails of exhibits on record can be noted as hereunder:

Ex.P1 is the Complaint, dt.16.02.2018 of PW.1 Ex.P2 is the Scene of offence Observation Report Ex.P3 is the Inquest report Ex.P4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector’ Report Ex.P5 is the Postmortem Examination Report Ex.P6 is the Police intimation Ex.P7 is the Original F.I.R in Cr.No.39/2018 Ex.P8 is the Rough Sketch.

Findings and observations of this Court

20. As noted above, the prosecution filed the case against the accused Mad- hubabu alleging that on 16.02.2018, he drove the Hero Passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 37 CL 6485 in a rash and negligent manner and at about 9:00

AM, when he reached Bus Stop Centre in Peda Kapavaram Village, Buttaigudem

Mandal, he had hit Sariyam Ramamma and consequently, she sustained injuries and later she died.

16. For an offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 the prosecu- tion has to prove the following aspects before it seeks conviction to the accused.

9

1. The deceased Ramamma died on 16.02.2018 at about 10.45 a.m as a re- sult of injuries in an accident.

2. The accused was the driver of the crime vehicle.

3. The accused drove the crime vehicle either rashly or negligently and such act of the accused has resulted in an accident.

21. These three aspects are required to be considered in this case. The prosecu- tion has to prove that the accused Madhu Babu drove Hero Passion Pro Motor

Cycle bearing No. AP 37 CL 6485 in a rash and negligent manner on 16.02.2018 and when reached Bus Stop Centre, Peda Kapavaram Village, he had hit the

Ramamma who was crossing the road at about 9:00 A.M and consequently, she sustained certain injuries and though shifted Government Hospital, Jangareddigu- dem, she died.

Death of Ramamma:

22. On 16.02.2018 about 9:00 AM, the deceased Ramamma was crossing the road at bus stop centre, Peda Kapavaram, the accused Madhubabu drove the

Hero Passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 37 CL 6485 in a rash and negli- gent manner and he had hit the deceased Ramamma. Consequently, she sus- tained injuries and though she was shifted to Government Hospital Jangareddigu- dem enroute she died. Infact, the death of Ramamma be it consequent to injuries was not disputed. The accused Madhubabu did not deny that the deceased Ra- mamma sustained injuries in a Road accident. Therefore, the death of the de- ceased Ramamma in a Road accident on 16.02.2018 stood proved.

Identity of the accused as the driver of crime vehicle:

23. In the instant case, the prosecution filed Charge Sheet that the accused Mad- hubabu drove the Hero Passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 37 CL 6485 on 16.02.2018 and that he had hit the deceased Ramamma on Bus Stop. Subse- quently, the P.W.7 served under section 41 of Cr.P.C notice to the accused and directed him to appear before the Court. Infact, during trial, the accused denied 10 that he drove the crime vehicle Hero Passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 37

CL 6485 on 16.02.2018 in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, the burden would be on the prosecution to prove the same.

24. As seen from the record, the prosecution had examined PW.3 and P.W.4, who were said to be the eye witnesses of the accident. They gave evidence that dt.16.02.2018 at about 8.30 AM, themselves and deceased and some other were proceedings to their work while they were crossing the road near the bus stand to their village, they witnessed the Hero Passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 37 CL 6485 had hit her and that the deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries on her head. PW1 S/Singa Raju who is the son of deceased gave evi- dence that her brother informed him that her mother met with an accident. But did not state that at that time the P.W.3 and 4 were present at the scene of of- fence and also not stated that his mother going to attend coolie work at that time. The P.Ws.3 and 4 did not state the crime vehicle number. More over the prosecution did not conduct the identification parade in this case. They also stated that the deceased is the distant relative to them. Therefore, the identifica- tion of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle was doubtful in nature. The

P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not an eye witnesses. There were inconsistencies and dis- crepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. Therefore, the identity of the accused and the accused is as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of date of acci- dent was not established beyond doubt.

Rash and Negligent Act

25. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on 16.02.2018 and when reached near Bus Stand,

Pedakapavaram, he had hit S.Ramamma. The Investigating Officer had exam- ined the Scene of Offence, he prepared the Rough Sketch but it seems that he did not obtained photographs of the scene of offence. PW.5 S.Srinivasu exam- ined the Crime Vehicle Hero Passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 37 CL 6485 at Jangareddigudem Police Station. PW.6 K.Satyanarayana did not exam- ine the Scene of Offence. So, he did not examine presence any skid marks which would indicate that the vehicle driven either rashly or and negligently. As noted 11 above, PW.3 and 4 were cited as an eye witnesses but their evidence was not in- spiring confidence. The evidence of PW.3 and 4 the crime vehicle was driven ei- ther speedily or rashly cannot be given any credent for the reasons stated in the above paragraphs. Thus to say, there was no evidence that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle and or that he drove it either rashly and negligently on 16.02.2018.

Legal aspects relating to the identity of the driver of the crime vehicle and the rashness and negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle

1. K.Nageswara Rao Vs State of A.P. 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 256 (A.P). In this case, it was held that the prosecution has to prove that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle and that the statement of accused made be- fore the Police is not substantiate piece of evidence.

2. Shaik Ramjohn Sharief Vs State of A.P.4thMay, 2003, Crl.R.C.No.843/2000 and Karam Chand Vs The State of Himachal Pradesh 2017 (3) Criminal Cases 656 (H.P). In these cases, it was held that the prosecution has to prove that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle.

3. Yegitila Pandu Vs State of A.P. 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 836 (A.P). In this case, it was held that mere fact of accident/ collusion is not the proof that the accused drove the crime vehicle either rashly or negligently.

26. Considering the above legal aspects, when the facts of the case are consid- ered, it has to be observed that the prosecution was unable to prove the identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle and further, it failed to prove that the driver of the crime vehicle Hero Passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 37

CL 6485, be it the accused drove it either rashly or negligently and that such act of the driver was cause for the accident. Hence, when the ratio of the above noted cases is applied to the case on hand, the accused has to be acquitted even exercising the benefit of doubt.

Lapses in the case of the Prosecution

27. Further, in the instant case, there were certain lapses which the Trial Court has failed to take cognizance. LW.7 A.Durga Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jan- gareddigudem Police Station and he could not be examined as a witness. So, the 12 material part of the evidence did not come on record. It is not necessary to exam- ine the Investigating Officer if he had died or he became unavailable but when certain aspects were required to be proved through the Investigating Officer, the

Investigating Officer or his successor in Office should necessarily be examined for proving such aspects (evidence) on record. As noted above, the identity of the accused can be established by examining the owner of the vehicle, which was not done in this case.

28. As per charge sheet at about 8:30 AM on 16.02.2018, the deceased Ra- mamma resident at Peda Kapavaram to reach near the Bus Stand but the Hero

Passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 37 CL 6485 had hit her. According to

PW.1, the accident was at 8:30 AM. Of course he was not an eye witness. Ac- cording to PW.3 and 4, the accident took place at 8.30 AM. The Inquest Report shows that the accident was at 9:00 AM on 16.02.2018. So, the time of accident itself had landed in ambiguity.

29. As seen, the Ex.P1 Report reads that PW.1 came to know of the accident through his brother. In his evidence, PW.1 stated that his brother stated him about the accident and that his mother Ramamma was admitted at Hospital. The details of the remaining co-coolies were not brought on record.

30. Considering the above aspects, it should be held that the Trial Court erred in holding that the case of the prosecution was proved. In the instant case, the iden- tity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle and or the accused driving the crime vehicle either rashly or negligently was not proved. Therefore, the ac- cused was entitled for acquittal. Thus, the judgment of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside and consequently, the accused has to be acquitted for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Result of the Appeal

31. In the result, the Appeal is allowed setting aside the Calendar and the Judg- ment dt.11.07.2019 in C.C.No.121/2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First 13

Class, Jangareddygudem . Hence, the accused K. Madhubabu is acquitted for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. As such, the ac- cused K. Madhubabu can seek the refund of Fine amount paid, if any after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, typed by her, corrected and pro-

nounced by me in Open Court, on this the 23rd day of October, 2024.

Sd/- Smt.D.Satyavathi,

IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Tanuku FAC/- IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kovvur.

Copy submitted to:

The Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, Nelapadu, Guntur District

Copies to:

1.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Jangareddigudem. 2.The State represented by the Public Prosecutor.

// True Copy //

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ::

WEST GODAVARI AT KOVVVUR.

PRESENT: Smt. D.Satyavathi, IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tanuku FAC/- IX Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kovvur.

Friday, this the 25th day of October, 2024

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.96 of 2017

From what Court the appeal is:Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur. preferred : C.C.No.21/2016 No. of the case in that Court

No. of the Criminal Appeal:Crl. Appeal No.96/2017

Name and Description of the:Sri Kakarla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Appellants/Accused@ Satya, S/o Late Subba Rao, 20 years, Male, Hindu, R/o Meraka Veedhi, Kovvur, Kovvur Mandal.

Names and description of theState: Rep. Station House Officer, Respondent/ ComplainantKovvur Town Police Station, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, Kovvur, West Godavari District.

The Sentence and Law andIn the result, the accused is found guilty which it was imposed in thefor the offence punishable under Section Lower Court.332 of Indian Penal Code and he is con- victed Under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The remand period if any shall be set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. Whether confirmed, modified: or reversed and if modified the

Reversed

modification

Date of presentation:15-03-2017

Date of filing:18-03-2017

Date of notice issued:20-03-2017 2

Date of Bail bond:----

Date of appearance:18-04-2018

Date of hearing:24-10-2024

Date of Judgment:25-10-2024

This Criminal Appeal coming on 24-10-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Surya Raghavulu, Advocate for the Appellant/Ac- cused and Additional Public Prosecutor for complainant/state and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Appellant/accused preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the con- viction judgment of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur in C.C.No.21/2016, dt.03-03-2017 for the offence punishable under Section 332 Indian Penal Code.

2.The parties are arrayed as per the charge sheet for the sake of con- venience.

