Smt.Eunice

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR :: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. M. EUNICE, B.Com., L.L.B.,

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Tandur, R.R. District.

DATED THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014

C.C. No. 98 OF 2012

Between: The State of A.P., through S.H.O. of P.S. Karankote. … Complainant

A N D

1.Molla Shashoddin, S/o. Gabbar Sab, Age: 60 Years, Occ: NIL, 2.Molla Shameem, W/o. Shamshoddin, Age: 38 Years, Occ: NIL, 3.Molla Nyamad Bhee, W/o. Gabbar Sab, Age: 58 Years, Occ: NIL, 4.Molla Maleka Begum, W/o. Azmaddin, Age: 25 Years, Occ: Nil, 5.Molla Harsha Begum, D/o. Shamashoddin, Age: 19 Years, Occ: NIL, All R/o. Uddandapur Village, Tandur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sr.

APP for the State and of Sri P. Ramreddy, Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The S.I. of Police of P.S. Karankote filed charge sheet against the accused in

Crime No. 35 of 2012 for the offences punishable Under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 14.03.2012 at about 2.00 pm one

GAddala Parwathamma came to the police station and lodged a complaint stating that on 13.03.2012 in the afternoon hours, his villager A1 had quarreled with her at the shop of one Mallappa on the ground that she had taken a loan of Rs.10,000/-. Then A1 went to Uddandapur village and narrated about the incident to A2 to A5. In the evening hours at about 4.30pm while she was getting down from the bus at Uddandapur village A1 to

A5 were present at the bus station and waiting for the arrival of the complainant. When the complainant get down the bus, A1 to A5 caught hold of her hair and dragged her at the village roads by beating her with hands and brooms. On knowing about the incident, her daughters Yellamma and Shobharani came there and tried to rescue her but A1 beat them with sticks and caused bleeding injury. Basing on the above complaint, the S.I. of police registered a case and issued FIR to the concerned. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and referred the injured to Government Hospital for treatment. After receipt of medical 2 certificate and after completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3. Cognizance was taken by my predecessor for the offence punishable U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused.

4. On the appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined U/s. 239 of Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations. Hence, charge U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC is framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked Ex.P1. Further evidence was closed on 25.03.2014. On behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s.

313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:- whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/s 324 r/w 34 of IPC?

9. POINT:

The prosecution examined PW’s 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1. PW1 is a complainant, PW’’s 2,3 and 5 are the eye witnesses for the incident. PW4 is the circumstantial witness. The evidence of remaining witnesses were closed.

PW1 who is the complainant in this case had deposed that about 1 ½ year back she came to Tandur, on some personal work. At that time while she was near

Mallappa Madiga at Tandur, A1 went to her and picked up a quarrel with regard to the loan of Rs.10,000/-. Later, A1 went to his house. Thereafter, when she went to her village and got down the bus, A1 to A5 came to the bus station and dragged her by pulling her hair. On knowing about the incident, her daughters i.e. LW’s 2 and 3 came there but they were also beaten by the accused. She further stated that A1 beat her with a stick on her right hand and she sustained injury to her right hand. Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by her. PW2 who is the daughter of PW1 deposed that on 13.03.2012 at about 4.30 pm she was informed that PW1 was beaten by the accused. Immediately, 3 she went to the bus stand and found A1 dragging PW1 and pulling her hair and A2 to

A5 beat PW1 with hands and broom sticks. When she went to rescue her, she was also beaten by the accused. She further stated that A1 beat her mother on her right hand.

PW3 who is other daughter of PW1 also deposed in the same manner as that of PW2.

PW4 who is the husband of PW1 has deposed that on 13.03.2012 he sent PW1 to

Tandur to purchase some articles and when he returned in the evening from the fields, he was informed by PW’s 1 to 3 that the accused beat PW1 and she sustained injury.

PW5 deposed that on 12.03.2013 while he was returning from fields in the evening hours, he observed the accused beating PW1 and PW1 sustained injury. Then he intervened and separated them.

