Smt. D. Sharmila

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

GURAZALA.

Present:- Smt.D.Sharmila,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala,

Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2024

C.C.No.16/2018 (Old C.C.No.46/2017)

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Dachepalli. . . Complainant P.S

And

Dasari Nageswara Rao, S/o.Venkaiah, Aged 35 Years, Telaga, Gamalapadu Village of Dachepalli Mandal.. . . Accused This case is coming before me on 25-01-2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri J.Chennakesava Rao, learned Advocate for accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dachepalli P.S., has filed Charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.10/2017 for the offences punishable under Secs.498-A, 323 of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of DP

Act.

02. The brief averments of the Prosecution case is that:-

L.W.1/Dasari Saidamma is a native of Sankarapuram Village,

Dachepalli Mandal, her marriage with the accused was performed about 18 years back. At the time of marriage, the parents of L.W.1 gave an amount of Rs.50,000/-, household articles worth

Rs.10,000/-, a watch, and one sovereign gold ring to the accused.

Immediately after the marriage, L.W.1 joined the accused at

Gamalapadu Village to lead marital life. Both L.W.1 and the accused lived happily only for three years, during their lawful wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter namely Vyshnavi i.e.,

L.W.2 (15 Years), and a son Venu (12 years). The accused is not having any permanent work and used to live as a vagabond. After the birth of L.W.2 and their son, the accused addicted to vices like drinking, gambling, and debauchery and started to harass L.W.1 both physically and mentally for money from her parents. The accused did not look properly at the welfare of the minor children and he did not show love and affection to the children. The

2

accused used to neck out L.W.1 from his house whenever L.W.1 did not bring the amount from her parents. Finally, about one year back the accused beat L.W.1 and necked out her from his house along with his children, having had no other option they reached her parents' house and resided there for their livelihood. On 01- 07-2016 at about 10 A.M., the accused beat L.W.1 with their hands and kicked with legs. On 13-01-2017 at 5 P.M., L.W.7/B.Stalin,

Head Constable, Dachepalli P.S., received the CFR.No.2992/2016 from the court and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.10/2017 under Sec.498-A of IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of DP Act. During the investigation, L.W.7 examined witnesses and served notice under

Sec.41-A Cr. P.C to the accused. Later, L.W.8 took up the investigation from L.W.7, verified the investigation was done by

L.W.7, and on completion of the investigation L.W.8 submitted the charge sheet against the accused.

03. Cognizance of the offence punishable under Secs.498-A and 323 of IPC was taken against the accused and issued summons.

04. On appearance of the Accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

05.Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and charge for the offences under Secs.498-A, 323 of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of

DP Act have been framed read over and explained to hm in Telugu.

The accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 5 and Exs.P.1 to P.3 are got marked.

07. The accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material appeared from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf. However, Exs.D.1 and D.2 got marked through the cross-examination of P.W.1.

08.Heard both the sides. Perused the entire material on record.

3

09.Now the Point for determination is :- “Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offences under Secs.498-A, 323 of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of DP Act as alleged or otherwise”?

Point:-

10.To support the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. P.W.1 is the informant,

P.W.2 is the father of P.W.1, P.W.3 is the daughter of P.W.1 and accused, P.W.4 is independent witnesses and P.W.5 is the investigation officer.

11. In so far as the marriage of the P.W.1 with the accused is concerned, it is not in dispute that their marriage was solemnized and they were blessed with one son and one daughter. With regard to the disputed facts, at the outset referring to the factum of harassment alleged to be meted out by P.W.1 in the hands of the accused, P.W.1 deposed that at the time of marriage her parents gave a dowry of Rs.50,000/-, one gold ring, one wrist watch and

Rs.10,000/- cash for family expenses, they lead marital life

Gamalapadu Village, the accused is doing coolie work, during their wedlock they were blessed with one daughter by name L.W.2-

Vishnavi, since the birth of her daughter, the accused used to harass her by addicting drinking and demanded her to get

additional dowry from her parents, then he reached her parent's

house and informed the same to her parents and her grandparents, her parents tried to pacify and convinced her and they were shifted their family from Gamalapadu to Sankarapuram

Village, where they lived at 2 years, after that they were shifted their family from Sankarapuram to Dachepalli Village and there were lived at 3 years, there they were blessed with one son at

Dachepalli.

12. P.W.1 further deposed that her husband abandoned her and her children at Dachepalli and went to Jaggaiahpet, she came to know that the accused was living at Jaggaiahpet through her brother-in-law, she reached Jaggaiahpet, where they lived for 2 years from Jaggaiahpet and they were shifted to Gamalapadu

4

Village, the accused did not care of her maintenance and her children and necked her out from the house, at that time her daughter is studying 7th class and the accused did not take care of the maintenance of her children’s education, she reached her parents' house, then the accused necked her out from his house at about 2 years back, then she lodged a report against the accused since then the accused is living with her parents, the accused harassed her for demanding money from her parents, she filed a private complaint/Ex.P.1 before the Hon’ble Court and it is referred to Dachepalli P.S., and registered the case.

13. During the cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that she did not state before the police that her husband demanded to specific amount. P.W.1 further admitted that her parents shifted her and her husband to Dachepalli. P.W.1 further admitted that she did not state before the police that her husband abandoned her and her children and went to Jaggaiahpet. P.W.1 further admitted that they shifted their family from Jaggaiahpet to Gamalapadu after the demise of her mother-in-law. She was medically examined, but she cannot produce a medical certificate. She denied the suggestion that a false case was foisted against the accused by demanding debt from the accused.

14. P.W.2/V. Narasimha Rao, father of P.W.1 deposed that he performed the marriage of P.W.1 with the accused about 18 years ago at Venkateswara Swamy Temple in Jangamaheswarapuram

Village, at the time of marriage, he gave a dowry of Rs.50,000/-, one wrist watch, one gold ring and presented household articles worth of Rs.10,000/- for family expenses, both P.W.1 and the accused lived happily for 7 years and they were blessed with a son and a daughter/L.W.2, later the accused addicted to alcohol and started to harass P.W.1 for money, the accused did not look after the welfare of P.W.1 and their children and necked out her daughter/P.W.1 along with children, then P.W.1 came to his house, later Panchayat held before village elders, during the panchayat, the accused did not heed the words of village elders to take care of

P.W.1 and his children, then P.W.1 filed a private complaint against the accused. During his cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that P.W.1

5

had been residing in their house for 8 years and P.W.1 filed a private complaint against the accused. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that P.W.1 had resided in their house for 16 years

before filing this case against the accused and that she foisted a

false case against the accused to harass him.

