Smt. G.Spandana

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :: 

GANNAVARAM

PRESENT: SMT.D.SHARMILA.

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

C.C.No.186/2019

Between:

The State: Rep by Sub­Inspector of Police,

Gannavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City. .. Complainant.

And:

Balla Nageswara Rao, S/o Jamalaiah, Hindu, aged 35 years, R/o D.No.7­58, Vijayawada Road, Agiripalli Village & Mandal, Krishna District,

Rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP­16­DG­8494. .. Accused.

This case is coming on 10­01­2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, Gr­II, for Complainant­State and of Sri G.S.R.Murthy, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon hearing arguments on both sides this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.338 IPC, in Cr.

No.287/2018 of Gannavaram Police Station.

2. The brief facts of the allegations against the accused as mentioned in charge sheet are as follows:.

(a)The complainant/LW1­Padavala Sri Venkateswara Vara Prasad is the injured in this case and he is residing in Nuzvid and LW2­Tatiparthi Naga Raju is his friend. The accused is a resident of Agiripalli village. On 02­12­2018 at about 02­00 PM, LW1 was proceeding to Gannavaram on his motorcycle bearing No.AP­ 16­BF­5277 as a pillion rider driven by his friend (LW2) and at about 02­45 PM, when they reached near Poultry Forms in BBgudem village, another motorcycle bearing No.APP­16­DG­8494 coming in opposite direction being driven in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn over took a tipper and rammed their motorcycle. As a result of which, they fell down along with their motorcycle and

LW1 suffered a severe bleeding injury below his right knee and their friends shifted the injured/LW1 to Ayush hospital in a car for treatment.

(b)On 03­12­2018, on receipt of hospital intimation, LW7 Head Constable,

Gannavaram PS went into hospital and recorded the statement of LW1 and returned to police station and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.287/2018

U/s 337 IPC and investigated into. He during the course of investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared rough sketch for the scene. On 06­12­2018 he served notice to the accused and released him on station bail. The Duty Doctor/LW6 who treated the injured, has issued wound certificate opining that the injuries sustained by injured are grievous in nature. Later LW8 SI of police took up further investigation in this case and verified the investigation done by LW7 HC and found it on correct lines. After completion of investigation, LW8 SI of police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/s.338 IPC against accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C., for the alleged offence

U/s.338 IPC, the accused pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed to be tried. 

5. During the trial, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P7 are marked. On behalf of the prosecution and none were examined and no documents were exhibited on behalf of defence.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C and the accused denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him on record and reported no defense evidence 

7. Heard both sides.

8.Now, the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/s.338 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt or not”?

9.POINT:­

In order to establish the guilty of the accused, the prosecution examined the injured as P.W.1, the eye witnesses to the occurrence as P.Ws.2 to 4, Medical officer as P.W.5 and the Police officers who participated in the investigation as

P.W.6. The prosecution got marked the statement of P.W.1 as Ex.P1, Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statement of P.Ws.3 and 4 as Exs.P2 and P3, Wound certificate of P.W.1 as

Ex.P4, Medical intimation of P.W.1 as Ex.P5, the original printed FIR as Ex.P6 and the rough sketch as Ex.P7.

10.The injured P.W.1 deposed that on 02.12.2018 at about 02­45 PM while he was proceeding on motor cycle of P.W.2 as pillion rider from Nuzvid to

Gannavaram and reached near poultry farm in BB Gudem, by that time, rider of motor cycle coming in opposite direction came with high speed and dashed against his motor cycle, due to which he fell down and got left leg fracture and he was shifted to Ayush Hospital, Vijayawada, but P.W.2 did not receive any injuries in the accident. Later police came to the hospital and recorded his Ex.P1 statement. He can identified the accused as the rider of the crime vehicle, who is present in the court dock. 

11.On seeing the evidence of P.W.2, he is rider of motor cycle of injured/P.W.1 at the time of accident. He deposed that on 02.12.2018 at about 2.45 PM, while he along with P.W.1 were proceeding on his motorcycle and reached near poultry farm near BB Gudem, by that time a motor cycle coming in opposite direction came with high speed in negligent manner and dashed against their vehicle, due to which he fell to a side and P.W.1 also fell down and sustained left leg fracture. He further deposed that the rider of crime vehicle stated him that his name as B.Nageswara Rao and he identified accused as the rider of crime vehicle

before the court. P.W.2 stated that he sustained some bleeding injuries and he also

got treatment in Ayush Hospital, Vijayawada.

12.The alleged eye witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4 deposed that they did not witness the accident. They further stated that they do not know how the accident took place. P.Ws.3 and 4 could not identify the rider of the crime vehicle. At this stage learned APP declared P.Ws.3 and 4 as hostile witness and cross examined them, but nothing has elicited in the support of the case of the prosecution. Exs.P2 and P3 are Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.3 and 4. Hence, the evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

13.The evidence of P.W.6 discloses that on 03.12.2018 he received Ex.P5 hospital intimation and thereon he went to the hospital and recorded Ex.P1 statement of P.W.1 and returned to PS and registered Ex.P1 as a case in

Cr.No.287/2018 vide Ex.P6 and on the same day he visited the scene of offence located at BB Gudem and drafted Ex.P7 rough sketch and examined the witnesses.

He further deposed that on 06.02.2018, he issued Sec.41A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and enlarged him on bail and on receipt of Ex.P4 wound certificate of

P.W.1, a charge sheet was filed against the accused. 

14.To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution shall establish that P.W.1 received grievous injuries in the accident committed by the accused due to his negligent riding of the crime vehicle. To prove the injuries of P.W.1, the prosecution examined the medical officer as P.W.5 who deposed that on 02.12.2018 at 03.40 PM he examined P.W.1 and found a communited fracture on right tibia and fibula. He further deposed that he referred P.W.1 to radiology department and got report from there and as per the report of radiologist viz., Dandamudi Srinivas, he issued Ex.P4 wound certificate of P.W.1 with the opinion that the injuries of

P.W.1 are grievous in nature. According to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the injured/P.W.1 got left leg fracture in the alleged accident. Whereas the evidence of

P.W.5 reflects that the injured/P.W.1 got fracture on right tibia and fibula. I have gone through Ex.P4 wound certificate of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.5 and injuries mentioned in Ex.P4 does not get corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.

