Ms. Deepa Kasaragadda

C.C.65 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

Friday, this the 9th day of September, 2022.

Present: Kum.K.Deepa, I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, FAC.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.65 of 2022

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise, Bhadrachalam.

...Complainant

and

A1. Boda Ramoji, S/o.Sakram, age.38years, Occ.Coolie, R/o.Conductor colony, Sarapaka village, Burgampahad Mandal. A2. Guguloth Praveen @ Gussu, S/o.Rambabu, age.26 years, Occ.Coolie, R/o.Mayday colony, Sarapaka. …Accused.

This case is coming before me on 02-09-2022 for hearing in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri M.Ramachandraiah, learned counsel for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. A1 and A2 stand chargesheeted by the Sub-Inspector, Proh. & Excise,

Bhadrachalam in C.O.R.No.115/2021 for the offence punishable Under Section 7-A r/w.8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995.

2.In brief, it is the case of the prosecution, that on 18-06-2021 at 08-00 a.m on credible information, LW.3 along with staff conducted raids for Proh., & Excise offences and reached the place of offence, ie., Sarapaka Chowrastha, Burgampahad Mandal and detected the accused 1 and 2 were moving in suspicious circumstances. On suspicion

LW.3 with the help of staff got detained them and asked about the contents of the bag.

The accused stated that the bag containing I.D.liquor by securing mediators. LW.3 verified the said bag held by accused and found (15) liters of I.D.liquor in one plastic can alongwith Bajaj Pulsarblack & silver motorcycle bearing No.TS28C 3147. On enquiry they 1 of 6

C.C.65 of 2022

gave their names and other identity particulars. LW.3 drew 180 ml I.D.arrack as sample for chemical analysis, into 180 ml clean, dry, empty bottle, kept the remaining I.D. liquor in the same bag, sealed and affixed identity slips to the sample bottle and the bag. LW.3 questioned the accused about the I.D.liquor. The A1 and A2 confessed their guilt. In pursuance of confession of accused, LW.3 seized the case property, sample bottle and arrested the accused, after explaining the reasons of arrest, under cover of special report scribed by LW.3 and returned to police station and LW.3 registered the special report as a case in C.O.R.No.115/2021 U/Sec.7-a r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and sent the samples to chemical expert and LW.4 filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 7-A r/w 8

(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act against accused.

4. After appearance of accused, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required Under Section.207 Criminal Procedure Code 1973.

5. A1 and A2 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C explaining the accusation made against them. They denied the same. Charge under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P Proh. Act was framed against accused, readover and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Prosecution side evidence closed.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments of the Learned Asst.Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused. Perused the material on record.

9. Now the points for determination are :-

1.Whether the accused was in possession of ID liquor which is punishable under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995?

2.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

2 of 6

C.C.65 of 2022

POINT No.1:-

10. In this case Pws.1 to 3 were examined. Pws.1 and 2 are panch witnesses and PW.3 is excise official. The learned A.P.P. has given-up the evidence of LW.4/Smt.Shaik Rahimunnisa Begum, the 2nd investigating officer, who filed chargesheet, as such the evidence of LW.4/Sk.Rahimunnisa Begum was closed by this court on 17.08.2022.

PW.1 – Keesari Kishore deposed that he does not know anything about this case. Nothing was happened in his presence. At about one and half year back on one day, Bhadrachalam Excise Officials called him and obtained his signature on some written papers. Witness identified the signature on the confession-cum-seizure panchanama, dt.18.06.2021 marked as Ex.P1. He also deposed that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and nobody confessed in his presence and nothing was seized in his presence.

PW.2 – Yadlapalli Ramesh deposed thathe does not anything about this case. Nothing was happened in his presence. At about one and half year back on one day, Bhadrachalam Excise Officials called him and obtained his signature on some written papers. He also deposed that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and nobody confessed in his presence and nothing was seized in his presence. Witness identified the signature on the confession-cum-seizure panchanama, dt.18.06.2021 marked as Ex.P2.

