Sri G. Praveen kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF SPL.JMFC FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE CASES, KARIMNAGAR

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2015

Present:- Sri G. Praveen Kumar., Spl.JMFC for Proh.& Excise Cases, Karimnagar.

CC.No. 385 OF 2014

Between:-

The State of A.P., represented through S.H.O., P.S., Karimnagar Rural.

...Complainant

And

A1. Parlapalli Thirupathi S/O. Sailu, 38 years, SC Madiga, Occu: Centring work, R/O. Shanthinagar village, Ramadugu Mandal.

A2.Kotthuri Mallesham S/O. Lingaiah, 37 years, SC Madiga, Occu: Suthari, R/O. Shanagar village of Ramadugu Mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming before me on 11/5/2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Praveen Kumar, learned APP for state and Sri B. Murali Manohar Advocate for A1 & A2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This case arises out of COR No. 2 of 2014-2015 of Prohibition & Excise

Station, Karimnagar Rural registered against A1 & A2 for offence under Section 34

(a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968, for short “the Act”.

2. The gravamen of the charge made against accused is that on 2/4/2014 at about 7.30 p.m. PW2 Ch. Venkateshwarlu, Prohibition & Excise Inspector,

Karimnagar Rural and PW3 Smt A. B. Durga, Sub-Inspector of Police, Static

Servival Team No.3, Karimnagar along with their men after securing PW1 Neerella

Upendra and LW2 Bathini Venkataswamy (not examined) conducted vehicle checking on the road leading from Rekurthy to Chintakunta near Loyola College,

Karimnagar. Meanwhile the patrolling party noticed two persons coming towards 2 them on vehicle with carton box inside a gunny bag. The patrolling party immediately stopped them, checked the vehicle and gunny bag and found 12

King Fisher Strong Beer 650 ml bottles, 6 Royal Challenge Classic Malt Whisky 750 ml bottles and 2 Royal Challenge Classic Malt Whisky 375 ml bottles.

Immediately after knowing the descriptive particulars of the said persons as that of A1 and A2, drawn sample and seized the remaining contraband, Hero Honda

CD Delux bearing No. AP/15/BB/1767 under a cover of Ex.P2 panchanama, PW2 registered a case under Ex.P3 COR for offence u/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act and produced the arrested accused before the court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against A1 and A2. Hence, it is the case of prosecution that A1 and A2 are liable for punishment for offence punishable u/s.34(a) of the Act.

3.Cognizance was taken by my learned predecessor for offence under

Section 34 (a) of the Act.

4.After furnishing copies of relevant documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C, A1 and A2 were examined under Section 240 Cr.P.C. On hearing both sides charge under Section 34 (a) of the Act was framed against accused, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4, MO1 were marked on behalf of prosecution, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.

6.A1 & A2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Their plea was a total denial and reported no defense on their behalf.

7.Heard Sri A. Praveen Kumar, learned APP for complainant and Sri B. Murali

Manohar, learned counsel for accused.

3

8.The point that arises for determination is:

Whether prosecution has brought home guilt of A1 & A2 beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section 34 (a) of the Act?

9. POINT: PW1 is one of the material panch witnesses to Ex.P2 panchanama,

dated 2/4/2014 under which 12 King Fisher Strong Beer 650 ml bottles, 6 Royal

Challenge Classic Malt Whisky 750 ml bottles and 2 Royal Challenge Classic Malt

Whisky 375 ml bottles and Hero Honda CD Delux bearing No. AP/15/BB/1767 were alleged to have been seized from the possession of A1 and A2 on 2/4/2014 on the road leading from Rekurthy near Loyola College, Karimnagar. PW1 turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. He stated to have signed on white papers. Though learned APP has cross-examined PW1 nothing could be elicited in favour of prosecution. Hence, evidence of PW1 is of no value to the prosecution.

10.The evidence of another panch witness, namely Bathini Venkata Swamy was closed by the court on his death report.