Further prosecution failed to examine the radiologist viz., Dr. Dandamudi Srinivas on the basis of whose report, P.W.5 issued Ex.P4 certificate to ascertain the exact place of injury. Hence prosecution failed to prove that P.W.1 sustained fracture on his left leg in the accident as there is no corroboration between ocular and medical evidence. 

15.The prosecution argued that accused is the rider of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that there is no proper foundation to prove the identity particulars of accused and the prosecution could not establish the identity particulars of the accused. The alleged independent direct witnesses to the occurrence, P.Ws.3 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.1/injured and P.W.2/the rider of injured motor cycle identified the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. If the accused rode his motor cycle and hit the motor cycle of P.Ws.1 and 2 and if the pillion rider/P.W.1 sustained injuries, then there is ever possibility to receive injuries by the rider of injured vehicle. As per P.W.2, he also received bleeding injuries and got treatment in Ayush hospital along with P.W.1. Interestingly P.W.1 stated that P.W.2 have not received any injuries in the accident. If P.W.2 received injuries and got treatment in the hospital, prosecution had produced his wound certificate, but no such certificate was produced before the court. Which creates a shadow of doubt regarding the presence of P.W.2 as the rider of P.W.1's motor cycle at the time of accident.

16.Further in cross examination, P.W.2 admitted that he did not state

before police that accused himself stated his name as B.Nageswra Rao at the scene

of offence. P.W.6 admitted in cross examination that P.W.2 had not stated that the accused informed his name to P.W.2 at the scene. Further P.Ws.1 and 2 had not stated before P.W.6 to the effect that they could identify the rider of crime vehicle if he is shown to them. Further the statement of P.Ws.1 and 2 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C do not reveal the physical features of the rider of the crime vehicle. It is an admitted fact that the prosecution did not conduct any identification parade. In cross examination P.W.6 admitted that he failed to collect information relevant documents pertaining to the crime vehicle, to prove that the accused is the rider of the said crime vehicle at the time of the incident.

17.The learned defence counsel argued that P.W.1 identified the accused at the instance of police, as he became unconscious immediately after occurrence of accident. He further argued that the prosecution failed to collect any material evidence to prove the identity particulars of the accused. In the present case the accused has been identified by the injured witness i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2 for the first time before the court. The accused was not known to the said prosecution witnesses and no effect has been made by the prosecution to conduct TIP of the accused. Admittedly, the I.O did not conduct any test identification parade of the accused. The primary object of holding test identification parade is to enable the witness to identify the person involved in the offence, who was not previously known to him. This served the purpose of saying the bonafides of the witness, when the same corroborates the testimony of such witness in the court can be safely accepted. Here, P.Ws.1 and 2 have no prior acquaintance with the accused.

P.W.6 has stated that he had not conduct any TIP of the accused nor any explanation by him has been given for non conducting the judicial TIP of the accused. The omission appears on the part of the prosecution with fact that no TIP was conducted. The fact that the injured was not known to the accused, but after almost one and half year, identification of such accused for the 1st time before the court casts a doubt on the prosecution case.

18.The injuries in the accident by itself would not attract sec.338 IPC, prosecution need to prove that such injuries are sustained in an accident which was result of rash or negligent act. As such prosecution need to prove the rider of crime vehicle rode such vehicle in rash or negligent manner resulting in injuries of to P.W.1. It is not at all the evidence of P.W.6 that he found the presence of accused on that day, further no one stated to him that accused is the rider of the crime vehicle and his evidence is also discloses that the accused surrendered and he arrested the accused. The entire evidence of P.W.6 is silent how he has come to conclusion that the accused was the rider of the crime vehicle except surrendering the accused which was denied by the accused in the cross­examination of P.W.6 and as such the prosecution has miserably failed establish the case against the accused.

19.The leaned prosecutor argued that rash and negligence on the part of the accused is proximate cause to the occurrence. Whereas the evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 shows the rider of the crime vehicle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle of injured. Interestingly P.W.6 admitted that there are speed breakers in the scene of offence to slow down the speed of vehicles. I have gone through Ex.P7­Rough sketch, which reflect existence of speed breakers in the scene to some extent of height. Hence it creates shadow of doubt regarding the riding of crime vehicle with high speed for the occurrence of alleged accident and subsequent injuries of P.W.1. Hence evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is doubtful to prove the negligence on the part of rider of crime vehicle is proximate cause to the alleged accident. Hence on the basis of evidence, the prosecution was not able to prove that P.W.1 sustained grievous injuries in the accident and there was no ample evidence on record to show the accused is the rider of the crime vehicle and said accident occurred on the account of rash or negligent act of the accused. After considering all the material on the record, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused was driving the crime vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and causing injuries to P.W.1. 

20.In view of the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s.338 of I.P.C beyond reasonable doubt. As such, benefit of doubt is given to the accused for the said offence. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the accused, against the prosecution.

21. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/s.338 IPC and he is acquitted for the said offence U/s.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 17thday of January, 2020. 

Sd/­ Smt.D.Sharmila

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:­ For accused:­

PW­1 : P.Sri Venkateswara Vara Prasad­None­ PW­2 : T. Naga Raju PW­3 : K. Prabhudas PW­4 : S.China Venkateswara Rao PW­5 : Dr.M.A.V.Prasad PW­6 : M.Subrahmanyam, SI of police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For Complainant:­ For accused:­

Ex.P1: Statement of PW1. ­Nil­ Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4. Ex.P4: Wound Certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P5: Hospital Intimation. Ex.P6: FIR. Ex.P7: Rough sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

­­Nil­­

Sd/­ Smt.D.Sharmila

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA.

CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA AT GANNAVARAM.

