Smt D. Sony

New C.C.No.400257/2017 Page 1 of 14

Old C.C.No.300272/2016 Dt.10.01.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS FOR TRYING PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

OFFENCES :: MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT : Smt. D.Soni,

 Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class for trying P & E Offences,

Machilipatnam. 

Thursday, this the 10 th day of January, 2019

New C.C.No.400257/2017

Old C.C.No.300272/2016

Between :

State : Sub­Inspector of Police, Pedana P.S., (Cr.No.140 of 2016)… …COMPLAINANT.

And

A.1 – Gudiseva Siva Pawan,

S/o.Srinivasarao, Hindu, age 26 years,

R/o.Uppalakalavagunta village,

Pedana Mandal.

A.2 – Gudiseva Venkata Sai,

S/o.Srinivasarao, Hindu, age 24 years,

R/o.Uppalakalavagunta village,

Pedana Mandal.

A.3 – Gudiseva Jagan Mohan Rao,

S/o.Venkateswararao, Hindu, age 60 years,

R/o.Uppalakalavagunta village,

Pedana Mandal.

New C.C.No.400257/2017 Page 2 of 14

Old C.C.No.300272/2016 Dt.10.01.2019

A.4 – Gudiseva Ram Pawan Kumar,

S/o.Srinivasa, Hindu, age 29 years,

R/o.Uppalakalavagunta village,

Pedana Mandal.… … ACCUSED.

(Case against A1 was abated as he died as per the docket order, 

dt.18.09.2017)

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

Complainant and of Sri S.S.Prasad, Advocate for A2 to A4, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub­Inspector of police, Pedana Police station, filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.140/2016 for the offence punishable under

Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as 'IPC' for the sake of brevity) against A1 to A4.

02. The case of the prosecution, succinctly, is that: 

a)A1 to A4 belong to one family. P.Ws.1 and 2 are brothers. On 09.10.2016, around 05.00 p.m., A1 went to the house of

P.W.2 for current reading and there was an altercation between A1 and

P.W.2 at that time. P.W.1 informed about the altercation to P.W.2. On the next day, at 07.00 a.m., P.W.1 found A1 in the village and he questioned A1 about tussling with P.W.2. On that there was a verbal altercation between both of them and they went away. After some time,

New C.C.No.400257/2017 Page 3 of 14

Old C.C.No.300272/2016 Dt.10.01.2019

when P.W.1 was present in his house, A1 along with three others went to his house with stick, A1 assaulted on the waist of P.W.1 with stick and the remaining three persons i.e., A2 to A4 went on P.W.4 and A2 caught hold the neck of P.W.1. All of them abused him in filthy language. On the intervention of P.W.2 and others, the accused went away. P.W.1 was taken to Government Hospital, Machilipatnam in an ambulance for treatment.

b)  While he was undergoing treatment at District

Hospital, Machilipatnam, based on hospital intimation, PW.7, went to

Government Hospital recorded statement of P.W.1 and then transmitted it to Pedana Police Station on point of jurisdiction. PW.8 registered it as a crime and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses, recorded their detailed statements. On 13.10.2016, P.W.8 served notices to the accused U/s.41­A Cr.P.C., and after receipt of wound certificate, on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 to A4. Hence the charge.

03.Originally, on receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A4 on the file of Spl.Mobile Court, Machilipatnam. 

04.On appearance of A1 to A4, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as 'Cr.P.C.' for the sake of brevity). Subsequently, the case has been received by this court by

New C.C.No.400257/2017 Page 4 of 14

Old C.C.No.300272/2016 Dt.10.01.2019

transfer as per the proceedings of Hon'ble District Court, in

Dis.No.5754, dt.05.07.2017 for disposal. 

05.When examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., A1 to A4 denied the allegations levelled against them. After perusing the entire material on record and on hearing both sides, charges had been framed against them under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC which was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.  After examination, case against A1

was abated as he died as per the docket order, dt.18.09.2017.

06.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined, out of the ten cited witnesses in the charge sheet and Exs.P1 to P7 were exhibited. The evidence of L.W.3 ­

Gudiseva Vishnu Murthy and L.W.6 – Gudiseva Satyanarayana was given up by the prosecution.

07.On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, A2 to A4 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material available against them, for which, they denied and reported no defence evidence. However, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked during the cross­examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively.

08.Heard both sides.

09. The point germane for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution is fruitful in

bringing home the guilt of the accused for

New C.C.No.400257/2017 Page 5 of 14

Old C.C.No.300272/2016 Dt.10.01.2019

the charges leveled against them under

Section 324 r/w 34 IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT :

a)To uncover its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 8, out of which, PW.1 is the injured and defacto complainant,

P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 are the eye witnesses. P.W.4 is the Radiologist, P.W.5 is the doctor who administered treatment to P.W.1, P.W.7 is the HC 1249 of OPPS, Machilipatnam, P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer.

b)P.W.1 deposed that on 09.10.2016, in the evening hours A1 went to the house of P.W.2 for current reading and had a tussle with him; that on the same day, P.W.2 informed about the incident to him over phone. He further deposed that on the next day i.e., on 10.10.2016, around 07.00 a.m., he found A1 in the village center and questioned him about the previous day’s incident, on which a wordy altercation occurred between both of them and went away; that after he went home, A1 brought A2 to A4 to his house and all of them assaulted with stick, that A4 beat on his ribs on the right side with a stick, A2 caught hold of his neck and pressed and that A1 assaulted with hands and also A3 abused him in filthy language. He stated that

P.Ws.2 and 3 and L.W.3 – G.Vishnu Murthy rescued him and took him to Government Hospital, Machilipatnam where he obtained treatment and while undergoing treatment police recorded his statement marked as Ex.P1. During his cross­examination it has been elicited by the defence counsel that on the date of incident A1 filed a case against

New C.C.No.400257/2017 Page 6 of 14

Old C.C.No.300272/2016 Dt.10.01.2019

P.Ws.1 and 2 and L.W.3 which was registered as STC 286/2016 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of II Class (Excise), Machilipatnam and that A1 admitted commission of offence U/s.323, 290 r/w 34 IPC and paid fine.

However he denied the suggestion that in view of the said case, he filed this false case in order to take revenge against A1 as a counter blast to the case filed by him. Certain omissions were elicited during the cross­ examination of P.W.1 as far as the evidence he deposed in his chief examination. 

c)P.W.2 deposed inconsonance with P.W.1 regarding the incident which alleged to have happened on 09.10.2016. As far as the tussle on 10.10.2016 is concerned, he deposed that on that day at 07.00 a.m., when P.W.1 was present in the house, A1 to A4 went there and dragged P.W.1, A4 beat on the back of the P.W.1 with a stick and he sustained fracture injury, A2 went there and pressed the neck of

P.W.1 and also that A1 and A3 assaulted P.W.1 with hands and when he interfered, A1 to A4 assaulted him also. During the cross­ examination he denied the suggestion that in view of the previous enmity, they filed false case against the accused. As observed from the cross­examination of P.W.2, many suggestions were given to P.W.2 that he omitted the said evidence which he deposed during his chief examination when was examined by police during the course of investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

d)P.W.3 who is the alleged eye witness deposed that

P.Ws.1 and 2 are his relatives; that on 10.10.2016, at 07.00 p.m., when he went to the milk center situated at Uppalakalavagunta village, he

New C.C.No.400257/2017 Page 7 of 14

Old C.C.No.300272/2016 Dt.10.01.2019

heard some altercation from the house of P.W.1, he went there and found A1 to A4 were scuffling with P.W.1; that A4 took a stick and assaulted P.W.1 on the right side of ribs; that A1 and A3 pressed the throat of P.W.1 and pushed him on ground. He also stated that the elder brother of P.W.1 by name Ramu took P.W.1 and admitted in

Government Hospital, Machilipatnam for treatment. During his cross­ examination, he stated that he did not have knowledge of the incident which allegedly occurred on 09.10.2016. He denied the suggestion that in view of the incident which occurred on 09.10.2016 and on 10.10.2016 in the morning hours while P.W.1 was going on a bike, he stopped A1 in the village center and slapped him and also that P.W.1 and their father by name Satyanarayana came with stick and assaulted with hands and legs because of which they also filed a case against the accused.

e)P.W.6 is another eye witness. He stated that he never witnessed the alleged incident and he did not know anything about this case. Nothing significant could be elicited during his cross­ examination by the Assistant Public Prosecutor after seeking the permission of the court U/s.154 of Indian Evidence Act r/w S.162 proviso of Cr.P.C., except marking of the contents of S.161 Cr.P.C., statement of the witness as Ex.P4, the contents of which were denied by the witness. Thus, his evidence is of no avail to the case of prosecution.

f)Apart from the evidence of these witnesses referring to the medical evidence, P.W.5 deposed that on 10.10.2016 at 11.00 a.m., he examined P.W.1 and found multiple abrasions on chest,

New C.C.No.400257/2017 Page 8 of 14

Old C.C.No.300272/2016 Dt.10.01.2019

back of the spine measuring nearly of 8 cms and on multiple regions of back and he referred the patient for X­ray of DL spine in