11. There remains the evidence of PW2 who is an Excise official and PW3 who is a member of static survival team . It has to be seen whether evidence of PW2 & PW3 is capable of establishing guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section 34 (a) of the Act. Learned APP contended that evidence of PW2 & PW3 itself is sufficient to establish guilt of accused because law does not prohibit the court from relying on their testimony. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused contended that court can not rely on the e testimony of PW2 & PW3 to base conviction because they are very much interested in the result of the case. It is true that Section 134 of the Evidence Act does not lay down requirement of particular number of witnesses to prove a fact. Court can rely on the sole testimony of a witness to base conviction if it is cogent and trust worthy and inspires confidence in the mind of court. However, since PW2 & PW3 are 4 investigating officers their evidence has to be appreciated with great care and caution.

12. PW2 & PW3 deposed that on 2/4/2014 they seized 12 King Fisher Strong

Beer 650 ml bottles, 6 Royal Challenge Classic Malt Whisky 750 ml bottles and 2

Royal Challenge Classic Malt Whisky 375 ml bottles and Hero Honda CD Delux bearing No. AP/15/BB/1767 from the possession of A1 and A2 under a cover of

Ex.P2 on the road leading from Rekurthy near Loyola College, Karimnagar.

Admittedly, PW2 & Pw3 had not taken panch witnesses from the locality. Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. requires PW2 & PW3 to secure the presence of two independent, locality and respectable persons as panch witnesses. This statutory provision was violated by PW2 & PW3. There is no explanation in this regard from PW2 & PW3.

Hence, a serious doubt arises in the mind of court as to whether PW2 & PW3 had been to spot or fabricated Ex.P2 by sitting in the Station.

13. Admittedly no document is filed before the court to show that PW2 and

PW3 were the members of Static Servival Team. Pw2 and PW3 did not mention the names of their posse who participated in raids and did not obtain their signature on Ex.P2 panchanama. If at all the posse of PW2 and PW3 were present they would have obtained the signatures of their stop.

14. Ex.P2 panchanama is in the form of confessional statement of accused and seizure of 12 King Fisher Strong Beer 650 ml bottles, 6 Royal Challenge

Classic Malt Whisky 750 ml bottles and 2 Royal Challenge Classic Malt Whisky 375 ml bottles and Hero Honda CD Delux bearing No. AP/15/BB/1767 . Confession alleged to have been made before PW2 & PW3 is inadmissible in evidence under

Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Hence, confessional portion of Ex.P2 panchanama can not be relied upon since it is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Seizure portion of Ex.P2 also can not be relied upon since the material panch witness did 5 not support the case of prosecution and and there is no acceptable evidence with regard to destruction of remaining quantity of contraband.

15.In view of above discrepancies in the evidence of PW2 and PW3, which are discussed supra, coupled with legal infirmities, particularly violation of Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. this court has no other alternative except to conclude that prosecution failed in establishing guilt of A1 and A2 much less beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section 34 (a) of the Act. Point is accordingly answered against prosecution.

16. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for offence under Section 34 (a) of the Act. They are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. Bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of period of six months from the date of this judgment.

17.MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of May, 2015.

Spl.JMFC for Prohibition & Excise Cases, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: Neerella Upendra -None- PW2: Ch. Venkateshwarlu PW4: Smt A.B. Durga.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on PanchanamaNil Ex.P2: Panchanama Ex.P3: COR Ex.P4: CE report vide CE.No.974/14

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: Two sample bottles.

Spl.JMFC for Prohibition & Excise Cases, Karimnagar.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPL.JMFC FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE CASES, KARIMNAGAR

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2015

Present: Sri G. Praveen Kumar., Spl.JMFC for Proh.& Excise Cases, Karimnagar

CC.No. 406 OF 2014

Between:-

The State of A.P., represented through S.H.O., Prohibition & Excise Karimnagar Rural.

...Complainant

And

Thallapally Laxmaiah S/O. Gattaiah, 60 years, Goud, Coolie, R/O.Kolimikunta village of Choppadandi Mandal, Karimnagar District.

...Accused.

This case is coming before me on 11/5/2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Praveen Kumar, learned APP for state and Sri E. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This case arises out of COR.No. 48 of 2014-2015 of Prohibition & Excise

Station, Karimnagar Rural registered against sole accused for offence under

Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968, for short “the Act”.