Date of ReportorApprehen­ReleasedCommence­Close ofSentence or Complainantsionofon bailment of trialtrialOrder Offence accused 02/12/1803/12/1806/12/1806/12/1816/09/1907/01/2017/01/20

Name of theXII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, at Gannavaram. court

CalendarC.C.No.186/2019. Case No.

Compala­The State: Rep by Sub­Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station, inantVijayawada City. (Cr.No.287/2018 of Gannavaram P.S.)

ParticularsBalla Nageswara Rao, S/o Jamalaiah, Hindu, aged 35 years, R/o oftheD.No.7­58, Vijayawada Road, Agiripalli Village & Mandal, Krishna accusedDistrict, Rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP­16­DG­8494.

OffenceUnder Section 338 of IPC.

FindingNot Guilty.

SentenceIn the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.338 IPC and he is acquitted for the said offence U/s.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Explanation for delay:­ Due to non production of witnesses.

Sd/­ Smt.D.Sharmila

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

Copy submitted to: 

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada for favour of information.

//TRUE COPY//

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ::

GANNAVARAM.

PRESENT: SMT.D.SHARMILA.

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM,

THURSDAY THIS THE 9th DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

C.C. No.183/2018 Between:

The State: Rep by Sub­Inspector of Police,

Gannavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City. .. Complainant.

And:

Prathipati Srinivasa Rao, S/o Anjaneyulu, Hindu, aged 46 years, Resident of D.No.2­196, Srinagar Colony,

Gannavaram, Krishna District. .. Accused.

This case is coming on 07­01­2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, Gr­II, for Complainant­State and of Sri K.V.Ramana, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon hearing arguments on both sides this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.379 IPC & Sec.3 of

Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984, Sec.9(B)(3) of Minor Mineral

Concession Rules, 1966, in Cr. No.324/2017 of Gannavaram Police Station.

2. The brief facts of the allegations against the accused as mentioned in charge sheet are as follows:.

(a)The complainant/L.W.1­Bhukya Lokeswara Rao is working as Village

Revenue Officer of Gannavaram Village and L.Ws.2 to 5 are the witnesses and

Officials of various Departments. On receipt of credible information regarding illegal stocking of sand in Old Apsara Theatre road at Gannavaram, L.Ws.2 to 5 rushed there and found that the sand is being stocked since long back and it is not using for any work. They don’t know about the details of the owner of the stocked sand and they (L.Ws.2 to 5) measured the sand quantity in the presence of L.Ws.1,4 and 5 and arrived to 90 Cum i.e., 15 tractors of sand. Then the said dump was handed over to the complainant with the directions to cause enquiry about the person, who stocked the sand and to take necessary legal action against him, as the

Government of Andhra Pradesh made the sand free and that, stocking sand is violation against G.O.Ms.No.42, Industries & Commerce (Mines­II) Dept, Dt.29­03­ 2016. The complainant caused enquiry about the accused and learnt that the said stock belongs to the accused.

(b)On 13­10­2017 at about 06­00 PM, L.W.1 preferred a report and L.W.6

SI of police, Gannavaram police station registered a case in Cr.No.324/2017

U/Sec.379 IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damages to the Public Property Act, 1984 and Sec.9 (B)(3) of Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, and investigated into. He during the course of investigation, visited the scene, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 13­12­2017, the accused turned up to

Gannavaram police station and surrendered before L.W.6/SI of Police. Then he arrested the accused and released him on station bail. Later L.W.7­SI of Police took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by L.W.6 and found it on correct lines and later he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.379 IPC &

Sec.3 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 against accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the contents of charge sheet and documents. The charge for the offence punishable

U/Sec.379 IPC & Sec.3 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984, against accused was framed. The contents of charge were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the trial, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and Exs.P1 to P3 are marked. On behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents were exhibited on behalf of defence.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C and the accused denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him on record and reported no defense evidence 

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now, the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable U/Sec.379 IPC & Sec.3 of Prevention of

Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984, beyond all reasonable doubt

or not”?

9.POINT:­

According to prosecution the accused person prior to 10­10­2017 had intended to take dishonestly 90 cubic meters of sand out of the possession of

Government without its consent and moved it in order to such taking and thereby also causing damage to public property and thereby the accused committed an offence u/sec.379 of IPC and sec.3 of PDPP Act.

10.The evidence of P.W.1 discloses that on 10.10.2017 authorities of

Vigilance department came to Gannavaram for illegal stocking of sand and during the inspection they found illegal stocks of sand weighing 90 cubic meters in a vacant site near old Apsara theater in Gannavaram. He further deposed that on enquiry he came to know that the said sand belongs to one Parthipati Srinivasa

Rao, then he seized the said sand and lodged Ex.P1 report. Interestingly P.W.1 could not identify the accused before the court. The evidence of P.W.3/Revenue

Inspector, Gannavaram reveals that on 10.10.2017, on the instructions of MRO, he went to vacate site near a theater, Gannavaram where the sand was dumped. He tried to find out the owner of the sand, but he has not received any information even from the neighbours. Thereafter P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 weighed the sand and concluded that it was around 15 lorries of sand and then handed over said sand to

P.W.1.

11.The evidence of P.W.2/Royalty Inspector, Mines Department reveals that on 10.10.2017 in the morning hours, their S.P. viz., Ravindranath Babu received an information about illegal dumping of sand near Apsara theater,

Gannavaram, on his instructions P.Ws.2 and 4 went to the spot and found dumping of sand beside the old Apsara theater, then they informed about the same to P.W.1 and enquired about the person who dumped the sand in the scene, but they could not get the information. The evidence of P.W.4/Assistant Geologist discloses that on 10.10.2017 in the morning hours their Assistant Director, Mines

Department Viz., M. Subrahmanyam received an information about illegal dumping of sand near old Apsara theater, Gannavaram, on his instructions he along with

P.W.2 went to the spot found dumping of sand beside the old Apsara theater, then they informed about the same to P.W.1 and enquired about the person who dumped the sand in the scene, but they could not get the information. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 reveals that they measured the sand in presence of P.W.1 and found 90 cubic mts of sand and seized the same under cover of Mediators report.