10. With the above evidence, the prosecution has to prove whether the accused had voluntarily caused simple injury to PW1. To establish the above evidence, the prosecution has examined PW’s 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1. PW1 is the complainant and injured, PW2 and PW3 are the daughters and PW4 is the wife of PW1. PW5 is also a relative of PW’;s 1 to 4.

PW1 who is the complainant and injured in this case had deposed that she lodged Ex.P1 with the police on the same day at about 11.00pm. On perusal of Ex.P1 it is found that Ex.P1 was received by the S.I. of police on 14.03.2012 at 2.00pm.

Whereas, the incident alleged have occurred on 13.03.2012 at about 4.30 PM at

Uddandapur bus station. The evidence of PW1 with regard to the date and time of lodging Ex.P1 is not corroborated with the contents of ex.P1 complaint. Further, PW1 had stated that he went to the police station along with her daughters i.e. PW’s 2 and 3.

But PW’s 2 and 3 never stated about their accompanying PW1 to the police station and about lodging of Ex.P1 by PW1 at the police station. Hence, the evidence of PW’s 1 to 3 is inconsistence with each other and not corroborated with the contents of Ex.P1. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 to A5 were waiting at the bus stop of Uddandapur for the arrival of PW1 to beat her and immediately while she was getting down the bus, they caught hold of her hair and dragged her through the village roads. A1 beat her with a stick on her right hand. In the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that her house is far away from the bus station and that there were residential houses near the bus stand and about 50 to 60 members were present in the bus station at the time of incident and 4 the incident was witnessed by 20 to 30 persons. PW2 in her cross examination had admitted that she did not come to the police station on the date of incident but on the next day, she went to the police station. She further admitted that PW1 to PW4 went to the police station. But PW1 never stated about her husband accompanying her to the police station for lodging Ex.P1 complaint. PW2 and PW3 are also admitted in their cross-examination that about 60 to 70 villagers present at the bus station. But on perusal of the record, none of the independent witnesses were examined by the investigating officer the reason best known to him. The eye witnesses shown in the charge sheet are the family members of PW1. The evidence of PW1 is self contradictory and the evidence of PW’s 2 to 5 is not corroborating with each other.

Further, it is the evidence of PW1 that A1 beat PW1 with a stick, but the said stick is not seized by the prosecution which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, the doctor and the investigating officer are not examined in this case, the reasons best known to the prosecution. Though PW1 stated that she sustained injury to her right hand but the injury certificate is not marked in this case and the doctor also not examined by the prosecution which goes against the prosecution case. No individual over acts were attributed by PWs’ 1 to 3 and 5 who are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident. They simply stated that all the accused caught hold of the hairs of PW1 and dragged her and A1 beat with stick. The evidence available on records is the evidence of Pw’s 1 to 5 who are none other than the family members and hence, they are the interested witnesses. Thereby, their evidence is to be evaluated with great care and caution while coming to some conclusion. On perusal of the entire record, no independent witnesses are examined though the incident occurred in the evening hours near the bus station where there were about 50 to 70 people were present. From the foregoing discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused are entitled for an acquittal.

5

11. In the result, accused are found not guilty for the offence U/s. 324 r/w 34 of

IPC and they are acquitted U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

me in open court on this the, 28th Day of April, 2014.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION

P.W.1 is Parvathamma DEFENCE P.W.2 is Yellamma -None- P.W.3 is Shobha Rani P.W.4 is Narayana, S/o. Sharanappa P.W.5 is Narayana, S/o. Ramulu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is Report - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL -

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR 6

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,TANDUR,R.R.DIST.