2. The gravamen of the charge made against accused is that: On 7/5/2014 at about 7.00 a.m. on reliable information about illegal sale of I.D. Liquor at

Kolimikunta village of Choppadandi, PW5 Md. Julfekar, Prohibition & Excise

Inspector and PW6 D. Bhasker Rao, Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, ESTF

Karimnagar and their men after securing PW1 Cheekatla Mallaiah and PW2

Chokkala Rajaiah as mediators rushed to said place and found one person trying to ran away from the scene. However the raid party caught hold him, searched his house premises ad found 13 King Fisher Strong Beer 650 ml bottles and 2 after knowing his descriptive particulars and after drawing the samples, seized the same under Ex.P5 panchanama in the presence of above mediators. PW4 Md.

Isaq Pasha, Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Karimnagar registered a case against the accused for offence punishable u/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act, issued

Ex.P4 COR and produced the arrested accused before the court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation PW3 Ch. Venkateshwarlu, Prohibition &

Excise Inspector, Karimnagar filed charge sheet against sole accused. Hence, it is the case of prosecution that accused is liable for punishment for offence punishable u/s.34(a) of the act.

3.Cognizance was taken by my learned predecessor for offence under

Section 34 (a) of the Act.

4.After furnishing copies of relevant documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C, accused was examined under Section 240 Cr.P.C. On hearing both sides charge under Section 34 (a) of the Act was framed against accused, read over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5, MO1 were marked on behalf of prosecution, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.

6.Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. His plea was a total denial and reported no defence on his behalf.

7.Heard Sri A. Praveen Kumar, learned APP for complainant and Sri E.

Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel for accused.

8.The point that arises for determination is:

Whether prosecution has brought home guilt of sole accused beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section 34 (a) of the Act ?

3

9. POINT: PW1 and PW2 are the material panch witnesses to Ex.P5 confessional cum seizure panchanamas of Accused. PW1 & PW2 turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution and the contents of Ex.P5. Though learned APP has cross-examined PW1 & PW2 nothing could be elicited in favour of prosecution.

10.There remains the evidence of PW5 and PW6, who are Excise officials.

Learned APP contended that though PW1 & PW2 turned hostile court can rely on the evidence of PW5 and PW6 to base conviction because their evidence is corroborating with each other and that there were no contradictions in their evidence. Refuting the said contention, learned counsel for accused contended that since PW5 & PW6 are the Excise officials they are very much interested in the result of the case and unless their evidence is corroborated by at least one independent witness it is not safe to rely on their evidence to base conviction. It is true that court can not reject evidence of PW5 and PW6 at the threshold on the ground that they are excise officials. However, evidence of PW5 and PW6 has to be appreciated with great care and caution.

11.Ex.P5 is in the form of confessional statement of accused besides being seizure of 13 King Fisher Premium 650 ml beer bottles. PW5 and PW6 are considered to be Excise officials coming within the purview of Section 25 of the

Evidence Act. Seizure portion of Ex.P5 can not also be relied upon based on evidence of PW5 and PW6 because PW1 & PW2, who are material panch witness turned hostile. In this regard, decisions relied upon by learned counsel for

Accused in Boina Chinnam Naidu v. State of A.P. reported in 2006 (1) ALT (Crl.) 11 (AP) is relevant and aptly applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the above judgment the Hon'ble Court held that conviction can not be based on the evidence of investigating officer alone in the absence of evidence of independent mediators.

4

12.There is another reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW5 & PW6. Though they deposed that constables also accompanied them and were present at the time of conducting panchanama, they could not depose the names of said constables, who accompanied them. Ex.P5 does not contain the names of staff.

Prosecution has also not examined the staff who alleged to have accompanied

PW5 & PW6. Admittedly, so-called staff of PW5 & PW6 had not signed on Ex.P5 panchanama. Law does not prohibit staff of PW5 & PW6 from signing on Ex.P5.

If really staff were present at the time of conducting Ex.P5 they could have certainly signed on Ex.P5. The fact that no staff member had signed on Ex.P5 speaks volumes about the false statement given by PW5 & PW6.