MLC.No.544/2016, dt.10.10.2016 and the X­ray report reveals no bony injury. He further stated that he administered treatment to P.W.1 and issued Ex.P3 – wound certificate with his observation that the injuries were simple in nature, caused by blunt object and the duration of injuries was 0­6 hours prior to his examination. He admitted that he did not specifically mention the number of injuries sustained by P.W.1.

g)The Radiologist examined as P.W.4 deposed that she had taken X­ray of DL Spine in MLC.No.544/2016, dt.10.10.2016 and found no bony injury. She stated that she issued Ex.P2 – X­ray report of P.W.1 with her observation. From the medical evidence, it is manifest that P.W.1 sustained multiple abrasions on chest and back of the spine and that he did not receive any grievous injures like fracture or dislocation etc., as per Ex.P2 – X­ray report as well as Ex.P3 –

Wound certificate.

h)P.W.7 who recorded the statement of P.W.1, deposed that while he was on duty at OPPS District Head Quarters

Hospital, Machilipatnam on 10.10.2016, at 11.45 a.m., he received

Ex.P5 – hospital intimation and immediately, he secured P.W.1 in MS

Ward and recorded the statement of P.W.1 which commenced at 11.50 a.m., and concluded by 12.20 p.m., and that he obtained the signature of P.W.1 on the statement. He further stated that the patient was conscious and coherent while he was recording the statement and after recording the statement, he transmitted Exs.P1 and P5 to Pedana

New C.C.No.400257/2017 Page 9 of 14

Old C.C.No.300272/2016 Dt.10.01.2019

Police Station on point of jurisdiction.

i)P.W.8 who is the investigating officer deposed about the chronological series of acts done by him during the course of investigation since the date of registration of Ex.P6 – FIR, till notices to

A1 to A4 and filing of charge sheet. During his cross­examination,

P.W.8 stated that he registered STC No.286/2016 against P.Ws.1 and 2 and L.W.3 in which they admitted the commission of offence before

Judicial Magistrate of II Class (Excise), Machilipatnam. He further

admitted that the name of A4 was not mentioned in Ex.P6 – FIR and also he did not obtain the signature of P.W.1 in column No.14 of Ex.P6 ­FIR. As further observed from the cross­examination of P.W.8, as discussed in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the omissions were elicited by the defence counsel in respect of their evidence.

j)On a cumulative assessment of these testimonies, initially referring about the injuries alleged to be sustained by P.W.1, it is his evidence he was beaten on the right side of ribs and he sustained ribs fracture and also that the accused pressed his neck. P.Ws.2 and 3 also stated about the same nature of injuries sustained by P.W.1.

Whereas the evidence is quite contrary to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3.

As seen from the depositions of P.Ws.4 and 5, it is manifest that P.W.1 sustained multiple abrasions on his chest and back side of spine. Per contra, none of the eye witnesses stated that he was beaten on his spine or he sustained any injuries on his spine or chest. When the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 3 is to the effect that he was beaten on the right side of the ribs with stick, when P.W.1 was taken to hospital within a few hours of

New C.C.No.400257/2017 Page 10 of 14

Old C.C.No.300272/2016 Dt.10.01.2019

the alleged incident, certainly the medical officer would have observed injuries on the right side of his ribs or his neck in connection with throttling. But the evidence of medical officer is silent as to any such observations on the body of P.W.1. Hence, it can be held that the evidence placed on record by way of testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 is quite inconsistent with the medical evidence both oral and documentary. In this context, it is also pertinent to observe that P.W.2 stated that P.W.1 sustained fracture injury, the radiologist categorically stated that she had generated X­ray of DL Spine in MLC.No.544/2016, dt.17.10.2016 and she found no bony injury. As such the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not at all corroborated by the medical officer.

k)Regarding the specific overt acts of each of the accused, though the case was filed against A1 to A4 during the course of trial as A1 died, case against A1 was abated. As far as the specific overt acts attributed against A2 to A4 are seen, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is quite inconsistent with each other as mentioned above and the evidence of these witnesses is not in consonance with the recitals of

Ex.P1 – Report. The cross­examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 transpires that the evidence of these witnesses is rich of omissions and they introduced in new version during the course of their evidence before the court. So also Ex.D1 and D2 which were exposed during the cross­examination of

P.Ws.1 and 2 also gain significance as they are prominent contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the manner in which

P.W.1 was allegedly assaulted by the accused.

l)On the date of incident, A1 filed a case against

New C.C.No.400257/2017 Page 11 of 14

Old C.C.No.300272/2016 Dt.10.01.2019

P.Ws.1 and 2 and L.W.3 which were registered U/s.323, 290 r/w 34 IPC numbered as STC 286/2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of II Class (Excise), Machilipatnam. In that case P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted commission of offence and paid fine. It is the evidence of the accused that in view of filing that case P.Ws.1 and 2 filed this false case against the accused and take revenge against them. In the backdrop of the evidence discussed above, the prosecution case is rich of omissions and contradictions and is not corroborated by the evidence of medical evidence even. As such, the specific over acts attributed by the prosecution against A2 to A4 are not appealing to the conscience of the court to find the accused guilty of the offences punishable under section 324 r/w 34 IPC. In these circumstances, benefit of doubt extends to A2 to A4 and on that ground, A2 to A4 are entitled for an order of acquittal. Point is answered accordingly in favour of A2 to A4 and against the prosecution.

11.In the result, the A2 to A4 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. A2 to A4 shall furnish bonds under section 437­A Cr.P.C that they shall appear before the Appellate court in the event they receive summons within six months from today.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 th day of January, 2019.

Sd/­D.Soni

SPL.J.M.F.C. FOR TRYING P & E OFFENCES,

MACHILIPATNAM.

New C.C.No.400257/2017 Page 12 of 14

Old C.C.No.300272/2016 Dt.10.01.2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Accused :

P.W.1 : Gudiseva Suresh None.

P.W.2 : Gudiseva Ramesh

P.W.3 : Gudiseva Arjuna Rao

P.W.4 : Dr.K.Aruna Kumari 

P.W.5 : Dr.A.B.S.Srinivasarao

P.W.6 : Gudiseva Srinivasarao @ Chitti Babu

P.W.7 : Konda Nagulu

P.W.8 : A.Ganesh Kumar, the then Sub­Inspector of Pedana P.S.,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution : 

Ex.P1 : Report of PW.1.

Ex.P2: X­ray report of P.W.1

Ex.P3 : Wound certificate of P.W.1

Ex.P4 : S.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.6

Ex.P5 : Hospital Intimation

Ex.P6: Original FIR

Ex.P7 : Rough sketch of scene of offence

For Accused :

Ex.D1: The relevant portion of S.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.1

Ex.D2: The relevant portion of S.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.2

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

Sd/­D.Soni

SPL.J.M.F.C. FOR TRYING P & E OFFENCES,

MACHILIPATNAM.

//True copy//

Spl.J.F.C.M, MTM.

New C.C.No.400257/2017 Page 13 of 14

Old C.C.No.300272/2016 Dt.10.01.2019

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS FOR TRYING PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

OFFENCES :: MACHILIPATNAM

New C.C. No.400257 of 2017

Old C.C.No.300272 of 2016

Date of Offence : 10.10.2016

Date of Report : 11.06.2015

Date of served notice : 13.10.2016

Date of commencement of Trial : 27.08.2018

Date of close of Trial : 02.01.2019

Date of sentence or order : 10.01.2019

Crime No. and Name of P.S. :Cr.No.140/2016 of 

Pedana P.S.,

Name of the Complainant : State : Sub­Inspector of Police

Pedana P.S.

Description of Accused :A1 – Gudiseva Siva Pawan

A2 – Gudiseva Venkata Sai

A3 – Gudiseva Jagan Mohanrao

A4 – Gudiseva Ram Pawan Kumar (Case against A1 was abated as he died as per the docket order, dt.18.09.2017)

Section of Law : U/s.324 r/w 34 of IPC

Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of Court : Found not guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, the A2 to A4 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of

New C.C.No.400257/2017 Page 14 of 14

Old C.C.No.300272/2016 Dt.10.01.2019

IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. A2 to A4 shall furnish bonds under section 437­A Cr.P.C that they shall appear before the Appellate court in the event they receive summons within six months from today.

Explanation for delay : Originally the case was taken on file by Spl. Mobile Court, Machilipatnam, on 14.12.2016 against A1 to

A4. Copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated

U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C on 18.01.2017. Subsequently, the case has been received by this court by transfer as per the proceedings of Hon'ble

District Court, in Dis.No.5754, dt.05.07.2017 for disposal. A1 to A4 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., on 24.08.2017. After examination, case against A1 was abated as he died as per the docket order, dt.18.09.2017. On 27.08.2018, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.P1 and Ex.D1 was marked. On 31.08.2018, P.W.2 was examined. On 01.10.2018, P.W.3 was examined. On 22.10.2018, P.W.4 was examined and Ex.P2 was marked. On 15.11.2018, P.W.5 was examined and Ex.P3 was marked. On 03.12.2018, P.W.6 was examined and Ex.P4 was marked. On 06.12.2018, P.W.7 was examined. On 07.12.2018, complainant side evidence was reopened and P.Ws.1 and 2 were recalled for cross­examination as per the orders in

Crl.M.P.No.3051/2018, dt.07.12.2018. On 14.12.2018, P.Ws.1 and 2

further cross­examined and Ex.D2 was marked. On 20.12.2018, P.W.8 was examined and Exs.P5 to P7 were marked and on the same day prosecution evidence was closed. On 27.12.2018, A2 to A4 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., On 31.12.2018, heard prosecution side arguments. On 02.01.2019, heard defence side arguments. Judgment pronounced on 10.01.2019. Hence, the delay.