CALENDER CASE NO. 98 OF 2012

1. Date Of Offence : 13.03.2012

2. Date of Complaint : 14.03.2012

3. Date of Apprehension : 19.03.2012

4. Commencement of Trail : 04.10.2013

5. Closure of Trial on : 25.03.2014

6. Date of Judgment : 28.04.2014

7. Complainant : The State of A.P. through S.H.O. of P.S. Karankote.

8. Name of the accused 1. The Molla Shashoddin, S/o. Gabbar Sab, Age: 60 Years, Occ: NIL, 2.Molla Shameem, W/o. Shamshoddin, Age: 38 Years, Occ: NIL, 3.Molla Nyamad Bhee, W/o. Gabbar Sab, Age: 58 Years, Occ: NIL, 4.Molla Maleka Begum, W/o. Azmaddin, Age: 25 Years, Occ: Nil, 5.Molla Harsha Begum, D/o. Shamashoddin, Age: 19 Years, Occ: NIL, All R/o. Uddandapur Village, Tandur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

9.Offence : U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC 10.Finding of the Court : Found not guilty 11.Result : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and he is acquitted U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TANDUR Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl.. District and Sessions Judge, At L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. .

7

A1 to A5 are called present. Judgment

pronounced in open court. (V.S.J.).

In the result, accused are found not guilty for the offence U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and he is acquitted U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands 8 cancelled. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR :: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. M. EUNICE, B.Com., L.L.B.,

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Tandur, R.R. District.

DATED THIS THE 25 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014

C.C. No. 02 OF 2013

Between: The State of A.P., through S.H.O. of P.S. Peddemul. … Complainant

A N D

Chukkala Bheemappa, S/o. Sirgappa, Age: 45 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. Janagam Village, Peddemul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sr.

APP for the State and of Sri K. Gopal, Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police of P.S. Peddemul filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 108 of 2012 for the offence punishable Under Section 309 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 29.09.2012 at about 12-00 noon, one Sri

Kumaraswami, Manager of Vijaya Bank, Peddemul Mandal came to the police station and lodged a complaint stating that, on the same day at about 10.45 am the accused came to his bank and asked him to verify whether the compensation amount was deposited in his account bearing No. 404701010005701 and when he answered that it was not credited in his account, then he went out and consumed pesticide poison and fell down on the ground. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Tandur in 108 ambulance. Basing on the above complaint, the S.I. of police registered a case and issued FIR to the concerned. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited scene of offence panchanama and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Chakali Ramulu and

Ramappa and referred the accused to the Government Hospital for treatment After treating the injured he arrested the accused and produced him before court for remand.

After completing the investigation, he filed charge sheet.

2

3. Cognizance was taken by my predecessor for the offence punishable U/s. 309, of IPC against the accused.

4. On the appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined U/s. 251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusation for the offence U/s 309 of IPC is read over and explained to the accused in vernacular. The accused denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3. Further evidence was closed on 06.02.2014. On behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6. On the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s. 313 of

Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:- whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/s 309 of IPC?

9. POINT:

The prosecution examined PW’s 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.s P1 to P3. PW1 is a complainant and PW2 is panch witness for scene of offence panchanama.

PW1 in his evidence had deposed that he worked as Bank Manager at

Peddemul. On 28.08.2012 the accused came to their branch and enquired regarding the status of his S.B. Account and when he was informed that there was no remittance in his account, he went out and consumed poison to commit suicide. He was shifted to

Government Hospital in an ambulance and thereafter lodged a complaint under Ex.P1.

PW2 is the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama and deposed that about one year back, police obtained his signatures on some white papers. The evidence of remaining witnesses were closed by my predecessor since the police failed to produce the witnesses. The material evidence available on record is the evidence of

PW1 who is the complainant and who has seen the accused personally and shifted him 3 to hospital in an ambulance. But in his cross examination he stated that he cannot identify the accused at present. His evidence is not supported by independent witnesses.

It is a case of the prosecution that the accused attempted to commit sui-cide by consuming pesticide poison infront of the bank. Further, the accused committed the offence in the office hours. Generally, at the time of office hours, all the employees of the bank and the public who are transacting their accounts in the said bank will be present at that time but, none of them were examined by the investigating officer to support the contention of the prosecution. Though one independent witness namely

Sarvesham is cited as a witness but he is not examined by a prosecution the reasons best to it. The material available on record does not establish that the accused had committed the offence infront of the bank since the complainant himself admitted in his cross examination that they cannot identify the accused. Moreover, his evidence is not supported by any independent evidence. Further, the panch witness in whose presence the scene of offence panchanama is conducted also turned hostile by stating that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and that his signature was obtained by the police on some white papers. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused consumed pesticide poison but no material objects such as, poison tin was seized at the scene of offence and no material objects are deposited before this court in support of the case of the prosecution. All the above lapses goes against the case of the prosecution. Thereby, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for an acquittal

10. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 309 of IPC and he is acquitted U/s 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The jail authorities are hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not involved in any other case.