3.The case of the prosecution is that on 03.10.2014 at about 9 p.m

P.Ws.1 and 2 who are working as police constables in Kovvur Town Police Sta- tion were moving on night beat duty at Kovvur bus stand area, two persons came to them and informed them that somebody quarreling with their constable, then he and P.W.2 went to Vijaya Vihar Centre, where they found the accused was shouting on P.Ws.3 and 4 and quarreling with them, then he asked the accused to stop disputing and asked to leave the place. But the accused replied arro- gantly, abused in filthy language caught hold of his shirt collar while P.W.1 was in police uniform, pulled him and beat on the right shoulder with hand. Then, the

P.W.1 caught hold of the accused with the help of other constables, he brought the accused to police station. Basing on the report of P.W.1, L.W.9 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.240/2014 under section 332 of Indian Penal Code and investigated into.

4.The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur took cognizance of the offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code against the accused and fur- nished copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Sec- 3 tion 239 Cr.P.C., Charge framed Under Sections 332 of Indian Penal Code against accused, read over and explained , for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, the Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked

Exs.P.1 to P.7. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was exam- ined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and denied the same. On behalf of defence side no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

6.Considering the evidence adduced on record, the trial Court found guilty of the accused for the offence Under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code and convicted the accused Under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 332 of Indian Penal Code.

7.Aggrieved by the findings of the trial court, the appellant/ Accused preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned hereunder:

1) The calendar and Judgment of the trial court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2)The trial court ought to have disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and P.Ws.7 to 9.

3) The trial court erred in believing the Ex.P.7 attested copy of relevant page of General Dairy. There are insertionsabout the time of report and return of P.Ws.1 to 4 to the police station from their duties.

4) In para “16” of judgment of the trial court mentioned that ‘ but unfortunately independent witnesses P.Ws.5 and 6 turned hostile. It shows the trial court prede- termined to convict the accused, in such a way the trial court used the word un- fortunately.

5) The trial court ought to have disbelieve the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 4 be- cause there are several contradictions, omissions which effects the core case of the prosecution.

6) The trial court erred in finding that the medical evidence proves that P.W.1 suffered some pain. As per the Ex.P.4 wound certificate there are no any exter- nal injuries in the body of P.W.1. There is no observation regarding the pain or traces of injury in Ex.P.4 wound certificate and in the evidence of doctor.

7) The trial court failed to observe that non explanation of injuries on the ac- cused is fatal to the prosecution case.

4

8) The trial court ought to have disbelieve the case of the prosecution as there is delay of 4 hours in registering the Ex.P.5 printed First Information Report.

9) The trial court failed to note that there is no signature of the P.W.1 in col- umn No.14 of Ex.P.5 printed First Information Report.

10) The trial court failed to note that the prosecution failed to produce the point books in which the P.Ws.1 to 4 have to sign, if they are in beet duty.

11) The trial court failed to note that P.Ws.1 to 4 did not state in their 161 Cr.P.C statements and P.Ws.1 to 3 did not depose what are the abusive words used by the accused against them.

12) The trial court failed to note that P.W.2 deposed that P.W.1 gave report at 11 p.m on 03.04.2014, but the report was registered on 04.04.2014 at 3 a.m.

13) The trial court failed to note that there is no corroboration in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and there are several inconsistencies in their evidence.

14) The trial court failed to note that P.W.5 is the owner of the Vijaya Vihar Hotel and he has no necessity to give false evidence before the Court. P.W.6 also pan shop owner at Vijaya Vihar Centre and he also a respectable person and P.Ws.5 and 6 have no necessity to depose false.

15) The trial court failed to note that the important witness H.C No.1372 who is said to be the incharge of the police station at the relevant time was not examined by the investigation officer or not cited as witness in the charge sheet.

16) The trial court failed to note that the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 is quite contradictory and not corroborating.

17) The trial court erroneously convicted the accused without any basis and evidence against him deviating the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence.

18)The trial court did not observe the entire material in record in this case and erroneously concluded and convicted the accused in this case.

For these and other grounds the appellant prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the Judgment passed by Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Kovvur in C.C.21/2016 dated 03.03.2017 by allowing the appeal.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Considering the rival contentions of both sides and on perusal of ma- terial on record, the points arise for determination are:- 5 1) Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt ?

2) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur?

10.POINT No.1 and 2:-

The accused was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code . In order to substantiate its case, prosecution exam- ined P.Ws.1 to 9 and exhibited 7 documents under Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked.

Out of them, P.W.1/I.Venkanna Babu is the defacto complainant/injured. P.W.2/

O.Naresh is the constable, P.W.3/A.Yedukondalu is the constable and eye wit- ness to the incident, P.W.4/P.Srinu is the eye witness to the incident, P.W.5/

A.Lakshmana rao and P.W.6/K.V.V.Satya Srinivas are the neighbours to the scene of offence, P.W.7/ P.Sudheer, Medical Officer, P.W.8/A.Narasimha Rao,

Investigation officer, P.W.9/S.Nageswara Rao, Head Constable. The report of

P.W.1 marked under Ex.P.1, the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 marked under

Ex.P.2, the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 marked under Ex.P.3, Wound Cer- tificate marked under Ex.P4. The original First Information Report marked as

Ex.P5, Rough sketch marked under Ex.P.6 and Attested copy of relevant page of

General Diary marked under Ex.P7.

11. According to the prosecution version, on 03.10.2014 at about 9 p.m

P.Ws.1 and 2 working as night beet constables at Kovvur bus stand area, two persons came to them and informed them that somebody quarreling with their constable, then P.W.1 and 2 went there and they found the accused was shout- ing on P.W.3 and 4 and quarreling with them, then he asked the accused to stop disputing and asked to leave that place, but he replied arrogantly, abused in filthy language, caught hold of his shirt collar while P.W.1 was in police uni- form, pulled him and beat on the right shoulder with hand. Then, P.W.1 with the help of other constables brought the accused to the police station. Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.8 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.240/2014 under section 332 of Indian Penal Code .

6

12. The PW.1 in his chief examination deposed that on 03.10.2014 he was de- puted for night beat at RTC bus stand, Kovvur, at about 10.30 p.m while he along with P.W.2 were on duty, two persons came there to their motor cycle and told them that some persons were disputing with their constables in Vijay Vihar

Centre, Kovvur. On that himself, and P.W.2 came to Vijay Vihar Centre and found that 4 to 5 persons were disputing as to why they were disputing with

P.W.3 and 4. On that the accused pushed P.W.2 and abused him in filthy lan- guage and beat him on his shoulder. Then, they brought the accused to police station and handed over to the incharge SHO, head constable namely S.-

Nageswara Rao. He also reported the matter in writing. Ex.P.1 is the report which contains his signature.

During cross examination he admitted that the entry with regard to beet duty shall be mentioned in G.D. He also admitted that the point books is given to ascertain that they are in duty. They did not mention in the report specific place and time of B duty. He also admitted that to leave the place where he was ap- pointed to do the duty he has to obtain permission from his superior authority. He also admitted that it was not mentioned in Ex.P.1 or 161 Cr.P.C statement he informed to his superior officer HC 1372. He further admitted that the scene of of- fence is a busy locality and did not mention the exact place of scene at Vijaya Vi- har Centre.

13. The PW.2, police constable in his chief examination deposed the same lines as stated by P.W.1 in his chief examination. During cross examination he admit- ted that if they move to any other place they have to take instructions from the higher authorities. He also admitted that they have to obtain signatures of the lo- cal people while they are in the beat duty. On that day they did not obtain the sig- natures of any one. He further admitted that the scene of offence other circle people were attending the duty and he do not know the names of five persons at the scene of offence. He also admitted that by the time they reached the scene, four persons were escaped. He did not state before the police that four persons left out of five persons when he reached and no neighbours came to the scene.

7

14.Coming the evidence of next witness i.e., P.W.3, police constable and eye witness to the incident deposed that on 03.10.2014 at night 9 p.m, he was at- tended for night duty, after taking beat book they left the police station and went to Vijaya Vihar Centre, Kovvur, they got closed the shops and thereafter they went to Alluri Seetharamaraju statute road to close the shops and some persons were proceedings on motor cycle and stated that five persons were making galata at Vijaya Vihar Centre, Kovvur, they returned back to Vijay Vihar centre there they found Chakali Satyanarayana accused and some other persons were making galata. He stated them to left the place. The remaining four persons heard some words and kept silent, but the accused raised his voice and stated that who was he to state. In the meanwhile, the second beat police persons also came to the scene who got information, on seeing the remaining police persons the four other persons went aside, but the accused attacked on P.W.4, later accused pushed P.W.2 by placing his hand on the neck of P.W.2, later ac- cused beat P.W.1 on his shoulder. P.W.1 gave the police report.

During cross examination P.W.3 stated that he does not remember whether he stated before the police that at 10.30 p.m, they are getting close the shops at Vijaya Vihar Centre, Kovvur. He further stated that they have to sign on the point book. He further admitted that he did not state before the police that some persons informed that there was a galata in Vijaya Vihar Centre and he rushed to Vijaya Vihar Centre. He also admitted that he did not stated before the police that Nakodakallara evariki chepithe cheppukondi” abused in filthy manner except stating that.

15.Coming the evidence of next witness i.e., P.W.4, Police constable, de- posed the same lines as stated by P.W.3 in his chief examination . During cross examination he admitted that they have a beat book and there was a point book in each point.

16.The P.W.5 and 6 are the important crucial eye witnesses and neighbours to the scene of incident as cited by the prosecution. They stated that they do not know the accused and anything about this case, they did not support the prosecu- 8 tion case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought permission to this

Court to declare the witnesses as hostile and their 161 Cr.P.C statements marked under Ex.P.2 and P.3 respectively.

17.Coming to the evidence of medical officer in this case examined as P.W.7, he deposed that on 04.10.2014 he examined P.W.1 no found external injuries. He opined that the injuries are simple in nature. Ex.P.4 is the wound certificate.

During cross examination, he stated that in this case no injury was found and he has issued Ex.P.4 on the same day. He stated that if any injured was ad- mitted in the hospital they have to inform the same to police as per medical ju- risprudence. He has not referred to the police in this case.