Sd/­ D.Soni

SPL.J.M.F.C. FOR TRYING P & E OFFENCES,

MACHILIPATNAM

Copy submitted to : 

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna,Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.172/2008 Page 1 of 15 Dt.01.03.2018

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, SPECIAL MOBILE COURT :: MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT : Smt. D.Soni,

 Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Trying P & E Offences,

FAC­ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court

Machilipatnam. 

Thursday, this the 01 st day of March, 2018

C.C.No. 172 of 2008

Between :

State : Station House Officer, 

Bandar Taluka Police Station (Cr.No.02/1997 )… …COMPLAINANT.

And

1. Kannamreddi Koteswara Rao,

S/o.Brahmayya, age 43 years, 

R/o.Khalekhanpet, Bandar (A3) 

2.Kancheralapalli Krishna Rao,

S/o.Venkateswarlu, age 40 years,

R/o.Pedayadara (A8)

3.Redrowthu Pedha Thatharao,

S/o.Purnachandhrayya, age 41 years,

R/o.Pedayadara (A14)

4.Redrowthu Pitchayya,

S/o.Subrahmanyam, age 52 years,

R/o.Pedana (A17)

5.Kancharla Pandu Ranga Rao,

S/o.Venkateeswarlu, age 56 years,

R/o.Pedana (A21)

C.C.No.172/2008 Page 2 of 15 Dt.01.03.2018

6.Kancherlapalaga Ratnam,

W/o.Mohan, age 60 years,

R/o.Pedayadara (A22)

7.Kaila Pandu,

S/o.Raghavayya, age 39 years,

R/o.Pedayadara (A24)

8.Rebba Seethamma,

W/o.China Muni, age 50 years,

R/o. Pedayadara (A27)

9.Darapuneni Subba Rao,

S/o.Veera Raghavayya, age 39 years,

R/o.Pedayadara (A33)

10.Arja Venkateswara Rao,

S/o.Pitchayya, age 51 years,

R/o.Pedayadara (A38)

11.Arja Nancharayya,

S/o. Sri Ramulu, age 44 years,

R/o.Pedayadara (A39)

12.Kancherlapalli Narasimha Rao,

S/o.Chinapitchayya, age 51 years,

R/o. Pedayadara (A43)

(Case against A3, A17, A21, A22, A27, A39 & A43 is abated as

they died)

(Earlier, on 20.09.2012 case against A3 & A14 was split up

from this case and was renumbered as C.C.259/2011 and

subsequently, the same was clubbed with this case and tried

together as case against A3 is abated as died and A14 is

apprehended) ….… ACCUSED.

C.C.No.172/2008 Page 3 of 15 Dt.01.03.2018

This case is coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri S.Balaji Rao, counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T 

01.This is a split up case against A3, A8, A14, A17, A24,

A27, A28, A33, A38, A39 & A43 which was separated from

C.C.No.130/1999 which arises out of Cr.No.02/1997 of Bandar

Taluka P.S., for the alleged offences punishable Under Sections 420, 468, 471, 477­A r/w 109 IPC.

02. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that :

a)The Government lands situated in

Pedhayadhara Village in an extent of Ac.50.20 cents of land in

R.S.No.879, 880, 882/2 and 912/2 which are classified as paduga lands. The paduga lands can be given only on lease, but there is no provision to issue D­Form pattas. The villagers of Pedhayadhara constituted a society by name the Venkateswara Rao Co­operative

Collective Society and applied for lease of the said lands. The then

District Collector leased the said lands to the above said society and later the lease was extended for 10 years. Subsequently, the lands were transferred to the Executive Director, S.C.Society,

Krishna for prawn cultivation.

C.C.No.172/2008 Page 4 of 15 Dt.01.03.2018

b)All the accused forged the D­Form pattas and filed a writ with false affidavits. The accused also filed

O.S.No.62/1995 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge,

Machilipatnam on the basis of forged D­Form pattas and land revenue receipts and obtained temporary injunction in their favour.

On that, the defacto complainant ordered for an enquiry and forwarded a report to L.W.21 – N.Ramachandra Murthy, the then

Sub­Inspector of Bandar Taluka P.S., who registered the same as

FIR in Cr.No.02/1997 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 477­A r/w 109

IPC. During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and after observing all necessary formalities and on completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. Hence the charge.

03.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence under sections 420, 468, 471, 477­A r/w 109 IPC against

A8, A14, A24, A33 & A38.

04.On appearance of A8, A14, A24, A33 & A38, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as 'Cr.P.C.' for the sake of brevity).

05.When examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., A8, A14,

A24, A33 & A38 denied the allegations levelled against them. After perusing the entire material on record and on hearing both sides, charges had been framed against accused under sections 420, 468, 471, 477­A r/w 109 IPC, which were read over and explained to

C.C.No.172/2008 Page 5 of 15 Dt.01.03.2018

them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

06.The evidence of twelve of the witnesses cited out of twenty one witnesses in the charge sheet were examined earlier by prosecution in C.C.No.130/1999 as P.Ws.1 to 12 and Exs.P1 to P5 were exhibited. The same evidence has been adopted in this Splitup case upon the representation of the learned APP on memo for which the defence counsel expressed his consent.

07.On closure of the evidence of prosecution, A8, A14, A24,

A33 & A38 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material found against them, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard both sides.

09. The point germane for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution is fruitful in

bringing home the guilt of A8, A14, A24,

A33 & A38 for the charge levelled against

them under sections 420, 468, 471, 477­A

r/w 109 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT:

a)The prosecution propounded its case on the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 12, out of whom, P.W.1 is the defacto

C.C.No.172/2008 Page 6 of 15 Dt.01.03.2018

complainant, who addressed to the Superintendent of Police,

Krishna, P.W.2 is the then MRO during the period of the alleged offence, who submitted a report to P.W.1, P.W.3 is the then VRO of

Padayadara during the period of the alleged offence, P.Ws.4 to 7 are all residents of Pedayadara Village, P.W.8 is the village

Assistant of Pedayadara, P.W.9 is the then Bill Collector of

Pedayadara during the period of the alleged offence, P.W.10 worked as Senior Assistant in MRO Office in Gudivada and in his presence, the signatures of P.W.8 were collected, P.W.11 was the then

Superintendent of MRO Office, Machilipatnam in whose presence the specimen signatures of P.W.9 were collected and P.W.12 is the

Investigating Officer.

b)The prosecution by way of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses alleges that the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.50.20 cents in Pedayadara in R.S.No.879, 880, 881/2 and 912/2, classified as Paduga lands, were leased out to the members of Sri.Venkateswara Co­operative Credit Farmers Society (herein after called as ‘the Society’ for the sake of brevity) of

Pedayadara Village in the year 1970 ; that the said lease was extended till 1980 and at the request of the members of the Society, the predecessor of P.W.1 accorded permission for conversion of the said lands into fish tanks. On 25.05.1994, the then Collector ordered for transfer of the said lands to the S.C. Corporation.

Further the allegation of the prosecution is that all the accused fabricated D­form pattas relating to the said lands and also filed a writ petition besides filing O.S.No.62/1995 on the file of Hon’ble

C.C.No.172/2008 Page 7 of 15 Dt.01.03.2018

Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam on the basis of forged D­Form

pattas and land revenue receipts and obtained temporary injunction in their favour. On that, P.W.1 ordered for an enquiry and forwarded Ex.P1 ­ report to the investigating officer.

c)The evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 during their chief examination depicts not any other than the aforementioned.

Further P.W.3, who testified as VRO of Thavisipudi, stated that the disputed lands are paduga lands and there is no provision for issuing of D­Form pattas in respect to those lands. However, P.W.1 admitted in his cross­examination that he has not gone through the lease agreements or other records. Despite the said admission, when all the facts testified by P.W.1, except the one that the disputed lands in Ac.50.20 cents is paduga land, that cannot be given for assignment, are not undisputed, there is nothing much to probe into the aspect as to the personal knowledge of P.W.1.

d)The prosecution also examined the villagers of

Pedayadara, as P.Ws.4 to 7. They all unequivocally deposed that the disputed land of Ac.50.20 cents has been in the possession of the Society, Pedayadara. Except the oral testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 7, there is no documentary evidence to show the disputed land in an extent of Ac.50.20 cents is paduga land and there is no provision of issuance of D­Form pattas. Even otherwise, no plausible explanation has been put forth by the prosecution for their failure to place the relevant record to substantiate their case.

C.C.No.172/2008 Page 8 of 15 Dt.01.03.2018

e)Referring to the alleged forgery of the D­Form patts in the name of the accused, the said D­Form pattas has neither seen the light of the day nor there is any straight away accusation from the testimony of P.W.1 attributing the same to the accused. As seen from the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is their version that the said D­Form pattas said to have been issued in the year 1982, in the name of the accused, by the then Thasildhar,

Sri.T.Purna Chandra Rao were not issued by him and were forged.