Interestingly the prosecution failed to produce the said report before the court, which creates shadow of doubt regarding seizure of sand from the scene.

12.The evidence of P.W.5 discloses that on 13.10.2017 at 6.00 PM, P.W.1 presented Ex.P1 report and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.324/2017 vide

Ex.P2. He visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P3 rough sketch. he further deposed that on 13.10.2017 while he was present at PS, the accused came to PS and surrendered before him, then he issued sec.41­A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and he complied the same. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused.

13.As far as offence under sec.379 IPC is concerned, the prosecution shall establish that the stolen property i.e., the sand was taken away by the accused from the lawful possession of the owner without his consent from one place to other with a dishonest intention. Further for the offence under Sec.3 of PDPP Act,1984 prosecution has to prove the accused is liable due to stocking of sand illegally and violating G.O.Ms. No.42, industries & Commerce (Mines­II) Dept.

14.For the sake of convenience both the points are clubbed together.

P.W.1 in his evidence has deposed that he is the defacto complainant of this case.

He didn’t know the accused person. The occurrence took place in the year 2017.

There was one dump of sand which was committed theft and kept near Apsara theater, Gannavaram. P.Ws.2 and 4 informed the matter to him, thereon he presented Ex.P1 report in the police station and seized the sand from the scene.

But he could not identified the accused. Further during the cross examination,

P.W.1 to 4 admitted that they did not state about the instruments used by them for measuring seized sand is weighing about 90 cubic meters. Further P.W.1 admitted that he did not state in Ex.P1 report and before the police about the name of the person from whom they came to know about the accused and the names of neighbours with whom they enquired about the illegal dumping of sand. P.W.3 admitted that he has not handed over G.O. Ms. No.42 to the police. P.W.5/I.O.

admitted that none of the witnesses stated the name and descriptive particulars of the accused and P.W.3 has not stated the name of person with whom he has enquired about the accused. He further admitted that none of the material witnesses have not handed over copy of G.O. Ms. No.42 based on which the present case is filed.

15.From the perusal of the evidence of the PW’S it appears that the offence alleged against the accused person is u/sec 379 of IPC and Section 3 of the PDPP

ACT. This court has found that, the prosecution has failed to prove the first ingredient to attract the offence under Section 379 of IPC i.e. the dishonest intention of taking movable property. In the instant case in hand, P.W.1 deposed that, the alleged sand was seized from vacant site near old Apasara Theater,

Gannavaram. But the prosecution could not show any relevant documents pertaining to the said vacant site belongs to the accused. Further during cross­ examination P.W.5 clearly testified that, his investigation does not reveal that the accused person was the owner of the scene and the accused dumped the said sand in the scene. Hence there is a no probability that the accused person is responsible for dumping of sand in the scene. There is no denial of the fact that no such occurrence took place. During the evidence of these PW’S none of the ingredients of section 379 of IPC could be brought forwarded by the prosecution during the course of evidence.

16.Further G.O. Ms.No.42, Industrial & Commerce Department is basis for prosecuting the accused for the offence under Sec.3 of PDPP Act,1984 in this case. Interestingly either P.W.2/Royalty Inspector, Mines Department or

P.W.4/Assistant Geologist, Mines Department have not produced the copy of said

G.O. before the court. further P.W.5/investigating officer admitted about the non­ production of said G.O. copy before the court. In addition to that the prosecution has also failed to examine the informant of this case despite its best efforts. There is no denial of the fact that the sand was dumped at the scene but the PW’S didn’t know why the sand was damped and who was keeping the sand there. There is no evidence brought to light with regard to the mischievous act of the accused person as well as what was the damage caused to the public property. It is worth mentioning that, there might be situation in which the Revenue Department on

Mines Department caught a particular person with illegal sand heep, but cannot prove that, it is the accused person only who had dishonestly taken away the sand from the possession of the Government land. Here in the instant case, as discussed earlier the accused person was not the owner of scene of offence where the sand was dumped, therefore in all probability there is maximum chance of him being ignorant of the intention of the actual culprit who might have stolen the said sand illegally and to convey the same to a particular destination i.e., scene of offence.

Further, no independent witness in that regard was also found. The dishonest intention of taking is at all missing in the instant case and hence the basic ingredients of Section 379 of IPC is absent. Thus, from the above facts and circumstance of the case it is crystal clear that, none of the prosecuting witnesses could deposed clearly that, it was the accused person only who has stolen the said sand, hence the prosecution side has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused person under Section 379 of IPC Code read with Section 3 of PDDP Act, beyond all reasonable doubt.

17.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec,379

IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984. he is acquitted under sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled on expiry of appeal time. No order was passed for the case property as there was no material object produced before the court.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 9th day of January, 2020. 

Sd/­ Smt.D.Sharmila

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:­ For accused:­

PW­1 : B. Lokeswara Rao ­None­ PW­2 : T. Aravind PW­3 : V. Sunil PW­4 : M. Balaji Naik. PW­5 : P. Satya Srinivas, SI of police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For Complainant:­ For accused:­

Ex.P1: Report of P.W.1. ­Nil­ Ex.P2: Original FIR. Ex.P3: Rough sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

 ­­Nil­­

Sd/­ Smt.D.Sharmila

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

//TRUE COPY//

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA.

CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 

VIJAYAWADA AT GANNAVARAM.

Date of Report orApprehen­ReleasedCommence­Close ofSentence or Complainantsion ofon bailment of trialtrialOrder Offence accused 13­10­1713­10­1713­10­1713­10­1709­09­19 17­12­19 09­01­20

Name of the XII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, at Gannavaram. court

Calendar C.C.No.183/2018 Case No.

Compala­The State: Rep by Sub­Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station, inantVijayawada City. (Cr.No.324/2017 of Gannavaram P.S.)