13. No rough sketch of scene of offence is drawn and filed by PW5 & PW6.

Even the boundaries of scene of offence is not mentioned in Ex.P5. The number of house of accused is also not mentioned in Ex.P5. No house owner-ship particulars of Accused was collected by PW5 and PW6. No investigation was made to ascertain from where accused brought the alleged Beer Bottles. There is no explanation from PW5 and PW6 for their failure to investigate into the said vital aspect.

14.The case of the prosecution is that accused confessed before PW5 & PW6 that he brought the beer bottles to sell for higher rates for wrongful gain. But both the investigating officers did not choose to examine the neighbours to the house of accused so as to ascertain whether accused is selling the liquor or not.

Admittedly no customer is found at the scene. No sale proceeds was seized from the possession of the accused. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to establish that accused is selling the beer bottles for wrongful gain.

15.PW4 is the investigating officer who registered case and PW3 is the investigating officer who after completion of investigation filed charge sheet. The 5 evidence of PW3 and PW4 is subsequent to the search and seizure. Hence, their evidence cannot perse establish the guilt of the accused.

16.In view of above discrepancies in the evidence of PW5 and PW6, which are discussed supra, coupled with legal infirmities, this court has no other alternative except to conclude that prosecution failed in establishing guilt of sole accused much less beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section 34 (a) of the Act. Point is accordingly answered against prosecution.

17.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for offence under Section 34 (a) of the Act. He is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. Bail bonds of Accused shall stand canceled after expiry of period of six months from the date of this judgment.

18.MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of May, 2015.

Spl.JMFC for Prohibition & Excise Cases, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: Ch. Mallaiah None PW2: Ch. Rajaiah PW3: Ch. Venkateshwarlu PW4: Md.Isaq Pasha PW5: Md. Julfekar PW6: D. Bhaskar Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on PanchanamaNil Ex.P2: Signature of PW2 on Panchanama Ex.P3: Attested copy of CE report vide CENo.1530/2014 Ex.P4: COR Ex.P4: Panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: Two sample bottles.

Spl.JMFC for Prohibition & Excise Cases, Karimnagar.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JMFC FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE CASES KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: Sri G. Praveen Kumar., Spl.JMFC for Proh. & Excise Cases, Karimnagar.

Dated this the 13th dayof May, 2015.

C.C. No. 322 OF 2014

Between :-

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Choppadandi.

… Complainant

And

A1. Konda Narayana S/O. Narayana, 60 years, A2. Konda Ravi S/O. Narayana, 36 years, A3. Konda Ramu S/O. Narayana, 22 years,

All are Gouda by caste R/O; Bhupalapatnam village.

….. Accused

This case is coming on 12/5/2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Praveen Kumar, APPO for the State and Sri D. Prakash, Counsel for accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that : Chintala Ramalingam is the defacto-complainant and injured. Chintala Nandam and Chinthala Laxman are his son and grand son respectively. Five years prior to report to police, complainant sold his five acres of agricultural land to A1 with a condition that he is having right over existing neam and babul trees over the land. A2 and A3 are sons of

A1. On 19/1/2013 at about 7 p.m. on information that A1 cut down the said existing trees and taking the same in tractor. Hence, complainant obstructed and questioned the acts of accused on which A1 to A3 beat the complainant with sticks which resulted injuries to his right hand, middle and fourth finger, nose and right knee. Son and grand son of complainant intervened and rescued the complainant. Thus stating complainant/injured lodged report for necessary action against A1 to A3.

2

2.Pursuant to report dated: 20/1/2013, a case in Cr.No.18/2013 of P.S.

Choppadandi came to be registered against A1 to A3 for offence punishable u/s.324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, in short 'IPC' and investigated into. After completion of investigation charge sheet filed against A1 to A3 for the said offences. Hence, it is the case of the prosecution that accused A1 to A3 are liable for punishment for offences u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC.

3.Cognizance was taken by Additional JMFC, Karimnagar for offence under

Sections 324 r/w 34 IPC.