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

me in open court on this the, 25th Day of April, 2014.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR 4

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION

P.W.1 is Kumaraswamy DEFENCE P.W.2 is Chakali Ramulu -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is Report - NIL - Ex.P2 is Signature of PW2 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3 is Signature of PW2 on scene of offence cum rough sketch -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL -

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR 5

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,TANDUR,R.R.DIST.

CALENDER CASE NO. 02 OF 2013

1. Date Of Offence : 29.08.2012

2. Date of Complaint : 29.09.2012

3. Date of Apprehension : 29.09.2012

4. Commencement of Trail : 22.10.2013

5. Closure of Trial on : 06.02.2014

6. Date of Judgment : 25.04.2014

7. Complainant : The State of A.P. through S.H.O. of P.S. Peddemul.

8.Name of the accused : Chukkala Bheemappa, S/o. Sirgappa, Age: 45 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. Janagam Village, Peddemul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

9.Offence : U/s. 309 of IPC 10.Finding of the Court : Found not guilty 11.Result : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 309 of IPC and he is acquitted U/s 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The jail authorities are hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not involved in any other case.

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

Copy Submitted to: TANDUR

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

At L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

6

Accused produced from jail. Judgment pronounced in open court. (V.S.J.).

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 309 of IPC and he is acquitted U/s 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The jail authorities are hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not involved in any other case.

JFCM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR :: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. M. EUNICE, B.Com., L.L.B.,

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Tandur, R.R. District.

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2014

C.C. No. 176 OF 2013

Between: The State of A.P., through S.H.O. of P.S. Peddemul. … Complainant

A N D

Dendi Naveen Reddy, S/o. Papi Reddy, Age: 26 Years, Occ: Electrical contract Labour Supervisor, R/o. Thattepally Village, Peddemul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sr. APP for the State and of Sri K. Srinivas, Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The S.I. of Police of P.S. Peddemul filed charge sheet against the accused in

Crime No. 134 of 2012 for the offences punishable Under Section 304-A, 337 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 06.10.2012 at about 04.00 pm one P.

Ashokreddy came to the police station and lodged a complaint stating that while he was working as labourer in the Sub-station, the accused was working as supervisor on them.

On 06.10.2012, one Rakesh climbed the pole at about 2.00pm and one Sunderrao climb on other pole. The complainant and one Prathap and Parushuram were standing on the ground and holding the wire and while they are connecting wire, the wire fell on the live current wire and due to which Rakesh died on the spot and the Sunderrao sustained electric shock injury to his stomach. The incident occurred due to the negligence of the Supervisor Naveenreddy. Basing on the above complaint, the S.I. of police registered a case and issued FIR to the concerned. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Anjilappa and Chandrappa and also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Government hospital in the presence of Thamas and Prasadrao. Thereafter, he subjected the body for 2 postmorterm examination. The Doctor who conducted P.M.E. over the death body of the deceased opined that the death occurred due to the electrocution. He further opined that the injury sustained by Sunder Rao is simple in nature. After completing the investigation and after receipt of P.M.E. and medical certificates, he filed charge sheet.

3. Cognizance was taken by my predecessor for the offences punishable U/s. 337, 304.A of IPC against the accused.

4. On the appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined U/s. 251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusation for the offences U/s 337 and 304-A IPC are read over and explained to the accused in vernacular. The accused denied the allegations as false and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3. Further evidence was given up by the learned APP on 18.03.2014. On behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6. Since there is no incriminating evidence appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C.

is dispensed with.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:- whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/s 337 and 304-A IPC?