18.Coming to the evidence of investigation officer in this case is examined as

P.W.8, he deposed that on 04.10.2014 in the early morning hours, their H.C

Nageswara Rao gave information and handed over one report that P.W.1 pre- sented a report, on that he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.240/2014 un- der Section 332 of Indian Penal Code marked Ex.P.5. He examined the P.W.1 in the police station, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch under

Ex.P.6.

During cross examination he stated that P.W.1 did not hand over any report to him. He has not obtained the signature of the complainant in Column No.14 of

Ex.P.5. He also admitted that in Ex.P.5 the exact time was not mentioned. He has not seized the beat book or produced the same before the Court. He also stated that as per police rules, if a police went to other duty point, he has to take permission from his superiors. They will enter in G.D each and every point. He also admitted that he has not mentioned in part I CD and he did not send the con- stable to hospital. The exact place was not mentioned by P.W.1. He also admit- ted that P.W.1 and 2 did not state before him that they handed over the accused to HC Nageswara Rao.

19.Coming the evidence of last witness i.e., P.W.9, Head Constable 1372, de- posed that on that P.W.8 entrusted duties to P.Ws.1 to 4 in two batches i.e., beat 9

No.1 and 2, on that 1st beat duty P.W.3 and 4 and 2nd beat P.W.1 and 2 are on duty. On that day was present at 9 p.m in the police station, at about 2 a.m mid- night P.W.1 came to the police station along with accused.

During cross examination he stated that he did not mention in the G.D en- try that he handed over the beat books to P.W.8. As per G.D P.Ws.1 to 4 were not examined in his presence. He do not know accused was not sent to the hos- pital.

20. Section 332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.—

Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public ser- vant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

21.In this regard recently the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan decided a case in between Gorkharam Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 17.05.2024 where in it was held that “So far as offence under Section 332 IPC is concerned, the prose- cution must prove that the accused has caused voluntary hurt to deter a public servant from carrying out his duty. The accused is stated to have caused willful hurt to public servants whereas the Investigating officer PW/7 Kesa Ram has specifically stated that petitioner did not cause any injury/hurt to anyone. There is no proof of the injuries/hurt, if any, assigned to the petitioner, by producing any in- dependent witness despite the fact that at the scene of occurrence, many houses were present. The scuffle took place for quite some time, till the back up police [2024:RJ-JD:21392] (14 of 16) [CRLR-1334/2016] personnel came from the nearby police station. However, the prosecution has not adduced a single inde- pendent witness so as to fortify their case. All their witnesses are departmental and police personnel witnesses.

In the present case in hand also the prosecution produced the departmen- tal and police personnel witnesses except them there are no independent wit- nesses to support the prosecution case. Therefore, the above decision is squarely applicable to the present case in hand.

22.On perusal of the evidence of the above said prosecution side witnesses this court noticed the so many contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies in their respective evidences, report and statements. The P.W.1 admitted that it was not mentioned in Ex.P.1 or 161 Cr.P.C statement he informed to his superior offi- 10 cer HC 1372, the scene of offence is a busy locality and did not mention the ex- act place of scene at Vijaya Vihar Centre. P.W.1 stated in his evidence that the alleged galata was took place at 10.30 p.m, with the assistance of P.Ws.2 and 4 he took the accused to the town police station and gave report, but in Ex.P.1 in the date column some over writing is there, in Ex.P.5 in column No.3 date of of- fence is 03.10.2014 at 11 p.m and information received on 04.10.2014 at 3 a.m.

The P.W.s1 to 4, 8 and 9 stated the Kovvur Town Police Station is nearer to the scene of offence, but why the P.W.1 gave report to police station after lapse of time, in this regard, the prosecution did not explain properly to the Court.

23. The P.W.2 stated that he did not state before the police that the accused used filthy language and he did not state before the police that he informed to the incharge S.H.O. P.W.3 did not hand over the point book to the police. He further admitted that Vijaya Vihar Centre is busy 11 to 11.30 p.m. and they did not handed over any proof that on that day he was on duty. P.W.3 in his evidence clearly stated that he found Chakala Satyanarayana accused and some other persons were making galata. But the prosecution in its Ex.P.5 F.I.R in column

No.7 the accused name is mentioned as Kakarla Satyanarayana, but the prose- cution did not explain the same properly to the court is fatal to the case of the prosecution. PW4 stated that they have a beat book and there was a point book in each point. PW 1 to 4 did not filed any document before this Court as to they attending duties at that time. PW5 and P.W.6 were not supported to the prosecu- tion they turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and did not depose any- thing about this case. P.W. 7 is the medical officer stated that they have not re- ferred to the police in this case. PW 8 and P.W.9 are the investigation officers but they deposed on basing of the record.

24.However, their evidence never disclosed that the acts of the accused pushed P.W.2 and abused him in filthy language and beat him on his shoulder but there was no evidence that he had obstructed PW.1 and P.W.2 in performing their legitimate duties. Thus, there was no material proving that the accused had obstructed the legitimate duties of PW.1 and P.W.2 which invited a punishment under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

11

25.Considering the entire evidence on record, it should be held that the prosecu- tion failed to prove that the accused and PW.1 had oral confrontation on 03.10.2014 on information when PW.1 and P.W.2 went to the Vijay Vihar Centre,

Kovvur, there they found some persons were disputing with their constables and they went to them and questioned them, as accused pushed them and abused in filthy language and beat him on his shoulder. But, there was no corroborative ocular evidence to this incident and the prosecution did not produce any docu- mentary proof to show that at that time the P.W.1 is on night beet duty at that centre and that the accused had obstructed the legitimate duties of PW.1.

Therefore, the offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not proved and the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

26. Considering the above analysis, the appeal is required to be allowed. The ac- cused Kakarla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana @ Satya,should be acquitted for the offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The conviction recorded by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 has to be upheld but the sentence has to be set aside/corrected. Ac- cordingly this point is answered.

Conclusion

27. Considering the entire material on record, it has to be held that the Judgment of the Trial Court is not sustainable under law in so far as the offence under Sec- tion 332 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, the appeal has to be allowed and while acquitting the accused Kakarla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana @

Satya, for an offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Result of the Appeal

28. In the result the Appeal is allowed. The Calendar and Judgment dt.03.03.2017 in C.C.No.21/2016 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kovvur. is set aside in so far as the offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860. The accused Kakarla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana @ Satya is found not guilty for the offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he is acquitted Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

12

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pro- nounced by me in open Court, on this the 25 th day of October, 2024.

Sd/- Smt.D.Satyavathi,

IV Additional District & Sessions Judge Tanuku FAC/- IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kovvur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- N I L- Id/- Smt.D.S. IV A.D & S.J/Tnk FAC/- IX A.D & S.J/KVR

Copy submitted to:

The Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, Nelapadu, Guntur District

Copies to:

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur.

2. The State represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, Kovvur.

// True Copy //

1 S.C.No.295/2016[01.09.2023] PASJ/KVR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

KOVVUR.

Present: Smt. D. Satyavathi,

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur.

Friday, this the 1st day of September, 2023.

SESSIONS CASE No.295/2016

Between: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jeelugumilli Police Station. …Complainant.

And

1. YERRAMALA LAXMANA RAO @ MUKKODU, S/o Late Venkateswara Rao, 31 years, SC-Mala, Swarnavarigudem (V) Jeelugumilli (M).

2. YERRAMALA VENKAMMA W/o Late Venkateswara Rao, 63 years, SC-Mala, Swarnavarigudem (V) Jeelugumilli (M)

3. YERRAMALA RAMBABU S/o Late Venkateswara Rao, 41 years, SC-Mala, Swarnavarigudem (V) Jeelugumilli (M)

4. YERRAMALA SATYANARAYANA S/o Late Venkateswara Rao, 33 years, SC- Mala, Swarnavarigudem (v) Jeelugumilli (M)

5. YERRAMALA DHARMAIAH S/o Late Venkateswara Rao, 25 years, SC-Mala, Swarnavarigudem (V) Jeelugumilli (M)

6. YERRAMALA LAXMAIAH S/o Late Venkateswara Rao, 38 years, SC Mala, Swarnavarigudem (V) Jeelugumilli (M) (Case abetted against A.6 on 12.10.2017 and A.2 on 16.02.2022) …Accused A.1 to A.6

This case came before on 31.09.2023 for hearing in the presence of K. Venkataramana, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Prosecution and of Sri V.V.Subba Rao, Advocate for the accused. Upon perused the material on record and upon having stood over the matter till this day, this Court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jeelugumilli Police

Station filed a charge sheet against the accused No. 1 to 6 in Cr.No.66/2006 of

Jeelugumilli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code.

2 S.C.No.295/2016[01.09.2023] PASJ/KVR.

2. The brief facts of the case are that :

About 10 years ago, the marriage of the deceased Yerramala Achamma marriage was performed with Lakshmana Rao by the L.W.1 Nune Hanumantha

Rao and L.W.2 Nune Venkateswara Rao. At the time of marriage, they gave an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards dowry and sent for Kapuram at

Swarnavarigudem (V), Jeelugumilli Mandal. After the marriage, they both lead a happy marital life and due to their wedlock, they blessed with two children.

Later the accused started subjecting the deceased for cruelty by harassing both physically and mentally for demanding additional dowry and suspecting her fidelity. It is further alleged that the matter was put before elders, who are reprimanded the accused and then the accused promised to look after the deceased properly so again deceased Yerramala Achamma sent for kapuram at

Swarnavarigudem village, but the accused did not mend his behavior. The accused accelerate her harassment by demanding to bring additional dowry and more over suspecting her fidelity and necked out her for which the L.W.1 Nune

Hanumantha Rao presented the matter in Jeelugumilli Police Station two months prior to this incident, where the Sub-Inspector of Police conducted counseling between them and warned the accused severely not to harass the deceased. Later, on 10.07.2006 at the night, the accused informed the L.W.1

Nune Hanumantha Rao that the deceased was bitten by insect and thereby they rushed to Nirmala Hospital, Jangareddigudem, where L.W.25/Dr.N.Veera Raju rendered treatment and suggested the deceased to Government Hospital,

Jangareddigudem for further treatment. While under going treatment, the deceased Yerramala Atchamma was died on 11.07.2006 at Government

Hospital, Jangareddigudem.

