G.Karthik Spl.JFCM, Mobile Court, ATP

C.C.No.102/20151Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (MOBILE)

FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER P.C.R.ACT-CUM-II- ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU.

Present:- G. Karthik, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Thursday, the 27 th Day of June, 2019

CALENDAR CASE No.102/2015

Between :-

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Dharmavaram Town P.S. ... Complainant

AND

1. Mallela Chandra @ Jayachandra, S/o. M. Venkateshu, Market Street, Dharmavaram Town.

2. J. Ramu, S/o. J. Venkata Swamy, Chandra Babu Nagar, Dharmavaram Town. … Accused 1 and 2.

This case coming on 27.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri A. Sreekanth Reddy, Advocate for A-1 and A-2, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmavaram Town P.S filed charge sheet against A-1 and A-2 for the offences punishable under Secs.171-E of

Indian Penal Code (herein after be referred as IPC for sake of brevity and convenience) and U/S.123 of Representation of Peoples Act (herein after be referred as R.P Act for sake of brevity and convenience).

2. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 and A-2 are the followers of contesting candidate of YSRCP for Dharmavaram Assembly Constituency i.e., Kethireddygari Venkatarami Reddy and they are canvassing and bribing the voters on 04.05.2014 to cast their vote in favour of Kethireddygari

Venkatarami Reddy and in the mean time the police caught hold A-1 and A-2 near Shivaiah Swamy Ashramam and seized cash Rs.5,000/- from A1 and cash of Rs.3,000/-, two pamphlets from A-2 under cover of a police

C.C.No.102/20152Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ proceedings. Basing on the Police Proceedings, PW.2 K. Sreeram, S.I of Police,

Dharmavaram Town P.S registered a case in Cr.No.206/2014 for the offences punishable U/s. 171-E IPC and Sec.123 of R.P. Act and sent them for remand.

After completion of investigation, PW.2 filed charge sheet against A-1 and A- 2.

3. After filing charge sheet, this case was taken cognizance by the

Judl. Magistrate of I class, Dharmavaram for the offences punishable under

Secs.171 E IPC and Sec.123 of RP Act and numbered as C.C.421/2014.

4.As per the proceedings of Hon'ble Prl., Senior Civil Judge,

Dharmavaram in Dis.No.609, dated.14.07.2015 this case was transferred to this court and renumbered the same as C.C.102/2015.

5.On appearance of the A-1 and A-2, copies of case records were furnished to them as required under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

6. On 18.04.2016 A-1 and A-2 were examined under Sec.251 of

Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation for the offences punishable under

Sec.171 E IPC and Sec.123 of RP Act was read over and explained to them in

Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

LW.1/N. Chenna Kesavulu, the then Police constable as PW.1 and LW.4/K.Sri

Ram the then S.I of Police as PW.2 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-3 and MOs.1 and

2. Ex-P1 is the Police Proceedings, Ex-P2 is permission orders from returning officer, Ex-P3 is the FIR. MO.1 is the FDR for Rs.8,000/- and MO.2 is

Pamphlets 2 in number. The learned A.P.P gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses as their evidence is also similar to the evidence of PW-1.

8.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 24.06.2019 A-1 and A-2 were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which they denied and reported no

C.C.No.102/20153Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ defence evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked by the defence.

9.The point that falls for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A-1 and A-2

for the offences punishable U/Sec.171-E IPC and Sec.123 of RP Act

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10.Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of A1 and A2.

11. P O I N T :-

i). To bring home guilt of the A-1 and A-2 for the offences punishable U/Sec.171-E IPC and Sec.123 of RP Act, the prosecution shall establish that A-1 and A-2 distributed the money to the voters to exercise their electoral right on behalf of YSRCP contesting candidate. To prove the above said ingredient against A1 and A2 the prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW.2.

ii).PW.1 who is the then constable testified that on 04.05.2014 he was in patrolling duty along with LW.2/K.Gopal Yadav and P.W.2 in view of general elections 2014, when they reached at Chandrababu Nagar near

Shivaiah Swamy Ashramam at 3:00 PM, they they noticed two persons were canvassing to the voters by showing the pamphlets in their hands and by distributing money to the them. He further deposed that on seeing the police the above said persons tried to skulk away from the place, immediately they managed to caught hold of the above said persons and enquired them,on enquiry by P.W.2 they revealed their identity particulars and further voluntarily stated that they are followers of YSRCP party and were distributing Rs.500/- to each voter to cast their vote in favour of YSRCP contesting candidate by name Kethireddy venkatarami reddy. He further deposed that P.W.2 searched A-1 and found cash of Rs.5,000/-, searched A2 and found cash of Rs.3,000/- and 2 pamphlets of YSRCP party. He further

C.C.No.102/20154Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ deposed that P.W.2 informed to A1 and A2 that the distribution of money at the time elections is violation of election code of conduct and arrested A-1 and A-2 and seized the cash of Rs.8,000/- and two pamphlets under cover of police proceedings dt.04.05.2014.

iii). P.W-1 in his Cross examination admitted that there are residential houses in the place of offence. He further admitted that the place of offence is a busy locality. He further admitted that he have not seen A1 and A2 while they were distributing money to the voters at the place of offence. He further admitted that he have not attested the police proceedings.

iv).PW.2, who is the then S.I of Police, deposed on the similar lines as that of PW.1. He further deposed that basing on Ex.P1 he registered a case in Cr.No.206/2014 for the offences punishable U/Secs.171-E and

Sec.123 of R.P. Act. He further deposed that after completing all formalities he had forwarded A1 and A2 to the Hon’ble court along with remand report and after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet in this case.

v). Pw-2 in his cross examination admitted that the scene of offence is a residential area. He further admitted that except police proceedings he have not produced any document before court to show that A-1 and A-2 distributed money and pamphlets to the voters. He further admitted that he have not examined any local inhabitants and any voters.

vi). As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, PW.1 and 2 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and residential area. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 clearly shows that PW.2 did not take any steps to examine the voters to whom the money was distributed and did not arrest any of the voters to whom A-1 and A2 distributed amount. Though the place of offence is a residential area and busy locality as admitted by PW.1 and

P.W.2, P.W.2 did not examine any other witnesses in the locality of the scene of offence. The prosecution has not satisfactorily explained as to why the police have not attempted to secure the mediators though the scene of

C.C.No.102/20155Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ offence is a busy locality and residential area and he has not examined any voters, to whom A1 and A2 was distributing amount. It is pertinent to refer a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Harijana