4. The case has been originally filed before Addl.JMFC, Karimnagar and numbered as CC.No. 130 of 2013. During the pendency of the case the same has been transferred to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon'ble District

Judge, Karimnagar and on transfer the same was renumbered as CC. 322 of 2014.

5. On appearance copies of relevant documents were furnished as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused were examined u/s 239 of Cr.P.C . On hearing both sides charges u/s 324 r/w 34 IPC framed against the accused, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.P1 to P4 were marked on behalf of prosecution. The details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.

The learned APP given up the evidence of other witnesses.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 were examined u/s.313(1)

(b) of Cr.P.C. They deneid the incriminating material evidence and reported no defence on their behalf.

8.Heard Sri A. Praveen Kumar, learned APPO for complainant and Sri D.

Prakash, learned counsel for accused.

3

9.The point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether prosecution has proved guilt of A1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/s. 324 r/w 34 IPC ?”

POINT:

10.The prosecution examined LW1 Ch. Ramalingam/injured as Pw1, his son

Ch. Nandam/eye witness as Pw3 and his grand son Laxman as PW3.

11.The contents of Ex.P1 report are mentioned at para No.1 of this judgment.

PW1 during his chief examination re-iterated the contents of Ex.P1 report. PW1 during the cross examination deposed that on the instigation of police he deposed as in his chief examination and infact A1 to A3 never beat him, never caused any injury to him and he never lodged report against them. In view of hostile attitude of PW1, the learned APP cross examined him but nothing could be elicited to support the case of prosecution. PW1 admitted that he compromised the matter and settled the dispute out side of the court.

12.PW2 and PW3 are the projected eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Both of them showed volte-faces in respect of the incident. Both denied the contents of their 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Both admitted that they compromised the matter and settled the dispute out side of the court.

13.The learned defence counsel contended that the evidence of PW1 cannot be relied upon since PW1 failed to with stood the test of cross examination. I do agree that the evidence of PW1 is contradicting to his chief and cross examination. More over the material eye witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. It is not the case of prosecution that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is not corroborating with the evidence of Pw1 but it is completely denying the evidence of PW1.

14.As rightly contended by the learned defence counsel that the learned APP did not choose to examine the medical officer who alleged to be treated the 4 injuries to prove the injuries. Non examination of medical officer is also fatal to the case of prosecution. The learned APP did not choose to examine the investigating officer to elicit whether he seized the weapons alleged to be used in commission of the offence.

15.Since the evidence of Pw1 is contradicting to his chief and cross examination and in view of hostile attitude of eye witnesses, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of A1 to A3 beyond reasonable doubt and accused are entitled for acquittal.

16.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC. They are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

Their bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of period of six months from the date of this judgment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced in the open court on this the 13th day of May, 2015.

Spl.JMFC for Prohibition & Excise Cases, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: Chintala Ramalingam -None- PW2: Chintala Laxman PW3: Chintala Nandam

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Report to police Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw3

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Spl.JMFC for Prohibition & Excise Cases, Karimnagar.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPL.JMFC FOR EXCISE CASES: KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: Sri G. Praveen Kumar., Spl.JMFC for Proh. & Excise Cases, Karimnagar.

Dated this the 13th dayof May, 2015.

C.C. No. 165 OF 2014

Between :

The State of A.P., represented through S.H.O., P.S., Choppadandi.

...Complainant

And

Vemula @ Amundla Kumar S/O. Pochaiah, 25 years, Kurma, R/O. Arnakonda village.

...Accused.

This case is coming before me on 12/5/2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Praveen Kumar, learned APP for state and Sri R. Srinivas, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The case of the prosecution in nut shell is: Accused is the rider of TVS

Star Sports Motor Cycle bearing registration NO. AP/28/DE/0129, herein after referred to as 'Crime Vehicle'. On 25/1/2013 at 6 p.m. he rode it in rash and negligent manner and dashed to PW2 Kutikala Narsaiah/cyclist near turning at

Sammakkapalli village due to which PW2 fell down and sustained injuries to his head, other parts of body and fell unconscious. Immediately Kutikala Mahesh who is younger son of injured shifted the injured in 108 ambulance to private hospital at Karimnagar. Due to providing treatment delay in lodging report occurred. Thus stating PW1 Kutikala Babu, elder son of injured lodged report for necessary action against the accused.