Basing on the report of L.W.1 N. Hanumantharao case was registered by

L.W.28 C.B.Hussain ,Head Constable in Cr.No. 66/2006 under Section 304 B of

IPC of Jeelugumilli Police Station on 11.07.2010 at 10.a.m.

3. During the course of further investigation, L.W.30 G.V.B.S. Murthy conduct the inquest over the dead body of deceased Achamma in the presence of the

L.W.28 M. Bapuji, blood relative, eye-witness and inquest panchayatdars on 3 S.C.No.295/2016[01.09.2023] PASJ/KVR.

11.07.2006 from 2.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and the inquest panchayatdars opined that cause of the death is due to unbearable harassment of the above accused for additional dowry amount or by eating any poisonous food or by biting of any insecticide or any other reasons. During further course of investigation L.W.28

M. Bapuji, Mandal Revenue officer referred the dead body received to the medical officer Government Hospital Jangareddigudem with request conduct the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased with team of doctors.

Basing on the evidence of eye-witness and the marriage of the deceased was performed 10 years ago, the section of law was altered from under Section 304(B) to 174 Cr.P.C. and L.W.31 Ch. Ramarao, Sub-Inspector of police continued his further investigation L.W.26 Dr. D Nalini and L.W.27 Dr. D.

Kotireddy, Medical officer conduct the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and preserve the Viscera and skin, Hyoid bone and sent for chemical examination at RFSL Vijaywada and Rangaraya Medical college, Kakinada.

After receipt of analysis report from the concerned labs the medical officers opined that the cause of death is due to Cordiac arrest. Basing on the evidence of record L.W.31 Ch. Ramarao, Sub-Inspector of police altered the section of law from under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to 498(A) R/W 34 of IPC.

During the further course of investigation, on 18.09.2009 at 11 a.m. L.W.32

B. Nageswara Naik, Sub-Inspector of Police arrested all the accused at the house of A.1 and sent them for judicial custody. After the completion of investigation, L.W.31 B. Nageswara Naik, Sub-Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet against the accused A.1 to A.6 for the offence under Section 498(A) and 306 R/W 34 of Indian penal code.

4. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddigudem, had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 R/W 34 of

Indian Penal Code against the accused A.1 to A.6. Among the said offence, section 306 Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, hence the case was committed to the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court,

Eluru under Section 209 (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure after serving copies of the case to the accused as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, 4 S.C.No.295/2016[01.09.2023] PASJ/KVR.

Eluru registered it as Sessions Case No. 295/2016 and made over the case to this Court for trial.

5. On hearing both sides, the charges were framed for the offences under

Sections 498-A and 306 R/W 34 of Indian Penal Code, read over and explained to the accused No. 1, A.3 to A.5 in Telugu language. The accused No. 1, A.3 to

A.5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the trial of the case, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17. The learned APP given up L.W.2 N. Venkateswara

Rao, L.W.3 B. Savithri, L.W.4 P. Sri Rama Murthy, L.W.6 Bonala Ravi, L.W.8

P. Savithri, L.W.10 B. Narayana, L.W.11 B. Venkateswara Rao, L.W.13

M. Krishna, L.W.16 T. Nageswara Rao, L.W.18 P. Nageswara Rao, L.W.19

M. Krishna, L.W.20 T. Veera Babu, L.W.22 P. Immam Khan, L.W.23

G. Bhaskara Rao, L.W.24 N. Rama Jogi, L.W.25 Dr.N. Veera Raju, L.W.26

Dr.D. Nalini, L.W.27 Dr.D. Koti Reddy, L.W.28 M. Bapuji, L.W.29 C.B. Hussain,

L.W.30 G.V.B.S. Murthy, L.W.31 Ch. Rama Rao.

7. After closure of trial, the accused No. 1, A.3 to A.5 were examined under

Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused No. 1, A.3 to A.5 were denied incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the counsel for the prosecution i.e., Additional Public Prosecutor and the Counsel for the accused.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that except the evidence of Mediator and investigating officers who are circumstantial witnesses, the other witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. He further argued that P.W.9 and to P.W.10 evidence is consistent to each other. Therefore the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 R/W 34 of I.P.C., against the accused No. 1, A.3 to A.5 are proved. Hence prays the court to convict the accused No. 1, A.3 to A.5 according to Law.

The learned counsel for the accused contended that no witnesses stated 5 S.C.No.295/2016[01.09.2023] PASJ/KVR.

before the Court that the accused A.1 to A.6 harassed the deceased Achamma

to attract the provision of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. He further argued that no witness deposed before the Court that the accused A.1 to A.6 abetted the deceased to commit suicide, as such the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 R/W 34 of

Indian Penal Code. He further argued that P.Ws.1 to 8 deposed that Achamma and her husband/A.1 are living happily and they did not depose anything against the accused A.1 to A.6. He further argued that the learned additional Public

Prosecutor gave suggestion to P.Ws.1 to 8 by declaring them as hostile stating that the accused is responsible for the death of deceased Achamma but P.Ws.1 to 8 witnesses denied the said suggestion. He further argued that P.W.9 and

P.W.10 are the official witnesses, but they are deposed basing on the record and the prosecution miserably filed to prove the case against the accused and finally prayed to acquit the accused.

Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could establish the guilty of the accused A.1 to A.6 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 R/W 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?.

9. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.17. P.Ws.1 to 6, are the relatives of the deceased

Achamma, P.W.7 and 8 are the eye-witnesses the harassament of accused towards deceased, P.W.9 is mediator, P.W.10 is the investigation officer.

10. Prosecution firstly examined P.W.1 N. Hanumanth Rao, who is elder brother of deceased Achamma deposed that his younger sister Achamma marriage was performed with the accused A.1 at Swarnavarigudem, as per

Hindu caste custom and at the time of marriage they did not give any dowry to

A.1 He further deposed that after the marriage his sister joined with the A.1 for marital life at Swarnavarigudem and they blessed with two children. He further deposed that after the marriage A.1 and his younger sister/Achamma lived happily and his younger sister never gave any report against accused A.1. He further deposed that about 10 or 15 ago, his younger sister Achamma died due to stomach pain. He further deposed that he did not give any report to the police 6 S.C.No.295/2016[01.09.2023] PASJ/KVR.

suspecting the death of his younger sister and at the instance of police he put his signature on application, but he does not know the contents of application.

Ex.P.1 is Signature on application. Police did not examine him.

11. Prosecution further examined P.W.2 K. Durgamma, who is the relative of deceased Achamma deposed that about 10 years ago, deceased Achamma marriage was performed with the accused No.1 and at the time of marriage they did not give any dowry to A.1. She further deposed that after the marriage, they blessed with two children and after the marriage accused No.1 and deceased were lived happily. She further deposed that deceased Achamma never gave any report for the harassment of the accused No.1. She further deposed that about 10 or 15 ago, the deceased Achamma suffering from stomach pain due to that she shifted to Government Hospital, Jangareddigudem, where she was died. Police never examined her.

12. Prosecution further examined P.W.3 B.V. Rama rao, who is the relative of the deceased Achamma deposed that about 16 years ago, deceased

Achamma marriage was perfromed with A.1 and at the time of marriage, they did not give any dowry to A.1 and they blessed with two children and after the marriage they lived happily. He further deposed that in the year 2006 he came to know that the deceased Achamma was suffering from stomach pain due to that she was shifted to Government Hospital, Jangareddigudem, where she was died. Police never examined him.

13. Prosecution further examined P.W.4 B. Venkataratnam, who is the relative of the deceased Achamma deposed that about 16 years ago, deceased

Achamma marriage was perfromed with A.1 and at the time of marriage, they did not give any dowry to A.1 and they blessed with two children and after the marriage they lived happily. He further deposed that in the year 2006 he came to know that the deceased Achamma was suffering from stomach pain due to that she was shifted to Government Hospital, Jangareddigudem, where she was died. He further deposed that he does not know the reason behind the death of 7 S.C.No.295/2016[01.09.2023] PASJ/KVR.

deceased Achamma. Police never examine him.

14. Prosecution further examined P.W.5 K. Satyanarayana, who is the relative of deceased Achamma deposed that about 22 years ago, deceased

Achamma marriage was perfromed with A.1 and at the time of marriage, they did not give any dowry to A.1 and they blessed with two children and after the marriage they lived happily. He further deposed that about 18 years ago, he came to know that the deceased Achamma was died due to her ill-health and he does not know anything about this case. Police did not examine him.

15. Prosecution further examined P.W.6 K. Srinivasa Rao, who is the relative of the deceased Achamma deposed that about 16 years ago, deceased

Achamma marriage was performed with A.1 and at the time of marriage, they did not give any dowry to A.1 and they blessed with two children and after the marriage they lived happily. He further deposed that he came to know that the deceased Achamma was suffering from stomach pain due to that she was shifted to Government Hospital, Jangareddigudem, where she was died and he does not know anything about this case. Police did not examine him.

16. Prosecution further examined P.W.7 T. Narasiah, who is the relative of deceased Achamma deposed that about 20 years ago, deceased Achamma marriage was performed with A.1 and at the time of marriage, they did not give any dowry to A.1 and they blessed with two children and after the marriage they lived happily. He further deposed that he came to know that the deceased

Achamma was died due to her ill-health and he does not know anything about this case. Police did not examine him.

17. Prosecution further examined P.W.8 K. Venkateswara Rao, who is the relative of deceased Achamma deposed that about 20 years ago, deceased

Achamma marriage was performed with A.1 at Swarnavarigudem and at the time of marriage, they did not give any dowry to A.1 and they blessed with two children and after the marriage they lived happily. He further deposed that he came to know that the deceased Achamma was died due to her stomach pain and he does not know anything about this case. Police did not examine him.