9. POINT:

The facts leading to file this case are that on 06.10.2012, one Rakesh and one

Sunderrao climbed two electric poles at about 2.00pm. The complainant, one Prathap and Parushuram were standing on the ground and holding the wire and while they are connecting wire, the wire fell on the live current wire and due to which Rakesh died on the spot and the Sunderrao sustained injury to his stomach due to electric shock.

3

The Prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2. PW1 is a complainant and

PW2 is the father of the deceased. All the remaining witnesses were given up by learned APP in view of the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW1 who is the complainant in this case had deposed that the accused Rakesh died due to electrocution. He further deposed that he did not lodge any complaint before the police but police obtained his signature on a blank paper. Ex.P1 is his signature. PW2 who is the father of the deceased had deposed that, his son died due to electrocution but he do not know who is responsible for his death. PW’s 1 and 2 were turned hostile and were cross examined by the learned APP, but nothing material could be elicited in the cross examination except putting a suggestion that they are deposing false at the instance of accused. Though it is established from the evidence of PW’s 1 and 2 that one Rakesh died due to electrocution but it is not established that the accused is the person who is responsible for the death of the deceased Rakesh and injuries to Sunderrao. PW1 and 2 did not state a single word against the accused and further, they did not state that due to the negligence of the accused, the deceased died and another person sustained injuries. Absolutely, there is no iota of evidence available on record connecting the accused with the alleged offences levelled against him showing that the accused is the person who caused the death of the deceased and injuries to Sunder Rao. Thereby, this court is left with no other option except to acquit the accused. Hence, the accused is entitled for an acquittal.

10. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/s. 337, 304.A of

IPC and he is acquitted U/s 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

me in open court on this the, 22nd Day of April, 2014.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR 4

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1 is Ashokreddy. -None- P.W.2 is Sudheerreddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is Signature of PW1 - NIL - Ex.P2 is 161 statement of PW1 Ex.P3 is 161 statement of PW2 -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL -

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR 5

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,TANDUR,R.R.DIST.

CALENDER CASE NO. 176 OF 2013

1. Date Of Offence : 21.08.2012

2. Date of Complaint : 06.10.2012

3. Date of Apprehension : 06.10.2012

4. Commencement of Trail : 03.03.2014

5. Closure of Trial on : 03.03.2014

6. Date of Judgment : 21.04.2014

7. Complainant : The State of A.P. through S.H.O. of P.S. Peddemul.

8.Name of the accused : Dendi Naveen Reddy, S/o. Papi Reddy, Age: 26 Years, Occ: Electrical contract Labour Supervisor, R/o. Thattepally Village, Peddemul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

9.Offence : U/s. 337, 304.A of IPC 10.Finding of the Court : Found not guilty 11.Result : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/s. 337, 304.A of IPC and he is acquitted U/s 255 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

Copy Submitted to: TANDUR

1. The Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge,

At L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

2. The Superintendent of Police,R.R.District.

6

Heard. Accused is called present. Judgment pronounced in open court. (V.S.J.).

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/s. 337, 304.A of IPC and he is acquitted U/s 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds, if any, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal period. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of period of appeal.

JFCM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR :: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. M. EUNICE, B.Com., L.L.B.,

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Tandur, R.R. District.

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2014

C.C. No. 273 OF 2013

Between: The State of A.P., through S.H.O. of P.S. Tandur. … Complainant

A N D

Kavali Sailu, S/o. Narayana, Age: 28 Years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Chitlapally Village, Kodangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sr. APP for the State and of Sri P. Mahenderreddy, Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The S.I. of Police of P.S. Tandur filed charge sheet against the accused in

Crime No. 28 of 2013 for the offence punishable Under Section 379 r/w 511 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 13.02.2013 at 07.00 pm the S.I. of police received a complaint from Gudupally Mohanbabu stating that on the same day at about 6.30pm he parked his motor bike Kenetic Honda bearing No. AP 28 N 5971 infront of his mess and went in the mess and return back and found that one unknown person trying to escape with his bike by using duplicate key then he chase and caught hold him. And on enquiry, he revealed his name Kavali Sailu i.e. the accused herein.