PW-3/Sri B.Murali Krishna, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise Station, Bhadrachalam deposed that on 18.06.2021 at about 08-00 a.m, while he along with his staff were conducting raids for detection of prohibition and excise offences and reached at Sarapaka Chowrastha, Burgampahad Mandal he noticed the A1, A2 were found under suspicious circumstances, they stopped the accused, then they revealed their names as Boda Ramoji and Guguloth Praveen Kumar and they found about (15) liters of I.D.liquor in a plastic can and he seized same from the possession of accused by drawing two samples each 180 ml., under a cover of Ex.P.3 panchanama in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2. He brought the accused along with case property and Ex.P-3 panchanama to P & E Station, Bhadrachalam and basing on Ex.P-3/panchanama he registered a case in C.O.R.No.115/2021 dated.18.06.2021 under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act. Later, he sent the sample to the Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Warangal for analysis. After receipt of analysis report. Later he received proceeding from the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Khammam to destruct the remained contraband and confiscation proceedings. Accordingly, he destroyed the remaining contraband by conducting destruction panchanama. On completion of investigation LW.4/Shaik Rahamunisa Begum, the S.I. of Police, Prohibition & Excise Station, Bhadrachalam has filed charge sheet.

3 of 6

C.C.65 of 2022

11. Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, it is the main contention of the learned defence counsel that as PW1, PW2 the independent witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution, PW.3 is official witness, his evidence shall be discarded. But, it is settled law that when only the police personnel supported the case, her evidence is not liable to be discarded, but it should be weighed with utmost care and caution.

Admittedly Pw.1 and 2 are not neighbours of scene of offence. PW3 admitted that PW1 and 2 are not residents of scene of offence and they acted as witnesses in many cases.

He admitted that the seized sample was not produced before this court. In such situation, it is also the duty of court to see whether there is a possible opportunity for the police officer to secure the mediators and whether the arresting police officials made any effort to secure mediators. However, when there is possible opportunity for the police officer to secure the mediators and if he fails to do so, it can be considered as a lapse on the part of the investigating agency.

12.In BABU SAHEB ALIAS BABU V/S STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in

2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP. The Hon’ble High Court observed in Para No.17 that:

“Of course it cannot be said the evidence of a witness who accompanied the police, cannot be always believed nor it can be discarded only on the ground that the accompanied the excise of police officials. But where, in a case, the excise officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any effort to take such mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case, admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of the local mediators.

13. in the similiar circumstances it was observed inMUDAVATH MOTHIA V/S STATE

OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 437 AP. The Hon’ble High

Court observed in Para No.5 that: “Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the A. P. Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. When once they become police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. Moreover, ex. P-5 panchanama is hit by Sections 25, 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of Cr. P. C. The benefit if any arises due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the accused and once the Ex.P-5 is hit by sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence act, and Section 161 of Cr. P. C. and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Secs. 25 and 27 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 and Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. W hen it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt. Both the courts have not looked into the evidence from proper angle. The conviction and sentence awarded is, therefore, liable to be set aside due to the illegality of the proceedings drafted. Moreover, only one sample of sachet was produced before the court and not all the sachets seized and it is for the prosecution to establish that all the samples of sachets seized contain I. D Liquor and it is not proved”.

4 of 6

C.C.65 of 2022

14. In this case the mediators are not secured at scene of offence and they are brought from some distance as PW.3 deposed that PW.1, 2 are not residents of scene of offence. Admittedly, Pws.1 and 2 are residents of Bhadrachalam and the scene of offence is situated at Sarapaka Chowrastha and there are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and there are discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

15. In such facts and circumstances of the case, when the excise officials failed to secure independent persons as mediators, though they have a possible opportunity and thus failed to follow the procedure for seizure, the court is of view that in absence of any independent evidence, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of PW.3 for convicting the accused.

16. For the foregoing reasons and in the light of principles of ratio laid down by Hon’ble

High Court in above cases I am of the opinion that there is no convincing and satisfactory evidence to prove that accused was found in possession of liquor as alleged, Ex.P.3 could not be relied upon. Though Ex.P.5 discloses that it contained the illicitly distilled liquor, as there is no convincing evidence to prove that the contents of panchanama were drawn from seized liquor bottles said to be found from the possession of accused and it could not be relied upon. Thus, the court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused for offence punishable u/Sec.7-A r/w.8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act,1995 beyond reasonable doubt and thus accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

POINT No.2 :-

17.In the light of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case this

Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995, hence, the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

5 of 6

C.C.65 of 2022

18. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of the A.P Prohibition Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1, A2 shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as envisaged U/s.437-

A Cr.P.C. There is no property as to Order.