8 S.C.No.295/2016[01.09.2023] PASJ/KVR.

18. P.Ws. 1 to 8 were not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned A.P.P. declared them as hostile witnesses. Though, the learned A.P.P.

cross-examined P.Ws.1 to 8 nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution and they denied that they stated before the Police as in Exs.P2 to 9 which their alleged under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statements are marked.

19. Prosecution further examined P.W.9 R. Venkateswararao, who is the

VRO, and he was present at the time of preparation of Scene observation report and conducted the inquest over the dead body of deceased Achamma deposed that 11.07.2006 at about 11.00 a.m., he was conducted the inquest over the dead body of deceased Achamma and scribed the inquest report at Government

Hospital, Jangareddigudem. Ex.P.10 is Inquest Report. He further deposed that panchayatdar opined that the cause of death of deceased Achamma was due to snake bite or due to harassment of the husband of deceased. He further deposed that on 13.07.2006 he accompanied with the Sub-Inspector of police went to the house of deceased at Swaranavarigudem and after the observing the scene of offence and prepared the Scene observation report. Ex.P.11 is the

Scene Observation Report.

20. Prosecution further examined P.W.10 B. Nageswara Naik, Inspector of

Police, who is conducted the investigation deposed that on 11.07.2006 at 10 a.m. P.W.1 gave application to L.W.29 C.B. Hussain and on basing of the application registered the case in Cr.No.66/2006 for the offence under Section 304(B) of IPC. Ex.P.12 is the application of the P.W.1, Ex.P.13 is the First

Information Report. He further deposed that witnesses are examined and after completion of the inquest, the dead body was handed over to medical officer for autopsy. He further deposed that L.W.13 G.B.V.S.Murthy, Inspector of Police along with mediators visited the scene of offence and prepared the scene observation report. Ex.P.14 is the rough sketch. He further deposed that basing on the evidence of witnesses section was altered from 304(B) to 498(A) and 306 of IPC. He further deposed that on 18.09.2009 at about 11 a.m. He arrested the 9 S.C.No.295/2016[01.09.2023] PASJ/KVR.

accused A.1 to A.6 at A.1 house. He further deposed that on 10.10.2006 Ch.

Rama Rao, Sub-Inspector of police, RFSL report was received from RFSL

Hyderabad and autopsy report of deceased Achamma and final opinion by

L.W.27 D.Koti Reddy. Ex.P15 is RFSL Report, Ex.P.16 is Postmortem Report and Ex.P17 is Final Opinion. After completion of the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence under Sections 498(A) and 306 of Indian Penal Code.

21. After gone through the evidence of P.W.9, stated that

Swarnavarigudem village having the VRO, VRA and Secretary and on dictation of the police prepared the Exs.P10 and P11 and did not mention the Door

Number of the deceased house in Ex.P.11. He further stated that scribed name was not mentioned in Exs.P10 and P11. P.W.10 stated that the cause of death of deceased mentioned in Ex.P17 Cordiac Arrest. He further stated that some of the witnesses stated that cause of death of deceased bite of insects.

22. When the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 is observed, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused to show that the accused harassed the deceased physically and mentally. Further, it is elicited that the accused A.1 and the deceased lived together happily and that there were no disputes among them. P.Ws.1 to 8 who are the material witnesses deposed in one voice that the accused and the deceased Achamma lived happily together. The evidence of P.Ws.9 and 10 is only circumstantial evidence and they are deposed basing on the record. So after evaluation of entire evidence on record, there are discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses

P.Ws.9 and 10. Hence, alleged Exs.P.1 to P.17 cannot be treated as substantive evidence and there is no material to connect the accused with the charged offence. The material witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.1 to 8 have not spoken about any harassment, in connection with dowry or threaten made and abetted the deceased Achamma by Accused. P.Ws.1 to 8 have not spoken about any harassment, which attracts the definition of cruelty as mentioned Under section 498 (A) I.P.C. Indisputably, there were no direct witnesses for the incident the accused abetted to the deceased Achamma and the prosecution case is totally based on circumstantial evidence. In the above circumstances there is no 10 S.C.No.295/2016[01.09.2023] PASJ/KVR.

evidence from the side of prosecution to say that the accused harassed the deceased Achamma either physically or mentally to prove the charge for offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian penal code. When no witness deposed before the court the accused made abetted to deceased Achamma certainly there is no evidence to prove the charge for offence under Section 306

R/W 34 of Indian Penal Code also. In these circumstances certainly there is no positive evidence from the side of the prosecution to prove the charges for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 R/W 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos.1 to 6. Therefore, the accused Nos. 1 to 6 are entitled for acquittal for the charged offences. Accordingly the point is answered.

23. In the result, the accused No.1, A.3 to A.5 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code; and as such, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The Case is abetted against the A.2 and A.6, because they are died. The bail bonds of accused A.1 to A.6 shall be in force for a period of Six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer-Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 1st day of September 2023.

Sd/- D. Satyavathi.

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Kovvur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Oral Evidence

Prosecution:: Defence:: P.W.1: N. Hanumanth Rao None. P.W.2: K. Durgamma P.W.3: B.V. Rama Rao P.W.4: B. Venkataratnam P.W.5: K. Satyanarayana P.W.6: K. Srinivasarao P.W.7: T. Narasiah P.W.8: K. Venkateswara Rao P.W.9: R. Venkateswara Rao P.W.10:B. Nageswara Naik 11 S.C.No.295/2016[01.09.2023] PASJ/KVR.

Documentary Evidence

Prosecution:: Defence:: Ex.P.1: Signature on Application. Nil Ex.P.2: Section 161 statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3: Section 161 statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4: Section 161 statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5: Section 161 statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.6: Section 161 statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.7: Section 161 statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.8: Section 161 statement of P.W.7 Ex.P.9: Section 161 statement of P.W.8 Ex.P.10:Inquest Report. Ex.P.11:Scene Observation Report. Ex.P.12:Application of the P.W.1. Ex.P.13:First Information Report. Ex.P.14:Rough Sketch. Ex.P.15:RFSL Report. Ex.P.16:Postmortem Report. Ex.P.17:Final Opinion.

Material Objects

-Nil-

Sd/- D. Satyavathi.

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Kovvur.

.

12 S.C.No.295/2016[01.09.2023] PASJ/KVR.

FORM TO BE APPENDED TO THE FAIR COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN

ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 71 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE IN

SESSIONS CASE NO.295/2016

ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE’S COURT, KOVVUR. 1Date of Offence:10-07-2006 2Apprehension of Accused :18-09-2009 A.1 to A.6 3Commencement of Trial:23-08-2023 4Close of Trial:31-08-2023 5Judgment:01-09-2023 6Offence:Under Sections 498(A) and 306 R/W 34 of IPC 7Name of the Complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jeelugumilli Police Station. 8Name of the Accused:1. YERRAMALA LAXMANA RAO @ MUKKODU, S/o Late Venkateswara Rao, 31 years, SC-Mala, Swarnavarigudem (V) Jeelugumilli (M).

2. YERRAMALA VENKAMMA W/o Late Venkateswara Rao, 63 years, SC-Mala, Swarnavarigudem (V) Jeelugumilli (M)

3. YERRAMALA RAMBABU S/o Late Venkateswara Rao, 41 years, SC-Mala, Swarnavarigudem (V) Jeelugumilli (M)

4. YERRAMALA SATYANARAYANA S/o Late Venkateswara Rao, 33 years, SC-Mala, Swarnavarigudem (v) Jeelugumilli (M)

5. YERRAMALA DHARMAIAH S/o Late Venkateswara Rao, 25 years, SC-Mala, Swarnavarigudem (V) Jeelugumilli (M)

6. YERRAMALA LAXMAIAH S/o Late Venkateswara Rao, 38 years, SC Mala, Swarnavarigudem (V) Jeelugumilli (M) (Case abetted against A.6 on 12.10.2017 and A.2 on 16.02.2022) 9Plea of the Accused:Not Guilty 10Finding :Acquitted 11Result : In the result, the accused No.1, A.3 to A.5 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code; and as such, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The Case is abetted against the A.2 and A.6, because they are died.

13 S.C.No.295/2016[01.09.2023] PASJ/KVR.

The bail bonds of accused A.1 to A.6 shall be in force for a period of Six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time. 12Explanation for delay :This case was taken on file under sections 498(A) and 306 R/W 34 of IPC. On 10-02-2023 the accused was examined under section 228(2) of Cr.P.C. Prosecution side evidence was commenced on 23-08-2023 and P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P.3 are marked. On 24-08-2023 P.Ws.3 and 4 were examined and Exs.P4 and P5 are marked. On 28-08-2023 P.Ws.5 to 8 were examined and Exs.P6 to P8 are marked. On 29-08-2023 P.W.9 was examined and Exs.P10 and P11 are marked. On 31-08-2023 P.W.10 was examined and Exs.P12 to P17 are marked and on the same day Prosecution evidence closed and the accused No.1, A.3 to A.5 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and on the same day both side arguments heard. Judgment pronounced on 01-09-2023.

Sd/- D. Satyavathi.

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Kovvur.

Submitted to: The Hon'ble Registrar (Judicial.) The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi through the Hon'ble Sessions Judge, West Godavari District Eluru.

1

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ::

WEST GODAVARI AT KOVVVUR.

PRESENT: Smt. D.Satyavathi, IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tanuku FAC/- IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kovvur.

Wednesday, this the 19th day of February, 2025

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.150 of 2018

From what Court the appeal is : Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole. preferred : C.C.No.82/2017 No. of the case in that Court

No. of the Criminal Appeal : Crl. Appeal No.150/2018

Name and Description of the : Sri Sirigibattula Prabhu Prasad, S/o Veera Appellants/Accused Venkata Rajendra Vara Prasad, 32 years, Male, Hindu, R/o Near Clock Tower Adimurthy Nagar, Guljarpet, Ananthapuram Town. Names and description of the State: Rep. Station House Officer, Respondent/ Complainant Nidadavole Police Station, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, Kovvur, West Godavari District. The Sentence and Law and In the result, Accused is found guilty for the which it was imposed in the offence punishable Under Section 353, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 181 and 196 of Lower Court. M.V.Act and he is convicted Under Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) year for the offence punishable under section 353 of I.P.C , he is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 506 of I.P.C, he is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under section 181 of M.V Act and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under section 196 of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2 Whether confirmed, modified : or reversed and if modified the

Reversed

modification

Date of presentation : 23-04-2018

Date of filing : 23-04-2018

Date of notice issued : 04-05-2018

Date of Bail bond : ----

Date of appearance : 12-06-2018

Date of hearing : 17-02-2025

Date of Judgment : 19-02-2025

This Criminal Appeal coming on 17-02-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant/Accused and Additional Public Prosecutor for complainant/state and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Appellant/accused preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the conviction judgment of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Nidadavole in

C.C.No.82/2017, dt.09-04-2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 353,506 of IPC and Section 181 and 196of M.V Act.