Thirupala And Ors. Vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P, AIR 2002

SC 2821 the Hon'ble supreme court held that Non-examination of

independent witnesses seriously impaired the credibility of the prosecution case. Following the said decision, this court is of the opinion that non- examination of independent witnesses at the scene of offence in the present case seriously impairs the credibility of prosecution case.

vii).With regard to Section 171-E IPC which is a non-cognizable offence the police cannot investigate into the offence without taking prior permission from the Magistrate having power to try such case. In Tummala

Rama Brahmam and another Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by

the Public Prosecutor and another the Hon'ble High Court of A.P held that the offence under Section 188 I.P.C concerned it must be only by private complaint as offence affecting the administration of justice or the like and the report registered as a crime as if a cognizable offence and investigation taken up and filing of charge sheet for its taking of cognizance per se unsustainable and So far as the cognizance taken from any permission accorded to take cognizance in the non-cognizable offences in three out of four matters by the learned Magistrate with a single sentence as permitted is per se unsustainable as outcome of non- application of judicial mind. In

Keshav Lal Thakur vs State Of Bihar the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the offence punishable is non cognizable and therefore the police could not have registered a case for such an offence under Section 154 Cr.

P.C. of course, the police is entitled to investigate into a non-cognizable offence pursuant to an order of a competent Magistrate under Section 155 (2) Cr. P.C. but, admittedly, no such order was passed in the instant case.

That necessarily means, that neither the police could investigate into the

C.C.No.102/20156Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ offence in question nor submit a report on which the question of taking cognizance could have arisen.

The above judgments are very much applicable to the facts of this case.

viii). With regard to Section 123 of RP Act which is not a penal provision. P.W.1 admitted that he have not seen A1 and A2 while they were distributing money to the voters. PW.2 did not submit any documents to show the date of enforcement of election code for the alleged offence.

Further the prosecution has not followed legal procedure while seizing the

MO.1 and M.O.2. As per Ex.P1 A1 and A2 confessed the offence before the police. But according to section 25 of Indian Evidence Act the confession made to police not to be proved against the accused. PW.1 has not filed any documentary proof to show that accused belongs to YSRCP Party. Thus, the

Prosecution has not filed necessary documents nor followed the legal procedure to establish the guilt of A1 and A2.

ix). On perusal of entire testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 who are police officials, this Court has not found any believable evidence against A-1 and

A-2 that A-1 and A-2 distributed the money to the voters to exercise their vote on behalf of YSRCP. Without there being any evidence, A-1 and A-2 cannot be convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec.171E-IPC and 123 of

R.P. Act and that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against

A-1 and A-2 for the offences punishable U/Sec.171-E IPC and 123 of R.P. Act and as such A-1 and A-2 are entitled for acquittal for offences punishable

U/Sec.171-E IPC and 123 of R.P Act. It is not in dispute that an amount of

Rs.5,000/- is seized from A1 and an amount of Rs.3,000/- is seized from A2.

In Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination A-1 has stated that while he was standing infront of his house police came to him and highhandedly took Rs.5,000/- from him, A-2 has stated that while he was moving on road police stopped

C.C.No.102/20157Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ him and highhandedly took Rs.3,000/- from him. The prosecution failed to prove that A1 and A2 are distributing cash to the voters to exercise their electoral right in favour of YSRCP. Hence A1 and A2 are entitled for return of

M.O.1 cash as per their respective seized amounts.

12. In the result, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Sec.171-E IPC and 123 of R.P Act and accordingly they are acquitted for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of A-1 and A-2 and their sureties shall be in force in terms of

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for a period of six months. MO.1 shall be returned to A-1 and

A-2 as per their respective seized amounts after appeal time is over. MO.2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this 27th day of June, 2019.

Sd/- G. Karthik.

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(Mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1N. Chennakesavulu.--NONE

PW-2K.Sri Ram

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1Police Proceedings--NIL

Ex.P-2Permission received from returning officer.

Ex.P-3FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

M.O.1FDR for Rs.8,000/---NIL

M.O.2Phamphlets (2 in number)

Sd/- G.K.

Spl. J.F.C.M- cum- II AJCJ.

C.C.No.102/20158Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Commence- Apprehension Released Close of Sentence Offence Report ment of of Accused on Bail Trial or Order Trial '04.05.2014'04.05.2014'04.05.2014'04.05.2014'25.09.201804.06.2019'27.06.2019

Judgment in C.C.No. 102 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-

cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Dharmavaram Town P.S.

Crime No: 206/2014

Name of the Father's Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Accused Name

Mallela ChandraM. –Hindu–DharmavaramDharmavaram @ JayachandraVenkateshu

J. Venkata J. Ramu–.Hindu--DharmavaramDharmavaram Swamy

Offence: U/Sec 171-E IPC, Sec.123 of R.P.Act.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Sec.171-E IPC and 123 of R.P Act and accordingly they are acquitted for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of A-1 and A-2 and their sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for a period of six months. MO.1 shall be returned to A-1 and A-2 as per their respective seized amounts after appeal time is over. MO.2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Explanation for delay: This case record is received as made over from Judl.

Magistrate of I class, Dharmavaram. On 18-04-2015 A1 and A2 were

examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. During the course of trial, PWs.1 and 2 are examined and marked Exs.P1 to Exs.P3 and M.O.1 and M.O.2. After closure of prosecution evidence A-1 and A-2 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Heard both sides. Judgment pronounced on 27-06-2019. Hence, the delay is due to non production of witnesses.

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(Mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

C.C. No.53/20191Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile)

for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu

Present:- G. Karthik, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile)

for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act­cum­II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu

Monday, the 24 th Day of June, 2019

CALENDAR CASE No.53/2019

Between :-

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

B.K. Samudram P.S....Complainant

AND

Mundla Obulesu, age 27 years, S/o. Mundla Muthyalu, D.No.1/64, Reddipalli Village, B.K. Samudram Mandal. … Accused

This case coming on 21.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri A. Sreekanth Reddy, Advocate for Accused, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, B.K. Samudram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.112/2016 for the offences punishable under Secs.338, 304-A of Indian Penal Code (herein after be referred as IPC for sake of brevity and convenience) and for the offence punishable under Secs.134 (A) and (B) r/w.187 of M.V Act (herein after be referred as M.V. Act for sake of brevity and convenience).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.08.2016 PW.1 K.