15. P.W.3/Dasari Vysnavi, daughter of the accused and P.W.1 deposed that the accused did not provide the necessities to her, her younger brother, and her mother, the accused was habituated to bad vices, the accused came to the home in a drunken state and beat her mother for bringing money from her grandparents, initially they resided at Gamalapadu Village along with accused, later the accused shifted them to Sankarapuram Village and later they were shifted to Jaggaiahpeta, but the accused did not work at any place permanently, the accused did not change her behavior and her father necked out her mother, brother and herself on 01- 07-2016, from there onwards, they have been residing in their grandparent's house at Sankarapuram Village, later Panchayat took place before elders but the accused did not heed the words of elders and refused to look after her, her brother and mother, then her mother filed a private complaint and case was registered against the accused by the police. During the course of cross- examination, P.W.3 stated that she does not know the specific amount demanded by her father to bring the same from her grandparents and her mother did not lodge any complaint against her father immediately. She did not file any cases for getting maintenance from her father. Due to loss arose in cultivation, he used to attend coolie works in Muggu Mill. P.W.3 denied the suggestion that her mother foisted a false case against her father at the instigation of her maternal grandparents.

16. P.W.4/Vantala Srinu deposed that about 25 years ago, the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with the accused, at the time of marriage the parents of P.W.1 gave Rs.1 lakh, one gold ring, and a watch to the accused as dowry, later they blessed with two chil- dren, during their wedlock, the accused demanded P.W.1 for addi- tional dowry and that father of P.W.1 gave an amount of

Rs.50,000/- to the accused on his demands, later, P.W.1 and ac-

6

cused lead a happy life for some time, after two years the accused demanded P.W.1 to bring an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her fa- ther and the accused used to beat P.W.1 and the accused addicted to bad vices, thereon he along with L.W.5, one Krishna Murthy tried to pacify the disputes between P.W.1 and accused, but the ac- cused did not heed their words, thereupon P.W.1 came to her par- ent's house along with her children and lodged a report against the accused. During his cross-examination, P.W.4 stated that P.W.1 is the granddaughter of her elder brother and he did not act as mar- riage elder. He did not state before the police that P.W.1 informed him about the demands of the accused for the additional dowry of

Rs.50,000/-. P.W.4 further stated that he stated before the police that he came to know about the harassment of the accused through the parents of P.W.1, but not through P.W.1 directly. P.W.4 admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the marital dis- putes between P.W.1 and the accused. He pleaded ignorance about the year in which he along with L.W.5, one Krishna Murthy tried to pacify the disputes between P.W.1 and the accused. P.W.4 denied the suggestion that the accused never beat L.W.1 for addi- tional dowry and he is deposing falsely against the accused. 

17. P.W.5/B. Stalin, the then ASI of Police, Dachepalli Police Sta- tion deposed that on 13-01-2017 he received a private complaint from the Court with a direction to conduct an investigation and file a report, accordingly, he received the complaint and registered a case in Cr. No.10/2017 under Secs.498-A, 323 of IPC, against the accused and issued FIR/Ex.P.2, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4, L.Ws.4 and 5 and recorded their statements, prepared rough sketch/

Ex.P.3, on 13-02-2017 he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to ac- cused, he handed over the case to L.W.8/K.Anand, S.I of Police,

Dachepalli P.S., who filed a charge sheet against the accused after the completion of the investigation. During the course of cross-ex- amination, he admitted that he did not examine the neighbours of the scene of offence as shown in Ex.P.3/Rough Sketch, he did not receive any report before him about the alleged incident that oc- curred on 01-07-2016 and he came to know about the incident on receipt of the private complaint from the court. P.W.5 admitted that P.W.1 did not state before him the specific amount and spe-

7

cific occasion or date at which the accused demanded her addi- tional dowry. P.W.5 further admitted that P.W.1 did not state be- fore him the specific place where the alleged panchayat took place between P.W.1 and the accused before the elders. Except for the present, no other cases are filed against the accused in their police station. He denied the suggestion that the accused is in no way concerned with the present case and that he conducted a table in- vestigation and L.W.8 filed a charge sheet against the accused for statistical purpose.

18. Based on the evidence on the record, this Court observed that the prosecution alleging that the accused being the husband of

P.W.1 harassed her both mentally and physically with a demand to bring additional dowry, and on 01-07-2016 the accused picked up a quarrel with P.W.1, and beat her with hands and legs indiscrimi- nately. The learned counsel for the accused argued that P.Ws.1 to 4 did not depose any specific dates or instances of harassment of the accused and also about the specific amount of additional dowry and place of demand and no specific allegations also proved by them, furthermore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is quite contrary to each other and the evidence of P.W.5 is not sufficient to say that the accused committed the offence as there is no reliance in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. The prosecution failed to prove its case with cogent, corroborative, and sterling quality of evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. 

19. Before going into the factual aspect of this case, let this court look into the definition of cruelty as defined by Section 498-A I.P.C.

Section 498-A IPC defines the term “cruelty” in the following words … “For the purposes of this section," cruelty" means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, or (b) harass- ment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to co- ercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful de- mand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 

8

20. From the above definition it becomes clear that all physical assaults against a woman will not come under the purview of the definition under 498-A I.P.C. The physical assaults or the tortures must be with a view to fulfill unlawful demands for any property or the physical assaults are so grave to force the woman to commit suicide or for grave injury or danger of life, limb, or health. Now, it is to be analyzed whether the conduct of the accused is such as to likely to drive the informant to commit suicide or to cause grave in- jury or danger to her life, limb, or health(physical or mental). Ex- cept for the bear allegation of P.W.1 that she was subjected to cru- elty by beats by the accused with a demand of money and also ha- rassed her physically and mentally and further stated that the ac- cused beat her with her hands, kicked her with legs and drove her out from the matrimonial home. Except for these allegations, there is no material on record to show that any of the alleged acts of the accused were such as to likely to drive the P.W.1 to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her. The learned counsel for the ac- cused though cross-examined P.Ws.1 to 5, who are contesting the case posed suggestions as to the statements made by them in thief chief examination. No material either circumstantial or other- wise elicited the facts to prove the allegations made by them against the accused. 