2. The parties are arrayed as per the charge sheet for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 has been working as Sub

Inspector of Police, Nidadavole P.S. On 05.03.2017 in the evening time, he along with staff P.C1081, P.C.2541 of Nidadavole PS were conducting vehicle checking at Ganesh Chowk and at about 5-15 p.m. the accused was coming on his YAMAHA SS 125 Motor cycle bearing No.AP 02 AM 2841 from Chagallu side and then P.C 2541 stopped him and sent him to P.W.1 for checking the 3 vehicle record, but the accused told that he does not have any vehicle record.

The accused also disputed with P.W.1 that his father was excise C.I and he would not pay any fine amount and also threatened him to see his end and pushed P.W.1 and abused him and his staff in most filthy language and assaulted them to deter them from their legitimate duties and insulted them in public place. Then, P.W.1 and his staff caught the accused red handedly and shifted him along with the vehicle to Nidadavole Police Station and presented report.

Basing on the report of P.W.1, the P.W.7 the Sub Inspector of Police,

NIdadavole P.S registered a case in Cr.No.47/2017 under sections 353 and 506 of I.P.C. During the course of investigation, he examined P.W.1, P.W.2, L.W.3 and recorded their statements. Since, the accused has not having driving license, he added section 3 r/w 181 of M.V Act. Further, since the crime vehicle has no insurance and the accused did not show the C-Book or registration certificate, he added section 39 r/w 192 and section 196 r/w 146of M.V Act. He verified the vehicle of the accused is YAMAHA SS 125 motor cycle bearing No. AP 02 AM 2841 and its chases No. is ME 135B043C2045544 and Engine No is 35B4045435, then he seized the motor cycle and affixed identity slip on it. During the course of further investigation he examined P.W.6 and recorded his statement. He proceeded to the scene of offence, observed the same and prepared rough sketch to the scene. He examined P.W.3 to 5. P.W.7 arrested the accused on the next day and produced him before court for judicial remand.

After completion of investigation P.W.7 filed charge sheet.

4.The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole took cognizance of the offence under Sections 353,506 of I.P.C. and Sec.3 r/w 181, 39 r/w 192, 196 r/w 146 of M.V.Act, against the accused and furnished copies under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.,

Charge framed Under Sections 353 and 506 of I.P.C and secs.181 and 196 of 4 M.V. Act against accused read over and explained, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, the Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked

Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.O.1. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of defence.

After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C and denied the same.

6.Considering the evidence adduced on record, the trial Court found guilty of the accused for the offence Under Sections 353,506 of I.P.C and secs.181 and 196 of M.V. Act and convicted the accused Under Sec.248(2)

Cr.P.C. and he is sentenced to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under section 181of M.V.Act and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under sec.196 of M.V.Act, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

7.Aggrieved by the findings of the trial court, the appellant/ Accused preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned hereunder:

1) that in the calendar and Judgment the name and address of the accused is wrongly mentioned as Sali Aswaddama, S/o Rajaiah, Coolie, age 64 years, Samisragudem Village and Mandal;

2) that in the Calendar and Judgment the finding column it was mentioned found not guilty and sentence;

3) that the trial court ought to have held that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of under sections 353,506 of IPC and sec.181 and 196 of M.V.Act.

4) that the trial court should have seen that neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 for on traffic duty at the time of the alleged incident and the failure of the prosecution to file any document with regard to the duties and test to P.W.1 at the time of alleged incident in highly incredible and it is highly to be decreased to be consideration; 5

5) that the trial court should have seen that P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that the message will be sent to the cell phone number of the vehicle owner with regard imposition of fine but no such message was sent and this circumstances create suspicious the entire case of the prosecution;

6) that the trial court should have seen that P.W.2 failed to mention the correct number of the vehicle and he deposed in his cross examination that the number of vehicle No. AP 02 AV 2481 for which he was declared hostile by the learned APP and in the cross examination by the APP he said the vehicle number as 2841 which gave such suspicious in the case of the prosecution;

7) that the trial court should have seen that P.W.2 admitted in his cross examination that in case of failure to possess proper record of the vehicle they will impose fine in the online through their tab provided by the government and the concern person will receive the message about imposing of fine and also the fine amount, whether P.W.1 imposed any challan on the person who disputed with him;

8) that the judgment of the trial court is contrary to law weight of evidence and probability of the case;

9) that the trial court ought to have held that the evidence of prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence as it contains contradictory statements and development as material aspects of the prosecution case;

10) that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and material on record;

11) that the trial court ought to have given the benefit of the provisions of P.O Act;

12) that in any event the sentence passed by the trial court is too excessive to the circumstances of the case;

For these and other grounds the appellant prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the Judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Nidadavole in C.C.82/2017 dated 9.04.2018 by allowing the appeal.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Considering the rival contentions of both sides and on perusal of material on record, the points arise for determination are:- 6 1) Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 353, 506 of I.P.C and Section 181

and 192 of M.V.Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

2) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the findings of the

learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole?

10. POINT No.1 and 2:-

The accused was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under

Sections 353, 506 of I.P.C and Section 181 and 192 of M.V.Act. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and exhibited 7 documents under Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.O.1 are marked. Out of them,

P.W.1/G.Satish, is the defacto complainant/ Sub Inspector of Police. P.W.2/ Y.

Raju, is the eye witness and police constable , PW.3/ B.Naidu ,

P.w.4/S.Sudhakar, P.W.5/A.Krishna and PW.6/ P.Suresh Babu @ Suresh are witness who turned hostile, P.W.7/D.Bhagavan Prasad, is the Investigating

Officer. Reported given by P.W.1 marked under Ex.P.1, the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 marked under Ex.P.2, the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 marked under Ex.P.3, the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 marked under Ex.P.4, the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 marked under Ex.P.5, the Original FIR in

Cr.No.No.47/2017 of Nidadavole P.S marked under Ex.P.6. Rough sketch marked under Ex.P7.

11. According to the prosecution version, on 05.03.2017 the P.W.1 along with their staff conducting medical checking at Ganesh Chowk and at about 5.15 p.m , the accused came on his Yamaha SS 125 Motor cycle bearing No.AP 02 AM 2841 from Chagallu side and then P.C.2541 stopped him , but the accused told that he does not have any vehicle record and disputed with P.W.1 and also told that his father was Excise CI and he would not pay any fine amount and also threatened him to see his end and pushed P.W.1 and abused him and his staff in filthy language and assaulted them to deter them from their legitimate duties and insulted them in public place. Then P.W.1 caught hold the accused and shifted 7 him with the vehicle to Nidadavole Police station and presented report. Basing on it a case in Cr.No.47/2017 under sections 353,506 of I.P.C was registered.

12. The PW.1 in his chief examination deposed the same as averred in prosecution case. He further deposed that Ex.P.1 is his report given by him which bears his signature.During cross examination, PW.1 admitted that he do not remember whether he signed in the FIR or not. He further admitted that as per the directions of the said constable the accused came to him and before that no discussion was happened between the accused and the said Police constable.He further admitted that he did not state to the police and mentioned in

Ex.P.1 report that the accused pushed him by placing his hand on his left shoulder. He further admitted that the scene of offence is busy road and CC cameras are arranged. He also admitted that they taken photographs of the vehicle of the accused but they were not filed before the Court. He further admitted that P.W.2 and L.W.3/A.Mohana Rao are constables working in his police station.

13. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2/Yerramsetti Raju, who is the police constable and eye witness to the incident, deposed the same lines as stated by

P.W.1 and also deposed that they brought the accused and motor cycle to

Nidadavole P.S , since the accused obstructed them in discharging their legitimate duties. In cross examination, P.W.2 stated that on the date of incident they checked 30 vehicles. He further stated that if they have not found proper record, they will send the said person to SI of Police. He admitted that they will carry the receipt book and if there are any technical problems in the tab they will issue manual receipt. On that day, they have not issued any manual receipts. He also admitted that he does not know whether the S.I of Police has issue any challan on the person who disputed with him. He further admitted that the scene of offence is busy area, but no one come to them at the time of dispute.

8

14. Coming to the evidence of P.W.3/B.Naidu, P.W.4/S.Sudhakar,

P.W.5/A.Krishna and P.W.6/P.Suresh Babu, deposed that they do not anything about the facts of the case. P.Ws.3 to P.W.6 they were not supported the case of the prosecution the learned A.P.P declared them as hostile witnesses. Though, the learned A.P.P cross-examined P.Ws.3 to P.W.6 elicited in favour of the prosecution and they denied that they stated before the police as in Ex.P.2 to

Ex.P.5 which their alleged 161 Cr.P.C statements are marked.

15. Coming to the evidence of official witness i.e., P.W.7/D.Bhagavan Prasad,

S.I of Police, deposed that on 5.3.2017 at about 5.30 p.m, P.W.1 presented

Ex.P.1 report. Basing on it he registered a case in Cr.No.47/2017 for the offences under sections 353, 506 of I.P.C and issued Ex.P.6 FIR. He examined

P.W.1, P.W.2 and L.W.3 and recorded their statements. At that time accused stated that the validity of insurance was over and he is not having registration certificate with him. Then he added sections 3 r/w 181,39 r/w 192 and 196 r/w 146 of M.V.Act. He proceeded the scene of offence along with P.W.6 and examined P.W.3 to 5 and recorded their statements marked under Ex.P.2 to

Ex.P.5. Ex.P.7 is the Original Rough Sketch. He got issued notice under sec.41-

A Cr.P.C , but accused refused to receive the same, then he arrested and produced him before court for judicial remand. In cross examination he stated that P.W.1 was on duty on the date of alleged incident. He further stated that he intimated to the father of accused about the incident over phone, but he did not filed any documentary proof in regard to the same. He admitted that he has not mentioned the Section 41 Cr.P.C notice which was refused by the accused at the time of giving notice to him. He further admitted that there are CCTV cameras in the main centers of Nidadavole. He do not know whether P.W.1 has issued any challan against M.O.1. The scene of offence is very busy locality in between 5

P.M to 7 P.M. He further admitted that the challans were issued through online.