Thirupal Naik along with Sankar Naik/deceased left Kamalapuram Village,

Garladinne Mandal to go to Ananthapuramu. Both went to Garladinne in an auto, from there they took Hero Passion Pro Motorcycle bearing No.AP-02-AJ- 5972 from one Nagesh and went to Ananthapuramu. Sankar Naik/deceased was rider of motor cycle and PW.1 is pillion rider. At about 3:45 PM when they reached near Vadiyampeta Cross Road, the accused being the driver of

C.C. No.53/20192Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ tractor bearing No.AP-02-TB-0498/AP-02-TB-0449 drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and turned the tractor towards

Vadiyampeta side without following signals near junction and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result PW.1 and Sankar Naik/deceased were fell down from the motor cycle and sustained severe bleeding injuries.

Immediately they were shifted to GGH, Ananthapuramu. On the advice of doctors, PW.1 was shifted to Aasha Hospital, Ananthapuramu. While undergoing treatment Sankar Naik/deceased succumbed to injuries. On the report of PW.1, LW.17/A. Viswanatha Chowdari, S.I of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.112/2015 for the offence U/S.337 IPC and investigated into this case.

During the course of investigation, LW.17/S.I of Police recorded the statements of PW.1 and LW.2/K. Anjineyulu and visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence and prepared scene observation police proceedings. Basing on the death intimation given by

PW.2/S. Kethavath Ramanjineyulu, LW.16/C. Venkateswarlu, ASI of Police re- register the case and added Sec.304-A IPC and took up investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, LW.16/ASI of Police held inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of blood relatives and Inquest panchayatdars and later sent the body for autopsy. LW.14/ Y. Kiran Kumar,

Medical Officer, Aasha Hospital, Ananthapuramu, who treated PW.1 and issued wound certificate opining that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are grievous in nature. LW.15/T. Sai Sudheer, Asst. Professor, Govt. Medical

College, Kurnool, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post mortem certificate opining that the deceased died due to Shock resulting from Multiple injuries. LW.13/G. Deepika, Motor Vehicle

Inspector, Ananthapuramu, who inspected the crime vehicle and issued certificate opining that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. On 02.09.2017 LW.17/S.I of Police served notice under

Sec.41 (A) Cr.P.C on accused. The accused neither failed to give accident

C.C. No.53/20193Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ information in the nearest police station nor assisted the injured for medical treatment. Hence Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w.187 of M.V Act are added. After completion of investigation, LW.17/A. Viswanatha Chowdari, S.I of Police, B.K.

Samudram P.S filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs.338, 304-A IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w.187 of M.V Act.

3. After filing charge sheet, this case was taken cognizance by the

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class, Anantapuramu for the offences punishable under Secs.338 and 304-A of IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w.187 of M.V Act numbered as C.C.No.1228/2016.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.As per the proceedings of Hon'ble District and Session Judge,

Ananthapurmu in Order Dis No.4611 dt.26-07-2017 this case was transferred to this court and renumbered the same as C.C.No.53/2019.

6. On 01.03.2019 the accused was examined under Sec.251 of

Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation for the offences punishable under

Secs.338 and 304-A of IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w.187 of M.V Act was read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

LW.1/K. Thirupal Naik as PW.1, LW.3/ K. Ramanjaneyulu as PW.2, LW.4/K.

Syamala as PW.3, LW.5/K. Lakshmi Devi as PW.4 and LW.9/B. Adinarayana as

PW.5 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. The learned A.P.P gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses in view of hostile of PWs 1 to 5.

8.Since there is no incriminating evidence appearing against the accused in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

C.C. No.53/20194Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ

9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

10.The point that falls for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for

the offences punishable U/Secs.338, 304-A of IPC and Sec.134 (a)

and (b) r/w.187 of M.V Act beyond reasonable doubt?” 11. P O I N T :-

i). To bring home guilt of the accused for the offences punishable

U/Secs.338, 304-A of IPC and section 134(a) and (b) R/w 134 of M.V. Act the prosecution shall establish that the accused caused the grievous injuries to

PW.1 and death of Sankar Naik/deceased by doing rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide and failed to intimate the information about the accident in nearest police station and failed to admit the deceased and injured in the Hospital. To prove the above said ingredients against the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs.338, 304-A IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w.187 of M.V Act the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5.

ii).PW.1 who is the de-facto complainant and injured testified that about 3 years ago while himself and Sankar Naik/deceased were coming to

Ananthapuramu from Garladinne village in a motor cycle and when they reached near NH-44 Vadiyampeta Cross they met with an accident. He further deposed that in that accident himself and Sankar Naik/deceased sustained injuries and were shifted to GGH, Anantapuramu, on the advice of doctors he was shifted to Private Hospital and Sankar Naik (deceased) was shifted to Savera Hospital and from there Sankar Naik (deceased) was again shifted to GGH, Kurnool. He further deposed that he came to know that

Sankar Naik (deceased) died while undergoing treatment in GGH, Kurnool. He further deposed that he can not say on whose negligence the said accident took place, he did not prefer any report to the police. He further deposed that police obtained his thumb impression on some written papers at GGH,

C.C. No.53/20195Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ

Ananthapuramu, but he does not know the contents of those papers, he does not know anything about the details of the crime vehicle and he was not examined by the police.

iii) PW.2 who is brother of PW.1 deposed that about 3 years ago he received a phone call from the villagers stating that P.W.1 and the Sankar

Naik (deceased) met with an accident near Vadiyampeta cross, in that accident P.W.1 and Sankar Naik/deceased sustained injuries and were shifted to GGH, Anantapuramu. He further deposed that on the advice of doctors

P.W.1 was shifted to Private Hospital and Sankar Naik (deceased) was shifted to Savera Hospital and again shifted to GGH, Kurnool. He further deposed that he came to know that Sankar Naik (deceased) died while undergoing treatment in GGH, Kurnool. He further deposed that he can not say on whose negligence the said accident took place, he did not prefer any report to the police. He further deposed that Police obtained his signature on some written papers at GGH, Ananthapuramu, but he does not know the contents of report. He further deposed that he does not know anything about the details of the crime vehicle and he was not examined by the police..

iv). PW.3, who is wife of the deceased and PW.4, who is mother of the deceased deposed that about 3 years ago while they were present in their village they received a phone call from the villagers of Vadiyampeta stating that P.W.1 and the Sankar Naik/deceased met with an accident near

Vadiyampeta cross and were shifted to GGH, Anantapuramu. They further deposed that they along with their relatives went to GGH, Anantapuramu and noticed that the deceased was undergoing treatment. They further deposed that on the advice of doctors Sankar Naik (deceased) was shifted to Savera