21. Further, P.W.1 stated that the accused was addicted to vices and harassed her and in order to attract the ingredients under

Sec.498-A of IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of DP Act. P.W.1 added another statement about demanding the additional dowry. This is the only statement in Ex.P.1 to prosecute the accused, but neither the pros- ecution proved at what time, at which place the accused No.1 de- manded additional dowry, if so, assuming he demanded additional dowry, but there is no purpose averred by P.W.1 or P.Ws.2 to 4 for any unlawful dowry, there should be a need either luxurious or for livelihood. If such, fulfillment of such need or desire, if it is unlawful then only the attitude of the husband becomes incriminating for the offence under Sec.498-A of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of the DP Act.

In this aspect, there is no such fact elicited by P.W.1 mere men- tioning of a statement, but no evidence is adduced by the prosecu- tion witnesses. Admittedly, nobody came forward to give evidence,

9

moreover, the offence under Sec.498-A IPC would occur within the four walls. So, expecting the corroboration of the independent wit- nesses is a futile exercise. But, the evidence can be weighed based on the quality of the evidence, but not on the quantity. A truth can- not be changed, but a lie may change according to the wish of the persons who wish to get fulfillment of their desire. 

22. In this case, the allegations primarily revolve around mental and physical cruelty inflicted on the complainant by the accused, including demands for additional dowry. The defense's response has been mere denials without introducing any substantial evi- dence to counter the prosecution's claims. The Court must empha- size that not all physical assaults on a woman automatically fall within the purview of Section 498-A of IPC. The physical abuse must either be intended to fulfill unlawful demands or be of such gravity that it could lead to suicide or cause grave harm or danger to the woman's life, limb, or health. Upon a thorough examination of the evidence and the testimonies, the Court finds that while the complainant has alleged cruelty and harassment, there is a lack of concrete evidence that establishes the severity of these allega- tions as defined by Section 498-A of the IPC. The complainant's al- legations, though grave, are primarily based on oral testimonies and fall short of proving the specific elements of the offense. Fur- thermore, there is no evidence on record to prove the allegation of the prosecution that on 01-07-2016 the accused picked up a quar- rel with P.W.1 and beat her with hands and legs indiscriminately.

23. Though the Hon'ble Apex Court repeatedly held that Sec.498-

A of IPC is being used as a weapon rather than a shield to harass the husband, that practice is going on till today. It is a golden prin- ciple of law that the prosecution side must prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. It needs to be mentioned herein that, in a criminal case, the burden of the prosecution is very high and the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is also important that, in a criminal case, an absence of strong and reliable evidence showing the complicity of the accused in the commission of the alleged offences. As per

Sec.3 of the Indian Evidence Act, a fact said to be proved when af- ter considering the matters before the Court, the Court either be-

10

lieves it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a pru- dent man ought under the circumstances of the particular case to act upon the supposition that it exists.

24. Coming to disproving a fact, a fact is said to be disproved when after considering the matters before the Court, the Court ei- ther believes that it does not exist or considers its nonexistence so probable that a prudent man ought under the circumstances of the particular case to act upon the supposition that it does not ex- ists.

25. Coming to a fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved. In the present case, neither the prosecution proved the existence of the fact and occurrence of the incident, nor the defence disproved the nonexistence of the occurrence of the incident, hence it leads to not proving. 

26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the consid- erable opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the allega- tions under Secs.498-A, 323 of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of the D.P Act against the accused. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution. 

27.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Secs.498-A, 323 of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P Act and thereby he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment. [Note: As no property is produced, no property order is passed]

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III, corrected and pronouncedby me in the Open Court, this the 31st day of January, 2024.

Sd/- D.Sharmila,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1 Dasari Saidamma

P.W.2 V.Narasimha Rao

P.W.3 Dasari Vysnavi

11

P.W.4 Vantala Srinu

P.W.5 B.Stalin For Defence: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 Report of P.W.1

Ex.P.2 FIR

Ex.P.3 Rough Sketch

For Defence: Nil

Material Objects: Nil

Sd/- D.Sharmila,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

12

FORM No.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Guntur Calendar of case tried by the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court :: Gurazala

C.C.No.16/2018 (Old C.C.No.46/2017)

Date of: Date of Commence Report ofApprehensionremand/41-ReleaseClosure ofSentence or Offence-ment of complainantof accusedA Cr.P.Con bailtrialorder trial Notice Prior to 01-09- 01-07- 13-01-2017 - - 13-02-2017 - - 05-03-2019 31-01-2024 2018 2016 Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Dachepalli. . . Complainant P.S

And

Dasari Nageswara Rao, S/o.Venkaiah, Aged 35 Years, Telaga, Gamalapadu Village of Dachepalli Mandal.. . . Accused

Crime Number75/2017 of Dachepalli Police Station

OffenceSecs.498-A, 323 of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P Act

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses Judgment:

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Secs.498-A, 323 of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P Act and thereby he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment. [Note: As no property is produced, no property order is passed]

Sd/- D.Sharmila,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

Copy submitted to :

1)The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

13

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GURAZALA.

Present:- Smt. D.Sharmila,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala,

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. Friday, this the 12th day of November, 2023

C.C.No.174/2023

Between:- State: The Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Gurazala. . . Complainant

And

1) Jala Ashok Kumar, S/o.Jaya Rao, Age 33 Years, R/o.Irikepalli, Dachepalli Municipality

2) Jala Vijay Kumar, S/o.Jaya Rao, Age 35 Years,. . . Accused R/o.Irikepalli, Dachepalli Municipality

3) Mikkili Nagaraju, S/o.Pullaiah, Age 40 Years, R/o.Irikepalli, Dachepalli Municipality

4) Momini Nagool Meera, S/o.Rasool, Age 32 Years, R/o.Maszid centre, Dachepalli Municipality This case is coming before me on 11-01-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Ch.Koteswararao, learned Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Gurazala has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.116/2021 for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

02. The conspectus of the prosecution case is that:- On 11-12-2021 at about 04-30 P.M., on receipt of credible information as to illegal transportation of contraband, L.W.6 along with his staff/L.Ws.1 to 5 were proceeded to the scene of offence situated at in front of Door No.7-185, 9th ward of Dachepalli Village at about 05-00P.M., they noticed one person coming by auto bearing No.AP24TB7871 and three persons sitting on three two wheelers having liquour bottles and at that time they observed excise officials on uniform and tried to escape from there, but they stopped them and asked the contents of boxes carried by them. On enquiry by L.W.6, accused Nos. 1 to 4 revealed their identity particulars and also confessed that they used to sell the liquor bottles and also shown the boxes containing the liquor bottles, on that he tried to secure the mediators for their proceedings, but nobody come forward and that he verified the auto and found the 36 boxes of liquor bottles i.e,1728-180 M.L., Good Day Prestige Whisky bottles, then he verified Accused