Typed to my dictation by the Gr-III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 9th day of September, 2022.

FAC.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution PW.1. Keesari Kishore PW.2. Yadlapalli Ramesh PW.3. B.Murali Krishna

For defence -None-

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution Ex.P1. Signature of PW.1 on the Confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Ex.P2. Signature of PW.2 on the Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P3. Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama, dated.18.06.2021. Ex.P4. Crime Occurrence Report, dt.18.06.2021. Ex.P5. Attested Copy of Analysis Report, dt.07.07.2021. Ex.P6. Attested Copy of Confiscation and Destruction proceedings, dt.04.08.2021. Ex.P7. Attested copy of Destruction panchanama, dated.05.08.2021.

For defence -Nil-

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

FAC.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam. Corrections carried out by me:

6 of 6

C.C.64 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

Friday, this the 9th day of September, 2022.

Present: Kum.K.Deepa, I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, FAC.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.64 of 2022

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise, Bhadrachalam.

...Complainant

and

Boda Ramoji, S/o.Sakram, age.38years, Occ.Coolie, R/o.Conductor colony, Sarapaka village, Burgampahad Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming before me on 02-09-2022 for hearing in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri M.Ramachandraiah, learned counsel for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Accused stand chargesheeted by the Sub-Inspector, Proh. & Excise, Bhadrachalam in C.O.R.No.138/2021 for the offence punishable Under Section 7-A r/w.8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995.

2.In brief, it is the case of the prosecution, that on 02-07-2021 at 07-00 a.m on credible information, LW.3 along with staff conducted raids for Proh., & Excise offences and reached the place of offence, ie., infront of accused house, Conductor colony,

Sarapaka village and detected the accused was moving in suspicious circumstances. On suspicion LW.3 with the help of staff got detained him and asked about the contents of the bag. The accused stated that the bag containing I.D.liquor by securing mediators.

LW.3 verified the said bag held by accused and found (04) liters of I.D.liquor in (02) polythene covers in a hand bag, each cover contained (02) liters of ID liquor. On enquiry he gave his name and other identity particulars. LW.3 drew 180 ml I.D.arrack as sample for chemical analysis, into 180 ml clean, dry, empty bottle, kept the remaining I.D. liquor 1 of 6

C.C.64 of 2022

in the same bag, sealed and affixed identity slips to the sample bottle and the bag. LW.3 questioned the accused about the I.D.liquor. The accused confessed his guilt. In pursuance of confession of accused, LW.3 seized the case property, sample bottle and arrested the accused, after explaining the reasons of arrest, under cover of special report scribed by LW.3 and returned to police station and LW.3 registered the special report as a case in C.O.R.No.138/2021 U/Sec.7-a r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and sent the samples to chemical expert and LW.4 filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 7-A r/w 8

(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act against accused.

4. After appearance of accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him as required Under Section.207 Criminal Procedure Code 1973.

5. Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C explaining the accusation made against him. He denied the same. Charge under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P Proh. Act was framed against accused, readover and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Prosecution side evidence closed.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments of the Learned Asst.Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused. Perused the material on record.

9. Now the points for determination are :-

1.Whether the accused was in possession of ID liquor which is punishable under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995?

2.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT No.1:-

10. In this case Pws.1 to 3 were examined. Pws.1 and 2 are panch witnesses and PW.3 is excise official. The learned A.P.P. has given-up the evidence of LW.4/Smt.Shaik Rahimunnisa Begum, the 2nd investigating officer, who filed chargesheet, as such the evidence of LW.4/Sk.Rahimunnisa Begum was closed by this court on 17.08.2022.