Hospital and from there again shifted to GGH, Kurnool, later Sankar Naik (deceased) died while undergoing treatment in GGH, Kurnool. They furhter deposed that they can not say on whose negligence the said accident took place, they did not prefer any report to the police, they do not know anything

C.C. No.53/20196Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ about the details of the crime vehicle and they were not examined by the police.

v). PW.5 who is the eye witnesses deposed that he do not know anything about facts and circumstances of this case, he never witnessed any accident in this case, he does not know anything about the details of crime vehicle and also the details of the driver of the crime vehicle and he was not examined by the police.

vi).On perusal of entire testimonies of PWs 1 to 5, this Court has not found a single attribution attributed against the accused that the accused caused the injuries to PW.1 and death of Sankar Naik/deceased by doing rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide and failed to intimate the information about the accident in nearest police station and failed to admit the deceased and injured in the Hospital. Though the prosecution established that PW.1 sustained injuries and the deceased died due to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In other words, the prosecution failed to establish the direct nexus and proximity between the death of deceased, injuries of P.W.1 and rash or negligent act of accused, which is the essential ingredient to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/Ss.338 and 304-A of IPC and

Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w.187 of M.V Act. Hence, the Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/Ss.338 and 304-A of IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w.187 of M.V

Act.

12. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Ss.338, 304-A of IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w.187 of M.V Act.

Accordingly, he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be in force in

C.C. No.53/20197Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ terms of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for a period of six months. No property is produced in this case. Hence, no orders with regard to disposal of property.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 24th day of June, 2019.

Sd/- G. Karthik.

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(Mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1K. Thirupal Naik.--NONE

PW-2K. Ramanjaneyulu.

PW-3K. Syamala.

PW-4K. Lakshmi Devi.

PW-5B. Adinarayana.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1.

Ex.P-2Signature of PW.2 on the Report.

Ex.P-3Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2.

Ex.P-4Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3.

Ex.P-5Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4.

Ex.P-6Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

- NIL -

Sd/- G.K.

Spl. J.F.C.M- cum- II AJCJ.

// True Copy //

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(Mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R. Act-cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

C.C. No.53/20198Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Apprehen- Released Commence- Close of Sentence Offence Report sion of on Bail ment of Trial Trial or Order Accused '24.08.2016'24.08.2016----'19.06.201919.06.2019'24.06.2019 0 Judgment in C.C.No.53 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-

cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, B.K. Samudram P.S.

Crime No: 112/2016

Name of Father's

the Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal

Name Accused

Mundla27Mundla HinduDriver ReddipalliB.K. Samudram ObulesuYrs.Muthyalu

Offence: U/Secs. 338, 304-A of IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w.187 of M.V Act.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Ss.338, 304-A of IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w.187 of M.V Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for a period of six months. No property is produced in this case. Hence, no orders with regard to disposal of property.

Explanation for delay: This case record is received as made over from the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class, Anantapuramu. On 01.03.2019 accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 5 are examined and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, rest of the witnesses were given up by A.P.P. As there is no incriminating material against the accused examination U/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Heard both sides. Judgment pronounced on 24.06.2019. Hence, the delay.

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

C.C.No.31/20161Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (MOBILE)

FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER P.C.R.ACT-CUM-II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU.

Present:- G. Karthik, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile) for

trail of cases under P.C.R.Act­cum­II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Thursday, the 27 th Day of June, 2019

CALENDAR CASE No.31/2016

Between :-

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Amarapuram P.S. ...Complainant

AND

1) Gurumurthy, age 39 years, S/o. Hanumanthappa, Gunehalli Village, Amarapuram Mandal.

2) P. Mahalingappa, age 25 years, S/o. Chithappa Gollahatti, Govindapuram Village, Madakasira Mandal. … Accused Nos.1 and 2.

This case coming on 27.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri P. Rajasekhar, Sri M. Krishnappa, Advocates for the Accused Nos.1 and 2, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Amarapuram P.S filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Sec.188 of Indian Penal

Code (herein after be referred as IPC for sake of brevity and convenience).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.04.2014 at about 7:00

PM while LW.1/G. Venkateswara Reddy, MPDO along with witnesses i.e., PW.1

Raghu, PW.2 K. Manjunath mobing to Amarapuram, there A-1 and A-2 canvassing on the way at Gowdankakunta Cross side on Bolero bearing

No.AP-02-V-5656 with Congress Party Flag, cutouts and two mikes in view of

General Elections in Amarapuram Village to elect their congress candidate.

There is no mike permission from concerned authority to the said vehicle to canvass. On the report of LW.1/G. Venkateswara Reddy, MPDO, PW.2/K.M.

C.C.No.31/20162Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ

Linganna, S.I of Police, Amarapuram P.S registered a case in Cr.No.47/2014 fo the offence punishable under Sec.188 of I.P.C and investigated into the case.

On 22.04.2014 on credible information, PW.2 seized the crime vehicle. On 24.4.2014 A-1 and A-2 were arrested and sent them for remand. After completion of investigation, PW.2 filed charge sheet against A-1 and A-2.

3. After filing charge sheet and required documents, this case was taken cognizance by the Judl. Magistrate of I class, Madakasira for the offence punishable under Sec.188 of IPC and numbered as C.C.No.77/2014.

4.As per the proceedings of Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu this case was transferred to this

court and re-numbered the same as C.C.No.31/2016.

5.On appearance of A-1 and A-2, copies of case records were furnished to them as required under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

6. On 08.11.2018 A-1 and A-2 were examined under Sec.251 of

Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation leveled against them was read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

LW.3/Raghu as PW-1, LW.2/K. Manjunath as PW.2 and LW.4/K.M. Linganna, the then S.I of Police, Amarapuram P.S as PW.3 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-7. Ex.P1 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1, Ex.P2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of

PW.2, Ex.P3 is Report of LW.1/C. Venkateswara Reddy, Ex-P4 is the First

Information Report, Ex.P5 is Rough Sketch, Ex.P6 is Police Proceedings dt.22.04.2014 and Ex.P7 is Receipt. The learned A.P.P gave up the evidence of LW.1/G. Venkateswara Reddy as prosecution filed report stating that LW.1 is residing in abroad.

C.C.No.31/20163Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ

8.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 17.06.2019,

A-1 and A-2 were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which they denied and they reported no defence evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked by the defence.

9.The point that falls for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A-1 and A-2

for the offence punishable U/Sec.188 IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

10.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of A1 and A2.