No.2 on Glamour Motor Cycle bearing No.AP07CW4367 found 2 boxes of liquor bottles, i.e, 96-180M.L., Good Day Prestige Whisky bottles, then he verified

Accused No.3 on Bajaj Platinum Motor cycle bearing No.AP16BM2519 found 2 boxes of liquor bottles i.e., 96-180M.L., Good Day Prestige Whisky bottles, then 2 he verified Accused No.4 on Yamaha Fascino Scooter bearing No.AP07DT8186 found 2 boxes of liquor bottles i.e., 48-180M.L., Old Admiral Special VSOP

Brandy bottles and on that he asked A.1 to A.4, L.W.6 enquired the accused

Nos.1 to 4 as to license for the possession of said liquor bottles, for which the accused Nos.1 to 4 replied that they have no license for possession of the same and that he drawn samples from seized contraband and seized the remaining bottles under Special report. L.W.6 registered the Special report as a case in

Cr.No.116/2021 under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and investigated into.

Thereafter, L.W.6 during his investigation produced the accused Nos.1 to 4

before this Court for remand. During the course of investigation, L.W.6

forwarded the sample bottles to analyst for chemical analysis, thereafter he handed over the case to L.W.7, L.W.7 received destruction proceedings. On completion of investigation L.W.7 submitted the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4.

03.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020 against the accused.

04. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.' for the sake of brevity).

05.Accused were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and charge for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.Os.1 and 2.

07.On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material available against them, for which, his plea was total denial and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

Perused the material on record.

09.Now the Point for determination is :- "Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, beyond all reasonable

doubt?" Point:

10.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

P.W.2 coupled with Exs.P.2 to P.5 and M.Os.1 and 2 goes to show that the accused has committed the offence and the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused.

3

11.The defence counsel argued that P.W.1 who is said to be mediator at the time of seizure of case property did not support the case of prosecution and no independent evidence is there to believe the case of prosecution. Hence, prays to acquit the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt.

12.Whereas coming to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the evidence of P.W.2 is nothing but replica of contents of the charge sheet, who deposed as per the record available. P.W.2 during his further chief-examination stated as to the procedural aspect as to registering the case, sending the sample to the

Chemical Examiner for analysis and made request to confiscate the remaining liquor bottles and filing of charge sheet after completion of the investigation by

L.W.7.

13.As per the evidence of P.W.2, he seized the liquor bottles in the presence of P.W.1 and L.Ws.1, 3 to 5. Now, let us analyze the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed above keeping in view the point for determination. The evidence of

P.W.2 reveals that he is the informant of this case. According to P.W.2, the contraband was seized from the possession of accused in the presence of P.W.1 and L.Ws.1,3 to 5 under a cover of mediators report. P.W.1 who is said to be mediator at the time of seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of accused stated that at about one year ago police called him to the police station and obtained his signature on some material papers and he does not know the papers containing his signature. The learned APP declared P.W.1 as a hostile witness and cross-examined him, but during the course of cross-examination by learned APP no incriminating material is elicited against the accused.

14.As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.1 did not state anything about the accusation of Accused. P.W.1 did not disclose the particulars of

Accused as well as the contraband and further as per the evidence of P.W.1, the police obtained his signatures on some written papers. The evidence of P.W.1 is quite contrary to the contents of Ex.P.2.

15.The criminal jurisprudence stand on the rock that it is duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case in hand, the evidence of P.W.2, who is the informant and police personnel, is in total contradiction with the evidence of P.W.1 who is said to be seizure witness. During the course of cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that on 11-12-2021 he along with his staff went to the scene at 5-00 P.M., he have completed drafting of Ex.P2 report by 06-00P.M., P.W.1 further stated that he does not know whether LW.1 is also working as volunteer in Irikepalli Village.

4 P.W.1 admitted that the scene of offence situated at Dacheaplli Village is a busy locality surrounded by residential houses and commercial shops, he sent one his staff to secure the local inhabitants of scene of offence to act as mediators in this case but in vain, Lws.3 to 5 are their SEB officials. P.W.2 further stated that he sent one of his staff to secure the revenue authorities of Irikepalli Village to act as mediators in this case but in vain. P.W.2 further stated that he prepared

Ex.P2 at scene of offence and Ex.P2 was prepared within one hour. P.W.2 further stated that one of their constable drafted Ex.P2 on his instructions. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that he conducted table investigation and foisted false case against the accused for statistical purpose and that the accused is no way concerned to the present case.

16.As can be seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is found that there is a certain kind of vagueness in the evidence regarding the seizure of the alleged seized property. Thus, the fact that the seized contraband had been recovered from the possession of the accused was not proved by the prosecution side beyond all reasonable doubt. If the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is stitched together, it is found that the evidences of prosecution side have failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons in this case for commission of offence as alleged. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 does not appear to be a wholly reliable witness in this case as P.W.1 did not support the case of prosecution and P.W.1 did not state as to the brand of alleged seizure of liquor bottles, particulars of accused.

17.Taking into consideration of the overall circumstances of the case, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilty of accused with cogent and convincing evidence and therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal for the offence charged against them. In the light of above discussion,

I answered this point against the prosecution.

18.IN THE RESULT, accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and thereby they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment. M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 12th day of January, 2024.