2 of 6

C.C.64 of 2022

PW.1 – Keesari Kishore deposed that he does not know anything about this case. Nothing was happened in his presence. At about one and half year back on one day, Bhadrachalam Excise Officials called him and obtained his signature on some written papers. Witness identified the signature on the confession-cum-seizure panchanama, dt.02.07.2021 marked as Ex.P1. He also deposed that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and nobody confessed in his presence and nothing was seized in his presence.

PW.2 – Yadlapalli Ramesh deposed thathe does not anything about this case. Nothing was happened in his presence. At about one and half year back on one day, Bhadrachalam Excise Officials called him and obtained his signature on some written papers. He also deposed that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and nobody confessed in his presence and nothing was seized in his presence. Witness identified the signature on the confession-cum-seizure panchanama, dt.16.06.2020 marked as Ex.P2.

PW-3/Sri B.Murali Krishna, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise Station, Bhadrachalam deposed that on 02.07.2021 at about 07-00 a.m, while he along with his staff were conducting raids for detection of prohibition and excise offences and reached at accused house at Conductors colony, Sarapaka Mandal he noticed the accused was found with a bag in his hands under suspicious circumstances, they stopped the accused and he revealed his name as Boda Ramoji and they found about 04 liters of I.D.liquor in the said bag and he seized same from the possession of accused by drawing two samples each 180 ml., under a cover of Ex.P.3 panchanama in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2. He brought the accused along with case property and Ex.P-3 panchanama to P & E Station, Bhadrachalam and basing on Ex.P-3/panchanama he registered a case in C.O.R.No.138/2021 dated.02.07.2021 under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act. Later, she sent the sample to the Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Warangal for analysis. After receipt of analysis report. Later he received proceeding from the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Khammam to destruct the remained contraband and confiscation proceedings. Accordingly, he destroyed the remaining contraband by conducting destruction panchanama. On completion of investigation LW.4/Shaik Rahamunisa Begum, the S.I. of Police, Prohibition & Excise Station, Bhadrachalam has filed charge sheet.

11. Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, it is the main contention of the learned defence counsel that as PW1, PW2 the independent witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution, it is settled law that when only the police personnel supported the case, his evidence is not liable to be discarded, but it should be weighed with utmost care and caution. Admittedly Pw.1 and 2 are not neighbours of scene of offence. PW3 admitted that PW1 and 2 are not residents of scene of offence and they acted as 3 of 6

C.C.64 of 2022

witnesses in many cases. He admitted that the seized sample was not produced before this court. In such situation, it is also the duty of court to see whether there is a possible opportunity for the police officer to secure the mediators and whether the arresting police officials made any effort to secure mediators. However, when there is possible opportunity for the police officer to secure the mediators and if he fails to do so, it can be considered as a lapse on the part of the investigating agency.

12.In BABU SAHEB ALIAS BABU V/S STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in

2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP. The Hon’ble High Court observed in Para No.17 that:

“Of course it cannot be said the evidence of a witness who accompanied the police, cannot be always believed nor it can be discarded only on the ground that they accompanied the excise of police officials. But where, in a case, the excise officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any effort to take such mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case, admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of the local mediators.

13. in the similiar circumstances it was observed inMUDAVATH MOTHIA V/S STATE

OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 437 AP. The Hon’ble High

Court observed in Para No.5 that:

“Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the A. P. Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. When once they become police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. Moreover, ex. P-5 panchanama is hit by Sections 25, 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of Cr. P. C. The benefit if any arises due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the accused and once the Ex.P-5 is hit by sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence act, and Section 161 of Cr. P. C. and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Secs. 25 and 27 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 and Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. W hen it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt. Both the courts have not looked into the evidence from proper angle. The conviction and sentence awarded is, therefore, liable to be set aside due to the illegality of the proceedings drafted. Moreover, only one sample of sachet was produced before the court and not all the sachets seized and it is for the prosecution to establish that all the samples of sachets seized contain I. D Liquor and it is not proved”.

14. In this case the mediators are not secured at scene of offence and they are brought from some distance as PW.3 deposed that PW.1, 2 are not residents of scene of offence. Admittedly, Pws.1 and 2 are residents of Bhadrachalam and the scene of offence is situated at Conductor colony, Sarapaka and there are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and there are discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

4 of 6

C.C.64 of 2022

15. In such facts and circumstances of the case, when the excise officials failed to secure independent persons as mediators, though they have a possible opportunity and thus failed to follow the procedure for seizure, the court is of view that in absence of any independent evidence, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of PW.3 for convicting the accused.