The testimony of P.W.1, as to with which signatures of the said

T.Purna Chandra Rao were compared with the signatures on D­

Form pattas alleged to have been forged, is totally silent. Though

P.W.2 stated that he compared the signatures of the said

Purnachandra Rao, which were available in the Service Register, with that of the signatures on D­Form pattas, the said Service

Register has not been compared by any expert. Thus, except the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2, nothing is forthcoming from the prosecution evidence to substantiate the same.

f)It is also the allegation that that the revenue receipts said to have been issued by P.W.8 were forged and equally the amount collected there under was not credited to the STO.

P.W.8 testified that he never collected revenue from the accused and nor issued the receipts. He further made out that he was shown the Xerox copies of the revenue receipts and on verification, he made it that the writing does not belong to him. Similarly,

P.W.9 also testified on the same lines in tune with P.W.8. None of the land revenue receipts, which were as many as 27 in number,

C.C.No.172/2008 Page 9 of 15 Dt.01.03.2018

alleged to have been forged by the accused, has not come on record.

However, upon a careful scrutiny of the record, Ex.P3, the letter addressed to the Director of the Hand Writing Expert, discloses the description of the material documents. Adding to it, it is conspicuous from Ex.P5, the opinion from the Assistant Director of

APFSL, Hyderabad, coupled with the covering letter disclosing the enclosures as 45 D­Form pattas and 27 L.R.Receipts, besides other documents. But, the said documents have seen the light of the day.

Though the prosecution filed a petition to summon the said documents from the Hon’ble Prl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Machilipatnam, it has been endorsed by the said Court that the documents were earlier returned to the parties i.e.,the accused as per the registers. Other than the self serving testimonies of P.Ws.8 and 9, the only document that can unveil the truth is Ex.P5, the opinion of the expert. That apart, the testimonies of P.Ws.10 and 11 as to the collection of the specimen signatures of P.Ws.8 and 9 respectively, in their presence, lend the credence to the testimony of P.W.12 the Investigating Officer.

g)Referring to the opinion received from the

APFSL expressed by one Sri.K.V.Ramana the Assistant Director, of

APFSL, Hyderabad under Ex.P5, though he was cited as a witness, the prosecution could not examine him due to his death, but the prosecution has also not taken any steps to examine any other expert of APFSL so as to expose the basis for the opinion and also in what manner the same has been arrived at. Whether the

C.C.No.172/2008 Page 10 of 15 Dt.01.03.2018

credibility of Ex.P5 is disputed, it is needless to reiterate that mere marking of it is not proof of its contents. In these circumstances, when the very genuineness of Ex.P5 is at stake, due to non examination of the Expert, who issued Ex.P5 thre is no other go except to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the contents of Ex.P5 – FSL report. As such, from the evidence placed upon by the prosecution both oral and documentary, there is no sufficient material so as to arrive at the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 468 of IPC.

h)In the light of the above discussion, this court has arrive at a conclusion that the material set out by prosecution against the accused could not establish the ingredients of the charges levelled against the accused under sections 420, 468, 471, 477­A r/w 109 IPC and in these circumstances, it is inevitable to extend benefit of doubt to the accused. Therefore, A8, A14, A24,

A33 & A38 are entitled for an order of acquittal for the charges framed against them under sections 420, 468, 471, 477­A r/w 109

IPC on the ground of benefit of doubt. Point is answered accordingly in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

11.In the result, A8, A14, A24, A33 & A38 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 471, 477­

A r/w 109 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Accused shall furnish a bonds U/s.437­A Cr.P.C., that they shall appear

before the appellate court in the event they receive summons

C.C.No.172/2008 Page 11 of 15 Dt.01.03.2018

within six months from today.

Typed directly to my dictation by the Typist on mechanical process, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 01 st day of March, 2018.

Sd/­ D.Soni

SPL.J.M.F.C. FOR TRYING P & E OFFENCES,

FAC – SPL.MOBILE COURT,

MACHILIPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1: D.Chithraramachandhran

P.W.2: M.K.Dharmareddy

P.W.3: K.Shamprasad

P.W.4: V.Adhiseshayya

P.W.5: N.Koteswararao

P.W.6: N.Nageswararao

P.W.7: Ch.Rama Krishna

P.W.8: A.Subrahmanyeswararao

P.W.9: B.M.M.V.Nageswararao

P.W.10 :K.Harinarayana

P.W.11: D.Vijayashekararao

P.W.12: N.Ramachandra Murthy

For Defence:

– Nil­­

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report

C.C.No.172/2008 Page 12 of 15 Dt.01.03.2018

Ex.P2:First Information Report

Ex.P3:Letter of advice

Ex.P4:Letter of advice

Ex.P5:Expert opinion

For Defence:

­­Nil –

MATERIAL OBJECTS 

­­­Nil­­­

 Sd/­ D.Soni

SPL.J.M.F.C. FOR TRYING P & E OFFENCES,

FAC – SPL.MOBILE COURT,

MACHILIPATNAM

// True copy//

Spl.J.F.C.M,

FAC­ Mobile Court,

MTM

C.C.No.172/2008 Page 13 of 15 Dt.01.03.2018

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS, SPL.MOBILE COURT, MACHILIPATNAM

Calendar in C.C.172/2008

01.Date of Offence : 1997

02.Date of Report : 05.01.1997

03.Apprehension of accused : 19.07.2008

04.Date of commencement of Trial : 27.07.2010

05.Date of closure of Trial : 16.02.2018

06.Date of sentence or order : 01.03.2018

07.Crime No. and Name of P.S. : Cr.No.02/1997 of 

Bandar TalukaP.S.

08.Name of the Complainant : State : Sub­Inspector of

Police,Bandar Taluka P.S.

09.Description of Accused:1.Kannamreddi Koteswara Rao(A3) 2.Kancheralapalli Krishna Rao (A8) 3.Redrowthu Pedha Thatharao A14) 4.Redrowthu Pitchayya (A17) 5.Kancharla Pandu Ranga Rao(A21) 6.Kancherlapalaga Ratnam (A22) 7.Kaila Pandu (A24) 8.Rebba Seethamma (A27) 9.Darapuneni Subba Rao (A33) 10.Arja Venkateswara Rao (A38) 11.Arja Nancharayya (A39) 12.K. NarasimhaRao(A43) (Case against A3, A17, A21, A22, 27, A39 & A43 is abated as they died)

C.C.No.172/2008 Page 14 of 15 Dt.01.03.2018

10.Section of Law : U/s.420, 468, 471, 477­A r/w 109 IPC

11.Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty

12.Finding of Court : Found not guilty

13. Sentence or Order : In the result, A8, A14,

A24, A33 & A38 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 471, 477­A r/w 109 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Accused shall furnish a bonds U/s.437­A

Cr.P.C., that they shall appear before the appellate court in the event they receive summons within six months from today.

14. Explanation for delay : 

This is a split up case against A3, A8, A14, A17, A24,

A27, A28, A33, A38, A39 & A43 which was separated from

C.C.No.130/1999 which arises out of Cr.No.02/1997 of Bandar

Taluka P.S., for the alleged offences punishable Under Sections 420, 468, 471, 477­A r/w 109 IPC on 02.08.2010 at the stage of appearance. Earlier, on 20.09.2012 case against A3 & A14 was again split up from this case and was renumbered as C.C.259/2011 and subsequently, the same was clubbed with this case and tried together as case against A3 was abated as died and A14 was apprehended.Subsequently, case against A17, A21, A22, 27, A39 &

A43 was abated on different dates as they died. After examination of the accused, as they absconded, this court again issued NBWs against them and the matter was adjourned from time to time as

C.C.No.172/2008 Page 15 of 15 Dt.01.03.2018

NBWs were pending. Later, the remaining accused were apprehended and on 30.01.2018, the APP filed a memo requesting to adopt the evidence of the prosecution witnesses recorded in

C.C.No.130/1999 as P.Ws. 1 to 12 and the same has been adopted and prosecution evidence was closed. On 01.02.2018, A8, A14, A24,

A33 & A38 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. On 06.02.2018, heard prosecution arguments. On 16.02.2018, heard defence arguments. On 26.02.2018, heard reply arguments and on the same day arguments were closed. Judgment pronounced on 01.03.2018. Hence, the delay.

Sd/­ D.Soni

SPL.J.M.F.C. FOR TRYING P & E OFFENCES,

FAC – SPL.MOBILE COURT,

MACHILIPATNAM

Copy submitted to : ­

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Krishna,Machilipatnam.

// True copy//

Spl.J.F.C.M,

FAC­ Mobile Court,

MTM

C.C.No.98/2017 Spl.Mobile Court, MTM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL 1 st CLASS MAGISTRATE, SPECIAL

MOBILE COURT, MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT; Sri.S.Siva Sankar Reddy,

II-Additional Judicial 1 st Class Magistrate, MTM

FAC/Judicial I-Class Magistrate, Spl.Mobile Court,MTM

THURSDAY, THIS THE 16 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017

C.C.No.98 of 2017

Between:

State, represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Bandar Taluka Police Station. … Complainant.