Sd/-Smt.D.Sharmila

PRINCIPALJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

FAC ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1: A.Srinivasa Rao P.W.2: Y.Mohan

For Defence : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 : signature of PW.1 on mediator report. Ex.P.2 : mediator Report Ex.P.3 : FIR Ex.P.4 : Analysis Report Ex.P.5 : Confiscation Proceedings For Defence : NIL

Material Objects Marked: M.Os.1 and 2: Sample bottles

Sd/-Smt.D.Sharmila

PRINCIPALJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

FAC ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

//True Copy//

FAC AJCJ, GZL

6

FORM No.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Guntur Calendar of case tried by the Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court :: Gurazala Calendar Case No.174/2023 Date of: Date of Commence-

Report of Apprehension remand/ Release on Closure of Sentence or

Offence ment of

complainant of accused 41-A Cr.P.C bail trial order

trial Notice 11-12-202111-12-202111-12-202111-12-202122-12-202110-01-202410-01-202412-01-2024 Between:- State: The Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Gurazala. . . Complainant

And

1) Jala Ashok Kumar, S/o.Jaya Rao, Age 33 Years, R/o.Irikepalli, Dachepalli Municipality

2) Jala Vijay Kumar, S/o.Jaya Rao, Age 35 Years,. . . Accused R/o.Irikepalli, Dachepalli Municipality

3) Mikkili Nagaraju, S/o.Pullaiah, Age 40 Years, R/o.Irikepalli, Dachepalli Municipality

4) Momini Nagool Meera, S/o.Rasool, Age 32 Years, R/o.Maszid centre, Dachepalli Municipality

Crime Number116/2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Gurazala

OffenceUnder Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses SENTENCE OR ORDER:-

IN THE RESULT, accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and thereby they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment. M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.D.Sharmila

PRINCIPALJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

FAC ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

Copy submitted to : 1)The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Copy to:

2) The Excise Superintendent of Police for P & E, Narasaraopet.

//True Copy//

FAC AJCJ, GZL

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GURAZALA.

Present:- Smt. D.Sharmila,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala,

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Friday, this the 12th day of January, 2024

C.C.No.104/2023

Between:- State: The Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Gurazala. . . Complainant

And

Bathula Aparna, W/o.Sivasankar, Age 38 Years, R/o.Gogulapadu Village, Gurazala Mandal. . . Accused

This case is coming before me on 11-01-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Ch.Koteswara Rao, learned Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Gurazala has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.120/2021 for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act (Amendment) Act 2020.

02. The conspectus of the prosecution case is that:- On 15-12-2021 at about 02.00 P.M., L.W.4 along with his staff/L.Ws.1 to 3 were reached the scene of offence situated at the house of accused, Gogulapadu

Village Gurazala Mandal, they noticed one person female person standing and having possession of one white plastic bag in her right hand and she was in hurry bury manner and by seeing excise officials she tried to run away from there, however they apprehended her. When L.W.4 questioned her about the contents of said bag, for which she replied that the said bag containing liquor bottles. On enquiry by L.W.4, accused revealed her identity particulars and also confessed that she used to sell the liquor bottles and also shown the carry bag containing the liquor bottles, on that he tried to secure the mediators for their proceedings, but nobody come forward and that he verified the bag and found 09-180M.L., Varjram Fine Whisky bottles. L.W.4 enquired the accused as to license for the possession of said liquor bottles, for which the accused replied that she has no license for possession of the same and that she drawn samples from seized contraband and seized the remaining bottles under Special report.

L.W.4 registered the Special report as a case in Cr.No.120/2021 under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and investigated into. Thereafter, L.W.4 arrested the accused and produced her before the honourable court. During the course of investigation, L.W.4 forwarded the sample bottles to analyst for chemical 2 analysis, L.W.5 on completion of investigation he submitted the charge sheet against the accused.

03.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968 against the accused.

04. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.' for the sake of brevity).

05.Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and charge for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which she denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1.

07.On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material available against her, for which, her plea was total denial and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

Perused the material on record.

09.Now the Point for determination is :- "Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, beyond all reasonable

doubt?" Point:

10.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1 goes to show that the accused has committed the offence and the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused. The defence counsel argued that no mediators were secured at the time of detecting the offence, the entire case is depending upon the Special report which is infirmities. Hence, prays to acquit the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt.

11.The evidence of P.W.1 is nothing but replica of contents of charge sheet and who deposed as per the record. P.W.1 during his further chief-examination stated as to the procedural aspect as to registering the case. P.W.1 during his evidence further stated that he sent the sample bottles to the Chemical

Examiner for analysis and made request to confiscate the remaining liquor bottles and later L.W.5 filled charge sheet after completion of investigation by him. During the course of cross-examination P.W.1 stated that on 15-12-2021 he along with his staff went to the scene at 11-00A.M., P.W.1 admitted that he 3 conducted material part of investigation in this case. P.W.1 further admitted

Lws.1 to 4 are their SEB officials. P.W.1 further admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality surrounded by residential houses and commercial shops. P.W.1 further admitted that VRO, VRA and Panchayath Secretary are available in

Gogulapadu Village. P.W.1 further stated that he along with four of our SEB officials went to the scene of offence, he sent one of his staff to secure the local inhabitants of scene of offence to act as mediators in this case, but in vain.

P.W.1 further stated that he cannot say the specific names of said local inhabitants, he did not issue notice to revenue officials or the local inhabitants requesting them to act as mediators in this case, expect the quantity of sample bottle, he did not mention the physical features of sample bottle. P.W.1 further stated that he did not mention serial number and batch number of seized contraband in Ex.P1 special report. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that Ex.P.1 was prepared in the police station and no contraband was seized from the possession of accusedand he registered the same for statistical purpose.

Admittedly, the alleged scene of offence is situated near bus shelter,

Gangavaram Village, Gurazala Mandal, which is a busy locality. As per the case of prosecution though, they tried to secure the mediators but none were came forwarded to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband.

12.As per the case record, there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 is the excise official and therefore the evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. The evidence of P.W.1 could be considered for the procedural aspect to complete the investigation only and no incriminating material was levelled in his evidence against the accused.

Undoubtedly, P.W.1 who is excise officer bestowed with the duty and he cannot be expected to falsely implicate any person for statistical purpose. However, at the same time it cannot be ignored that the testimony of an investigating officer should not be considered as a gospel truth in the absence of corroboration in light of independent evidence.

13.Adverting to the plea of defence counsel about apprehension of accused and seizure of contraband in the absence of mediators, it is pertinent to mention that the place of offence is situated near bus shelter, Gangavaram

Village, Gurazala Mandal, which is a busy locality. As per the case of prosecution though they tried to secure the mediators, none came forward to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband. When the place of offence is busy locality where there is movement of the public and there is a possibility to public to act as mediators, it is highly improbable to believe the version of prosecution that none came forward to act as mediators for the seizure of 4 contraband. Further P.W.1 could not say the names of the persons whom approached to act as the mediators and stated that they have not served notices to any persons or village officials to act as mediators. In such circumstances, the testimony of P.W.1 cannot be relied upon as he is highly interested for getting the success of prosecution. On bare reading of Ex.P1 –

Special Report, it discloses that the raid party could not secure the mediators.

Immediately after accused coming to know about the possession of contraband, they ought to have securing the mediators. All these facts lead to inference that the Excise officials have failed to secure two or more independent or respectable inhabitants of locality for seizure of contraband. Consequently, the seizure of contraband as alleged from Ex.P1 – Special Report vitiated.

14.As per the evidence of P.W.1, it is evident that the P.W.1 did not make any effort to secure the presence of any independent witness or Village Sarpanch,

Ward Members, or V.R.O to act as mediators. Despite having sufficient time,

P.W.1 did not secure independent witnesses as mediators.

15. Apropos, the contention of the defence counsel that mere supporting the analysis report does not establish the case against the accused, Ex.P.3 - analysis report only speak about the facts. The material report for chemical analysis was found to be Indian liquor but is the prosecution to establish that such samples were refers to chemical analysis seized from the possession of the accused. In view of the above decision, it can be rightly concluded that mere registering the crime and securing the analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of prosecution. Except the evidence of P.W.1 who is a police official and highly interested in securing the conviction for the accused, there is no other independent evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused.

16.Taking into consideration of the overall circumstances of the case, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilty of accused with cogent and convincing evidence and therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence charged against her. In the light of above discussion, this point is answered against the prosecution.

17.IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and thereby she is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused and her sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

5

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 12th day of January, 2024.

Sd/- Smt.D.Sharmila

PRINCIPALJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

FAC ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1: Y.Mohan

For Defence : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 : Special Report Ex.P.2 : FIR Ex.P.3 : Analysis Report Ex.P.4 : Confiscation Proceedings

For Defence : NIL

Material Objects Marked: M.O.1 : Sample bottle

Sd/- Smt.D.Sharmila

PRINCIPALJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

FAC ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

//True Copy//

FAC AJCJ, GZL

6

FORM No.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Guntur Calendar of case tried by the Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court :: Gurazala Calendar Case No.104/2023 Date of: Date of Commence-

Report of Apprehension remand/ Release on Closure of Sentence or

Offence ment of

complainant of accused 41-A Cr.P.C bail trial order

trial Notice 15-12-202115-12-202115-12-202115-12-202117-12-202110-01-202410-01-202412-01-2024 Between:- State: The Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Gurazala. . . Complainant

And

Bathula Aparna, W/o.Sivasankar, Age 38 Years, R/o.Gogulapadu Village, Gurazala Mandal. . . Accused

Crime Number120/2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Gurazala

OffenceUnder Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses SENTENCE OR ORDER:-

IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and thereby she is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused and her sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt.D.Sharmila

PRINCIPALJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

FAC ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

Copy submitted to : 1)The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Copy to:

2) The Excise Superintendent of Police for P & E, Narasaraopet.

//True Copy//

FAC AJCJ, GZL

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GURAZALA.

Present:- Smt. D.Sharmila,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala,

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. Friday, this the 12th day of January, 2024

C.C.No.111/2023

Between:- State: The Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Gurazala. . . Complainant

And

Devalla Nageswara Rao, S/o.Yellaiah, Age 51 Years, R/o.Paluvoi Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District.. . . Accused

This case is coming before me on 11-01-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Ch.Koteswara Rao, learned Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Gurazala has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.98/2021 for the offence punishable under Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

02. The conspectus of the prosecution case is that:- On 14-11-2021 at about 08-00 P.M., on receipt of credible information as to illegal transportation of arrack, L.W.5 along with his staff/L.Ws.1 to 4 were proceeded to the scene of offence situated in front of house of accused at

Jettipalem Village of Rentachintala Mandal and noticed one person standing at scene of offence and at that time he observed excise officials in uniform and tried to escape from there, but they stopped him and asked the contents of one plastic can carried by him. On enquiry by L.W.5, accused revealed his identity particulars and also confessed that he used to sell the ID Arrack and also shown the can containing the ID Arrack, on that he tried to secure the mediators for their proceedings, but nobody come forward and that he verified the arrack and found 20 liters of ID Arrack, then he drawn the sample for the purpose of analysis report and seized the remaining arrack under cover of Special report. L.W.5 registered the Special report as a case in

Cr.No.98/2021 under Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and investigated into. Thereafter, L.W.5 during his investigation produced the accused before this Court for remand. During the course of investigation,

L.W.5 forwarded the sample bottle to analyst for chemical analysis, thereafter he handed over the case to L.W.5. L.W.5 received destruction 2 proceedings. L.W.6 on completion of investigation he submitted the charge sheet against the accused.

03.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

04. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.' for the sake of brevity).

05.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and charge for the offence under Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1.

07.On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material available against him, for which, his plea was total denial and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material on record.

09.Now the Point for determination is :- "Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable under Sec.7(A)r/w.8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable

doubt?" Point:

10.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1 goes to show that the accused has committed the offence and the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused. The defence counsel argued that no mediators were secured at the time of detecting the offence, the entire case is depending upon the Special report which is infirmities. Hence, prays to acquit the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt.

11.The evidence of P.W.1 is nothing but replica of contents of charge sheet and who deposed as per the record. P.W.1 during his further chief- examination stated as to the procedural aspect as to registering the case.

P.W.1 during his evidence further stated that he sent the sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and made request to confiscate the remaining arrack. P.W.1 further stated that he received the analysis report and L.W.6 received destruction proceedings and on completion of 3 investigation L.W.6 submitted the charge sheet. During the course of cross- examination P.W.1 stated that on 14-11-2021 he along with their staff went to the scene at 09-00 P.M. P.W.1 admitted that he conducted material part of investigation in this case. P.W.1 further admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality surrounded by residential houses and commercial shops. P.W.1 further admitted that VRO, VRA and Panchayat Secretary are available in

Jettipalem Village, he along with four of their SEB officials went to the scene of offence. P.W.1 further stated that he sent one of his staff to secure the local inhabitants of scene of offence to act as mediators in this case but in vain. P.W.1 further stated that he cannot say the specific names of said local inhabitants; he did not issue notice to revenue officials or the local inhabitants requesting them to act as mediators in this case. P.W.1 stated that except the quantity of sample bottle he did not mention the physical features of sample bottle. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that Ex.P.1 was prepared in the police station and no arrack was seized from the possession of accused and he registered the same for statistical purpose. Admittedly, the alleged scene of offence is situated at Jettipalem Village, Rentachintala

Mandal which is a busy locality. As per the case of prosecution though, they tried to secure the mediators but none were came forwarded to act as mediators for the seizure of arrack.