Basing on the above complaint, the S.I. of police registered a case in Crime No. 28 of 2013 U/s. 379 r/w 511 of IPC and investigated. During the course of investigation he went to RTC bus stand, Tandur and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Mohd: Zaheeruddin and Syed Sharif and drawn rough sketch on Crime

Detail Form. After completing investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. Cognizance was taken by my predecessor for the offence punishable U/s. 379, r/w 511 of IPC against the accused.

2

4. On the appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined U/s. 239 of Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations. Hence, charge U/s. 379 r/w 511 of IPC is framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and the accused denied the charge as false and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1. Further evidence was given up by the learned APP on 28.02.2014. On behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6. On the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s 313 of

Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:- whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/s 379 r/w 511 IPC?

9. POINT:

To Prove its case the prosecution has examined PW1 and got marked Ex.P1.

PW1 is the complainant and he deposed that on 13.03.2013 he parked his motor bike infront of his mess and on his return he found the accused trying to commit theft of his bike then he caught him red handedly and went to police station and handed over him to police. Ex.P1 is report. But in his cross examination he stated that he is seining the accused for first time in the court and that he sighed on Ex.P1 at the instance of police.

The remaining witnesses were given up by the learned APP in view of the evidence of

PW1.

In this case PW1 is the material witness. Though he deposed in his chief examination that he caught hold of the accused while he was trying to commit theft of his Kenetic Honda by putting duplicate key in to it and that he caught hold of him and handed over him in the police station but in his cross examination he deposed that he do not know the accused and for the first time he is seeing the accused in the court hall.

And that he further stated that Ex.P1 complaint was lodged by him at the instance of police. Hence the evidence of PW1 in his chief examination not consistence with his cross examination. He is the main witness in this case who state to have caught the 3 accused and handed him in the police station. But he himself admitted in his cross examination that the is seeing first time in the court hall and he do not caught him and not lodged any complaint against him. There by there is no other evidence on record to show that the accused is the person who tried to commit theft of Kenetic Honda while it was parked infront of mess near new bus stand. Therefore the prosecution has measurably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

Hence he is entitled for benefit of doubt.

10. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 379 r/w 511 of

IPC and he is acquitted U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

me in open court on this the, 23rd Day of April, 2014.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1 is Mohan Babu -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is Report - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL -

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR 4

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,TANDUR,R.R.DIST.

CALENDER CASE NO. 273 OF 2013

1. Date Of Offence : 13.02.2013

2. Date of Complaint : 13.02.2013

3. Date of Apprehension : 13.02.2013

4. Commencement of Trail : 10.02.2014

5. Closure of Trial on : 28.02.2014

6. Date of Judgment : 23.04.2014

7. Complainant : The State of A.P. through S.H.O. of P.S. Tandur.

8.Name of the accused : Kavali Sailu, S/o. Narayana, Age: 28 Years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Chitlapally Village, Kodangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District 9.Offence : U/s. 379 r/w 511 of IPC 10.Finding of the Court : Found not guilty 11.Result : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 379 r/w 511 of IPC and he is acquitted U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

Copy Submitted to: TANDUR

1. The Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge,

At L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

2. The Superintendent of Police,R.R.District.

5

Accused called present. Judgment

pronounced in open court. (V.S.J.).

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 379 r/w 511 of IPC and he is acquitted U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

JFCM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR :: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. M. EUNICE, B.Com., L.L.B.,

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Tandur, R.R. District.

DATED THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014

C.C. No. 112 OF 2012

Between: The State of A.P., through S.H.O. of P.S. Tandur. … Complainant

A N D

Gopal Chavan Naik, S/o. Hari Chand Naik, Age: 47 Years, Occ: Lorry Driver, R/o. Behind Ram Mandir, Indiranagar, Tandur, N/o. Omla Naik Tanda Village, Peddemul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sr.