Particulars Prathipati Srinivasa Rao, S/o Anjaneyulu, Hindu, aged 46 years, of the Resident of D.No.2­196, Srinagar Colony, Gannavaram, Krishna accusedDistrict.

OffenceU/ss.379 IPC & Sec.3 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984. FindingNot Guilty.

SentenceIn the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec,379 IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984. he is acquitted under sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled on expiry of appeal time. No order was passed for the case property as there was no material object produced

before the court.

Explanation for delay:­ Due to non production of witnesses.a

Sd/­ Smt.D.Sharmila

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

Copy submitted to: 

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada for favour of information.

 //TRUE COPY//

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :: 

GANNAVARAM.

PRESENT: SMT.D.SHARMILA.

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, GANNAARAM.

MONDAY THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020.

C.C. No.177/2018

Between:

The State: Rep by Sub­Inspector of Police,

Gannavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City. .. Complainant.

And:

Kothi Sampath Reddy, S/o Linga Reddy, Hindu, aged about 30 years,R/o D.No.18­319, Huzurnagar Mandal, NGO Colony,Nalgonda District, Telangana State, 

Driver of a Carbearing No.AP­24­AY­0019. .. Accused.

This case is coming on 13­01­2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, Gr­II, for Complainant­State and of Sri G. Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon hearing arguments on both sides this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.304­A IPC, in Cr.

No.284/2017 of Gannavaram Police Station.

2. The brief facts of the allegations against the accused as mentioned in charge sheet are as follows:.

(a)The complainant/L.W.1 – Aravapalli Durga Rao is residing in Guntur along with his family members and LW2 – Aravapalli Durga is his wife and the deceased Aravapalli Chinnamma is his daughter. On 04­09­2017 he along with his wife and deceased daughter went to Kaikaluru to his in­laws house and later started from Kaikaluru to Guntur along with them on his motorcycle bearing

No.AP­07­BQ­3036 and when reached Bharath Benz Company, Gudavalli on NH16

High Way at 01­00 PM, the accused being the driver of Car bearing No.AP­24­AY­ 0019 Mahendra at a high speed without giving signals and his motorcycle dashed the car and fell down. There is bleeding from ear and nostrils of the deceased and there is swelling on forehead and became unconscious. The accused shifted the deceased to Kamineni Hospital, Kanuru village and admitted for treatment. 

(b)On receipt of hospital intimation, L.W.16 ­ Head Constable went into hospital and recorded the statement of L.W.1 and returned to police station and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.284/2017 U/s.337 IPC and investigated into. He during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, observed the scene before mediators under cover of mediators report and prepared rough sketch and examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 05­09­2017 at 22­23 hours, the deceased died in GGH, Guntur while undergoing treatment and on 06­09­2017 on receipt of death intimation, L.W.17 ­ SI of police altered the section of Law from 337 IPC to 304­A IPC. The accused surrendered before L.W.17 and he served the notice to the accused U/s 41­A Cr.P.C., and released him on station bail. After completion of investigation, L.W.18 SI of police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/s.304­A IPC against accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C., for the alleged offence

U/s. 304­A IPC, the accused pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed to be tried. 

5. During the trial, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P16 are marked. On behalf of the prosecution and none were examined and no documents were exhibited on behalf of defence.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C and the accused denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him on record and reported no defense evidence 

7. Heard both sides.

8.Now, the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s 304­A IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt or not”?

9.POINT:­

The prosecution examined the father and mother of deceased as P.Ws.1 and 2, the alleged independent eye witnesses to the occurrence as P.Ws.3 and 4 and the inquest Panchayathdars as P.W.5 and Investigating officer as P.W.6. The prosecution got marked the signature of P.W.1 as Ex.P1, section 161 Cr.P.C.

statements of P.Ws.2 to 4 as Exs.P2 to P5, Hospital Intimation as Ex.P6, Statement of P.W.1 as Ex.P7, Original FIR as Ex.P8, Rough sketch as Ex.P9, Scene observation Report as Ex.P10, One Photograph as Ex.P11, Death intimation as

Ex.P12, Altered FIR as Ex.P13, Inquest Report as Ex.P14, MVI report as Ex.P15 and PM Report as Ex.P16.

10.The learned prosecutor argued that there is ample evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused whereas the leaned defence counsel argued that there is no material evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused as none of the prosecution witnesses have identified the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time and the manner of the incident, and thus the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11.I have gone through the entire evidence on record. The evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 discloses that at about 2years back, while they were going from

Kaikuluru to Gunturu on a motor cycle along with their daughter Chinnamma and reached near Kesarapalli at about 3.00PM, a car hit their motor cycle due to which all of them fell down from their motor cycle and their daughter Chinnamma received severe head injury. They further deposed that they shifted Chinnamma to the hospital, where she died due to injuries sustained in the accident. Interestingly

P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that they cannot say the details of crime vehicle and never saw the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. The evidence of P.W.1 further discloses that police drafted a statement and P.W.1 signed it, but P.W.1 has no knowledge about the contents of the statement. The prosecution got marked the signature of P.W.1 in the said statement as Ex.P1. P.W.3 and 4 alleged independent eye witnesses to the occurrence have not supported the prosecution. They categorically deposed that they did not witness the incident and they have never seen the accused. The learned prosecutor though cross examined P.Ws.1 to 4 nothing could be extracted to prove the identity of the accused and manner of the incident. P.Ws.1 to 4 denied that they have stated before police as in Exs.P2 to P5 statements. Therefore, P.Ws.1 to 4 are declared hostile to the prosecution and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 doesn’t help the prosecution to prove the material ingredients of the offence punishable U/s 304­A IPC and 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 MV

Act.

12.The evidence of P.W.5 discloses that he knows the deceased

Chinnamma, at about 2 years back, police called him to the accident spot and drafted some written papers and mentioned his name on the same. As per the version of prosecution, P.W.5 was present at the time of inquest. But P.W.5 denied the same. However, the learned defence counsel did not dispute the death of

Chinnamma. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 proved the death of

Chinnamma in the road accident near Kesarapalli.