16. For the foregoing reasons and in the light of principles of ratio laid down by Hon’ble

High Court in above cases I am of the opinion that there is no convincing and satisfactory evidence to prove that accused was found in possession of liquor as alleged, Ex.P.3 could not be relied upon. Though Ex.P.5 discloses that it contained the illicitly distilled liquor, as there is no convincing evidence to prove that the contents of panchanama were drawn from seized liquor bottles said to be found from the possession of accused and it could not be relied upon. Thus, the court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused for offence punishable u/Sec.7-A r/w.8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act,1995 beyond reasonable doubt and thus accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

POINT No.2 :-

17.In the light of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case this

Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995, hence, the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

18. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of the A.P Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as envisaged

U/s.437-A Cr.P.C. There is no property as to Order.

Typed to my dictation by the Gr-III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 9th day of September, 2022.

FAC.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

5 of 6

C.C.64 of 2022

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For prosecution PW.1. Keesari Kishore PW.2. Yadlapalli Ramesh PW.3. B.Murali Krishna

For defence -None-

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution Ex.P1. Signature of PW.1 on the Confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Ex.P2. Signature of PW.2 on the Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P3. Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama, dated.02.07.2021. Ex.P4. Crime Occurrence Report, dt.02.07.2021. Ex.P5. Attested Copy of Analysis Report, dt. 08.01.2020. Ex.P6. Attested Copy of Confiscation and Destruction proceedings, dt.28.07.2020. Ex.P7. Attested copy of Destruction panchanama, dated.02.11.2020.

For defence -Nil-

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

FAC.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam. Corrections carried out by me:

6 of 6

C.C.101 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

Friday, this the 09th day of September, 2022.

Present: Kum.K.Deepa, I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, FAC.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.101 of 2018

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Burgampahad.

...Complainant

and

Kommaraju Kalyan Kumar, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 22 years, Occ.B.Sc.Computer Student, R/o.Bhupathirao colony, Bhadrachalam.

…Accused.

This case is coming before me on 02-09-2022 for hearing in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri M.Ramachandraiah, learned counsel for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a case arising out of charge-sheet filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Burgampahad

P.S in Crime No.269/2017 for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case according to the charge-sheet are that on 30.09.2017 at 10.00 hours the LW-1 namely Avula Subbarao, S/o.Satyanarayana came to

P.S.Burgampahad and lodged a report stating that on 29.09.2017 at 7 p.m and after at 9.45 p.m received a phone call through his son’s mobile that his son met with an accident alongwith another at wood yard, Sarapaka and while undergoing treatment succumbed with severe internal injuries on the same day at 10.30 p.ms and she further stated that on 29.09.2017 at 19.00 hours on the occasion of Dushera festival the son of complainant (deceased) left his house on his Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing No.TS-04-ETR-9939 which was not registered alongwith his friend were going to see the Dushera festival at 1 of 5

C.C.101 of 2018

ITC Sarapaka and after witnessing the programme and on the same day night the deceased and accused left on the bajaj Pulsar motorcycle by driving it by the accused and on their way to Bhadrachalam while they reached near Wood Yard, Sarapaka village, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which he lost control over the motorcycle and dashed against the tree, due to which the rider of the motorcycle, ie., the accused and his pillion rider, ie., deceased were sustained severe bleeding injuries.

On receipt of report from LW.1, the above information LW-14/S.I. of Police,

P.S.Burgampahad had registered a case in Crime No.269/2017 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A IPC. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of mediators and in their presence, drawn rough sketch of scene of offence, in CDF and got photographed the scene of offence with the help of photographer and he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body of the deceased for autopsy along with requisition and he also sent a requisition to Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspecting the crime vehicle, on 28.12.2017 he arrested the accused and after completion of legal formalities sent him to court for judicial remand, subsequently he obtained PME and MVI reports and after completion of further investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.304-A IPC.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC against the accused.

and process was issued against accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to him as required U/sec. 207

Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C. he denied the accusation for the offenses U/Sec.304-A IPC was read over and explained to him in telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the guilty of the accused the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 3, and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P.2 on its behalf. In defence, no oral or documentary 2 of 5

C.C.101 of 2018

evidence was adduced on his behalf. As there is no incriminating material appeared against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

7.Heard both sides arguments.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

9.POINT : The case of the prosecution, as per charge sheet, is that PW-1 is the father of deceased and on 29.09.2017 at 19.00 hours on the occasion of Dushera festival the son of complainant (deceased) left his house on his Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing No.TS- 04-ETR-9939 which was not registered alongwith his friend were going to see the Dushera festiva at ITC Sarapaka and after witnessing the programme and on the same day night the deceasedand accused were left on the bajaj Pulsar motorcycle by driving it by the accused and on their way to Bhadrachalam while they reached near Wood Yard and on their way to Bhadrachalam while they reached near wood yard, Sarapaka village, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which he lost control over the motorcycle and dashed against the tree, due to which the rider of the motorcycle, ie., the accused and his pillion rider, ie., deceased were sustained severe bleeding injuries, as such the accused is liable for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A IPC. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked

Ex.P1 and P2.

I have gone through the entire evidence on record. PW.1 is the defacto complainant and father of deceased; PW.2 is the mother of deceased and PW.3 is the circumstantial witness; The remaining evidence of other witnesses was rightly given-up by learned A.P.P.

Pw-1 is the de-facto complainant and father of deceased/Manikanta deposed that on 29.09.2017 his son left the house on his bike by stating that he was going to ITC

Sarapaka to see a film actor and at about 9-00 p.m on the same day he received phone call and he received infoormation that his son and his friend Kalyan Kumar ie., accused while returning from ITC Company met with an accident at Sarapaka and immediately he 3 of 5

C.C.101 of 2018

rushed to Area Government Hospital, Bhadrachalam as he received information that his son was shifted to hospital and found the deadbody of his son and he came to know that the accident was occurred while the accused was riding the bike in rash and negligent manner and dashed against a tree. Accused also sustained injuries in the accident.

During the cross examination he admitted that he is not an eye witness to the accident and he could not say the registration number of bike of his son.

Pw-2 is the mother of deceased/Manikanta deposed that on 29.09.2017 her son left the house on his bike by stating that he was going to ITC Sarapaka to see a film actor and at about 9-00 p.m on the same day she received phone call and she received information that her son, his friend Kalyan Kumar ie., accused while returning from ITC Company met with an accident at Sarapaka and immediately she rushed to Area Government Hospital,

Bhadrachalam as she received information that her son was shifted to hospital and found the deadbody of her son and she came to know that the accident was occurred while the accused was riding the bike with rash and negligent manner and dashed against a tree.

Accused also sustained injuries in the accident. During the cross examination she admitted that she is not an eye witness to the accident and she could not say the registration number of bike of her son.

PW.3 is the circumstantial witness, he turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, he deposed that about 6 years back on one day during night hours an accident was taken place near Project gate at ITC Company and in the said accident the deceased sustained injuries and he was shifted to hospital and later he came to know that the deceased was died. He further deposed that he does not know registration number of crime vehicle or the manner of accident and he does not know the name of person who caused the accident and at the time of accident he was on duty. During the cross examination by the learned A.P.P. their 161 Statements were marked as in Ex.P2 and P3.

10.When the evidence of prosecution witnesses is cumulatively scrutinized, P.W.1 and 2, who are the parents of deceased in one voice deposed that on receipt of information they rushed to the hospital and seen the deadbody of their son. During the cross examination admitted that they are not an eye witnesses to the accident and they could not say the registration number of bike of their son. The death of deceased/Manikanta was not denied by the defence counsel. As such, there is no dispute regarding death of 4 of 5

C.C.101 of 2018

deceased Manikanta. With regard to the involvement of the crime vehicle and accused in the accident, no witness i.e. Pws 1 to 3 deposed against the accused. Further, none of the witness deposed that they witnessed the accident.

11. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the entire testimony of prosecution witnesses does not reveal anything with regard to identity particulars of accused, number of the crime vehicle and any of rash or negligent driving on the part of the accused. As such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the acusedbeyond the reasonable doubt and hence the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

12. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as envisaged U/s.437-A Cr.P.C. There is no property as to Order.

Typed to my dictation by the Gr-III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 9th day of September, 2022.

FAC.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For prosecution PW.1. Avula Subba rao PW.2. Avula Rojamani PW.3. Ch.Durga Rao

For defence -None- Exhibits Marked

For prosecution Ex.P1. Report given by PW.1. Ex.P2. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3.

For defence -Nil-

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

FAC.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam. Corrections carried out by me:

5 of 5

P.R.C.No.18 of 2022 DT.16.09.2022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BHADRACHALAM.

Friday, this the 16th day of September, 2022.

Present : Kum.K.Deepa, I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, FAC.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

P.R.C.No.18 of 2022

( Crime No.43 of 2022 of P.S.Cherla )

Between:- The State through Inspector of Police, P.S.Cherla.

...Complainant

And

Yedari Venkataramanaiah, S/o.Narsaiah, age.34 years, Occ.Private employee, R/o.Kudunuru vilage of Cherla mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Durga, Asst Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K.Prakash, learned counsel for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following.

: COMMITTAL ORDER :

1.The Inspector of Police, P.S.Cherla has laid a chargesheet in

Cr.No.43/2022 alleging that accused has committed the offences punishable under section 304 Part-II IPC, Sec.199(A) of M.V.Act.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution, as per the charge sheet is that the complainant by name Payam Laxmaiah, S/o.Late Muthaiah is the father of the deceased/Payam Mahesh @ Seetaiah and on 13.06.2022 at 10.00 hours the complainant came to PS Cherla Police

Station and lodged a report stating that the deceased Payam Mahesh @ Seetaiah is his younger son and minor, whereas the accused is the resident of Kudunuru village of Cherla Mandal. The deceased and

LW.3 are the younger son and elder son of Lws.1 and 2 respectively,

Page 1 of 4

P.R.C.No.18 of 2022 DT.16.09.2022 the deceased/Payam Mahesh completed his 10thclass in the academic year 2019-2020 and he was attending coolie works by staying at his home and since three months prior to 13.06.2022 the accused has been taking the deceased for driving of his tractor bearing No.TS 28 E 1530 as the Lws.1 and 2 told him that the deceased is a minor, the accused neglected their voice and has been taking the deceased for driving. On 12.06.2022 at 21.30 hours the accused came to the house of LW.1 and took the deceased alongwith him by saying that the deceased has to drive the tractor for smuggle the sand from Godavari river, near Danavaipeta village of Cherla

Mandal, the deceased, the Lws.4 and 5 transported one trailer of sand illegally to Kudunur village of Cherla mandal, the deceased drove the tractor bearing No.TS 28 E 1530 and trailer bearing No.TS 28 E 1106, later while they were going to Godavari river for second trip at about 00.00 hours on 13.06.2022 while they reached

Mutyalamma tree near Godavari river, under the limits ofDanavaipeta village, suddenly a fox came across the tractor, the deceased, who was the driver of the tractor suddenly applied breaks to avoid the fox, as a result the tractor engine over turned and the deceased fell down and Lws.4 and 5 who were in the trailer of the tractor also fell down and the trailer of the tractor went over the chest of the deceased and the deceased was died on the spot.

On receipt of report from complainant/LW.1/Payam Laxmaiah,

S/o.late Muthaiah, LW.12/HC-1825/the Station House Officer of

P.S.Cherla had registered a case in Crime No.43/2022 U/s.304 Part-II

IPC, Sec.199(A) of M.V.Act, Subsequently LW.13/the S.I. of Police took-up further investigation. During the course of investigation he conducted inquest panchanama over the deadbody of the deceased

before the mediators and got photographed the deadbody of the

deceased with the help of LW.7/Photographer, later he examined and

Page 2 Of 4

P.R.C.No.18 of 2022 DT.16.09.2022 recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and drafted CDF in the presence of mediators and later he shifted the deadbody of the deceased to Government Area Hospital,

Bhadrachalam for autopsy, accordingly the LW.11/Medical Officer,

Government Area Hospital, Bhadrachalam has conducted autopsy over the deadbody of the deceased and gave PME Report and on 27.06.2022 the LW.13 alongwith his staff rushed the house of accused and apprehended the accused, on interrogation the accused confessed his guilt of offence, after completion of formalities of arrest they produced the accused before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand, on verification of documents pertaining to the tractor bearing No.TS28E1530 and trailer bearing No.TS28E1106 it was found that the accused bought the tractor on his grand father’s name and after completion of investigation LW.13 filed chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.304 Part-II

IPC, Sec.199(A) of M.V.Act. Hence, the charge.