11. P O I N T :-

i). To bring home guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.188 IPC, the prosecution shall establish that A-1 and A-2 disobeyed the promulgated order of the public servant. To prove the above said ingredients against A-1 and A-2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.188 IPC, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.3.

ii).PW.1 deposed that he does not know anything about the facts and circumstances of this case, he does not know whether LW.1/C.

Venkateswara Reddy preferred any report against A1 and A2 as they violated

Model Code of Conduct during General Elections 2014 and he was not examined by the police. PW.2, who is another witness deposed that on 21.04.2014 at about 7:30 PM himself along with LW.1/C. Venkateswara Reddy were moving in Amarapuramu village in view of General elections 2014, when they reached near Gowdannakunta Village LW.1/C. Venkateswara

Reddy noticed one vehicle with canvassing material came in opposite direction, then LW.1/C. Venkateswara Reddy stopped the vehicle and asked inmate of the vehicle about the permission from election authority. He

C.C.No.31/20164Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ further deposed that the inmate of the vehicle produced the permission letter from the election authority. He further deposed that except this he does not know anything about the facts and circumstances of this case and he was not examined by police. The learned APP treated P.W.1 and 2 as hostile and cross-examined them. But the learned APP did not elicit anything from them with regard to the identity of the accused and the seizure of property from A-1 and A-2-. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 and 2 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

iii).PW.3, who is the then S.I of Police, Amarapuram testified that on 21.04.2014 at 8:30 PM, while he was present in the police station, LW.1/G.

Venkateswar Reddy, MPDO (Election Officer), Amarapuram along with his staff (Pws.1 and 2) came to the police station and presented a written report.

He further deposed that basing on Ex.P3, he registered a case in

Cr.No.47/2014 for the offence punishable U/s.188 IPC and examined LW.1/G.

Venkateswar Reddy, PW.1, PW.2 and recorded their statements. He further deposed that on 22.04.2014 he left the police station and visited the scene of offence situated near Gowdanna Kunta Cross, Amarapuram Mandal, observed the scene of offence and prepared the Ex.P5 rough sketch of the same. He further deposed that when he was at scene of offence, he received a credible information about the crime vehicle in this case, immediately he left the place and reached Old S.C Colony, Amarapuram Village and found the crime vehicle near Special School, then he observed the vehicle and it containing two mikes, one congress party flag and two flexis were affixed to the vehicle on both sides, then he confirmed the vehicle as crime vehicle in

Cr.No.47/2014 of Amarapuram P.S and then he seized the vehicle under the cover of police proceedings as no mediators were available at that place. He further deposed that on 24.04.2014 he received credible information about

A-1 and A-2 in this case at Gonehalli Village, immediately he visited Gonehalli

Village and found A-1 and A-2 in front of the house of A-1, after informing the

C.C.No.31/20165Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ grounds of arrest, he arrested A-1 and A-2, after observing the legal formalities he forwarded A-1 and A-2 to the Hon’ble Court for remand. He further deposed that as per the orders of Hon’ble Court in Cr.M.P.No.786/ 2015, dt.10.10.2014 vehicle is handed over to A-1 and A-2 and obtained receipt from A-1 and A-2, after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet in this case.

iv). Pw-3 in his cross examination admitted that on 22.04.2014 he prepared rough sketch. He further admitted that while seizing the vehicle he did not secure mediators as no one available. He further admitted that in the charge sheet he did not mention that he seized the vehicle under cover of police proceedings. He further admitted that he did not produce two mikes and congress party flag and cutouts before the court.

v). The evidence of PW.3 clearly shows that he did not produce two mikes and congress party flag and cutouts before the court. Non producing of mikes and congress party flag and cutouts before the court is fatal to the case of prosecution and it creates serious doubt in the entire case of prosecution. P.W.1 and 2 did not depose anything against A1 and A2. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 creates a doubt in the prosecution case. Further

PW.3 did not submit any documents to show the date of enforcement of election code for the alleged offence. In the case at hand, PW.3 has not filed the promulgation order of the public servant, which is necessary to prove the offence U/s 188 IPC. The police has also not followed the legal procedure while seizing the property. Thus it is evident that the Police has not filed necessary documents nor followed the legal procedure to establish the guilt of A1 and A2.

vi). On perusal of entire testimonies of PWs 1 to 3, this Court has not found any believable evidence against A-1 and A-2 that A-1 and A-2 were canvassing on behalf of congress Party to exercise their vote on behalf of

Congress Party and also A1 and A2 disobeyed the promulgation order of

C.C.No.31/20166Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ

Public Servant. Without there being any evidence, A-1 and A-2 cannot be convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.188 IPC and that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against A-1 and A-2 beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Sec.188 IPC and as such, A-1 and A-2 are entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable U/Sec.188 IPC. .

12. In the result, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty of the

offence punishable U/Sec.188 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted

for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C and they are set at liberty. The bail

bonds of A-1 and A-2 and their sureties shall be in force in terms of

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for a period of six months. The unmarked vehicle

bearing No.AP02 V 5696 which is given to the interim custody of the

owner of the vehicle vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.786/2015 dt.10.10.

2014 shall holds good after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 27th day of June, 2019.

Sd/- G. Karthi.

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1 T. Raghu.--NONE

PW-2 K. Manjunath

PW-3 K.M. Linganna.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1.--NIL

Ex.P-2 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2.

Ex.P-3 Report of LW.1/C. Venkateswara Reddy.

Ex.P-4 First Information Report

Ex.P-5 Rough Sketch

Ex.P-6 Police Proceedings dt.22.04.2014

Ex.P-7 Receipt

C.C.No.31/20167Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

NiL

Sd/- G.K.

Spl. J.F.C.M- cum- II AJCJ.

C.C.No.31/20168Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Apprehensi Commence-

Released Close of Sentence or Offence Report on of ment of on Bail Trial Order

Accused Trial

'21.04.2014'21.04.2014'21.04.2014'21.04.2014'20.02.201903.06.2019'27.06.2019

Judgment in C.C.No. 31 of 2016 on the file of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-

cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Amarapuram P.S.

Crime No: 47/2014

Name of the Age Father's Name Religion Calling Residence Mandal Accused 39 GurumurthyHanumanthappaHinduCultivationAmarapuram Gunehalli Yrs.

P.35Chithappa HinduDriverAmarapuram Govindapuram MahalingappaYrs.Gollahatti

Offence: U/Sec.188 I.P.C.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.188 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of A-1 and A-2 and their sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for a period of six months. The unmarked vehicle bearing No.AP02 V 5696 which is given to the interim custody of the owner of the vehicle vide orders in

Crl.M.P.No.786/2015 dt.10.10.2014 shall holds good after appeal time is over.

Explanation for delay: This case record is transferred to this court from Junior Civil Judge Court, Madakasira. On 08.11.2018 A-1 and A-2 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 3 are examined and marked Ex.P1 to Ex-P7. After closure of prosecution side evidence A1 and A2 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Heard both sides. Judgment pronounced on 27.06.2019. Hence, delay is due to non production of witnesses.

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

C.C.No.505/20181Spl. JFCM-cum- II AJCJ

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (MOBILE)

FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER P.C.R.ACT­CUM­ II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL 

JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU.

Present:­ G. Karthik, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act­cum­II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Thursday, the 27 th Day of June, 2019

CALENDAR CASE No.505/2018

Between :­

State Represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, B.K. Samudram P.S. …Complainant AND

1) Jawaji Krishna Raju @ Kristappa, age 35 years, S/o. K. Sreeramulu, D.No.2/702, High School Kottalu, B.K. Samudram Village and Mandal. 

2) Jawaji Sreekanth, age 28 years, S/o. K. Sreeramulu, D.No.2/702, High School Kottalu, B.K. Samudram Village and Mandal. 

3) Jawaji Sreenivasulu, age 33 years, S/o. K. Sreeramulu, D.No.2/702, High School Kottalu, B.K. Samudram Village and Mandal. …Accused Nos. 1 to 3.

This case coming on 27.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri D. Jaya Mohan, Advocate for A­1 to A­3, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, B.K. Samudram P.S. filed charge sheet against

A­1 to A­3 for the offence punishable under Sec.324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after be referred as IPC for sake of brevity and convenience).

2. The case of the prosecution is that PW.3 who is the elder brother of P.W.1 took an amount of Rs.70,000/­ from A­1 and unable to pay the same, but paying interest regularly. Several times A1 demanded PW.3 to repay the same, but PW.3 postponing to pay the same. While so on 26.07.2017 at 2:00 PM, PW.1 came to B.K. Samudram Village and while having treat at Maruthi Hotel, A­1 to A­3 picked up quarrel with PW.1 and mean time A­3 took a stick and beat PW.1 on his back and caused contusion. A­1 and A­ 2 beat PW.1 with hands and legs and caused injuries. By knowing the same PW.2 rushed

C.C.No.505/20182Spl. JFCM-cum- II AJCJ to the spot and tried to rescue PW.1, A­1 to A­3 also beat P.W.2 with hands. Mean time

LW.4/K. Ranganna, LW.5/C. Adinarayana and LW.6/M. Bala Krishna intervened and rescued PW.1 from the hands of A­1 to A­3 and shifted PW.1 to Government Hospital,

Ananthapuramu. On the statement of PW.1, LW.8/C. Venkateswarlu, ASI of Police, B.K.

Samudram P.S registered a case in Cr.No.120/2017 for the offences punishable U/S.324 r/w.34 IPC and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, LW.8/C. Venkateswarlu, ASI of Police, B.K.

Samudram P.S examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the offence and examined LW.4/K. Ranganna,

LW.5/C. Adinarayana and LW.6/M. Bala Krishna. LW.9/G.Sudhakar Yadav, S.I of Police,

B.K. Samudram P.S verified the investigation of LW.8/ASI of Police and found it on correct lines. On 31.07.2017 at 10:30 AM A­1 to A­3 appeared before LW.9/S.I of Police, he served Sec.41A Cr.P.C notice to them. LW.7/Dr. S. Sydanna, CAS, GGH,

Anantapuramu who treated PW.1 and issued wound certificate opining that the injures sustained by P.W.1 are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, LW.9/G.

Sudhakar Yadav, S.I of Police, B.K. Samudram P.S filed charge sheet against A­1 to A­3 for the offence punishable U/S.324 r/w.34 IPC.

3. After filing charge sheet, this case was taken cognizance by the Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I class, Ananthapuramu for the offence punishable under Sec.324 r/w.34

IPC and numbered as C.C.No.1550/2017. 

4. On appearance of A­1 to A­3, copies of case records were furnished to them as required under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.As per the proceedings of Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge,

Ananthapuramu in Dis No.6714, dt.26.10.2018 this case was transferred to this court and re­numbered the same as C.C.No.505/2018.

6.On 22.03.2019 A­1 to A­3 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C by explaining them the substance of accusation leveled against them in the charge sheet, for which,

C.C.No.505/20183Spl. JFCM-cum- II AJCJ they denied the same. Having considered the submissions made on both the sides and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court, this Court was of the opinion that there is ground to presume that A­1 to A­3 have committed the offence, this

Court framed charges against A­1 to A­3. Charges for the offences punishable U/S.324

I.P.C and section 323 R/w 34 of IPC are framed against A3. Charges for the offences punishable U/S.324 r/w.34 I.P.C and section 323 of IPC are framed against A1 and A2.

Charges are read over and explained its contents in Telugu language to them, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried. 

7. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined LW.1/ K.

Balakrishna as PW.1, LW.2/K. Sangamma as PW.2 and LW.3/K. Lingamaiah as PW.3 and marked Exs.P­1 to P­4. Since the material witnesses turned hostile, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses. Accordingly, prosecution side evidence was closed.

8.Since there is no incriminating evidence appearing against A1 to A3 in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, examination of A1 to A3 under Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

9.The points that falls for determination are:

1. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that A3 committed the offences punishable U/s. 324 of IPC and 323 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”

2. W hether the prosecution is able to establish that A1 and A2 committed the

offences punishable U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and 323 of IPC beyond reasonable

doubt?”

10.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for

Accused.