2.Pursuant to report dated: 28/1/2013, a case in Cr.No.25/2013 of P.S.

Choppadandi came to be registered against accused for offence punishable u/s.337 of Indian Penal Code, in short 'IPC' and investigated into. After completion of investigation charge sheet filed against the accused for offence

CC.No. 165 of 2014

2 punishable u/s.338 of IPC and Section 181, 196 of Motor Vehicle Act. Hence, it is the case of prosecution that accused is liable for punishment for the said offence.

3.Cognizance was taken by Addl.JMFC, Karimnagar for offence under Section u/s. 338 of IPC, Section 181, 196 of MV Act .

4. The case has been originally filed before Addl.JMFC, Karimnagar and numbered as CC.No. 226 of 2013. During the pendency of the case the same has been transferred to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon'ble District

Judge, Karimnagar and on transfer the same was renumbered as CC. 165 of

2014.

5.After furnishing copies of relevant documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined u/s.251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of charge for offence punishable under sections 338 of IPC, Section 181, 196 of MV Act read over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked on behalf of prosecution, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.

The learned APP given up the evidence of other listed witnesses.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. dispensed with.

8.Heard learned Sri A. Praveen Kumar, APPO for the complainant and Sri

R. Srinivas learned Counsel for accused.

9. The point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution brought home guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section 338 of IPC, Section 181, 196 of MV Act of IPC ?

CC.No. 165 of 2014

3

Point:

10.PW1 deposed that on 25/1/2013 PW2 went away from the house on cycle to attend personal work and at about 6.30 p.m. he received phone call that PW2 met with an accident wherein one TVS motor cycle dashed his father due to which PW2 sustained bleeding injuries and immediately he shifted PW2 to Sairam

Hospital, Karimnagar wherein police obtained his signature and lodged report. He does not know the contents of report to police. PW1 identified his signature as

Ex.P1. He denied lodging report against the accused and crime vehicle. The evidence of PW2 is in the same lines of PW1. PW2 expressed his in capacity to identify the driver of crime vehicle and did not depose the registration number of crime vehicle. PW2 also did not depose anything about the rash or negligent driving by the rider of crime vehicle. Pw3 is the projected eye witness who showed volte-face in respect of accident. PW1 to PW3 denied the contents of their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. PW1 and PW2 admitted that they have compromised the matter and settled the dispute out side of the court.

11.Therefore, there is no evidence on record to establish the involvement of crime vehicle in the offence, identity of accused as the rider of crime vehicle and his driving the crime vehicle in rash or negligent manner, which are the material ingredients to prove the offence punishable u/s.338 IPC. The learned APP did not choose to examine the medical officer to prove the injuries of PW2 and also did not choose to examine the investigating officer to prove the offence punishable u/s.181, 196 of MV Act.

12.Above discussion leads me to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accused is entitled for acquittal.

CC.No. 165 of 2014

4

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence punishable u/s.338 of

IPC, Sec.181, 196 of MV Act and he is acquitted u/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of May, 2015.

Spl.JMFC for Prohibition & Excise Cases, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: Kutikala Babu None PW2: Kutikala Narsaiah PW3: Deekonda Anandam

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on Report to police. Nil Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Spl.JMFC for Prohibition & Excise Cases, Karimnagar.

CC.No. 165 of 2014

1

IN THE COURT OF SPL.JMFC FOR EXCISE CASES: KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: Sri G. Praveen Kumar., Spl.JMFC for Proh. & Excise Cases, Karimnagar.

Dated this the 13th dayof May, 2015.

C.C. No. 48 OF 2013

Between :

The State of A.P., represented through S.H.O., P.S., Karimnagar Rural

...Complainant

And

Yelpukonda Raju S/O. Lingaiah, 27 years, Yadav, R/O. Munjampalli village of Manakondur Mandal

...Accused.