13.The evidence of P.W.6 discloses that on receipt of Ex.P5 intimation, he went to Kamineni Hospital and recorded Ex.P6 statement of P.W.1, he registered crime No.284/2017 under Ex.P7, he visited the scene of offence located at

Kesarapalli and prepared Ex.P9 scene observation report and Ex.P8 rough sketch and got Ex.P10 photograph of the scene. The evidence further reveals that on receipt of Ex.P11 death intimation, he altered section of law under Ex.P12 and he conducted inquest and got prepared Ex.P13 inquest report. I have gone through

Ex.P6 rough sketch. It reveals the scene of offence is situated at Kesarapalli.

Therefore, the evidence on record reveals the accident occurred at Kesarapalli.

14.The prosecution must establish the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of alleged incident and it occurred due to rash or negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. But in the instant case on hand, P.Ws.5 and 6 are not an eye witnesses to the occurrence. The eye witnesses to occurrence i.e., P.Ws.1 to 4 are declared hostile to the prosecution. Hence, there is no evidence what­so­ever to prove the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident and the rash or negligence of the accused is the proximate cause to the death of deceased Chinnamma. Further none of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the accused left the scene of offence without valid reason and without rendering the first aid to the injured and not reporting accident to police.

Therefore, the prosecution could not establish the ingredients of the offence alleged against accused for the offence punishable under section 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of

M.V. Act, and further the very identity of the accused was not established.

Therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. 

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

IPC & 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 MV Act, and he is acquitted for the same U/s.255 (1) of

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

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 13th day of January, 2020. 

Sd/­ Smt. D. SHARMILA 

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:­ For accused:­

PW­1 : K. Durga Rao­None­ PW­2 : Aravapalli Durga PW­3 : B. Rajesh PW­4 : K. Sambasiva Rao PW­5 : Dasari Vijay PW­6 : P. Satya Srinivas, SI of police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For Complainant:­ For accused:­

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1. ­Nil­ Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4. Ex.P6: Hospital Intimation. Ex.P7: Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P8: Original FIR. Ex.P9: Rough sketch. Ex.P10: Scene observation Report. Ex.P11: One Photograph Ex.P12: Death intimation. Ex.P13: Altered FIR. Ex.P14: Inquest Report. Ex.P15: MVI Report. Ex.P16: PM Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

­­Nil­­

Sd/­ Smt. D. SHARMILA

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

//TRUE COPY//

 XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA.

CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA AT GANNAVARAM.

Date of ReportorApprehen­ReleasedCommence­Close ofSentence or Complainantsionofon bailment of trialtrialOrder Offence accused 04­09­1704­09­1708­09­1708­09­1704­07­1917­12­1913­01­20

Name of theXII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, at Gannavaram. court

CalendarC.C.No.177/2018. Case No.

Compala­The State: Rep by Sub­Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station, inantVijayawada City. (Cr.No.284/2017 of Gannavaram P.S.)

ParticularsKothi Sampath Reddy, S/o Linga Reddy, Hindu, aged about 30 years, oftheR/o D.No.18­319, Huzurnagar Mandal, NGO Colony, Nalgonda accusedDistrict, Telangana State, Driver of a Car bearing No.AP­24­AY­0019.

OffenceUnder Section 304­A of IPC.

FindingNot Guilty.

SentenceIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.304­ A IPC & 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 MV Act, and he is acquitted for the same U/s.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stands cancelled. 

Explanation for delay:­ Due to non production of witnesses.

Sd/­ Smt. D. SHARMILA

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

Copy submitted to: 

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada for favour of information.

//TRUE COPY//

 XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :: 

GANNAVARAM.

PRESENT: SMT.D.SHARMILA.

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM

MONDAY THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020.

C.C. No.184/2019

Between:

The State: Rep by Sub­Inspector of Police,

Gannavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City. .. Complainant.

And:

Gajjela Gowtham, S/o Jangaiah, Hindu, age 25 years,R/o D.No.8­7­93/119, Anupama Nagar, Karanam Ghat, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State, 

Driver of a Silver colour Car bearing No.AP­04­AQ­2781. .. Accused.

This case is coming on 13­01­2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, Gr­II, for Complainant­State and of Sri G. Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon hearing arguments on both sides this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.304­A IPC & Sec.134 (a) & (B), R/w 187 of M.V.Act, in Cr. No.54/2018 of Gannavaram Police Station.

2. The brief facts of the allegations against the accused as mentioned in charge sheet are as follows:.

(a)The complainant/L.W.1 – Kokkirapati Naga Raju is the son of deceased

Kokkirapati Kotaiah and they are residing in Kothapalli village, Bapulapadu

Mandal. The deceased Kotaiah is working as Watchman (Guard) in Sakali tank of

Atkuru village since one year. On 21­12­2018 at about 04­30 hours, he went to

Atkuru center for having tea and after having tea, he returns to his tank and while crossing NH­16 road from Vijayawada side to Eluru side at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, dashed against one pedestrian and fled away along with his vehicle. Then the pedestrian fell down on the road and received severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot. 

(b)L.W.1 preferred a report and L.W.17 ­ Head Constable registered the same as a case in Cr.No.54/2018 U/s.304­A IPC and investigated into. He during the course of investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared rough sketch. Later L.W.18 ­ SI of Police took further investigation and on 31­12­2018 he arrested the accuse and released him on station bail. Later L.W.19 ­ SI of Police took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by L.W.18 ­ SI of Police and found it on correct lines. On completion of investigation, L.W.19 ­ SI of Police filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/s.304­A IPC &

Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act, against accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C., for the alleged offence

U/s. 304­A IPC & Sec.134 (a) & (b), R/w 187 of M.V.Act, the accused pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed to be tried. 

5. During the trial, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P10 are marked. On behalf of the prosecution and none were examined and no documents were exhibited on behalf of defence.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C and the accused denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him on record and reported no defense evidence 

7. Heard both sides.

8.Now, the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.304­A IPC & s.134(a) &

(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act, beyond all reasonable doubt or not”?