12.As per the case record, there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 is the excise official and therefore the evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. The evidence of P.W.1 could be considered for the procedural aspect to complete the investigation only and no incriminating material was levelled in his evidence against the accused. Undoubtedly, P.W.1 who is excise officer bestowed with the duty and he cannot be expected to falsely implicate any person for statistical purpose. However, at the same time it cannot be ignored that the testimony of an investigating officer should not be considered as a gospel truth in the absence of corroboration in light of independent evidence.

13.Adverting to the plea of defence counsel about arrest of accused and seizure of arrack in the absence of mediators, it is pertinent to mention that the place of offence is situated at Jettipalem Village of Rentachintala

Mandal, which is a busy locality. As per the case of prosecution though they tried to secure the mediators, none came forward to act as mediators for the seizure of arrack. When the place of offence is busy locality where there is movement of the public and there is a possibility to public to act as 4 mediators, it is highly improbable to believe the version of prosecution that none came forward to act as mediators for the seizure of arrack. Further

P.W.1 could not say the names of the persons whom approached to act as the mediators and stated that they have not served notices to any persons or village officials to act as mediators. In such circumstances, the testimony of

P.W.1 cannot be relied upon as he is highly interested for getting the success of prosecution. On bare reading of Ex.P1 – Special Report, it discloses that the raid party could not secure the mediators. Immediately after accused coming to know about the possession of arrack, they ought to have securing the mediators. All these facts lead to inference that the Excise officials have failed to secure two or more independent or respectable inhabitants of locality for seizure of arrack. Consequently, the seizure of arrack as alleged from Ex.P1 – Special Report vitiated.

14.As per the evidence of P.W.1, it is evident that the P.W.1 did not make any effort to secure the presence of any independent witness or Village

Sarpanch, Ward Members, or V.R.O to act as mediators. Despite having sufficient time, P.W.1 did not secure independent witnesses as mediators.

15. Apropos, the contention of the defence counsel that mere supporting the analysis report does not establish the case against the accused, Ex.P.3 - analysis report only speak about the facts. The material report for chemical analysis was found to be Illicit Distilled Liquor, unfit for human consumption, but is the prosecution to establish that such samples were refers to chemical analysis seized from the possession of the accused. In view of the above decision, it can be rightly concluded that mere registering the crime and securing the analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of prosecution. Except the evidence of P.W.1 who is an excise official and highly interested in securing the conviction for the accused, there is no other independent evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused.

16.Taking into consideration of the overall circumstances of the case, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilty of accused with cogent and convincing evidence and therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence charged against him. In the light of above discussion, this point is answered against the prosecution.

5

17.IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and thereby he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 12th day of January, 2024.

Sd/- Smt.D.Sharmila

PRINCIPALJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

FAC ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1: Y.Mohan For Defence : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 : Special Report Ex.P.2 : FIR Ex.P.3 : Analysis Report Ex.P.4 : Destruction Proceedings

For Defence : NIL

Material Objects Marked: M.O.1 : Sample bottle

Sd/- Smt.D.Sharmila

PRINCIPALJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

FAC ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

//True Copy//

FAC AJCJ, GZL

6

FORM No.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Guntur Calendar of case tried by the Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court :: Gurazala Calendar Case No.111/2023 Date of: Date of Commence- Report of Apprehension remand/ Release on Closure of Sentence or Offence ment of

complainant of accused 41-A Cr.P.C bail trial order

trial Notice 14-11-202114-11-202114-11-202115-11-202117-11-202110-01-202410-01-202412-01-2024

Between:- State: The Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Gurazala. . . Complainant

And

Devalla Nageswara Rao, S/o.Yellaiah, Age 51 Years, R/o.Paluvoi Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District.. . . Accused

Crime Number98/2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Gurazala

Offenceunder Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses SENTENCE OR ORDER :-

IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and thereby he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt.D.Sharmila

PRINCIPALJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

FAC ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

Copy submitted to :

1)The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Copy to:

2) The Excise Superintendent of Police for P & E, Narasaraopet.

//True Copy//

FAC AJCJ, GZL

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GURAZALA.

Present:- Smt. D.Sharmila,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala,

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Thursday, this the 11th day of January, 2024

C.C.No.26/2022

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Rentachintala P.S.. . . Complainant

And

Kethavath Sankar Naik, S/o.Gorya Naik, Age 50 Years, D.No.1-224/5, Balaji Nagar, Gurazala Village and Mandal. . . Accused

This case is coming before me on 10-01-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Kota Srinivasa Rao, learned Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rentachintala P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.190/2021 for the offences punishable under

Sec.304-A of IPC and 181 MV Act.

02. The conspectus of the prosecution case is that:-

The deceased/Kethavath Parvathi Bai, is the resident of Gurazala

Village and Mandal. Two years ago the deceased had purchased TVS XL moped vide bearing No.AP07BF1770 from his relative LW.7/Meravath

Konda Naik at Jammalamadaka Village. On 27-09-2021 at evening, the accused and deceased (wife of accused) went to Macherla on the said moped where they made night halt at their children. On 27-09-2021 at evening they were returning towards their village, on the way when they reached to outskirts of Paluvai Village, due to dark night, the accused made down his moped into irrigation canal without taking any precautionary methods with a rash and negligent manner, and the deceased fallen down on the road as a result of which she received injuries on her head, oozing blood on her nose and abrasion is on right shoulder. Immediately, L.W.6 witnessed the same called 108 ambulance and the deceased was shifted to

Government Hospital Macherla. On 30-10-2021 at 06-30 A.M., LW.14 who received the same in turn registered the same as a case in Cr.No.190/2021 under Sec.304-A IPC of Rentachintala P.S., and investigated into. On 03-10-2021 LW.14 has inspected the scene of offence and prepared observation report in the presence of inquest panchayatdars Lws.8 to 10.

2 LW14 also conducted inquest over the body of the deceased at GGH Guntur in the presence of inquest panchayatdars Lws.8 to 10. LW14 has secured

LWs.1 to 7 and recorded their statements under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. On 11-10-2021 LW-15 served notice under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused. Then he verified the vehicle records, but the accused did not having driving license and added the section 181 MV Act. On completion of investigation,

LW-15 submitted the charge sheet.