11. P O I N T S 1 and 2:­

i). To bring home guilt of A3 for the offences punishable U/Sec 324 of IPC and 323 r/w 34 of IPC, the prosecution shall prove that A3 beat P.W.1 with a stick and voluntarily caused simple hurt to P.W.1 and he acted in furtherance of common

C.C.No.505/20184Spl. JFCM-cum- II AJCJ intention while A1 and A2 are beating P.W.1 with hands and legs. To bring home guilt of

A1 and A2 for the offences punishable U/Sec 324 r/w 34 of IPC and 323 of IPC, the prosecution shall prove that A1 and A2 beat P.W.1 with hands and legs and caused simple hurt to him and A1 and A2 acted in furtherance of common intention while A3 is beating P.W.1 with stick. To prove the above said ingredients against A­1 to A­3, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 3.

ii).PW.1 who is the defacto complainant and injured, testified that he does not know anything about the facts and circumstances of this case, there are no disputes between himself and A­1 to A­3. He further depsoed that at about 2 years ago when he was moving on his bike he fell down from his bike and sustained injuries and was admitted in GGH, Ananthapuramu. He further deposed that he never preferred any report against A­1 to A­3, Police obtained his signature on some written papers when he was in GGH, Ananthapuramu, but he does not know the contents of those papers and he was not examined by the police. 

iii)PW.2 and PW.3 deposed that they do not know anything about the facts and circumstances of this case, they never witnessed any incident in this case. They further deposed that there were no disputes between A­1 to A­3, A­1 to A­3 never beat

PW.1 and never caused injured to PW­1 and they were not examined by the police.

iv).Since the witnesses P.W.1 to 3 have resiled to the entire case of the prosecution, the learned APP sought permission of the Court to declare the witnesses as hostile and after getting permission from the Court U/Sec.154 of Indian Evidence Act, the learned APP examined Pws.1 to 3, wherein Pws.1 to 3 denied of stating before the

Police in the statements recorded U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. No material facts were elicited by the learned APP to support the case of the prosecution.

v).On perusal of entire testimonies of PW.1 to PW.3, this Court has not found a single attribution attributed against A­1 to A­3. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against A3 for the offences punishable

U/S.324 of I.P.C and Sec.323 r/w 34 of IPC, the prosecution also failed to prove its case

C.C.No.505/20185Spl. JFCM-cum- II AJCJ against A­1 and A­2 for the offences punishable U/S.324 r/w.34 of I.P.C and Sec.323 of

IPC. Therefore, A1 to A3 are entitled for clean acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of A­1 to A­3.

12. In the result, A­3 is found not guilty of the offences punishable

U/Sec.324 of IPC and Sec.323 r/w 34 of IPC, A­1 and A­2 are found not guilty of the

offences punishable U/S.324 r/w.34 I.P.C and Sec.323 of IPC. A ccordingly, they

acquitted for the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of A­1 to A­3 and their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Sec.437­A Cr.P.C. No property is produced in this case. Hence, no orders with regard to disposal of property.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court, on this 27th day of June 2019.

Sd/­ G. Karthik.

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act­cum­ II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW­1K. Balakrishna.­­NONE

PW­2K. Sangamma.

PW­3K. Lingamaiah.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P­1Statement of PW.1.­­NIL

Ex.P­2Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1.

Ex.P­3Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2.

Ex.P­4Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

­ NIL ­

Sd/- G.K.

Spl. J.F.C.M- cum- II AJCJ.

C.C.No.505/20186Spl. JFCM-cum- II AJCJ

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act­cum­II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Apprehen­ Commence­ Released on Close of Sentence or Offence Report sion of ment of Bail Trial Order Accused Trial '26.07.2017'27.07.2017'­­'­­'24.06.201924.06.2019'27.06.2019

Judgment in C.C.No.505 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of

First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act­cum­II Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, B.K. Samudram P.S.

Crime No: 120/2017

Name of the Age Father's Name Religion Calling Residence Mandal Accused

Jawaji Krishnam35B.K.B.K. K. SreeramuluHindu– Raju @ KristappaYrs.SamudramSamudram 28B.K.B.K. Jawaji SreekanthK. SreeramuluHindu– Yrs.SamudramSamudram

Jawaji33B.K.B.K. K. SreeramuluHindu– SreenivasuluYrs.SamudramSamudram

Offence: U/Sec.324 of IPC and 323 r/w 34 of IPC against A3. U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC and 323 of IPC against A1 and A2.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, A­3 is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Sec.324 of

IPC and Sec.323 r/w 34 of IPC, A­1 and A­2 are found not guilty of the offences punishable U/S.324 r/w.34 I.P.C and Sec.323 of IPC. Accordingly, they acquitted for the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of A­1 to A­3 and their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Sec.437­

A Cr.P.C. No property is produced in this case. Hence, no orders with regard to disposal of property.

C.C.No.505/20187Spl. JFCM-cum- II AJCJ

Explanation for delay: This case record is received as made over from the Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I class, Anantapuramu. On 22.03.2019 A­1 to A­3 were examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C. During the course of trial, PW.1 to PW.3 are examined and marked

Exs.P1 to Ex.P4, rest of the witnesses were given up by A.P.P. As there is no incriminating material against A1 to A3, examination of A1 to A3 U/S.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Heard both sides. Judgment pronounced on 27.06.2019. 

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(Mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R Act­cum­ II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

C.C. No.21/20191Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile)

for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu

Present:- G. Karthik, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile) for trail

of cases under P.C.R.Act­cum­II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Thursday, the 27 th Day of June, 2019

CALENDAR CASE No.21/2019

Between :-

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

B.K. Samudram P.S....Complainant

AND

Ramappa Shankar, age 45 years, S/o. Ramappa, D.No.1137, Lakshmaiah Complex, 1st Main, Yeswanthapur, Bangalore – 560022,… Accused

This case coming on 27.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri A. Sreekanth Reddy, Advocate for Accused, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, B.K. Samudram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.206/2014 for the offences punishable under Secs.337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code (herein after be referred as IPC for sake of brevity and convenience).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.12.2014 PW.1 H.

Mallikarjuna Satesh Kumar along with his wife H.Rajeswari/deceased went to

Kesavareddy Concept School, Vadiyampeta on motor cycle bearing No.AP-02-

K-5661 to see their younger son by name Sai Shanmuga. At about 4:30 PM while they were returning to Ananthapuramu, the accused being the driver of

Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-AA-8671 drove the Car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of PW.1, as a result PW.1 and his wife fell down on the road and sustained bleeding injuries. Rajeswari (deceased) sustained severe bleeding injuries on her head. Immediately both the PW.1 and Rajeswari (deceased) were shifted to GGH, Ananthapuramu. On

C.C. No.21/20192Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ the advise of doctors, the deceased/Rajeswari was shifted to Bangalore for better treatment and on the way to Bangalore, she succumbed to injures.