POINT:­

9.The prosecution examined the son and brother of eceased as P.Ws.1 and 3, eye witness to the occurrence as P.W.2, Mediator for Scene observation proceedings as P.W.4 and the investigating officers as P.Ws.5 and 6. The prosecution got marked Report of P.W.1 as Ex.P1, Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of

P.W.2 as Ex.P2, Original FIR as Ex.P4, Scene observation report as Ex.P5, Rough

Sketch as Ex.P6 Inquest report as Ex.P7, PME Certificate as Ex.P8, MVI Report as

Ex.P9 and District Court’s proceedings as Ex.P10.

10.I have gone through the entire evidence on record. The evidence of

P.W.1 discloses that on 21.12.2018 at about 5.00PM when he was present in his house, his relative viz., Jaganadha Rao informed him over phone that his father

Kotaiah met with road at Atkuru center as a car hit his father and he was shifted to

GGH, Gannavaram. Immediately P.W.1 rushed to the hospital by that time his father was already dead with injuries sustained in the accident, then he lodged

Ex.P1 report in police station. his brother met with accident at Atkuru village and died on the spot. Hence the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 is useful to the extent of death of Kotaiah in an accident.

11.P.W.2 the alleged eye witness to the occurrence has not supported the prosecution. He categorically deposed that he did not witness the incident and he has never seen the accused. The learned prosecutor though cross examined P.W.2 nothing could be extracted to prove the identity of the accused and manner of the incident. P.W.2 denied that he has stated before police as in Ex.P.2 statement.

Therefore, P.W.2 is declared hostile to the prosecution and the evidence of P.W.2 doesn’t help the prosecution to prove the material ingredients of the offence punishable U/s.304­A IPC and s.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 MV Act.

12.The evidence of P.W.4 discloses that he knows the deceased Kotaiah, the police obtained his signature marked as Ex.P3 at Government Hospital,

Gannavaram at about one year back. As per the version of prosecution, P.W.4 was present at the time of scene observation proceedings. But P.W.4 denied the signature shown to him is of him. P.W.4 denied his presence at the time of scene observation proceedings. However, the learned defence counsel did not dispute the death of Kotaiah. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 proved the death of

Kotaiah in the road accident at Atkuru center as P.Ws.1 and were not cross examined.

13.The evidence of P.W.5 discloses that on receipt of Ex.P1 report of P.W.1 he registered crime No.54/2018 under Ex.P4, he visited the scene of offence located at Atukuru center and prepared Ex.P5 scene observation report and Ex.P6 rough sketch. The evidence further reveals that he conducted inquest and got prepared

Ex.P7 inquest report. I have gone through Ex.P6 rough sketch. It reveals the scene of offence is situated at Atkuru center. Therefore, the evidence on record reveals the crime vehicle was involved in the accident and the accident occurred at Atkuru center. But there is no evidence what­so­ever to prove the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident and the rash or negligence of the accused is the proximate cause to the death of deceased Kotaiah. Further none of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the accused left the scene of offence without valid reason and without rendering the first aid to the injured and not reporting accident to police. Therefore, the prosecution could not establish the ingredients of the offence alleged against accused for the offence punishable under section 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act, and further the very identity of the accused was not established. Therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. 

14. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.304­ A

IPC & 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 MV Act, and he is acquitted for the same U/s.255 (1) of

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

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 13th day of January, 2020. Sd/­ Smt. D. SHARMILA

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:­ For accused:­

PW­1 : K. Naga Raju ­None­ PW­2 : K. Kiran PW­3 : K. Seshaiah PW­4 : K. Rama Krishna PW­5 : T.Srinivasa Rao, HC PW­6 : J.Venkata Ramana, SI of police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For Complainant:­ For accused:­

Ex.P1: Report of PW1. ­Nil­ Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P4: Signature of P.W.4 on scene observation report. Ex.P5: Scene observation report. Ex.P6: Rough sketch. Ex.P7: Inquest report. Ex.P8: P.M.Report. Ex.P9: M.V.I. Report. Ex.P10: District Court’s proceedings.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

­­Nil­­

Sd/­ Smt. D. SHARMILA

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

//TRUE COPY//

 XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA.

CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA AT GANNAVARAM.

Date of ReportorApprehen­ReleasedCommence­Close ofSentence or Complainantsionofon bailment of trialtrialOrder Offence accused 21­12­1821­12­1831­12­1831­12­1830­10­1909­01­2013­01­20

Name of theXII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, at Gannavaram. court

CalendarC.C.No.184/2019. Case No.

Compala­The State: Rep by Sub­Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station, inantVijayawada City. (Cr.No.54/2018 of Gannavaram P.S.)

ParticularsGajjela Gowtham, S/o Jangaiah, Hindu, aged about 25 years, R/o oftheD.No.8­7­93/119, Anupama Nagar, Karanam Ghat, Ranga Reddy accusedDistrict, Telangana State, Driver of a Silver colour Car bearing No.AP­ 04­AQ­2781. OffenceUnder Section 304­A of IPC && Sec.134 (a) & (b), R/w 187 of M.V.Act,.

FindingNot Guilty.

SentenceIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.304­ A IPC & 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 MV Act, and he is acquitted for the same U/s.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stands cancelled. Explanation for delay:­ Due to non production of witnesses.

Sd/­ Smt. D. SHARMILA

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

Copy submitted to: 

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada for favour of information.

//TRUE COPY//

 XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

1XI AMM Gannavaram C.C.No.154 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-XI ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM

PRESENT:- SMT. G.SPANDANA

XI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM.

Saturday, this the 16th day of April, 2022

C.C. No.154/2020

Between:

State: Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Atkuru P.S. Vijayawada City.

..Complainant.

AND 1.Shaik Meera Vali, S/o Nagoor Meera, Age 38 years, Muslim, D.No.9-86-36, Indira Nagar, Hanuman Junction, Krishna District.