03.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.304-A of IPC against the accused.

04. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as ‘Cr.P.C.' for the sake of brevity).

05.Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation for the offences under Sec.304-A of IPC and 181

MV Act in Telugu language, for which the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11.

07.On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material available against him, for which, his plea was total denial and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material on record.

09.Now the Point for determination is :- "Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the

offences punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.181 of MV Act

beyond all reasonable doubt?" Point:

10.P.W.1/informant, who is no other than sister of deceased deposed that at about four years ago her sister Parvathi Bai died in an accident, she does not know how the accident occurred and who is responsible for the alleged accident. She admitted her signature on the statement, but she stated that she does not know the contents of statement. Ex.P1 is signature of PW.1 on the report dt:02-10-2021. Police did not examine her and they never recorded her statement. The learned APP declared P.W.1 as 3 a hostile witness and cross-examined her, but no incriminating material is elicited against the accused during her cross-examination.

11. P.W.2 who is no other than daughter of deceased, deposed that at about four years ago her mother Parvathi Bai died in an accident, she do not know how the accident occurred and who is responsible for the alleged accident. Police did not examine her and they never recorded her statement. The learned APP declared P.W.2 as a hostile witness and cross- examined her, but no incriminating material is elicited against the accused during her cross-examination.

12.P.W.3 is the Investigating Officer, who deposed as per the record as to procedural aspect of investigation done by him i.e., registration of crime, examining the witnesses, conducting of inquest, receipt of PM report, MVI

Report and issuing of Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. During the course of cross-examination P.W.3 stated that he did not conduct Test

Identification Parade to ascertain the identification of the driver of crime vehicle, he did not seize the documents relating to the crime vehicle i.e.,

C.Book, Chasis book and other relevant records of the crime vehicle. P.W.3 admitted that the crime vehicle is not standing in the name of accused.

P.W.3 further stated that he did not examine the person in whose name the crime vehicle stood as owner of the same. P.W.3 denied the suggestion that he conducted table investigation and registered false case against the accused for getting insurance benefits to deceased family members.

13.There is no dispute as regards to the fact in respect of the manner of the death of deceased. Now the question is whether the accused had any role in the same in as much as to his rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is no aid to the prosecution as no incriminating material was elicited against the accused during the course of cross-examination by the learned APP. The law regarding hostile witness is no longer res integra. It is settled that once a witness turns hostile, the credibility and truthfulness of the statement recorded under 161 Cr.P.C becomes unreliable and Courts cannot rely on such statement.

P.W.3, who is the investigating Officer, it is natural to give self serve statements to corroborate his case, which cannot be get more weight to incriminate the accused as he himself investigated the case, except following the procedure to register the crime and the procedure in filing of 4 charge sheet up to this aspect, his evidence is proved, but which is coming to the fact in main issue i.e., whether the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner to attract the offence under Sec.304-A of

IPC, his evidence cannot be deemed as credible evidence, as he is the official and investigating officer.

14.The case of prosecution is that the accused being the driver of crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner caused the accident. Prosecution has not been able to show through P.Ws.1 and 2 that the accused was indeed ride the crime vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and caused the accident, resulting which the deceased died. It has come to fore in evidence on record that a person met with an accident and he died on the spot. Mere accident is not an offence. In this case, there is no iota of evidence, which can be considered as direct evidence to support the prosecution story regarding guilt of the accused in causing the accident. There is no particle of evidence regarding guilt of the accused in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. As such, it is quite doubtful, whether the accused was guilty in the accident as driver of the offending crime vehicle.

Moreover, it is found that the accused had totally denied his guilt in committing the accident in his statement under Sec.313 Cr.P.C.

15.In view of above, it cannot be come to a conclusion that the accused person was riding the crime vehicle at relevant time of occurrence, as no any prosecution witness has stated to have seen the accused riding the crime vehicle. In order to bring home guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec.181 of M.V.Act, first of all, the prosecution has to prove that the accused had caused the accident. But in this case the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused drove the crime vehicle and caused the accident.

Therefore, the accused cannot be punished for the offence under Sec.181 of M.V.Act.

16. In the light of the above discussions, on scrutiny of the materials and evidence on record, it is found that in the instant case the prosecution has totally failed to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on the fateful day. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to bring home guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec.304-A of

IPC and Sec.181 of MV Act beyond all reasonable doubt. In the light of above discussion, this point is answered against the prosecution.

5

17.IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.181 of MV Actand thereby he is acquitted under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 11th day of January, 2024

Sd/-Smt.D.Sharmila

PRINCIPALJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

FAC ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1 : Islavath Redya Naik P.W.2 : Kethavath Issak Naik P.W.3 : D.Tirupal Naik

For Defence: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1:Signature of P.W.1 in the report dated:02-10-2021

Ex.P.2:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

Ex.P.3:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2

Ex.P.4:Hospital Intimation

Ex.P.5:Statement of PW.1

Ex.P.6:FIR

Ex.P.7:Rough Sketch

Ex.P.8:Scene Observation Report

Ex.P.9:Inquest Report

Ex.P.10:MVI Report

Ex.P.11:Postmortem report

For Defence: Nil

Material Objects: Nil

Sd/-Smt.D.Sharmila

PRINCIPALJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

FAC ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

//True Copy//

FAC AJCJ, GZL

6

FORM No.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Guntur Calendar of case tried by the Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court :: Gurazala Calendar Case No.26/2022 Date of: Date of Report of Apprehension remand/ Release on Commence- Closure of Sentence or Offence

complainant of accused 41-A Cr.P.C bail ment of trial trial order

Notice 03-10-202103-10-2021-11-10-2021-03-01-202408-01-202411-01-2024 Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Rentachintala P.S.. . . Complainant

And

Kethavath Sankar Naik, S/o.Gorya Naik, Age 50 Years, D.No.1-224/5, Balaji Nagar, Gurazala Village and Mandal. . . . Accused

Crime Number190/2021 of Rentachintala P.S

OffenceUnder Sec.304-A of IPC

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses

SENTENCE OR ORDER :- IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC and thereby he is acquitted under

Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.D.Sharmila

PRINCIPALJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

FAC ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA

Copy submitted to : 1)The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Copy to:

2) The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural. //True Copy//

FAC AJCJ, GZL