And

Kandikonda Veeranna, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 40 years, Circlepet, Machilipatnam.

Driver of auto AP 16 Y 8928. ... Accused.

This case is coming on 15.11.2017 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the entire material available on record and upon hearing the arguments of Senior APP for the Prosecution and on Sri.S.Balajai rao Advocate

for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court

delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Bandar Taluka Police Station filed charge sheet against sole accused in Cr.No.27/2016 for the offence punishable under sec.304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short “IPC”).

2. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

(a) The deceased Bandari Venkateswarlu @ Venkateswara Rao, S/o

Veeraiah, age 65 years, is resident of Nizampet, Machilipatnam and living by doing road works. On 06.03.2016 morning he along with

Complainant/LW.1/Allakuntla Veeranna @ Bairagi and some other including

LW.6/B.Yellamma went to Bantumilli village in the auto of the accused bearing

No.AP 16 Y 8928 for attending road works. After completion of work while they were returning to Machilipatnam in the same auto, at about 18.30 hours when they crossed Narayanapuram bridge and reached near the turning at

Pedapatnam Village, the accused driver drove his auto in a rash and negligent manner and turned the auto at high speed. Due to which the auto turtled and

C.C.No.98/2017 Spl.Mobile Court, MTM the passengers fell down on the road. As a result, the complainant received bleeding injuries over his person, other passengers received minor injuries over their person except the deceased. The deceased received grievous injury on his chest. Then they were shifted to Government Hospital, Machilipatnam in 108 ambulance. The deceased was referred to GGH, Guntur for better treatment. While undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed to death on 07.03.2016 at 02.45 hours due to sever injuries. On 06.03.2016 at 23.15 hours

LW.13/H.C.211 received hospital intimation and he recorded the statement of

LW.1 and registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.27/2016 under sec.337 IPC of

Bandar Taluka Police Station on 07.03.2016 at 02.00 hours and issued FIR to all concerned and took up investigation.

(b) During the course of investigation LW.13/M.A.Gopal received death intimation of injured person from Government Hospital, Guntur and he altered the section of law in this case from 337 IPC to 304-A, 337 IPC. He visited the scene of offence along with mediators and observed the same. He visited the

Government Hospital, Guntur and secured the blood relatives of deceased

Lws.2 to 6, examined them and recorded their statements and also conducted inquest over the deadbody of the deceased. LW.13/H.C. sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem. He issued notice under sec.41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused. During the course of investigation LW.14/P.Uma Maheswara Rao (S.I) received PM report of the deceased and the cause of the death of the deceased is due to complications of crush injury of the chest & associated with other injuries. After completion of investigation, after receipt of wound certificate of

LW.1 and also Motor Vehicle Inspector report from LW.12/P.Sitapathi Rao,

LW.15/K.Srinivasu, S.I of Police, Bandar Taluka Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused under sec.304-A, 337 IPC. Hence, the charge.

3. This case was taken cognizance for the offence under Sec.304-A, 337

IPC and issued summons to accused.

C.C.No.98/2017 Spl.Mobile Court, MTM

4. On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished and when he was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence under sec.304-A, 337 IPC , the substance of the same is read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution Pws.1 to 6 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.15 and Mo.1 are marked. Consequently prosecution side evidence is closed.

6. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:-

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of accused beyond

all reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec.304-A, 337 IPC?

9.POINT: According to the case of the prosecution the offences leveled against sole accused are under sec.304-A, 337 IPC. In order to prove the same the prosecution has listed as many as 15 witnesses, out of them Pws.1 to 6 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.5 and Mo.1 is marked. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lws.7 to 12, 14 & 15 as material witnesses did not support the prosecution case. PW.1 is the defacto complainant/injured, Pws.2 & 5 are the injured and eye witnesses, PWs.3 & 4 are the hear say witnesses to support and corroborate PW.1. PW.6 is the investigating officer in this case.

Mo.1 is broken glass pieces.

C.C.No.98/2017 Spl.Mobile Court, MTM

10. As per the charge sheet allegations, the accused being the driver of auto bearing No. AP 16 Y 8928 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed on 06.03.2016 and thereby the auto turned turtle at 06.30 p.m.

near the turning at Pedapatnam village while returning from Bantumilli to

Machilipatnam. As per charge sheet allegations in the said accident Pws.1, 2 & 5 sustained injuries and also one B.Venkateswarlu @ Venkateswara Rao was succumbed with injuries on 07.03.2016 in Government General Hospital,

Guntur while taking treatment. Thus, the accused has committed the offence under sec.304-A IPC and 337 IPC.

11. In order to prove the offence under sec.304-A IPC, the prosecution has to prove….

(I) The identity of accused being the driver of the crime vehicle.

(II) The rash and negligent driving of the accused.

(III) The death of the deceased in the said accident.

In order to prove the offence under sec. 337 IPC the prosecution has to prove….

(I) Accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident.

(II) The rash and negligent driving of the accused.

(III) The simple injuries of injured.

12. In order to prove the offence under sec.304-A IPC and 337 IPC the prosecution has examined the injured/eye witnesses as Pws.1, 2 & 5. PW.1 categorically deposed that about one and half year back on one day he along with deceased Venkateswara Rao and some others went to Bantumilli for coolie works and around 06.00 p.m. they boarded an auto at Bantumilli to reach

Machilipatnam. PW.1 further deposed that when the auto reached near

Pedapatnam, the auto turned turtle and all of them fell down. He sustained injuries on his right temporal region and hands. PW.1 further deposed that the deceased Venkateswara Rao has received chest injuries and the other passengers in the auto also received simple injuries. PW.1 further deposed that

C.C.No.98/2017 Spl.Mobile Court, MTM they were shifted to Government Hospital, Machilipatnam and while he was under going treatment, police came there and obtained his signature. Ex.P.1 is his signature on the statement, but he do not know the contents therein. Police did not examine him.

13. Pws.2 & 5 also deposed in the same lines of PW.1 and fully supported and corroborated him in the aspect of auto turning turtle and sustained injuries by them. PW.2 deposed that he sustained injury on his shoulder. PW.5 deposed that he did not sustain any injury. Pws.1, 2 & 5 in their chief examination itself categorically deposed in one voice that they have not seen the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and they have not noticed the number of the crime vehicle. As Pws.1, 2 & 5 did not support the prosecution case, the learned APP treated them as hostile and put questioned in the nature of cross examination, but nothing useful was elicited to support the case of the prosecution except marking their denial 161 Cr.P.C. statements as Ex.P.2, P.3 &

P.6.

14. The prosecution has also examined the relatives of injured and deceased whoa re the hear say witnesses as Pws.3 & 4. PW.3 deposed that the deceased Venkateswara Rao is his father. PW.4 deposed that the deceased

Venkateswara Rao is his grand father. Pws.3 & 4 also deposed in one voice that about one and half year back they came to know about the auto accident, in which PW.1 sustained injuries and deceased sustained injuries and later succumbed with injuries. Pws.3 & 4 also deposed in one voice that they do not know how the accident occurred. As Pws.3 & 4 did not support the prosecution case, the learned APP treated them as hostile and put questions in the nature of cross examination, but nothing useful was elicited except marking their 161

Cr.P.C. statements as Ex.P.4 & P.5.

15. On thorough consideration of above evidence of Pws.1 to 5, it is crystal clear that about one and half year back the deceased along with Pws. 1, 2 & 5 traveled in an auto from Bantumilli to Machilipatnam and when the auto

C.C.No.98/2017 Spl.Mobile Court, MTM reached near Pedapatnam village, the auto turned turtle, for which they sustained injuries and later the d/eceased succumbed with injuries. Pws.1, 2 & 5 being the injured and the persons who traveled in the auto at the time of the accident are the appropriate persons to speak about the truth and the manner in which the accident was occurred. But, unfortunately Pws.1, 2 & 5 in one voice deposed that they have not seen the driver of the crime vehicle and not notice the number of the crime vehicle, thereby there is nothing incriminating made out from their evidence to connect the accused with the presence case.

No doubt as per the evidence of Pws.1 to 5, it is clearly made out that one

Venkateswara Rao was succumbed with injuries and later died in Government

Hospital, Guntur on 07.03.2016. In a case under sec.304-A IPC mere proving of death of the deceased in an accident itself does not automatically entitle the prosecution to get conviction of the accused. Apart from that the death, the prosecution has also to prove that the identity of the driver of the crime vehicle and also the rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle. In the instant case as discussed above, none of the prosecution witnesses among

Pws.1 to 5 did not identify the accused and did not depose the manner how the auto was turned turtle. The evidence of Pws.1, 2 & 5 is quite silent about the rashness or negligence of the driver of the auto. Hence, the evidence of Pws.1, 2 & 5 does not incriminate anything against the accused to connect him with the alleged offence and thereby their evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution in any manner.

16. Coming to the remaining evidence on record i.e., PW.6 who is the investigating officer and head constable, he deposed that on 06.03.2016 at 11.15 p.m. he received hospital intimation and immediately he rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1. Ex.P.7 is hospital intimation and

Ex.P.8 is statement of PW.1. Basing on Ex.P.8, he registered a case in

Cr.No.27/2016 under sec.337 IPC and submitted FIR. Ex.P.9 is the original FIR.