2. Gujjula Swamy, S/o Rama Swamy, Age 40 years, Indira Nagar, Hanuman Junction, Krishna District.

3. Gujjula Sujatha, W/o Swamy, Age 37 years, Indira Nagar, Hanuman Junction, Krishna District.

... A1 to A3.

This case coming before me on 13.04.2022 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri A.Siva Rama Prasad, Advocate for accused No.1 and Sri G.V.N.Pulla Rao, Advocate for accused Nos.2 and 3 and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Atkuru P.S., filed charge sheet in

Crime No.223 of 2020 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’).

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

(i)On 05.11.2020 at about 06.00 hours LW.8/SI of police,

Atkuru Police Station, along with his staff, while patrolling duty on NH- 16 near Usha Rama Engineering College, Telaprolu Village, Unguturu

Mandal, found A1 to A3 got down the Tata 10 tyre lorry bearing No.AP 37 X 2179 which was proceeding from Eluru to Vijayawada and tried to skulk away. LW.8/SI of Police apprehended them and seized 1. Royal 2XI AMM Gannavaram C.C.No.154 of 2020

Stag (750ml) - 37 boxes, Manson House (750 ml) - 3 boxes, over all total 40 boxes containing 480 liquor bottles. LW.8/SI of Police seized the liquor bottles from the possession of accused and drafted and occurrence report at the scene of offence. Thereafter, LW.6/SI of police returned to Station and registered the same as a case in Crime No.223 of 2020 under Section 34(a) of the Act. Subsequently, the samples along with letter of advice were sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis.

The Government Chemical Examiner, who analyzed the contents of the samples, opined that the contents were Indian Made liquor.

(ii)Notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., was served on the accused for selling liquor without licence which is an offence under

Section 34(a) of the Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed under Section 34(a) of the Act.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 34(a) of the Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. A1 to A3 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., for which, they denied commission of the offence. A charge under Section 34(a) of the Act against the accused had been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were examined; Exs.P1 to P.8 and Mos.1 and 2 were marked. The evidence on prosecution side was accordingly closed. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Putting forth the incriminating material that appeared against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied their guilt. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.

6.Heard. Perused the material on record.

3XI AMM Gannavaram C.C.No.154 of 2020

7.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the Act?

8.POINT:-

(i)In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7. PWs.1 and 2 are constables. PWs.3 and 6 are eye witnesses. PWs.4 and 5 are mediators. PW.7 is investigating officer.

(ii)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that all the bottles seized from the possession of the accused are liquor bottles as is evident from Ex.P.8 and as the accused has no permission or license, they are liable to be punished under Section 34(a) of the Act.

(iii)The learned counsel appearing for the accused contended that the present case is registered for statistical purpose only and the accused are no way connected to the present case.

(iv)PWs.3 and 6 who are said to be eye witnesses to the occurrence did not support the case of the prosecution. During cross- examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, PWs.3 and 6 denied the prosecution case and so also, having stated before the police as in Exs.P1 to P4/statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Further,

PWs.4 and 5 who are said to be mediators and whose presence Mos.1 and 2 were seized from the possession of accused, did not support the case of the prosecution. Though the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was permitted to put questions to the witnesses in the nature of cross- examination, nothing material could be elicited from them.

(v)PWs.1 and 2 who are Head Constable and Police Constable of Atkuru Police Station deposed in the same lines stating that they assisted PW.7 on 5.11.2020 while checking vehicles at Usha Rama

Engineering college and found a lorry bearing No.AP 37 X 2179 and on suspicion PW.7 stopped the said vehicle and on questioning the accused 4XI AMM Gannavaram C.C.No.154 of 2020 confessed that they were carrying 40 cases of liquor bottles in the said lorry along with Railway Iron rods. Further, PW.7 testified about his investigation, arresting of the accused and drafting of Ex.P5/Mediators

Report. During his cross-examination, he admitted that in Ex.P5 no where the names of mediators were mentioned. He further admitted that it was not specifically mentioned that the seized bottles were in the truck and also the batch numbers and the manufacturing dates and other particulars of the seized bottles.

(vi)PWs.1, 2 and 7 are the official witnesses, who were on patrolling duty. Admittedly, the scene of offence is a busy locality and there are no other mediators except PWs.4 and 5 who are Village

Revenue Assistants and there is no explanation forthcoming from the prosecution as to why it did not try to secure ordinary citizens/independent witnesses. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 7, cannot be accepted, in the absence of corroboration from the independent witnesses, as it is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872. Further, as admitted, in Ex.P5, the manufacturing year, bar code etc., of the property seized has not been specifically mentioned.

Hence, the version of the prosecution is highly doubtful as to whether patrolling was conducted and whether the search and seizure was conducted.

(vii)In view of the aforesaid discrepancies, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence with which they are charged and accordingly, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

9.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence under

Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. A1 to A3 are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled 5XI AMM Gannavaram C.C.No.154 of 2020 after expiry of appeal time. Mos.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property i.e., 1. Ten Tyre lorry bearing No.AP 37 X 2179, 2. Hero Splendor Plub bike bearing No.AP 16

DG 3682 and 3.Vivo smart phone, Realme Smart phone shall be returned to the property holders as per the proceedings of the Deputy

Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada under Section 46(E) of A.P. Excise

Act.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this 16th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- G.Spandana,

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:-For accused:-

PW.1 : P.Rajesh Nil PW.2 : K.Sampath PW.3: P.Manga Rao PW.4: V.Sankar Rao PW.5: K.Naga Mani PW.6: Y.Joji Babu PW.7: G.Srinivas

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:-For accused

Ex.P1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. - NIL - Ex.P2: Signature of PW.4 on the mediators report, dt.5.11.2020. Ex.P3: Signature of PW.5 on the mediators report, dt.5.11.2020. Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6. Ex.P5: Mediators report, dt.05.11.2020. Ex.P6: FIR. Ex.P7: Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P8: Chemical analysis report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Mo.1: Sample bottle. Mo.2: Sample bottle.

Sd/- G.Spandana,

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.