On the report of PW.1, LW.16/J. Mohan Kumar Gowd, S.I of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.206/2014 for the offences punishable under Secs.337, 304 (A) IPC and he took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, inquest is held over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of blood relatives and Inquest panchayatdars. LW.16/S.I of Police examined PW.1, PW.2, LW.3/T. Pravalika,

LW.4/H. Nagamani, LW.5/H. Chandramouli and LW.6/E. Sanjeevaiah and recorded their detailed statements and he also examined PW.3, LW.8

Yugandhar and recorded their detailed statements and further he arrested the accused on 20.12.2014 and released him on bail. LW.13 Dr. Roshan, Civil

Assistant Surgeon, GGH, Ananthapuramu, who treated PW.1 issued wound certificate, opined that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are simple in nature.

LW.14/Dr. B. Venkateswarlu, Professor, Dept. of Forensic Medicine, Govt.

Medical College, Ananthapuramu who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued Post Mortem Certificate and opined that the deceased died due to “Cranio Cerebral Injuries”. LW.12/M. Venkateswarlu,

Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ananthapuramu, who inspected the crime vehicle issued certificate opining that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. After completion of investigation, LW.16/J.

Mohan Kumar Goud, S.I of Police, B.K. Samudram P.S filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs.337, 304-A IPC.

3. After filing charge sheet, this case was taken cognizance by the

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class, Anantapuramu for the offences punishable under Secs.337 and 304-A of IPC and numbered as C.C.No.279/2015.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

C.C. No.21/20193Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ

5.As per the proceedings of Hon'ble District and Session Judge,

Ananthapurmu in Order Dis No.6714 dt.26-10-2018 this case was transferred to this court and renumbered the same as C.C.No.21/2019.

6. On 25.02.2019 the accused was examined under Sec.251 of

Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation for the offences punishable under

Secs. 337 and 304-A of IPC was read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

LW.1/H. Mallikarjuna Sathish Kumar as PW.1, LW.2/G. Dhanunjaya as PW.2,

LW.7/B. Gousemohiddin as PW.3 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-4. The learned A.P.P gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses in view of hostile of PWs 1 to 3.

8.Since there is no incriminating evidence appearing against the accused in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

10.The point that falls for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for

the offences punishable U/Secs.337, 304-A of IPC beyond reasonable

doubt?” 11. P O I N T :-

i). To bring home guilt of the accused for the offences punishable

U/Secs.337, 304-A of IPC, the prosecution shall establish that the accused caused the simple injuries to PW.1 and death of Rajeswari/deceased by doing rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. To prove the above said ingredients against the accused for the offences punishable

U/Secs.337 and 304-A IPC, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3.

C.C. No.21/20194Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ ii).PW.1 who is the de-facto complainant-cum-injured and husband of the deceased testified that in the year 2014 himself along with his wife (deceased) went to Kesava Reddy Concept School on his Motor cycle to meet their son, at 4:30 pm they returned from the school and were proceeding on

NH-44 road, when they reached near Vadiyampeta cross they met with an accident, due to which himself and his wife fell down on road and sustained bleeding injuries. He further deposed that they were shifted to GGH,

Anantapuramu in 108 Ambulance by the villagers, on the advice of doctors he shifted his wife to Bangalore for better treatment, when they reached near Bangalore his wife died in the Ambulance, again he shifted dead body of his wife to GGH, Anantapuramu. He further deposed that except this he does not know anything about the facts and circumstances of this case, he did not enquire about the manner of the accident, he can not say on whose negligence the said accident took place, he does not know anything about the details of the crime vehicle and he did not prefer any report to the police.

He further deposed that Police obtained his signature on some written papers when he was at GGH, Ananthapuramu, he does not know the contents of the report and he was not examined by the police .

iii). PW.2 who is said to be eye witness deposed that he does not know anything about the facts and circumstances of this case, he never witnessed any accident in this case in which the deceased was died, he does not anything about the details of the crime vehicle and he was not examined by the police. PW.3 deposed that about 4 or 5 years ago while he was present in his house PW.1 called him and informed him that while himself and his wife were going on their motor cycle they met with an accident near

Vadiyampeta village and in that accident his wife sustained injuries and was shifted to GGH, Ananthapuramu. He further deposed that immediately he rushed to GGH, Ananthapuramu and there he noticed that wife of PW.1 was undergoing treatment, on the advise of the doctors while PW.1 is shifting his

C.C. No.21/20195Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ wife to Bangalore his wife died during the journey. He further deposed that except this he does not know anything about the facts and circumstances of this case, he did not enqurie about the manner of the accident and he was not examined by the police.

iv).On perusal of entire testimonies of PWs 1 to 3, this Court has not found a single attribution attributed against the accused that the accused caused the injuries to PW.1 and death of Rajeswari (deceased) by doing rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. Though the prosecution established that PW.1 sustained injuries and the deceased died due to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In other words, the prosecution failed to establish the direct nexus and proximity, between the death of deceased, injuries of P.W.1 and rash or negligent act of accused, which is the essential ingredient to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/Ss.337 and 304-A of IPC. Hence, the Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/Ss.337 and 304-A of IPC.

12. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Secs.337, 304-A of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for a period of six months. No property is produced in this case. Hence, no orders with regard to disposal of property.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 27th day of June, 2019.

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(Mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

C.C. No.21/20196Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1H. Mallikarjuna Sathish Kumar.--NONE

PW-2G. Dhanunjaya.

PW-3B. Gousemohiddin.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1Signature of PW.1 on the Report.--NIL

Ex.P-2Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1.

Ex.P-3Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2.

Ex.P-4Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

- NIL -

Spl. J.F.C.M- cum- II AJCJ.

C.C. No.21/20197Spl. JFCM­cum­ II AJCJ

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum-II Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Apprehen- Released Commence- Close of Sentence Offence Report sion of on Bail ment of Trial Trial or Order Accused '14.12.2014'15.12.2014'20.12.2014'20.12.2014'19.06.201924.06.2019'27.06.2019

Judgment in C.C.No.21 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-

cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, B.K. Samudram P.S.

Crime No: 206/2014

Name of Father's

the Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal

Name Accused

Ramappa45 RamappaHinduDriver YeswanthapurBangalore ShankarYrs.

Offence: U/Secs.337, 304-A of IPC

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Secs.337, 304-A of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for a period of six months. No property is produced in this case. Hence, no orders with regard to disposal of property.

Explanation for delay: This case record is received as made over from the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class, Anantapuramu. On 25.02.2019 accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 3 are examined and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4, rest of the witnesses were given up by A.P.P. As there is no incriminating material against the accused examination U/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Heard both sides. Judgment pronounced on 27.06.2019. Hence, the delay.

Spl Judl Magistrate of I Class(mobile) for trail of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.