This case is coming before me on 12/5/2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Praveen Kumar, learned APP for state and Sri E. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is a fatal road traffic accident which occurred on 12/2/2012 at 1900 hours at the outskirts of Chamanpalli village in which Vilasagaram

Mahankalamma, who was aged about 65 years lost her life.

2.The case of the prosecution in nut shell is: On 12/2/2012 at about 7 p.m.

deceased was proceeding on foot to her relatives house situated at Jublinagar and reached near Chamanapalli village tank, the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No. AP/15/AG/5551, herein after referred to as 'Crime Vehicle', drove it in rash or negligent manner and dashed the deceased from behind due to which deceased fell down and sustained bleeding injuries to her left leg, hand, back side of head and died on the spot. Thus stating Vilasagaram Ramaswany, elder son of deceased lodged report for necessary action against the rider of crime vehicle.

3.Pursuant to report dated: 12/2/2012, a case in Cr.No.51/2012 of P.S.

Karimnagar Rural came to be registered against the rider of crime vehicle the

CC.No. 48 of 2013

2 offence punishable u/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code, in short 'IPC' and investigated into. After completion of investigation charge sheet filed against the accused for offence punishable u/s.304-A IPC. Hence, it is the case of prosecution that accused is liable for punishment for the said offence.

4.Cognizance was taken by Addl.JMFC, Karimnagar for offence under Section u/s. 304-A of IPC .

5. The case has been originally filed before Addl.JMFC, Karimnagar and numbered as CC.No. 1015 of 2012. During the pendency of the case the same has been transferred to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon'ble District Judge,

Karimnagar and on transfer the same was renumbered as CC. 48 of 2013.

6.After furnishing copies of relevant documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined u/s.251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of charge for offence punishable under sections 304-A of IPC read over and explained to him.

He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked on behalf of prosecution, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.

8. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW2 Vilasagaram

Chandraiah/circumstantial witness, LW5 T. Laxmaiah and LW6 B. Ilaiah/panch for inquest, LW7 Dr. K. Laxman/medical officer, LW8 E. Yakub/MVI, LW9 N. Hariprasad and LW10 T. Laxmibabu/investigating officers.

9. Accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. His plea was a total denial. He reported no defence on his behalf.

10.Heard learned Sri A. Praveen Kumar, APPO for the complainant and Sri E.

Madhusudan Rao, learned Counsel for accused.

CC.No. 48 of 2013

3

11. The point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution brought home guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section 304-A of IPC ?”

POINT:

12.The counsel for accused has not disputed the death of deceased that occurred in the accident that took place near Chamanapalli village on 12/2/2012 at 7 p.m. However the ocular evidence of PW1 defacto-complainant and PW2 photographer is corroborating with Ex.P1 report to police, Ex.P2 photos in respect of death of the deceased.

13.In respect of involvement of crime vehicle in the offence, identity of accused as the driver of crime vehicle and his driving the crime vehicle in rash or negligent manner, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW2/defacto- complainant, PW3/eye witness. Though PW1 mentioned the registration number in Ex.P1 report, he did not depose it before the court. The evidence of PW3 speaks that he does not know how the deceased died and he did not witness any accident. PW3 showed volte-face in respect of involvement of crime vehicle, identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle and rash or negligent driving of crime vehicle by its driver. Though learned APP cross examined them nothing could be elicited to support the case of prosecution. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with offence.

14.Above discussion leads me to conclude that though the prosecution established the death of deceased vilasagaram Mahankalamma in the road traffic accident on 12/2/2012 at 7 p.m., it failed to to prove involvement of crime vehicle, identity of driver of crime vehicle and rash or negligent driving which are the material ingredients of offence punishable u/s. 304-A IPC and accused is entitled for acquittal.

CC.No. 48 of 2013

4

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence punishable u/s.304-A of

IPC and he is acquitted u/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of May, 2015.

Spl.JMFC for Prohibition & Excise Cases, Karimnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: Vilasagaram RamaswamyNone PW2: E. Ravindrachary PW3: P. Venkatesham

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Report to police. Nil Ex.P2: 4 photos with CD Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Spl.JMFC for Prohibition & Excise Cases, Karimnagar.

CC.No. 48 of 2013