Immediately, after issuing of challans there is no necessity to pay the amounts.

9

16. The prosecution case is that the accused obstructed the legitimate duties of the P.W.1 and their staff without having any documents of the vehicle.

There are contradictions and omissions between the witness to witness. P.W.1 admitted that at the scene of occurrence CC cameras are arranged and at that time I have taken photographs of the vehicle of the accused, but they were not filed before the Court. P.W.2 is the one of the police constable and he along

P.W.1 did duty at that time but he turned hostile, he did not support the case of the prosecution. On that day they have not issued any manual receipts about imposing of fine. The remaining witnesses P.W.3 to P.W.6 turned hostile, they did not support the case of prosecution. P.W.7 is investigation officer who registered the crime basing on the statement of P.W.1 and filing of the charge sheet in this case. Prosecution case is accused obstructed the legitimate duties of the P.W.1 without having any documents to the vehicle. Even prosecution did not produce the documents i.e., attendance register, by that time whether the

P.W.1 did legitimate duties at the scene of offence or not. P.W.1 clearly admitted that he imposed fine or challan through one line or manual on the vehicle during the time of checking, but prosecution did not produce any challan book before the

Court , on that day P.W.1 did his legitimate duty at the scene of incident. P.W.1,

P.W.2 and P.W.6 admitted that at the scene of incident there are CC TV cameras , but prosecution did not produce any CD of CC TV data on that day.

Except, P.W.1, there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1 and the remaining independent witnesses completely turned hostile. Above all these things, it is not the evidence of P.W.1 that accused obstructed the P.W1 during his legitimate duties. Hence no credence can be given to his testimony.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

17. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision reported in 2018

1 ALD (Crl.) 599 in between Rokalla Dharmarao @ Busayya, S/o Late

10 Dandasi Vs. State of A.P , reported by Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, where in it was held that “ if no question is put to the investigating officer concerning the delay, the prosecution is under no obligation to give an explanation. There is no universal rule that whenever there is some delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, the prosecution version becomes unreliable.

In other words, the facts and circumstances of a case are important for a decision in this regard”.

18. The learned counsel further relied on a decision reported in 2008(1) ALT 130 between Mudragada Nagaraju Vs. State of A.P in para 40 observed that “ as per the evidence of P.W.1, they went to the police station at 5 a.m and lodged

Ex.P.1 report. But, according to P.W.12 Sub Inspector of Police, he received

Ex.P.1 report at 9 a.m , on 20.1.2003 , Ex.P.1 report was not sent to the Court immediately and it took 12 hours to reach the Court. No explanation is forth coming by the prosecution for this delay. So, basing on the evidence of P.W.1, the learned counsel for the appellants/accused contended that Ex.P.1 report , was brought into existence after due deliberations suppressing the earlier report submitted by P.W.1 at 5 a.m.”

19. The above facts and circumstances stated in the above cited decisions squarely applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. In this case the incident occurred on 05.03.2017 at about 5.15 P.M and the same was registered on 5.30 p.m, but the police send FIR to the Magistrate on 6.3.2017 at about 10 a.m. So, there was 17 hours delay. But the prosecution has not given any explanation about the delay for sending FIR to the Hon’ble Court.

20. In the light of above discussion, this court arrived at a conclusion that prosecution failed to prove the accusation levelled against the accused with sufficient consisting oral testimonies. All the above facts and circumstances,

P.W.1 was not coming to the Court with real facts and the PW.1 is not suppressing the confidence of this Court found that their evidence is not 11 trustworthy. The Investigating officer did not produce important material and did not examine the material independent eye witnesses in this case. Though the

P.W.1 and accused at the alleged scene of offence, not denied by the accused, it shall not be a ground to hold that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in the light of above discussed discrepancies in the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, it is a fit case to extend benefit of doubt to the accused.

21. For the reasons stated supra, this court is of the opinion that the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 353,506

IPC and 181 and 196 of M.V Act , by the Trial Court needs interference as it was not justified with sufficient reasons and it has to be set aside. Likewise accused cannot be convicted even under Sections 353,506 IPCand Sec.181 and 196 of

MV Act. since prosecution failed to prove their guilt for the said offence beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered.

22. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by setting aside the Judgment and

Sentence dated 09.04.2018 in C.C.No.82/2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Nidadavole. The appellant/accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 353,506 IPCand Sec.181 and 196 of MV Act and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The fine amount shall be given to the accused after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 19 th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- Smt.D.Satyavathi,

IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge Tanuku FAC/- IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kovvur 12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- N I L-

Id/-Smt.D.S

IV A.D & S.J

Tanuku FAC/- IX A.D & S.J, Kovvur Copy submitted to:

The Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, Nelapadu, Guntur District

Copies to:

1. The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole.

2. The State represented by the Public Prosecutor.

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL DISTIRCT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KOVVUR:: WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

Present: Smt. D. Satyavathi, IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tanuku FAC/- IX Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kovvur.

Wednesday, this the 18th day of February, 2025

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.263 of 2023

From what Court the appeal is :II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-II Addl. Judl. preferred

Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

:C.C.No.435/2019 No. of the case in that Court

No. of the Criminal Appeal:Crl. Appeal No.263/2023

Name and Description of the :Sri Katragadda Rama Mohana Rao, S/o Appellants/AccusedVenkateswara Rao, 33 years, Hindu, Male, R/o Ramannapalem Village, Devarapalli Mandal, Devarapalli P.S limits, East Godavari District. (A.1) Names and description of the State: Rep. Station House Officer, Respondent/ ComplainantDevarapalli Police Station, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, Kovvur, West Godavari District. The Sentence and Law and In the result, the accused is found guilty which it was imposed in the for the offence punishable under Section Lower Court.323 of Indian Penal Code and he is convicted Under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under section 323 of I.P.C, in default of payment of fine amount, the A.1 shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one 2 month.

Whether confirmed, modified : or reversed and if modified the

Reversed

modification

Date of presentation:10-10-2023

Date of filing:10-10-2023

Date of notice issued:18-11-2023

Date of Bail bond:----

Date of appearance:22-01-2024

Date of hearing:14-02-2025

Date of Judgment:18-02-2025

This Criminal Appeal coming on 14-02-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Tata Rao, Advocate for the Appellant/Accused No.1 and Additional Public Prosecutor for complainant/state and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The appellant is 1st accused in C.C.No. 435/2019 who was convicted for the offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three

Months and also further sentenced to pay a Fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under section 323 of Indian Penal Code , in default to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.

2. The parties will be referred as arrayed in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3

3. According to the case of prosecution, on 09.06.2019 at about 5 p.m, the A.1 to A.4 abused P.W.1 in filthy language and the A1 beat

P.W.1 with stick on his forehead, A.4 beat PW1 with crow bar on right shoulder, that A.1 to A.4 beat P.W.1 with stick on his legs and hands.

P.W1 sustained swelling injury on legs and hands, that P.W.2 witnessed the incident and rushed there and tried to separate them.

During confrontation, A.1 sustained injuries on his left hand near elbow. On that P.W.2 and L.W.3 K.Rambabu shifted the P.W.1 to

Government Hospital, Kovvur for treatment. Basing on the report of

P.W.1 and hospital intimation, P.W.6 registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.167/2019 on 10.6.2019 under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code and investigated into. During investigation P.W.6 visited

Government Hospital and recorded the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2, visited the scene of offence and drew rough sketch, served 41-A Cr.P.C notices to A.1 to A.4, obtained wound certificate of P.W.1 and after completion of investigation P.W.6 filed charge sheet.

4. After taking cognizance of the case, the Trial Court followed the procedure in furnishing copies of documents to the accused, examining them under Section 239 Cr.P.C and framing charges under

Section 324 r/w 34 IPC.

5. During the course of trial in the Trial Court, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.

After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence and they denied the same.

6. In the appeal, it is contended that the Judgment of the trial court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and the trial court failed to see that there are old grudges among the 4 accused and P.Ws.1 and 2 and they being relatives, interested witnesses gave false evidence and their evidence can’t be looked into and there is no documentary proof to show that they have rights over the pathway, but the trial court did not appreciate the said facts and therefore sought for allowing the appeal.

7. Now the Point for consideration is:

Whether the Trial Court justified in convicting the appellant/1st accused with sufficient reasons, if so, it needs any interference?

8. P O I N T:-

The very case of the prosecution is that on 09.06.2019 at about 4.00 AM at Ramannapalem village A.1 to A4 who are same family members with a common intention attacked on the injured (P.W.1) in order to hurt him and in that course, A.1 used crow bar to cause injuries to P.W.1 on his right shoulder and A2 and A3 beat P.W.1 with sticks on his hands and legs which resulted simple injuries to P.Ws.1. As such,

A.1 to A4 are charged for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6 and exhibited 6 documents and

Ex.D1 and D2 are marked. The prosecution witnesses supported its case which has to be evaluated for accepting or declining the appeal grounds.

9. The very defence of the accused is, they were falsely indulged in this case, even though they have not caused any injuries to P.Ws.1 on that day at the scene of offence but when they questioned the P.W.1 regarding the fields, a false report was given against them. To that extent, accused have chosen to cross examine P.W.1 to 6.