PW.6 further deposed about his investigation, examination of witnesses, preparation of rough sketch, conducting of inquest, seizure of broken glass

C.C.No.98/2017 Spl.Mobile Court, MTM pieces and scene observation report. Ex.P.10 is the rough sketch, Ex.P.11 is scene observation report and Mo.1 is broken glass pieces. PW.6 further deposed that on 07.03.2016 at 07.00 a.m. he received death intimation of one of the injured and then he proceeded to Government Hospital, Machilipatnam and sent the deadbody to autopsy. Ex.P.12 is the inquest report, Ex.P.13 is the

PM certificate, Ex.P.14 is the MVI report. Ex.P.15 is the wound certificate of

PW.1. PW.6 further deposed that after receipt of the PM certificate, MVI report, he handed over the investigation to his S.I of Police and in turn the S.I of Police filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. In the cross examination

PW.6 denied the suggestion that this case was foisted for statistical purpose to get insurance. On consideration of the above evidence of PW.6 coupled with the documentary evidence, it is crystal clear that he deposed about his official acts during the course of investigation.

17. A conjoint reading of the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 coupled with Ex.P.12 inquest report and Ex.P.13 PM certificate, it is crystal clear that while undergoing treatment the injured Venkateswara Rao was succumbed with injuries on 07.03.2016. But, the official evidence of PW.6 is not at all supported and corroborated by the independent evidence of Pws.1 to 5. The uncorroborated testimony of PW.6 investigating officer is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution as it is not incriminating anything against the accused.

18. On thorough consideration of the above evidence of Pws.1 to 6 coupled with the Ex.P.1 to P.15, it is crystal clear that on 06.03.2016 the deceased, Pws.1, 2 & 5 traveled in an auto and the said auto was turned turtle near Pedapatnam village. Later the deceased succumbed with injuries on 07.03.2016. As discussed above, it is crystal clear that mere proving the death of deceased in a road accident, itself does not entitle the prosecution to get the conviction of the accused. In the instant case, except proving the death of the deceased the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the remaining two ingredients i.e., identity of the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of

C.C.No.98/2017 Spl.Mobile Court, MTM accident and also the rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle.

Furthermore as seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, there is no iota of evidence on record to connect the accused with the instant case.

Moreover there is no incriminating evidence against the accused to base a conviction against him. Viewed from any angle there is no tenable evidence on record to prove the alleged offences against the accused, accordingly this point is answered.

19. In the light of aforesaid reasons and discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under sec.304-A, 337 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and that accused is entitled for acquittal.

20. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 337 IPC and he is acquitted under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as per sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The case property Mo.1 i.e., broken glass pieces shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court, this the 16th day of November, 2017.

II-Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, FAC/Judl.I-Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE

PW.1: Allakuntal Veeranna @ Bhairagi - None – PW.2: Bandari Ramulamma PW.3: B.Lakshmana Rao PW.4: Gandikota Gopi PW.5: Yellamma PW.6: M.Anand Gopal

C.C.No.98/2017 Spl.Mobile Court, MTM

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW.1 on the recorded statement. Ex.P.2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P.4: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P.5: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P.6: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5. Ex.P.7: Hospital intimation. Ex.P.8: Recorded statement of PW.1. Ex.P.9: FIR. Ex.P.10: Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P.11: Scene observation report. Ex.P.12: Inquest report. Ex.P.13: Postmortem report. Ex.P.14: Motor vehicle Inspector report. Ex.P.15: Wound certificate of PW.1.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

­-Nil- - ­

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1: Broken Glass pieces.

II-Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, FAC/Judl.I-Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.98/2017 Spl.Mobile Court, MTM

New C.C.No.400250 of 2017 Page 1 of 12

Old C.C.No.300129 of 2017 Dt.17.01.2019

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS FOR TRYING PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

OFFENCES :: MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT : Smt. D.Soni,

 Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class for trying P & E Offences,

Machilipatnam. 

Thursday, this the 17 th day of January, 2019

New C.C.No.400250 of 2017

Old C.C.No.300129 of 2017

Between : State : Sub­Inspector of Police, Pedana P.S., (Cr.No.26 of 2017 )… …COMPLAINANT.

And

Kotte Venkateswararao, S/o.Late Veeraiah, Hindu, age 55 years, R/o.Kamalapuram village, Pedana Mandal.… … ACCUSED.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

Complainant and of Sri B. Ram Babu, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub­Inspector of police, Pedana Police station, filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.26/2017 for the offences punishable under

Sections 506, 290 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as 'IPC' for the sake of brevity) against the accused.

New C.C.No.400250 of 2017 Page 2 of 12

Old C.C.No.300129 of 2017 Dt.17.01.2019

02. The case of the prosecution, succinctly, is that:

a)L.W.1 – Kotte Narasimharao and P.W.1 are residents of Kamalapuram village of Pedana Mandal and they are husband and wife. On 13.01.2017, the hayrick of L.W.1 – Kotte

Narasimharao was burnt and they came to know that the accused committed the said act. They reported the matter to police. Since then, the accused bore grudge against P.W.1 and L.W.1 – Kotte

Narasimharao. On 21.02.2017, at 06.00 p.m., when L.W.1 – Kotte

Narasimharao and P.W.1 was present in their house, the accused went there and abused them for suspecting him of burning the hayrick and also threatened them with dire consequences that he would cut the body parts of P.W.1. Frightened by the acts of the accused, L.W.1 –

Kotte Narasimharao and P.W.1 went to the Police Station and L.W.1 gave report to police.

b)Based on the report of L.W.1 – Kotte

Narasimharao, P.W.6 registered a case and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses, prepared rough sketch, secured eye witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. On 07.03.2017, he served notice to the accused U/s.41­A Cr.P.C. and obtained compliance. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

03.Originally, on receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offences under Sections 290, 506 of IPC against the accused on the file of Spl.Mobile Court, Machilipatnam. 

New C.C.No.400250 of 2017 Page 3 of 12

Old C.C.No.300129 of 2017 Dt.17.01.2019

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). Subsequently, the case has been received by this court by transfer as per the proceedings of Hon'ble District Court, in

Dis.No.5754, dt.15.07.2017 for disposal.

05.When the accused was examined under Section 251 of

Cr.P.C., the substance of accusation leveled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 290 of IPC was orally read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, the seven cited witnesses in the charge sheet were examined as P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P4 were exhibited. The evidence of L.W.1­ Kotta

Narasimharao was closed by the court as he died as per the memo, dt.20.04.2018.

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, he denied and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard the arguments of Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

New C.C.No.400250 of 2017 Page 4 of 12

Old C.C.No.300129 of 2017 Dt.17.01.2019

09.Now, the point that emerges for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution is successful in

bringing home the accusation levelled

against the accused under Sections 506,

290 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ? ”

10. POINT :

a)To unfold its narrative, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 6, out of whom, P.W.1 is the victim, P.Ws.2 to 5 are the eye witnesses to the incident, P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer of the case.

The prosecution also relied upon the strength of Exs.P1 to P4. Further, the defacto complainant who is the husband of P.W.1 died on 12.09.2017, hence, the prosecution could not bring his evidence on record. 

b)P.W.1 deposed that when she along with L.W.1 –

Kotte Narasimharao were present in their house, on 21.02.2017, at 06.00 p.m., the accused went with a knife and shouted at them for suspecting him in connection with burning of their hayrick on 13.01.2017 and also that the accused abused P.W.1 in filthy language and threatened to kill her. She further deposed that the elder brother of the accused i.e., P.W.4 went there and sent him away and on the same day, during the night time, she along with L.W.1 – Kotte Narasimharao went to the police station and L.W.1 gave report marked as Ex.P1. She also stated that she was present at the time of reporting the matter to police by L.W.1.

New C.C.No.400250 of 2017 Page 5 of 12

Old C.C.No.300129 of 2017 Dt.17.01.2019

c)P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 who are the eye witnesses unequivocally supported the version of P.W.1 and deposed that when

P.W.1 and L.W.1 ­ Kotte Narasimharao were present in their house, the accused went into their house and shouted at P.W.1 by abused her in most filthy language and threatened to kill her. In so far as the evidence of P.W.4 is concerned, he is the brother of the accused and he turned unfriendly to the prosecution case. He deposed that he never witnessed the alleged incident and he did not know anything about this case. Nothing significant could be elicited during his cross­examination by the Assistant Public Prosecutor after seeking the permission of the court U/s.154 of Indian Evidence Act r/w S.162 proviso of Cr.P.C., except marking of the contents of S.161 Cr.P.C., statement of the witness as Ex.P2, the contents of which were denied by the witness.