APP for the State and of Sri P. Srinivas, Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The S.I. of Police of P.S. Tandur filed charge sheet against the accused in

Crime No. 240 of 2011 for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 24.12.2011 at about 1.30 pm the complainant K. Keshavarao came to the police station and lodged a complaint stating that, on 23.12.2011 at 5.30pm his father-in-law by name K. Pandu while proceeding from Indira chowk side towards Shivaji chowk side and when he reached the Faiyaz

Petrol Pump, suddenly one Hero Honda Passion Plus motor cycle bearing No. AP 28

AZ 0401 came from the back side in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and hit the said Pandu due to which, he sustained bleeding injuries to his legs and head.

Basing on the above complaint, the S.I. of police registered a case in Crime No. 240 of 2011 U/s. 337 of IPC. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Malkappa and Sureshkumar and drawn rough sketch in crime detail form and went to Balaji Hospital and found the injured Pandu in an unconscious state. On 27.12.2011 he received an information from Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad stating that the injured Pandurangarao had died due to injuries. Hence, 2 he altered the section of law from 337 of IPC to 304-A of IPC and after getting permission from the court. Thereafter, he proceeded to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of

Srinivasasharma and Rameshbabu and subjected the body for post mortem examination. Thereafter, he sent a requisition to the MVI to inspect the crime vehicle.

After receipt of Post Mortem Examination Report and Motor Vehicle Inspection report, he filed charge for the offence U/s. 304-A of IPC.

3. Cognizance was taken by my predecessor for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A of IPC against the accused.

4. On the appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined U/s. 251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusation for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A of IPC is read over and explained to the accused in vernacular. The accused denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3. Further evidence was given up by the learned APP on 01.04.2014. On behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6. Since there is no incriminating evidence appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C.

is dispensed with.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:- whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/s 304-A of IPC?

9. POINT:

The prosecution has examined PW’s 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3.

PW1 is the complainant in this case. PW2 is the wife of the deceased. Though both i.e. PW1 and PW2 in one tone had deposed that the deceased Pandurangam had died in an accident, they did not state as to how the said accident occurred. PW1 who is said to be the complainant in this case also denied of lodging complaint U/s. Ex.P1 3

before the police. PW1 is the son-in-law of deceased and PW2 is the wife of the

deceased. From the evidence of PW’s1 and 2, it is established that the deceased

Pandurangarao have died in a road accident but it is not established as to at whose fault, the accident occurred. None of the witnesses have stated the name of the accused in anywhere in their evidence. From the evidence on record there is no iota of evidence against the accused connecting him with the allegations leveled against him.

Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused is the person who drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and caused the accident due to which the deceased Pandurangarao died. Thereby, this court is of no other option, except to acquit the accused.

10. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted U/s 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

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

me in open court on this the, 29th Day of April, 2014.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION

P.W.1 is Keshavarao DEFENCE P.W.2 is Bharathibai -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is Signature of PW1 - NIL – Ex.P2 is 161 Statement of PW1 Ex.P3 is 161 Statement of PW2

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL -

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR 4

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,TANDUR,R.R.DIST.

CALENDER CASE NO. 112 OF 2012

1. Date Of Offence : 23.12.2011

2. Date of Complaint : 24.12.2011

3. Date of Apprehension : 09.01.2012

4. Commencement of Trail : 01.04.2014

5. Closure of Trial on : 01.04.2014

6. Date of Judgment : 29.04.2014

7. Complainant : The State of A.P. through S.H.O. of P.S. Tandur.

8. Name of the accused : Gopal Chavan Naik, S/o. Hari Chand Naik, Age: 47 Years, Occ: Lorry Driver, R/o. Behind Ram Mandir, Indiranagar, Tandur, N/o. Omla Naik Tanda Village, Peddemul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

9.Offence : U/s. 304-A 34 of IPC 10.Finding of the Court : Found not guilty 11.Result : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted U/s 255 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

Copy Submitted to: TANDUR

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

At L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

5

Accused present. Judgment

pronounced in open court.

(V.S.J.).

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted U/s 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

JFCM