10. As per the evidence of P.W.1/ K. Satish who is an injured, deposed that after the demise of K.Venkateswarao A1 demanded to use the 5 pathway to reach his another lands and there are separate path ways to

A1 to reach his another lands and there are separate path ways to A1 to reach his other lands, but A1 threatened him and using their path way to reach other lands about two years back. He further deposed that A1 was carrying coconuts and pal moil seeds on tractors through their path way. He further deposed that he raised the dispute before LW3

K.Rambabu, LW4 U.Satyanarayana and the elders admonished A1 that he has no right to use the path way to reach the other lands. He further deposed that they have laid fencing as per the advice of elders and A4 removed the fencing and used that path way in his presence.

11. He further deposed that on 9.06.2019 at about 5.00 PM he went to his fields, mean while A1 to A4 abused him in most filthy language. He further deposed that A4 attacked him with crow bar on his right shoulder and A1 attacked him with stick on the back side of his head.

He further deposed that A.2 and A3 beat him with sticks on his hands and legs. He further deposed that when he tried to escape from the hands of A1 to A4 and tried to ran away, A2 and A3 placed the stick in front of him. He further deposed that as such he fell down on fencing, mean while LW3 came there and rescued him and admonished A1 to

A4 and LW5 and 6 have witnessed the entire the incident. He further deposed that lw 2 shifted him Government Hospital, Kovvur and later he was shifted to Raja Nursing Home, Rajahmundry for better treatment. The statement given by him to the Police marked under

Ex.P.1. Ex.P2 is the 3 photographs along with CD.

12. Prosecution further examined Pw 2 K. Rama Krishna, who is brother of the PW1 and he came to know about the incident and deposed that on 9.06.2019 at about 5.00 p.m. he went to his fields and

PW1 also visit their filed prior to his arrival to their fields. He further deposed that he noticed that all the accused assaulting the PW.1 and noticed blood oozing from the head of PW1 and swellings on the right 6 side shoulder. He further deposed that there is dispute to pathway between accused and their family, but no civil disputes are pending.

Prosecution further examined PW 3 G.Yesu, who is eye witness to the incident deposed that about 3 years back evening on hearing of cries he went to the fields of PW1 and noticed that A1 to A4 picked-up the quarrel with PW1 and they abused the PW1 and also attacked with stick and crowbar on PW.1. He further deposed that

PW.1 sustained injuries on his shoulders and head and he informed the incident to the brother of PW1.

13. Prosecution further examined PW.4 K.Rambabu, who is neighbor, relative of the PW 1 and accused and eye witness to the incident deposed that on 9.06.2019 at about 5 .00 p.m. on hearing of cries and shouts he went to the fields of pw1 and noticed that A1 to A3 armed with sticks and A4 armed with crow bar and all are beating pw1. He further deposed that he intervened and separated them and noticed bleeding injury on the head and right shoulder of PW1 and after the incident PW 2 came to the spot. He further deposed that he advised him to take pw1 to the hospital.

14. Prosecution further examined PW.5 Dr. P.Sudheer, Medical Officer who gave treatment to PW.1 deposed that on 09.06.2019 at about 6.40 p.m. PW.1 brought by PW2 and on examination of PW.1, he found following injuries :

1. An Abrasion over Scalp right side 1x1 cm.

2. Linear Abrasion over back of the right shoulder and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate.

15. Prosecution further examined PW.6 B. Y. Kiran Kumar, Sub

Inspector of Police who is conducted the investigation and he deposed that he received the hospital intimation along with statement of PW.1 and registered the case in Cr.No. 167/2019 under section 324 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal code. Ex.P4 is the first information report. He further 7 deposed that he visited Government Hospital, Kovvur examined PW.1 and PW.2 and recorded their statements. He further deposed that he visited the scene of offence in Ramannapalem at the fields of the PW.1, observed the scene of offence and did not find any incriminating material and prepared the rough sketch of scene of offence. He further deposed that he examined the witnesses and on 12.06.2019 issued the 41 A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. He further deposed that on 13.06.2019 he received the wound certificate of PW1 from PW5 and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. Ex.P5 is the hospital intimation. Ex.P6 is the Rough Sketch.

16. On close evaluation of his evidence in toto, PW1 admitted that there is no additional loss if the accused used the pathway to go to his lands. Pw 2 stated that PW1 visit to his fields prior to his arrival to their fields. Pw 3 and 4 stated that after hearing the cries they went to the fields of the PW.1. PW.3 stated that he informed the PW2 through phone call about the incident. P.Ws.1, 2 and A1 to A4 are family members. Pw 1 to PW4 evidence is not corroboration to each other.

The evidence of PW1 is not corroboration to the evidence of PW5 medical officer. In that course, PW1 sustained injuries on his head which is contrary to the evidence of P.W5. According to P.W.1 testimony, A4 attacked him with crow bar on his right shoulder and A1 attacked him with stick on the back side of the head. Pw 1 and pw 5 evidence is inconsistent to each other. Thus their evidence contradicted to each other regarding the said overt act. As clearly admitted by P.W1 to 4, the accused and his family members to reach their land through passage, but the accused and his family members also used same passage for other lands also. As clearly admitted by

P.W.1 there is no additional loss if the accused used the pathway to go to his lands. Pw 2 stated that they allowed the accused and his family members to reach their land through passage, but the accused and his 8 family members also used same passage for other lands also. This court noticed that there is no additional loss if the accused used the pathway to go to his lands.

17. No evidence placed by the prosecution to show that A4 removing fencing and used that path way. In such circumstances, raising a fencing in the alleged pathway cannot be well accepted especially in the absence of any proof.

18. As clearly admitted by P.W.1 and 2 , there is no documentary proof to show that the pathway is common pathway for both of them. He pleaded ignorance about the conversation between P.W.1 and accused as well as length of the crowbar. As rightly argued by the appellant counsel, if the crowbar is used, it will cause grievous and deep cut injury, but evidently P.W.1 did not sustain head injury. Ex.P3 clearly shows that the PW 1 injuries are simple in nature. As admitted by

P.Ws.1 he do not know whether the case is registered and pending against him under section 341 and 325 of Indian Penal Code. Pw 1 deposed that A1 attacked him with stick on the back side of the head.

P.W.1 did not sustain any injuries in the hands of the A1. Had really,

P.W.1 raised his hands to escape from the blow of crowbar, he would have received injuries even tenderness to his hands. The medical evidence is silent in that regard.

19. As such the false implication of accused in the alleged incident cannot be ruled out. According to the ocular evidence, crowbar was used by A.1 to attack on P.W.1. As such, as to whether stick or crowbar used for causing such injuries to P.W.1 or not is doubtful. As admitted by

P.W.6, he did not seize crowbar or sticks from the scene of offence. All these clear admissions made by P.W.6 itself created a doubt as to whether is it the crowbar or sticks is weapon used in causing the injuries to P.W.1, or not? no way related to the case.

9

20. As such, no evidentiary value can be attached to Ex.P.6 for the reason, the accused could draw doubt of very preparation of said document. As clearly admitted by P.W.6, he did not seize crowbar or sticks from the scene of offence and on the same day he received the hospital intimation along with the statement of A1. He further admitted that he registered the case in Cr.No.168/2019 under sections 341 and 324 of IPC. He further stated that there were disputes between the accused and PW1 regarding right of the passage through the land of

PW1. As further admitted by him, the previous disputes are pending between the parties. So the possibility falsely filed the case against the accused.

21. The defence counsel further argued that Investigation Officer did not seize the material object like crow bar and stick in grievous hurt case, the prosecution must seized material objects. PW1 stated that A1 attacked him with stick on the back side of his head. Prosecution failed to examine the doctor of Raja Nursing Home, Rajahmundry. He further admitted that he has not seized the blood stained clothes and crow bar and stick which are not marked as an exhibits or material objects. Prosecution failed to produce the materials objects before the court.

22. So after evaluation of entire evidence on record, there are discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The only evidence i.e., P.W.1 to PW.4 who are material evidence with regard to the alleged incident. PW.1 and PW.2 are the family members and interested witnesses. PW3 deposed that he informed the incident over phone to the pw2 . PW4 stated that he do not know whether any disputes pending between the families of accused and PW1 with regard to passage. PW.5 and PW.6 are the official witnesses, they deposed basing on the record. There are discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 to PW 6.

10

Therefore there are severe contradictions between the case of the prosecution as narrated in the charge sheet, under section 161 Cr.P.C.

statements and Ex.P.1.

23. All the circumstances discussed above create a doubt whether

P.W.1 received injuries in the hands of the accused or elsewhere. Pw 1 stated that disputes pending between his family and accused family regard to pathway. Pw 2 stated that there is no civil disputes pending for that issue between his family and accused family PW4 stated that he do not know whether any disputes pending between the families of the accused and PW1 with regard to passage. Pw6 stated that there were disputes between the accused and PW1 regarding right of the passage through the land of PW1. All the above discussed facts and circumstances shows that P.W.1 did not come to the Court with real facts and the evidence of P.W.1 to PW.6 is not inspiring the confidence of this Court and this Court believed that their evidence is not trustworthy.

24. After gone through the evidence available on record, it is clear that the evidence of P.W.1 to PW.6 is not consistent to each other. The injury stated by P.W.1 is not tallying with the injuries mentioned in wound certificate. The evidence of P.W.1 and PW.5 is not consistent with each other.

25. The contradictions and the non-corroboration between the prosecution witnesses was not properly appreciated by the trial court while arriving to a conclusion to convict the accused. Hence, the findings, conviction of accused and sentence passed by the trial court shall not stand good and it requires interference. Accordingly this point is answered.

26. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by setting aside the Judgment and Sentence dated 06.10.2023 in C.C.No.435/2019 passed by II 11

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur. The appellant/A.1 is

found not guilty for the offence under Section 323 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The Fine Amount paid by the

Accused, if any, shall order to be refunded to him after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18 th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- Smt.D.Satyavathi,

IV Addl District and Sessions Judge Tanuku FAC/IX Addl. District and Sessions judge, Kovvur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

N I L

Id/-Smt.D.S

IV A.D & S.J

Tanuku FAC/ IX A.D &S.J, Kovvur Copy submitted to:

The Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, Nelapadu, Guntur District

Copies to:

1.The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

2.The State represented by the Public Prosecutor.