Thus, his evidence is of no avail to the case of prosecution.

d)P.W.6 who is the investigating officer deposed about the chronological series of acts done by him during the course of investigation since the date of registration of Ex.P3 – FIR, he served notice to the accused filing of charge sheet. Nothing significant could be elicited from the cross­examination of P.W.6.

e)Pertaining to the cross­examination of other prosecution witnesses, it is elicited that there are disputes between

P.W.1 and the accused prior to this offence in connection with path way of in their land. However, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that this case is falsely foisted against the accused in view of the previous disputes between them. When the cross­examination of P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 is looked

New C.C.No.400250 of 2017 Page 6 of 12

Old C.C.No.300129 of 2017 Dt.17.01.2019

into, the defence counsel questioned them regarding their presence at the scene of offence and all of them unequivocally stated that when they were present near the scene of offence to bring the pesticides, the alleged incident happened and they witnessed the incident. Further, their presence was not denied by the defence counsel after giving explanation. 

 f) As far as the evidence of P.W.4 who turned hostile is seen, as he is the elder brother of the accused, naturally it is not surprising to note that he turned unfriendly to the prosecution case.

Except bald suggestions to get over the case, no attempt was made by the defence counsel to disbelieve and discredit the version of the prosecution witnesses.

g) The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5 is unequivocally corroborated with each other and also with the recitals of the report. In as much as the prosecution could not bring the evidence of L.W.1 ­

Kotte Narasimharao on record due to his death, the victim who was abused i.e., P.W.1 entered into the witness box and gave the evidence and her evidence could not be shaken by the defence counsel when subjected to cross­examination. So long as the prosecution witnesses are wholly reliable, no suggesting inference could be drawn to shatter the credibility the version of the such witnesses. 

h)  It is also pertinent to note here that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is in consonance with the recitals of Ex.P1 in all aspects and there are no significant contradictions or omissions due

New C.C.No.400250 of 2017 Page 7 of 12

Old C.C.No.300129 of 2017 Dt.17.01.2019

to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. In view of the above discussion, in a totality of the evidence on record and assessment thereof, this court landed in a conclusion that the cross­examination of the prosecution witnesses by the defence counsel could not be able to extract any material point or contradiction on material particulars in the version of prosecution and there is no point which could be considered fatal to the case of prosecution with regard to the guilt of the accused.

i)Therefore, it can be unhesitatingly held that the prosecution could successfully establish that the accused threatened

P.W.1 with dire consequences and also abused her in filthy language, thereby committed an act of criminal intimidation punishable offence

U/s.506 IPC and also by his uttering abusive words, he created public nuisance which is aptly corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 and thereby committed the offence punishable U/s.290 IPC.

j)Consequently, in an escapable conclusion could be arrived that the prosecution is able to establish that the guilt of the accused for the substance of accusation levelled against him U/s.506, 290 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused is entitled for an order of conviction for the offences punishable U/s.506, 290 IPC.

Point is answered accordingly in favour of prosecution and against the accused.

11.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 290, 506 IPC and accordingly he is convicted under section 255 (3) of Cr.P.C.

New C.C.No.400250 of 2017 Page 8 of 12

Old C.C.No.300129 of 2017 Dt.17.01.2019

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of January, 2019. 

Sd/­ D.Soni

SPL.J.M.F.C. FOR TRYING P & E OFFENCES,

MACHILIPATNAM

13.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it is not a fit case to invoke the provisions under the Probation of Offenders’ Act or Section 360 of Cr.P.C.

14.When questioned with regard to quantum of sentence the accused pleaded mercy by stating that he has dependents and that he is eking his livelihood by doing cultivation.

15.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the accused, he is sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.2,000/­ (Rupees Two thousand only) in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two weeks for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Further the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/­ (Rupees Two hundred only) in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one week for the offence punishable under Section 290 IPC.

On an aggregate, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,200/­ (Rupees Two thousand and two hundred only) for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 290 IPC, IDSI three weeks. Pre­trial detention of the accused is nil.

16.The accused is informed about his right of preferring an

New C.C.No.400250 of 2017 Page 9 of 12

Old C.C.No.300129 of 2017 Dt.17.01.2019

appeal against this judgment and further, when informed about his right, accused stated that he has got sufficient means to engage a counsel to prefer an appeal.

17.In the result, the accused found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 290 of IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 255(3) of Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/­ (Rupees Two thousand only) in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two weeks for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Further the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/­ (Rupees Two hundred only) in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one week for the offence punishable under Section 290 IPC.

Pre­trial detention of the accused is nil.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of January, 2019. 

Sd/­D.Soni

SPL. J.M.F.C. FOR TRYING P & E OFFENCES,

MACHILIPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :­

PW.1 – Kotte Nageswaramma PW.2 – Kotte Radha Krishna PW.3 – Tikkisetti Lakshmi Narayna PW.4 – Kotte Subhash Chandra Bose PW.5 – Domatoti Syam Babu PW.6 – A.Ganesh Kumar, the then S.I. of Pedana P.S.,

New C.C.No.400250 of 2017 Page 10 of 12

Old C.C.No.300129 of 2017 Dt.17.01.2019

1 For Defence :­ – Nill ­­

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :­

Ex.P1 :Report Ex.P2 :S.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P3 : FIR Ex.P4 : Rough sketch of scene of offence

For Defence:­ ­Nil­

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

Sd/­ D.Soni

SPL. J.M.F.C. FOR TRYING P & E OFFENCES,

MACHILIPATNAM.

// True copy//

Spl.J.F.C.M, MTM.

New C.C.No.400250 of 2017 Page 11 of 12

Old C.C.No.300129 of 2017 Dt.17.01.2019

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS FOR TRYING PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

OFFENCES :: MACHILIPATNAM

New C.C.No.400250 of 2017

Old C.C.No.300129 of 2017

01. Offence : 13.01.2017

02. Complaint: 13.01.2017

03.Apprehension of Accused: 07.03.2017

04. Commencement of Trial : 20.04.2018

05. Close of Trial : 08.01.2019

06. Judgment: 17.01.2019

07. Complainant: Station House Officer, 

Pedana P.S.,

8. Name of the Accused : Kotte Venkateswararao,

S/o.Late Veeraiah, Hindu, age 55 years, R/o.Kamalapuram village, Pedana Mandal.

9. Offence: U/s.506, 290 IPC

10. Plea of Accused: “Not Guilty”

11. Finding: “FOUND GUILTY”

12. Result: In the result, the accused found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 290 of IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 255(3) of Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/­ (Rupees Two thousand only) in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two weeks for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Further the accused is sentenced to pay a fine

New C.C.No.400250 of 2017 Page 12 of 12

Old C.C.No.300129 of 2017 Dt.17.01.2019

of Rs.200/­ (Rupees Two hundred only) in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one week for the offence punishable under Section 290 IPC. Pre­trial detention of the accused is nil.

13. Explanation for delay: Originally the case was taken on file by Spl.Mobile Court, Machilipatnam on 01.04.2017.

Copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated

U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C on 13.06.2017. Subsequently, the case has been received by this court by transfer as per the proceedings of Hon'ble

District Court, in Dis.No.5754, dt.05.07.2017 for disposal. On 24.10.2017, the accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the offences under sections 506, 290 IPC. On 20.04.2018, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined in chief and Ex.P1 was exhibited. On 24.04.2018, P.Ws.1 to 3 cross­examined. On 04.05.2018, P.W.4 was examined and Ex.P2 was exhibited. On 17.12.2018, P.W.5 was examined. On 20.12.2018, P.W.6 was examined and Exs.P3 and P4 were exhibited and on the same day the prosecution evidence was closed. On 21.12.2018, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, for which, he denied and reported no defence. On 31.12.2018, heard prosecution side arguments. On 08.01.2019, heard defence arguments. Judgment pronounced on 17.01.2019. Hence, the delay. 

Sd/­ D.Soni

SPL.J.M.F.C. FOR TRYING P & E OFFENCES,

MACHILIPATNAM

Copy submitted to : 

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna,Machilipatnam.

// True copy//

Spl.J.F.C.MMTM

CC. No. 758 of 2018 Page 1 of 11

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS FOR TRYING PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

OFFENCES :: MACHILIPATNAM

Present: Smt. D.Soni, 

Spl. Judl. First Class Magistrate for Trying Proh.&Excise

Offences, Machilipatnam

Friday, this the 11 th day of January, 2019.

CALENDER CASE No: 758 of 2018

Between:­

The State: Rep. by 

Prohibition and Excise Inspector,

Machilipatnam. ..Complainant.

And

Puppala Venkateswara Rao, 

S/o. Nancharaiah, 

Age 45 yrs, 

R/o Tarakaturu (V),

Guduru (M)... Accused.

*****

This case is coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri

P. Suresh Babu, Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and matter have stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

CC. No. 758 of 2018 Page 2 of 11

J U D G M E N T

01.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Machilipatnam

Station, filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.47/2018 for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

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

On 23.06.2018, at about 11­00 a.m., PW.1 ­ Sub­ Inspector of

Prohibition and Excise, ESTF, Machilipatnam, along with his staff members while conducting patrolling near Canal Bridge of Tarakaturu village, noticed the accused holding a polythene bag in his right hand and on seeing the Excise officials, the accused tried to skulk away.

Then, the Sub­Inspector, Prohibition & Excise, ESTF, Machilipatnam caught hold the accused and questioned, then he stated that he is disposing the same without any license for monitory benefits and basing on his confession, Sub­Inspector of Prohibition & Excise,

Machilipatnam seized 07 liquor bottles of 04 bottles of Old Tavern Fine

Whiskery with a capacity of 180 ml., each, 03 bottles of Any time Fine

Whiskey with a capacity of 180 ml each, from the possession of the accused and took all bottles as samples, affixed identity slips on the contraband. Since none came forwarded to act as mediators, he prepared special report and returned to Prohibition & Excise station,

Machilipatnam along with property and accused, then he registered the said special report as a case in Cr.No.47/2018 for the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act. During the course investigation, he observed all formalities and sent the accused to court for judicial custody. Later, he sent the samples for chemical examination. On

CC. No. 758 of 2018 Page 3 of 11

receipt of FSL report and after completion of investigation, P.W.2, P &

E Inspector, Machilipatnam filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

03.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence under Section 34 (a) AP Excise Act, 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.When examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the allegations levelled against him. After perusing the entire material on record and on hearing both sides, a charge had been framed against the accused under section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act, which was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

06.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined out of the three cited witnesses in the charge sheet and

Exs.P1 to P3 and M.Os.1 to 07 were exhibited. The evidence of L.W.2 ­

V.V.Venugopalarao, P & E Head Constable, ESTF, Machilipatnam was given up by the prosecution.

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.

CC. No. 758 of 2018 Page 4 of 11

08.Heard both sides.

a)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW's.1and 2 coupled with Exs.P1 to P3 and M.Os.1 to 7 goes to show that the accused had committed the offence and the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused.

b)The defence counsel argued that no independent witnesses by the prosecution, no local mediators secured at the time of seizure of contraband, the entire case is depending upon the case proceedings which is infirmity. Hence, prays to acquit the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt.

09.The point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution is successful in

bringing home the guilt of accused for the

charge framed against him under section

34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

10. POINT:

a)P.W.1 who is the P & E Sub – Inspector, ESTF,

Machilipatnam deposed that on 23.06.2018 at about 11.00 a.m., he along with his staff proceeded to Tarakaturu village to conduct patrolling, when they reached near Canal Bridge of Tarakaturu village, they found one person in possession of a polythene bag and on seeing them, he tried to skulk away, then, they stopped him and questioned,

CC. No. 758 of 2018 Page 5 of 11

found liquor bottles in his possession and the said person stated that he is going to sell the same at his village. He further deposed that as no mediators were secured, he drafted Ex.P1 ­ special report and seized 07 liquor bottles out of which 04 bottles are Old Tavern Fine Whiskey with a capacity of 180 ml., each, 03 bottles are Anytime Fine Whiskey with a capacity of 180 ml each from the possession of accused marked as

M.Os.1 to 7 and all were taken as samples and took the accused along with property to the Prohibition & Excise station, Machilipatnam.

PW.1 stated during cross­examination that the scene of offence is busy and residential locality but no persons came forward to act as they did not serve notices to any persons to act as mediators and then handed over further investigation to PW.2. 

b)  PW.2 who is the P & E Inspector, Machilipatnam based on Ex.P1 – special report, he registered a case in Cr.No.47/2018 under

Sec. 34(a) of A.P Excise Act, issued Ex.P2 ­ FIR, and sent him to court for judicial remand and on 09.07.2018, he forwarded M.Os.1 to 7 to

Government Chemical examiner for analysis He further admitted that the reasons for delay of 15 days in forwarding M.Os.1 to 7 for chemical analaysis were not mentioned by him. PW.2 further deposed that he received analysis report from the Chemical examiner marked as Ex.P3, in which it was opined that the seizure samples are Indian Made

Liquor and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. 

c)In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW's.1 and 2. As per the evidence of PW.1 who was present at the time of arrest and seizure deposed that the

CC. No. 758 of 2018 Page 6 of 11

accused was found in possession of 07 liquor bottles out of which 04 bottles are Old Tavern Fine Whiskery with a capacity of 180 ml., each, 03 bottles are Any time Fine Whiskey with a capacity of 180 ml each marked as M.Os.1 to 7 and the same were seized under cover of Ex.P1 ­ special report.

d) Adverting to the plea of defence counsel about arrest of accused and seizure of contraband in the absence of mediators, it is pertinent to mention that the place of offence is situated near

Canal Bridge of Tarakaturu village, which is a busy and residential 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 and residential 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 contraband. Further PW.1 could not say the names of the persons whom they approached to act as the mediators and stated that they have not served notices to any persons or village officials to act as mediators. 

e)In such circumstances, the testimony of PW.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 knowing about the possession of liquor bottles, they ought to have secured the mediators. All these facts lead to inference that the Excise officials have failed to secure two or more independent or respectable

CC. No. 758 of 2018 Page 7 of 11

inhabitants of locality for seizure of contraband. Consequently, the seizure of contraband as alleged from Ex.P1 – special report vitiated.

f) Apropos, the contention of the defence counsel that mere supporting the analysis report does not establish the case against the accused, Ex.P3 ­ analysis report only speak about the facts. The material report for chemical analysis shows that M.Os.1 to 7 are Indian

Made Liquor but it is for the prosecution to establish that such samples referred to chemical analysis were seized from the possession of the accused which the prosecution failed to prove.

g)With regard to the sending of liquor bottles for testing,

PW.1 seized M.Os.1 to 7 on 23.06.2018 which were sent for analysis on 09.07.2018. Thus, there is a delay of 15 days. This delay was not at all explained by PW.2 who sent the sample. In this context it is imperative to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of AP in Ratnala

Brundavanam vs. State of AP reported in 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 905

wherein it was held as :

“If abnormal delay in sending the sample to

analyst is not explained the accused is

entitled for benefit of doubt.”

In the case on hand, PW.1 has not explained as to why he could not send the sample bottles for chemical analysis till 09.07.2018, which casts a serious doubt upon the case of prosecution.

h)In view of the above decision, it can be rightly concluded that mere registering the crime and securing the analysis

CC. No. 758 of 2018 Page 8 of 11

report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of prosecution. Except the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are Excise officials 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. Consequently, this court is inclined to hold a considered view that the prosecution has failed in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the charge framed against the accused under Sec. 34(a) of A.P Excise Act, and hence, accused is entitled for an order of acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. Point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

11.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand canceled. Accused shall furnish a bond under Sec. 437­A Cr.P.C, that he shall appear before the Appellate court in the event he receives summons within the six months from today.

The case property i.e., M.Os.1 to 7 in C.P.R.No.33 of 2018 are ordered to be destroyed on lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of January, 2019.

Sd/­ D.Soni

SPL.J.M.F.C. FOR TRYING P & E OFFENCES,

MACHILIPATNAM

CC. No. 758 of 2018 Page 9 of 11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :­

PW1 – K. V.Brahmam, P & E Sub Inspector, Machilipatnam.

PW2 – V. Vaikunata Rao, P & E Inspector, Machilipatnam.

For Defence:­

 None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :­ For Defence:­

Ex.P1 :Special report prepared by P.W.1 ­­Nil­­

Ex.P2 :FIR in Cr.No. 47/2018 of P & E Station,Machilipatnam.

Ex.P3 :Analysis report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.Os .1 to 7 – 07 liquor bottles out of which 04 bottles of Old Tavern 

Fine Whiskey Whiskery with a capacity of 180 ml., each, 03 bottles of 

Anytime Fine Whiskey with a capacity of 180 ml each.

Sd/­ D.Soni

SPL.J.M.F.C. FOR TRYING P & E OFFENCES,

MACHILIPATNAM

// True Copy //

Spl.J.F.C.M., M.T.M.

CC. No. 758 of 2018 Page 10 of 11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS FOR TRYING PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

OFFENCES::MACHILIPATNAM

C.C. No.758 of 2018

1. Offence : 23.06.2018

2. Filing: 12.11.2018

3. Apprehension of Accused : 15.11.2018

4. Commencement of Trial : 27.12.2018

5. Closure of Trial : 31.12.2018

6. Judgment: 11.01.2019

7. Complainant: The State : Prohibition & Excise, 

Machilipatnam.

8. Name of accused : Puppala Venkateswara Rao, 

S/o. Nancharaiah, Age 45 yrs, R/o Tarakaturu (V), Guduru (M).

9. Offence: U/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

10. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

11. Finding: Found not guilty

12. Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand canceled. Accused shall furnish a bond under Sec. 437­A Cr.P.C, that he

CC. No. 758 of 2018 Page 11 of 11

shall appear before the Appellate court in the event he receives summons within the six months from today.

The case property i.e., M.Os.1 to 7 in C.P.R.No.33 of 2018 are ordered to be destroyed on lapse of appeal time.

13. Explanation for delay:

After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C on 15.11.2018.

On 16.11.2018, he was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. for the offence

U/secs.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. On 27.12.2018 P.W.1 was examined and

Ex.P1, M.Os. 1 to 7 were marked. On 31.12.2018 P.W.2 was examined

Exs.P2 and P3 was marked and the prosecution evidence was closed.

On 02.01.2019, accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C, for which, he denied and reported no defence. Heard arguments on 09.01.2019.

Judgment pronounced on 11.01.2019. Hence, the delay. 

Sd/­ D.Soni

SPL.J.M.F.C. FOR TRYING P & E OFFENCES,

MACHILIPATNAM

Copy submitted to : 

The Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna,Machilipatnam.

// True Copy //

Spl.J.F.C.M., M.T.M.