3.On receipt of the charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence under section 304 Part-II IPC, Sec.199(A) of M.V.Act against accused. Copies of documents on which the prosecution intends to rely upon were furnished to accused in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.I have perused the entire case material on record. There is a prima facie case made out against accused for the offence punishable under section 304 Part-II IPC, Sec.199(A) of M.V.Act and the said offence Under Sec.304 Part-II IPC is exclusively triable by the Hon'ble court of Sessions. Hence, this case is committed to the

Hon’ble sessions court under section 209 (a) Cr.P.C.

Page 3 of 4

P.R.C.No.18 of 2022 DT.16.09.2022

5.Accused is permitted to continue to remain on bail till the conclusion of the trail, subject to the orders of the Hon'ble Sessions court in this regard, under sections 209 (b) Cr.P.C.

6.The entire case material available on record and the relevant documents required at the time of trial are being submitted to the

Hon'ble court of Sessions under section 209 (c) Cr.P.C.

7.The Additional Public Prosecutor concerned is notified under section 209 (d) Cr.P.C. and office is directed to submit the entire case record to Hon'ble sessions court forthwith with duly indexed and also the case property if any.

8.Accused is submitted that he is having sufficient means to engage an advocate at the Hon'ble court of Sessions.

9.Accused is directed to appear before the Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Court, Kothagudem, on 17-10-2022, without fail.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 16t h day of September, 2022.

FAC. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

Appendix of Evidence -Nil-

FAC. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

Page 4 Of 4

TSBK020022832017

Presented on : 13-06-2017 Registered on : 31-08-2017 Decided on : 26-04-2023 Duration : 5 years, 10 months, 13 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Junior Civil Judge - Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class ( Juvenile Court), Bhadradri Kothagudem.

AT ,KHAMMAM

(Presided Over by A Sucharitha)

CC/200965/2017

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION):

SHO-JULURPAD

Through Police Station Officer Julurupad 95 , SHO-JULURPAD

KHAMMAM

SHO-JULURPAD

VERSUS :

YASAM KRISHNAIAH

Age: 42 Occupation : AGRIL, R/O PAPAKOLLU VILLAGE OF JULURPAD MANDAL.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for YASAM KRISHNAIAH Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under :

429 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 26-04-2023)

ORDER

Accused and defacto complainant-LW.1 Nunavath Samya are present and they filed Petition submitting that, they intends to compromise the case. Heard both sides on joint memo. In view National Lok Adalat and as the parties filed a joint memo stating that they compromised the matter outside the court at the intervention of the elders and both requested the Court to refer the matter to Lok Adalat. Perused the record. The alleged offences against the Accused are under section 429 of IPC The offence are under sec 429 of IPC is compoundable in nature. Hence, the matter is referred to Lok Adalat Bench for recording compromise. Accused and defacto complainant-LW.1 Nunavath Samya is present. Heard both sides. Perused the record. At the intervention of the Lok Adalat Members, the matter is settled amicably and the alleged offence against the Accused is under Secs. 429 of IPC which is compoundable offence. Hence, the matter is compromised. compromise recorded vide separate Award in view of compromise. Accused is acquitted under Sec.320(8) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the Accused if any shall stand canceled.

Date : 26-04-2023 (A Sucharitha)

I Additional Junior Civil Judge - Cum- I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class ( Juvenile Court), Bhadradri Kothagudem.

KHAMMAM

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(A Sucharitha) I Additional Junior Civil Judge - Cum- I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class ( Juvenile Court), Bhadradri

Kothagudem.

KHAMMAM

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS