Kum.G.Vani

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: KANDUKUR.

CALANDER IN C.C.No.840/2016

1.Date of ofeene03.12.2016

2.Date of Report or nomplaiet05.12.2016

3.Date of takee oe fle21.12.2016 Date of appreheesioe of

4.06.12.2016 annused

5.Date of release oe bail13.12.2016 Date of nommeenemeet of

6.22.02.2022 trial

7.Date of nlose of trial02.08.2022

8.Date of Seeteene or Order21.09.2022. State : Sub-Iespentor of Poline,

9.Complaieaet V.V.Palem P.S Puligueta Ratea Kumar @ Rateam Kumar, S/o Malyadri, aged about 26

10.Desnriptioe of annused years, Boya by naste, nultivatioe, resideet of Chuedi Village of V.V.Palem Maedal.

11.Sentioe of Lawu/sen.354 aed 506 of IPC.

12.Plea of AnnusedPleaded eot guilty.

13.Fiedieg of CourtFoued eot guilty.

14. Sentence or Order : Ie the result, the Annused is foued eot guilty for the ofeenes pueishable ueder sentioes 354 aed 506 of Iediae Peeal Code. Therefore, Annused is anquitted ueder sentioe 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said ofeenes aed he is set at liberty. The bail boeds of Annused aed his sureties shall remaie ie forne for a period of six moeths as per sentioe 437(A) of Cr.P.C. Ie this nase eo property is produned.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks :

This nase was takee oe fle oe 21.12.2016. Oe 29.06.2017, nopies fureished to the Annused. Oe 23.09.2021 Annused was examieed u/s.239 Cr.P.C aed nharges ueder sentioes 354 aed 506 of Iediae Peeal Code were framed, read over aed explaieed to him ie Telugu ie questioe form, for whinh, they deeied the same aed nlaimed to be tried. Trial was nommeened oe 22.02.2022 aed nlosed oe 02.08.2022. Oe behalf of the prosenutioe, P.Ws. 1 to 8 are examieed, Exs. P1 to P4 got marked. Oe behalf of defeene, Exs.D1 aed D2 are marked. After nlosure of prosenutioe side evideene, oe 16.08.2022 Annused was examieed ueder Sentioe 313 of Cr.P.C by examieieg the ienrimieatieg portioe of prosenutioe evideene ie questioe form, ie Telugu, for whinh he deeied aed reported eo defeene evideene. Oe 14.09.2022 Argumeets heard oe behalf of both sides. Judgmeet proeouened ie opee nourt oe 21.09.2022. Heene, the delay.

Sd/-G.VANI

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC: ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

Copy submitted to : The Hoe’ble I-Additioeal Dist. & Sessioes Judge, Prakasam Distrint, Oegole. Copy to : The Superieteedeet of poline, Prakasam Distrint , Oegole.

//TRUE COPY//

AJFCM, KANDUKUR,

2

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: KANDUKUR

Preseet: Kum G.Vaei, Prl.Jueior Civil Judge, Kaedukur, FAC:Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kaedukur.

Wedeesday, this the 21st day of September, 2022.

Calender Case.No. 840 0f 2016

The State represeeted by Sub-Iespentor of Poline, V.V.Palem Poline Statioe. … Complaieaet.

Vs.

Puligueta Ratea Kumar @ Rateam Kumar, S/o Malyadri, aged about 26 years, Boya by naste, nultivatioe, resideet of Chuedi Village of V.V.Palem Maedal. … Annused.

* * *

This nase is nomieg oe 21.09.2022 for feal hearieg, ie the preseene of

Assistaet Publin Prosenutor for the State aed Sri B.Sai Saekar, Couesel oe behalf of annused aed after hearieg both sides, aed oe perusal of relevaet material oe renord, aed havieg stood over for noesideratioe till this date, this Court delivered the followieg:

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

1. The Sub-Iespentor of Poline, V.V.Palem Poline Statioe fled nharge sheet ofeenes ueder sentioes 354 aed 506 of Iediae Peeal Code agaiest the

Annused ie Crime No.35/2016 of V.V.Palem Poline Statioe.

2.The eutshell of the prosenutioe nase are as follows:-

The P.W.1 married the P.W.2 at about 3 years bank ie the preseene of elders. They blessed oee boy. Thereafter, P.W.2 weet to the Masnot nouetry for masoe works. The P.W.1 was residieg with her graed mother ie., mother-ie-law. Takieg advaetage of loeelieess of P.W.1, the annused kept his eagle eye oe her aed used to harass P.W.1 sexually to fulfll his lust with

P.W.1 by makieg obsneee words aed siges besides through Phoee, for whinh

P.W.1 bluetly rejented. Reneetly P.W.2 name to the Village about oee moeth bank to the ienideet. Oe seeieg P.W.2, the annused hatnhed up a plae to wrenk veegeaene agaiest P.W.1, aed as per his plae he speed up his sexual 3 harassmeet towards P.W.1 aed spreadieg the rumors that the annused had illegal ietimany with P.W.1. So that the annused waets to nollapse the family of P.W.1 aed P.W.2. Oe ieformatioe givee by P.W.1 to P.W.3 about sexual harassmeet made by the annused towards P.W.1, P.W.3 ieformed the same to the elder brother of annused Ratea Kumar oe 03.12.2016. Thereafter oe 03.12.2016 at about 05.00 p.m P.W.1 was proneedieg towards the nool driek shop of Vaekadari Koedala Rao, the annused poueded upoe her, outraged her modesty by naught hold of her tuft of hair, fell dowe her to the groued, pulled her saree. Thee P.W.3 to P.W.5 who were proneedieg towards the house of P.W.1 rushed to the spot aed ie meaewhile the annused fed away from the spot. Thereafter, the P.W.1 lodged a report before the P.W.8. Thee

P.W.8 registered a nase, took up ievestigatioe aed fled nharge sheet.

3.This nourt took nogeizaene of nase agaiest the Annused for the ofeenes pueishable ueder sentioes 354 aed 506 of Iediae Peeal Code oe

dated:21.12.2016.

4. Oe appearaene of Annused, nopies of donumeets were fureished to him as noetemplated ueder Sentioe 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Annused was examieed ueder sentioe 239 of Cr.P.C ie Telugu laeguage, for whinh he deeied the same. Oe noesiderieg the eetire renord aed oe hearieg both sides, nharges for the ofeenes pueishable ueder sentioes 354 aed 506 of Iediae Peeal Code agaiest Annused were framed.

The said nharges were read over aed explaieed to him, ie Telugu laeguage, for whinh he deeied, pleaded eot guilty aed nlaimed to be tried. Heene, matter was posted for trial.

6.Durieg the trial, the prosenutioe has examieed L.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 6 aed 8 as P.W.1 to P.W.8 respentively aed got marked Exs.P1 to P4. Oe behalf of defeene, Exs.D1 aed D2 are marked. The evideene of 4

L.W.9/K.Veekateswara Rao was givee up by the leareed Assistaet Publin

Prosenutor. Annordiegly, prosenutioe side evideene was nlosed.

7.After nlosure of prosenutioe side evideene, Annused was examieed ueder Sentioe 313 of Cr.P.C by explaieieg the ienrimieatieg portioe of prosenutioe evideene ie questioe form, ie Telugu, for whinh he deeied aed reported eo defeene evideene.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the poiet for noesideratioe is that:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of Accused for

the ofences punishable under sections 354 and 506 of Indian Penal Code,

beyond the reasonable doubt?

10.Ie order to prove the nase, the prosenutioe has examieed P.W.1 to

P.W.8 aed Exs.P1 to P4 are marked. P.W.1 is the defanto nomplaieaet. P.W.2 is the husbaed of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the mother of P.W.2 aed graed mother of

P.W.1. P.W.4 is the brother of P.W.1. P.W.5 is the mother of P.W.1 aed also daughter of P.W.3. P.W.6 aed P.W.7 are the iedepeedeet witeesses. P.W.8 is the Ievestigatioe Ofiner.

11.POINT:-

Oe perusal of the eetire evideene available ie this buedle, the ieitial burdee lies oe the prosenutioe, so that the prosenutioe has examieed P.W.1 to P.W.8. Before goieg to the disnussioe, it is ae admitted fant that the P.W.1 aed P.W.2 are wife aed husbaed, P.W.2 is the owe soe of the P.W.3, P.W.5 is the mother of P.W.1 aed owe daughter of P.W.3 aed P.W.3 is the graed mother of the P.W.1 as well as mother-ie-law of P.W.1. The P.W.1 aed P.W.2 got married before the elders aed also begottee oee nhild.

5

12.But eow the poiet is whether the annused harassed the P.W.1 for fulfll his sexual lust by way of nell phoee aed sigesI Ie this regard the prosenutioe has examieed P.W.1 to P.W.8. The P.W.7 is the iedepeedeet witeess, he is nompletely tureed hostile aed eot supported to the prosenutioe, exnept markieg of Ex.P2.

13.Oely available evideene is the P.W.1 to P.W.6 aed P.W.8. Upoe the evideene of P.W.1, the annused waetoely harassed her to fulfll his lust by way of phoee nalls aed also threateeed her by way of he destroyed the family of P.W.1, by the time P.W.2 was preseet outside of the Iedia ie.,

Masnot for doieg masoe work for his livelihood. So eetire alleged traesantioe onnurred ie betweee P.W.1 aed annused with regardieg to the annused harassed to the P.W.1 for waet of fulfll his sexual lust. Ie this regard the P.w.1 earrated the torture of the annused to the P.W.3 who is the mother-ie-law aed graed mother of the P.W.1, the P.W.3 wareed the annused, but he was eot nhaeged his attitude, thee P.W.3 ieformed the same to the brother of annused Ratea Kumar, so that annused developed grudge agaiest the P.W.1, heene annused naught hold the P.W.1 aed also pulled her sari at the middle of the road, ie meaewhile P.W.3 to P.W.5 name there, thee annused fed away from the plane.

14.So the motive of the prosenutioe nase is that the annused harassed to the P.W.1 for waet of fulfll his sexual lust by way of made phoee nalls. Ie this regard the P.W.8 supported to the versioe of P.W.1, but he was eot senured to the aey phoee noeservatioe betweee P.W.1 aed annused. Aed moreover he was eot senured to the mobile phoee of annused. Aed moreover the P.W.1 was admitted that she naeeot say the phoee eumber of annused i.e., whinh eumber made phoee nall by the annused to her. So the maie aspent is the phoee noeservatioe betweee the annused aed P.W.1. But the P.W.8 failed to senure the said material. So that wheeever the 6 prosenutioe is eot established motive of the nase, heene it is fatal of the prosenutioe.

15.Comieg to the alleged ofeene, oe 03.12.2016 at about 05.00 p.m the P.W.1 was goieg to the nool driek shop, by the time the annused stopped

P.W.1 aed naught hold her tuft aed also pulled her saree aed iesulted her modesty, the same was saw by the P.W.3 to P.W.5 who are the followers of the P.W.1. But oe perusal of the evideene of P.W.3, she aloee followed to the

P.W.1 at the time of alleged galata, by the time the annused name there aed abused P.W.1 aed naught hold the tuft of P.W.1. But the versioe of P.W.1 did eot stated to the aeythieg versioe of P.W.3 aed P.W.3 is eot followed bank beyoed of the P.W.1.

16.The P.W.1 further deposed that she was proneedieg to the nool driek shop whinh is situated eearby the alleged sneee of ofeene whinh is rue by the P.W.4 aed P.W.5 who are eoee other thae owe brother aed mother of the P.W.1, they are saw to them immediately rushed to the spot. But the evideene of P.W.4 aed P.W.5 disnlosed they name to keow about the ienideet aed rushed to the sneee of ofeene, by the time annused was fed away. So eetire evideene of P.W.1,P.W.3, P.W.4 aed P.W.5, there is ienoesisteet statemeets deposed by them.

17.Aed moreover the defeene nouesel has nross examieed the P.W.4 aed P.W.5 aed nlearly elinited about the Exs.D1 aed D2. So oe perusal of the eetire evideene of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 aed P.W.5, there are ienoesisteet statemeets deposed by them aed there is eo supportive evideene of P.W.1 by the P.W.5 regardieg to the ienideet. Not oely ienideet aed remaieieg aspents ie., P.W.2 name to the loeg bank prior to oee moeth of alleged ienideet. But the P.W.2 deposed that he name to keow about the ienideet through his mother i.e., P.W.3 that the P.W.1 was doieg “Chilipipaeulu”, thee 7 he rushed to the Village from Masnot. So that the evideene of P.W.2 is difereet versioe of P.W.1, P.W.3 aed P.W.5. Moreover so maey variatioes aed improvemeets aed noetradintioes ie the evideene of P.W.1 to P.W.5.

18.Comieg to the evideene of P.W.6, who is iedepeedeet witeess, he is follower of the P.W.1, so that his evideene was also supported to the P.W.1.

But at the time of nross-examieatioe the annused was nlearly established he is the ieterested witeess. Heene those evideene was also eot useful to the prosenutioe.

19.Comieg to the evideene of P.W.8 ie., Ievestigatioe Ofiner. He has nlearly admitted that the ienideet was onnurred oe 03.12.2016 at about 05.00 p.m, but the P.W.1 was preseeted the report oe 05.12.2016 ie., two days delay. The said delay is eot meetioeed ie nolume No.8 of the Ex.P3. So that wheeever the P.W.8 who are Ievestigatioe Ofiner eot meetioeed the reasoes for preseetieg the report, it is also a nreated ie the mied of the

Court. Ie this regard the P.W.3 was nategorinally stated that after name to keow the ienideet the P.W.2 name to Iedia, by the time they are lodged the report. But the P.W.2 was nategorinally deposed that he name to Iedia prior to oee moeth of alleged ienideet. Ie this regard is also eot norroborated to the evideene of P.W.1 to P.W.3 nomparieg to the P.W.8. Aed moreover the

P.W.8 was eot senured tot he aey piene of paper with regardieg to the noeservatioe betweee the annused aed P.W.1 aed phoee eumbers. So the evideene of P.W.8 is also eot at all helpful to the prosenutioe. Ie this regard the annused is eetitled to the beeeft of doubt.

20.Therefore, above foregoieg disnussioe made supra, the prosenutioe is miserably failed to prove that the Annused outraged the modesty of P.W.1 by makieg sexual harassmeet, aed further threateeed her with dire noesequeenes. Heene, Annused is eetitled to the anquittal.

8

21.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the

ofences punishable under sections 354 and 506 of Indian Penal

Code. Therefore, Accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C

for the said ofences and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of

Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six

months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. In this case no property is

produced.

Dintated to Steeographer, traesnribed by him, norrented aed proeouened by me ie the opee nourt oe this the 21 st day of September, 2022.

Sd/-G.VANI

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC:ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution : For Defence : P.W.1: K.Maheswari -NONE – P.W.2: K.Madhava Rao P.W.3: K.Naarasamma P.W.4: V.Ashok P.W.5: S.Vijaya P.W.6: K.Narasimham P.W.7: Ch.Dhaeamma P.W.8: E.Siegaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: - Ex. P1: Report of P.W.1. Ex. P2: 161(3) Cr.P.C statemeet of P.W.7. Ex. P3: First Ieformatioe Report. Ex. P4: Rough sketnh of the sneee.

FOR DEFENCE: - Ex.D1 : Some portioe of 161(3) Cr.P.C statemeet of P.W.4. Ex.D2: Some portioe of 161(3) Cr.P.C statemeet of P.W.5.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL –

Sd/-G.VANI

PJCJ, KANDUKUR,

FAC:AJMFC, KANDUKUR.

//TRUE COPY//

PJCJ, KANDUKUR,

FAC:AJFCM, KANDUKUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: KANDUKUR.

CALANDER IN C.C.No.127/2015

1.Date of offence21.01.2015

2.Date of Report or complaint21.01.2015

3.Date of taken on file27.02.2015 Date of apprehension of

4.25.02.2015 accused

5.Date of release on bail25.02.2015 Date of commencement of

6.28.10.2021 trial

7.Date of close of trial21.07.2022

8.Date of Sentence or Order10.08.2022. State : Sub-Inspector of Police,

9.Complainant Kondapi P.S 1.Lakkepogu Mahesh, S/o Chinna Yesobu, aged about 23 years, Madiga by caste, resident of Peridepi Village, Kondapi Mandal, Driver of auto bearing No.AP 27 TW 1358.

10.Description of accused 2.MaddineniEkambaram,S/o Suryanarayana, aged about 34 years, Kamma by caste, resident of Sai Baba TempleStreet,Kalikavaya, Singarayakonda Mandal. Owner of auto bearing No.AP 27 TW 1358.

u/Sec.304-A of IPC, section 134(a) and

11.Section of Law(b) r/w.187, section 3 r/w.181 and section 5 r/w.180 of M.V.Act.

12.Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.

13.Finding of CourtFound not guilty.

14. Sentence or Order : In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code, section 134(a) and (b) read with 187 and Section 3 read with section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act. A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 5 read with 180 of Motor

Vehicles Act. Accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted under section 255 (1) of

Cr.P.C for the said offences and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. In this case, no property is produced.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks :

This case was taken on file on 27.02.2015. On 10.03.2015, copies furnished to the A1 and A2 under section 207 of Cr.P.C and posted for examination. On 09.12.2015 A1 and A2 were examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. and case posted for trial. The trial was commenced on 28.10.2021 and closed on 21.07.2022. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 6 were examined, Exs.

P1 to P9 got marked. After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 28.07.2022 A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by 2 explaining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

On 02.08.2022 Arguments heard on both sides. Judgment pronounced in open court on 10.08.2022. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-G.VANI

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I-Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole. Copy to : The Superintendent of police, Prakasam District , Ongole.

//TRUE COPY//

AJMFC, KANDUKUR.

3

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: KANDUKUR

Present: Kum G.Vani, Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of August, 2022.

Calender Case.No. 127 0f 2015

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kondapi Police Station.… Complainant.

Vs.

1.Lakkepogu Mahesh, S/o Chinna Yesobu, aged about 23 years, Madiga by caste, resident of Peridepi Village, Kondapi Mandal, Driver of auto bearing No.AP 27 TW 1358.

2.Maddineni Ekambaram, S/o Suryanarayana, aged about 34 years, Kamma by caste, resident of Sai Baba Temple Street, Kalikavaya, Singarayakonda Mandal. Owner of auto bearing No.AP 27 TW 1358. … Accused.

* * *

This case is coming on 02.08.2022 for final hearing, in the presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M.Mallikarjuna Rao,

Counsel on behalf of accused and after hearing both sides, and on perusal of relevant material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kondapi Police Station filed charge sheet against the A1 and A2 offences under sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code, section 134(a) and (b) read with 187, section 3 read with 181 and section 5 read with 180 of Motor Vehicles Act against the A1 and A2 in Crime

No.8/2015 of Kondapi Police Station.

2.The nutshell of the prosecution case are as follows:-

On 21.01.2015 at about 10.30 a.m the deceased Ravipati Malakonda

Rayudu left to Kondapi on P.W.1 motor cycle bearing No.AP 27 AS 2356 on his personal work. At about 10.40 a.m, the deceased R.Malakonda Rayudu reached turning point, the driver of milk ape auto bearing No.AP 27 TW 1358 has drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without blowing 4 horn and dashed the deceased R.Malakonda Rayudu motor cycle, resulting which the deceased R.Malakonda Rayudu fell on the left side road margin and received grievous bleeding injury on his head. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the P.W.6. Then P.W.6 registered a case and took up investigation and filed charge sheet.

3. This court took cognizance of case against the A1 and

A2 for the offences punishable under sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code, section 134(a) and (b) read with 187, section 3 read with 181 and section 5 read with 180 of Motor Vehicles Act on dated:27.02.2015.

4. On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. A1 and A2 were examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C in Telugu language, by explaining the substance of accusation levelled for the offences punishable under sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code, section 134(a) and (b) read with 187 and section 3 read with 181 of M.V.Act against

A1 and for the offence punishable under section 5 read with 180 of Motor

Vehicles Act against A2, for which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial

6.During the trial, the prosecution has examined L.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 11 as P.W.s.1 to 6 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. The evidence of L.W.7/G.Narayana and L.W.8/K.Bramhaiah was closed by this court as they died. The evidence of L.W.3/R.Subbarao, L.W.9/K.Vigneswar

Lal and L.W.10/Dr.T.Srinivasa Rao was given up by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor. Accordingly, prosecution side evidence was closed.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating 5 portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is that:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A1 for the

offences punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code,

section 134(a) and (b) read with 187 and section 3 r/w.181 of M.V.Act,

and further the guilt of A2 for the offence punishable under section 5

read with 180 of Motor Vehicles Act, beyond the reasonable doubt?

10.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.6 and Exs.P1 to P9. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and hearsay witness. P.W.2 is also hearsay witness. P.w.3 and P.W.4 and independent witnesses. P.W.5 is the scene observation and inquest mediator. P.W.6 is the

Investigation Officer.

11.POINT:-

On perusal of the entire evidence available in this bundle, the initial burden lies on the prosecution, so that the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.6. There is no denial about the deceased of deceased R.Malakonda

Rayudu met with road traffic accident. The same was supported by the

P.W.5 coupled with Exs.P3 and P4. So upon the evidence of P.W.5, he was present at scene of offence for seeing the deceased R.Malakonda Rayudu, at the time the P.W.6 observed the scene of offence and drafted scene observation report ie., Ex.P3 and also held inquest over the dead body of deceased R.Malakonda Rayudu and drafted Ex.P4/Inquestnama. So opinion given by the P.W.5 is reflected about the deceased R.Malakonda Rayudu died met with road traffic accident. The said version was supported by the

Ex.P9/Post mortem certificate.

6

12.But now the point is whether the accused driving caused to the death of deceased R.Malakonda Rayudu or not? In this regard, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and son of the deceased R.Malakonda Rayudu. He has categorically stated that on 21.01.2015 at about 10.30 a.m he came to know that the deceased R.Malakonda Rayudu taken his motor cycle and proceeded to Kondapi, on the way when reached turning point, by the time the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased R.Malakonda Rayudu. So the P.W.1 has clearly identified the driver of crime vehicle.

13.At this juncture, the defence counsel cross-examined the P.W.1, the P.W.1 has clearly admitted that he cannot identify the driver of crime vehicle and he did not saw the driver of the crime vehicle at scene of offence. As per case of prosecution, after the accident the driver of crime vehicle fled away. But how can it is possible the P.W.1 saw the driver of the crime vehicle on the spot and police station because P.W.6 has clearly stated that the accused came to the police station on 25.02.2015 at about 12.00 p.m. So there is no chance to see who are driver of crime vehicle, the same elicited by the defence counsel. Hence, P.W.1’s evidence is not at all helpful to the prosecution with regarding to the identity of the accused.

14.Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, he categorically deposed that he came to know about the accident. So he does not know what happened exactly and who are the driver of crime vehicle on the date of accident.

The P.W.3 is independent witness and direct witness, he has categorically deposed that he does not know what happened and he completely turned hostile except marking of the Ex.P2. So that his evidence also not at all helpful to the prosecution.

7

15.The P.W.4 is also eye witness, he saw the accident, but he does not know who are the driver of the crime vehicle and he cannot identified the driver of crime vehicle. Who are main witnesses in the present case ie.,

P.W.3 and P.W.4, they are not identified the driver of crime vehicle and also not stated the details of crime vehicle.

16.Only available evidence is the P.W.6 who is none other than the

Investigation Officer. He has not secured any records of the crime vehicle and who are the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of accident. But he has categorically stated that A1 and A2 came to the police station and surrendered before him and verified the documents. But what are the documents verified by the P.W.6 is not stated in his chief examination. And moreover he has not secured any mediators at the time of arrest of A1 and

A2. On careful study of evidence of P.W.6, there is no any incriminating evidence against the A1 and A2. Hence, A1 and A2 are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

17.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6, there is no any material evidence against the A1 in respect of the A1 is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and after the accident he did not provide any medical aid to the injured and to inform about the accident to the nearest police station, hence no need to discuss in length about under section 134(a) and (b) r/w.187 of Motor Vehicles Act.

18.On combined study of evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6, there is no any material evidence against the A1 and A2 in respect of the A1 is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and drove the vehicle without having valid driving license, and that A2 is the owner of the crime vehicle allowed A1 who is not having valid driving license, hence no need to discuss in length about under sections 3 read with 181 and section 5 read with 180 of Motor Vehicles Act.

8

19.Therefore, above foregoing discussion made supra, the prosecution is miserably failed to prove that the A1 is the driver of the crime vehicle and drove the vehicle without having valid driving license with rash and negligent manner and caused to the death of the deceased

Ravipati Malakonda Rayudu and that A2 is the owner of the crime vehicle allowed A1 to drove the vehicle. Hence, A1 and A2 are entitled to the acquittal.

Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

20.In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences

punishable under sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code, section

134(a) and (b) read with 187 and Section 3 read with section 181 of

Motor Vehicles Act. A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable

under section 5 read with 180 of Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, A1

and A2 are acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said

offences and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 and

their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per

section 437-A of Cr.P.C. In this case, no property is produced.

Dictated to Stenographer of this Court, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 th day of August, 2022.

Sd/-G.VANI

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution : For Defence : P.W.1: R.Venkatarao -NONE – P.W.2: G.Ramakrishna Hari Prasad P.W.3: G.Yanadi P.W.4: R.Venkatarao P.W.5: R.Narayana P.W.6: V.Anjaneyulu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: - Ex. P1: Report of P.W.1. Ex. P2: 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex. P3: Scene Observation Report. Ex. P4: Inquestnama.

9

Ex. P5 :First Information Report Ex.P6: Photos (5 in number). Ex.P7: Rough sketch. Ex.P8: Motor Vehicle Inspection Report. Ex.P9: Post mortem certificate of the deceased.

FOR DEFENCE: - -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Sd/-G.VANI

AJMFC, KANDUKUR.

//TRUE COPY//

AJMFC, KANDUKUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: KANDUKUR.

CALANDER IN C.C.No.215/2016

1.Date of ofence09.09.2015

2.Date of Report or complaint09.09.2015

3.Date of taken on fle08.03.2016 Date of apprehension of

4.-- accused

5.Date of release on bail-- Date of commencement of

6.31.03.2022 trial

7.Date of close of trial28.07.2022

8.Date of Sentence or Order15.09.2022. State : Sub-Inspector of Police,

9.Complainant Jarugumalli P.S 1.Yendluri Premkumar, S/o Kondaiah, aged about 45 years, Madiga by caste, resident of Arundatinagar, Tangutur Village and Mandal, Driver of Auto bearing No.AP 27 TX 6211.

10.Description of accused 2.MakkeanaJagajjeevan,S/o Tyagaraju, aged about 55 years, Madiga by caste, resident of Srinivasanagar, Tangutur Village and Mandal, Owner of auto bearing No.AP 27 TX 6211. u/Sec.338 of IPC, section 3 r/w.181 and

11.Section of Law section 5 r/w.180 of M.V.Act.

12.Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.

13.Finding of CourtFound not guilty.

14. Sentence or Order : In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the ofences punishable under sections 338 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with section 181 of

Motor Vehicles Act. A2 is found not guilty for the ofence punishable under section 5 read with 180 of Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said ofences and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. In this case, no property is produced.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks :

This case was taken on fle on 08.03.2016. On 23.06.2016, copies furnished to the A1 and A2 under section 207 of Cr.P.C and posted for examination. On 10.11.2021 A1 and A2 were examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. and case posted for trial. The trial was commenced on 31.03.2022 and closed on 28.07.2022. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 6 were examined, Exs.

P1 to P7 got marked. After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 02.08.2022 A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

2

On 09.09.2022 Arguments heard on both sides. Judgment pronounced in open court on 15.09.2022. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-G.VANI

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC:ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I-Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole. Copy to : The Superintendent of police, Prakasam District , Ongole.

//TRUE COPY//

PJCJ, KANDUKUR,

FAC:AJMFC, KANDUKUR.

3

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: KANDUKUR

Present: Kum G.Vani, Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur, FAC:Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur.

Thursday, this the 15th day of September, 2022.

Calender Case.No. 215 0f 2016

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Jarugumalli Police Station.… Complainant.

Vs.

1.Yendluri Premkumar, S/o Kondaiah, aged about 45 years, Madiga by caste, resident of Arundatinagar, Tangutur Village and Mandal, Driver of Auto bearing No.AP 27 TX 6211.

2.Makkeana Jagajjeevan, S/o Tyagaraju, aged about 55 years, Madiga by caste, resident of Srinivasanagar, Tangutur Village and Mandal, Owner of auto bearing No.AP 27 TX 6211. … Accused.

* * *

This case is coming on 09.09.2022 for fnal hearing, in the presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri G.Koteswara Rao, Counsel on behalf of accused and after hearing both sides, and on perusal of relevant material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jarugumalli Police Station fled charge sheet against the A1 and A2 ofences under sections 338 of Indian Penal

Code, section 3 read with 181 and section 5 read with 180 of Motor Vehicles

Act against the A1 and A2 in Crime No.72/2015 of Jarugumalli Police

Station.

2.The nutshell of the prosecution case are as follows:-

On 09.09.2015 at morning P.W.1 and P.W.3 are attended in the

Malineni Laxmaiah College situated at Kanumalla Village of Singarayakonda

Mandal. After completion of their college, left from College by P.W.3 Hero

Glamour Motor cycle bearing No.AP 27 AR 1845 going to their Village 4 towards Tangutur Village side, on the path reached on Nh-5 road near HP

Petrol bunk, K.Bitragunta Village, A1 who is the driver of auto bearing

No.AP 27 TX 6211 coming from Tangutur Village side in wrong route, drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and hit the P.W.3 motor cycle, resulting which P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.2 fell on the road. As a result, P.W.2 and P.W.3 received bleeding injuries. The same was saw by the P.W.4 and

P.W.5. Thereafter P.W.1 shifted the injured persons to the Hospital.

Thereafter, L.W.8/Sk.Abdul Khaleel, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police,

Jarugumalli P.S went to the hospital and registered the case basing on the statement of P.W.1 and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, the same was handed over to the P.W.6. Then P.W.6 verifed and fled charge sheet against the owner of the crime vehicle and accused

A1.

3. This court took cognizance of case against the A1 and

A2 for the ofences punishable under sections 338 of Indian Penal Code, section 3 read with 181 and section 5 read with 180 of Motor Vehicles Act on dated:08.03.2016.

4. On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. A1 and A2 were examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C in Telugu language, by explaining the substance of accusation levelled for the ofences punishable under sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code and section 3 read with 181 of M.V.Act against A1 and for the ofence punishable under section 5 read with 180 of Motor Vehicles Act against A2, for which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial 5

6.During the trial, the prosecution has examined L.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 11 as P.W.s.1 to 6 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. The evidence of L.W.7/G.Narayana and L.W.8/K.Bramhaiah was closed by this court as they died. The evidence of L.W.3/R.Subbarao, L.W.9/K.Vigneswar

Lal and L.W.10/Dr.T.Srinivasa Rao was given up by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor. Accordingly, prosecution side evidence was closed.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is that:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A1 for the

offences punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and

section 3 read with 181 of M.V.Act, and further the guilt of A2 for the

offence punishable under section 5 read with 180 of Motor Vehicles

Act, beyond the reasonable doubt?

10.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.6 and Exs.P1 to P7. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the injured persons. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the eye witnesses. P.W.6 is the

Investigation Oficer.

11.POINT:-

On perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the P.W.1 to P.W.3 after completion of their college returning to their Village on the motor cycle of P.W.3 ie., Hero Glamour Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 27 AR 1845, on the way when reached near HP petrol bunk, K.Bitragunta Village, one auto came from the opposite direction with wrong route and hit to their motor cycle, as a result the P.W.1 to P.W.3 received the injuries. The said version 6 was supported by the P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.2 and P.W.3 were received the injuries. The same was refected on the wound certifcate ie., Exs.P6 and.

12.But now the point is whether the P.W.2 and P.W.3 were received the injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the A1 or not? In this regard the P.W.1 to P.W.3 were categorically identifed the accused A1 is the driver of the crime vehicle. But the P.W.4 and P.W.5 who are the eye witnesses in this present case, they are not identifed the accused is the driver of crime vehicle though the accused A1 is present before the dock.

13. And moreover the L.W.8/Sk.Abdul Khaleel, Investigation Ofier was not secured any piece of paper with regarding to the accused is the driver of crime vehicle. And moreover there is no any proper identity. And moreover the P.W.1 and P.W.3 did not stated before the L.W.8/Sk.Abdul

Khaleel about they can saw the driver of crime vehicle and physical features of driver of crime vehicle. And moreover the L.W.8/Sk.Abdul Khaleel and

P.W.6 not conducted any Test Identifcation Parade for identity of the driver of crime vehicle on the date of accident.

14.So above said three aspects are not taken by the P.W.6 and

L.W.8/sk.Abdul Khaleel, how can the P.W.1 and P.W.3 received by the Court with regarding to identity of the accused. In general whenever fell down on the road, they are saw by the surroundings of the public, but who are involved in the accident ie., injured persons are not correctly identifed the driver of crime vehicle. So that the P.W.1 and P.W.3 evidence not believed by the Court and those evidence was discard by the Court in this aspect. And the remaining witnesses turned hostile and not supported to the prosecution.

7

15.Coming to the evidence of P.W.6 who is none other than the

Investigation Oficer, he has no personal knowledge about the Investigation of this case which was done by the L.W.8/Sk.Abdul Khaleel. But he was categorically deposed that basing on the available records. And moreover he was took up further investigation, during the course of further investigation he was not secured any piece of evidence. Hence, A1 and A2 are entitled to the beneft of doubt.

16.On combined study of evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6, there is no any material evidence against the A1 and A2 in respect of the A1 is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and drove the vehicle without having valid driving license, and that A2 is the owner of the crime vehicle allowed A1 who is not having valid driving license, hence no need to discuss in length about under sections 3 read with 181 and section 5 read with 180 of Motor Vehicles Act.

17.Therefore, above foregoing discussion made supra, the prosecution is miserably failed to prove that the A1 is the driver of the crime vehicle and drove the vehicle without having valid driving license with rash and negligent manner and caused to the injuries of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and that A2 is the owner of the crime vehicle allowed A1 to drove the vehicle. Hence, A1 and A2 are entitled to the acquittal.

Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

18.In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences

punishable under sections 338 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3

read with section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act. A2 is found not guilty

for the offence punishable under section 5 read with 180 of Motor

Vehicles Act. Accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted under section

255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences and they are set at liberty. The

8

bail bonds of A1 and A2 and their sureties shall remain in force for a

period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. In this case, no

property is produced.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15 th day of September,

2022.

Sd/-G.VAM

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC: ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution : For Defence : P.W.1: K.Narendra -NONE – P.W.2: K.Koteswaramma P.W.3: M.Prasad @ Siva Prasad P.W.4: G.Nageswara Rao P.W.5: N.Obaiah P.W.6: J.Ramakotaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: - Ex. P1: Report of P.W.1. Ex. P2: 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex. P3: 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex. P4 :First Information Report Ex. P5: Rough sketch. Ex.P6: Wound certifcate of P.W.2. Ex.P7: Wound certifcate of P.W.3.

FOR DEFENCE: - -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Sd/-G.VANI

PJCJ, KANDUKUR,

FAC:AJMFC, KANDUKUR.

//TRUE COPY//

PJCJ, KANDUKUR,

FAC:AJMFC, KANDUKUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: KANDUKUR.

CALANDER IN C.C.No.68/2016.

1.Date of ofence07.12.2015

2.Date of Report or complaint07.12.2015

3.Date of taken on fle25.01.2016 Date of apprehension of

4.-- accused

5.Date of release on bail-- Date of commencement of

6.06.04.2022 trial

7.Date of close of trial28.07.2022

8.Date of Sentence or Order16.09.2022. State : Sub-Inspector of Police,

9.Complainant Jarugumalli Police Station. KovuriRamMohanachary,S/o Venkatachary, aged about 35 years, Viswa Brahmin by caste, resident of

10.Description of accused PaletivapduVillage,Jarugumalli Mandal, rider of motor cycle bearing No. AP 27 AM 5704.

11.Section of Lawu/Sec.304-A of IPC.

12.Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.

13.Finding of CourtFound not guilty.

14. Sentence or Order : In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the ofence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, Accused is acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said ofence and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. In this case, no property is produced.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks : This case was taken on fle on 25.01.2016. On 20.04.2016 copies furnished to the Accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C. On 27.10.2021 Accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. and case posted for trial. Trial was commenced on 06.04.2022 and closed on 28.07.2022. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined, Exs. P1 to P9 got marked. After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 03.08.2022 accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by examining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence and posted for arguments. On 09.09.2022 Arguments heard on behalf of both sides. Judgment pronounced on 16.09.2022 in open court. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-G.VANI

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC:ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I-Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole. Copy to : The Superintendent of police, Prakasam District , Ongole. //TRUE COPY//

PJCJ, KANDUKUR,

FAC;AJMFC, KANDUKUR.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: KANDUKUR

Present: Kum G.Vani, Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur FAC:Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur.

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

Calender Case.No. 68 of 2016

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Jarugumalli Police Station.… Complainant.

Vs.

Kovuri Ram Mohanachary, S/o Venkatachary, aged about 35 years, Viswa Brahmin by caste, resident of Paletivapdu Village, Jarugumalli Mandal, rider of motor cycle bearing No. AP 27 AM 5704.… Accused.

* * *

This case is coming on 09.09.2022 for fnal hearing, in the presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Ch.Muralidhar, Advocate

for accused, and after hearing both sides, and on perusal of relevant

material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jarugumalli Police Station fled the charge sheet ofence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the Accused in Crime No.97/2015 of Jarugumalli Police Station.

2.The nutshell of the prosecution case are as follows:-

On 07.12.2015 at morning the deceased Uppala Venkata Subbamma went to the milk booth purchased milk packet and she was returning to house with milk packet. At about 08.00 a.m, the accused is the rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP 27 AM 5704 ridden his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed the deceased Uppala Venkata

Subbamma, resulting which she fell down unconscious with fatal injuries.

The same was witnessed by P.W.2 and L.W.3/N.Sreenu and informed to P.W.1 3 and shifted the injured to RIMS Hospital, Ongole. Undergone treatment, the deceased Uppala Venkata Subbamma died. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a report

before the L.W.12/V.Gowthami, WHC 157, OPPS, RIMS Hospital, Ongole.

Then L.W.12/V.Gowthami sent the said statement to the P.w.5 on point for jurisdiction. Thereafter, P.W.5 registered a case, took up investigation and fled charge sheet.

3. This court took cognizance of case against the Accused for the ofence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code on dated:25.01.2016.

4. On appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C in Telugu language, by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against him, for the ofences punishable under sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

6.During the trial, the prosecution has examined L.Ws.1, 2, 4, 6 and 13 as P.W.1 to P.W.5 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. The evidence of

L.W.3/N.Sreenu, L.W.5/G.Venkateswarlu, L.W.7/B.Madhana Manohara Rao,

L.W.8/B.Padmavathi, L.W.9/N.Hanuma Naik, L.W.10/Dr.N.Devchand, L.W.11/

Ch.Karthik Pavan Kumar and L.W.12/V.Gowthami was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Accordingly prosecution side evidence was closed.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

4

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is that:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of Accused for

the ofence punishable under sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code,

beyond the reasonable doubt?

10.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.5 and Exs.P1 to P9 are marked. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant as well as eye witness. P.W.2 is the eye witness. P.W.3 is the hearsay witness. P.W.4 is the inquest mediator and scene observation mediator. P.W.5 is the

Investigation Oficer.

11.POINT:-

On careful perusal of the entire evidence available in this bundle, the initial burden lies on the prosecution, so that the prosecution has examined

P.W.1 to P.W.5. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Uppala

Venkata Subbamma died met with road trafic accident. The same was established by the prosecution adducing the evidence of P.W.4 who is none other than the Inquest and scene observation mediator. The P.W.4 has categorically gave opinion that the deceased Uppala Venkata Subbamma died met with road trafic accident. The same was refected on the Exs.P2 to

P4. Not only Exs.P2 to P4 and also supported to the Ex.P5 ie., post mortem certifcate. On combined study of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P4 to P9, the deceased Uppala Venkata Subbamma died met with road trafic accident.

12.But now the point is whether the accused drove the vehicle with rash and negligent manner and caused to the death of deceased Uppala

Venkata Subbamma or not? In this regard the prosecution has examined 5

P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.5. As per the prosecution case, the P.W.2 and

L.W.3/N.Sreenu are the eye witnesses, they are saw the accident, thereafter

P.W.2 and L.W.3/N.Sreenu informed to the P.W.1 and other relatives of deceased Uppala Venkata Subbamma. Upon the evidence of P.W.1, he has categorically deposed that he is husband of deceased Uppala Venkata

Subbamma, at about 7 years back at about 08.30 a.m the deceased Uppala

Venkata Subbamma was going to the shop for purchasing milk, by the time he was followed her, after purchasing milk packet she was returning to house, in meanwhile accused came on his motor bike with a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased Uppala Venkata Subbamma. As per the investigation done by P.W.5, P.W.1 is knowing the accident through P.W.2 and L.W.3/N.Sreenu. So there is contra between the evidence of P.W.5 and

P.W.1 with regarding to the he is eye witness or hearsay witness. So a doubt created in the mind of the Court whether the P.W.1 is direct witness or hearsay witness which version was taken by the consideration about whether P.W.1 is eye witness or hearsay witness. In this aspect there is contra between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5.

13.Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, his evidence is completely depending on the evidence of P.W.2 because P.W.3 known about the occurrence of accident as well as details of crime vehicle. So that the

Court perused the evidence of P.w.2, the P.W.2 has categorically stated that he was present at the Tea stall, by the time one motor cycle came and hit the deceased Uppala Venkata Subbamma, but he cannot depose about the number of crime vehicle as well as identity of the rider of the motor bike.

No doubt the motor bike was the crime vehicle, the same Written Statement investigated by the P.W.5 and also mentioned on the Ex.P8. But the P.W.2 did not implicate the independent witness in this present case. And moreover the P.W.1 chief afidavit is completely diferent version comparing to the 161(3) Cr.P.C statement. And P.W.2 did not identifed the rider of the 6 motor cycle. So that there is no any incriminating material evidence against the accused from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3.

14.Coming to the evidence of P.W.5 ie., Investigation Oficer. He has categorically stated that he received the hospital intimation along with statement of P.w.1, then he registered the case and took up investigation, during the course of investigation he secured the P.W.4 and drafted Exs.p2 and P3 and also drafted the inqeustnama, but he was not secured to the any material against the accused who is rider of motor bike on the date of accident. So whenever P.W.5 failed to produce the documents about the accused is the rider of the motor cycle, hence he was entitled to the beneft of doubt.

15.Therefore, above foregoing discussion made supra, the prosecution is miserably failed to prove that the Accused drove the crime vehicle ie., motor cycle bearing No.AP 27 AM 5704 with rash and negligent manner and caused to the death of the deceased Uppala Venkata

Subbamma. Hence, Accused is entitled to the acquittal.

Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

16.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the ofence

punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Therefore,

Accused is acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said

ofence and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of Accused and his

sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per

section 437-A of Cr.P.C. In this case, no property is produced.

Dictated to Stenographer of this Court, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 16 th day of September, 2022.

Sd/-G.VANI

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC:ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution : For Defence : P.W.1: U.Malakondaiah-NONE – P.W.2: K.Brahmaiah P.W.3: U.Srinivasarao P.W.4: A.Ramu P.W.5: J.Ramakotaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: - Ex. P1: Report of P.W.1. Ex. P2: Photos (8 in number) along with C.D. Ex. P3: Scene Observation Report. Ex. P4: Inquestnama. Ex. P5: Hospital intimation. Ex. P6: First Information Report. Ex. P7: Rough sketch of the scene of ofence. Ex.P8: Motor Vehicle Inspector Report. Ex.P9: Post mortem certifcate.

FOR DEFENCE: - -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL –

Sd/-G.VANI

PJCJ, KANDUKUR,

FAC:AJMFC, KANDUKUR.

//TRUE COPY//

PJCJ, KANDUKUR,

FAC:AJMFC, KANDUKUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: KANDUKUR.

CALANDER IN C.C.No.6/2017.

1.Date of ofencePrior to 20.11.2016

2.Date of Report or complaint20.11.2016

3.Date of taken on fle10.01.2017 Date of apprehension of

4.-- accused

5.Date of release on bail-- Date of commencement of

6.06.04.2022 trial

7.Date of close of trial01.08.2022

8.Date of Sentence or Order19.09.2022. State : Sub-Inspector of Police,

9.Complainant Kandukur town P.S IruvuriSrinivasulu,S/oRama Chandraiah, aged about 48 years,

10.Description of accused Kamma by caste, resident of Cheelamcherla Village, Kavali Mandal, Nellore District. u/sec.498-A of IPC and section 4 of

11.Section of Law D.P.Act.

12.Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.

13.Finding of CourtFound not guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the ofence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, Accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said ofences and he is at liberty. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. In this case no property is produced.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks :

This case was taken on fle on 10.01.2017. On 27.06.2018, copies furnished to the accused. On 24.09.2021 Accused was examined u/s.239

Cr.P.C and charges under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of D.P.Act were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu in question form, for which, he denied the same and claimed to be tried. The trial was commenced on 06.04.2022 and closed on 01.08.2022. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined, Exs. P1 to P3 got marked.

After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 16.08.2022 Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by examining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. On 15.09.2022 Arguments heard 2 on behalf of both sides. Judgment pronounced in open court on 19.09.2022.

Hence, the delay.

Sd/-G.VANI

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC:ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I-Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole. Copy to : The Superintendent of police, Prakasam District , Ongole.

//TRUE COPY//

PJCJ, KANDUKUR,

FAC:AJFCM, KANDUKUR.

3

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: KANDUKUR

Present: Kum G.Vani, Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur, FAC: Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur.

Monday, this the 19th day of September, 2022.

Calender Case.No. 6 of 2017

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandukur town Police Station. … Complainant.

Vs.

Iruvuri Srinivasulu, S/o Rama Chandraiah, aged about 48 years, Kamma by caste, resident of Cheelamcherla Village, Kavali Mandal, Nellore District. … Accused.

* * *

This case is coming on 15.09.2022 for fnal hearing, in the presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri T.Gopala Krishna Murthy,

Counsel on behalf of accused and after hearing both sides, and on perusal of relevant material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandukur town Police Station fled charge sheet ofence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act against the Accused in Crime No.167/2016 of the

Kandukur town Police Station.

2.The nutshell of the prosecution case are as follows:-

The accused got married with the P.W.1 on 26.10.2012. Both are second marriage. After the marriage for one year they lead their conjugal life happily. Later accused started harassment towards P.W.1 both mentally and physically to bring money from her parents. He used to beat her with hands and legs indiscriminately. Even though she tolerated all the torture in view of she was second marriage and she will loss prestige in the society.

For some period of time they lead their conjugal life at her parents house 4 there also the accused harassed P.W.1 both physically and mentally. Later they shifted to another house. But as the torture of the accused was become unbearable, she came to her parental house and informed the same to her parents. Finally she came to the police station and lodged a report

before the P.W.4. The P.W.4 registered a case and took up investigation.

After completion of investigation, L.W.7/T.Sriram, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kandukur Town P.S fled charge sheet.

3. This court took cognizance of case against the Accused for the ofence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act on dated:10.01.2017.

4. On appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C in Telugu language, for which he denied the same. On considering the entire record and on hearing both sides, charges for the ofences punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against Accused were framed. The said charges were read over and explained to him, in Telugu language, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, matter was posted for trial.

6.During the trial, the prosecution has examined L.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 as

P.Ws.1 to 4 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. The evidence of

L.W.3/N.Sevaraiah and L.W.4/B.Koteswara Rao was closed by this Court as they died. The evidence of L.W.7/T.Sriram, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kandukur town P.S was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Accordingly, prosecution side evidence was closed.

5

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is that:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of Accused for

the ofences punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code

and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond the reasonable doubt?

10.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.4 and Exs.P1 to P3 are marked. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the relatives of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the Investigation Oficer.

11.Point:-

As per the evidence of P.W.1, the accused got marriage with the P.W.1 at Ballaramma Temple of Singarayakonda on 26.10.2013, thereafter they lead marital life for one year happily, then the accused started harassment towards P.W.1 for want of additional dowry both physically and mentally, subsequently the P.W.1 went to her parents house due to unbearable harassment of accused, but the accused did not changed his attitude and continued his harassment towards P.W.1. In this version supported by the

P.W.2 and P.W.3. So that the burden has shifted to the accused.

12.In this regard the accused categorically contended that he never married to the P.W.1 at any point of time, but she engaged as a servant for looked to his mother because his mother was bed ridden. In this regard, the defence counsel has cross-examined the P.W.1 to P.W.3, but they are admitted abut not produced any piece of paper regarding to their marriage 6 performed at Ballaramma Temple of Singarayakonda on 26.10.2013. And moreover P.W.1 not fled any marriage certifcate and marriage photos regarding to their alleged marriage. Except their oral evidence, but there is no fled any document about relevant documents of their marriage.

13.And P.W.1 to P.W.3 were categorically admitted that the accused having two children and they living along with their family members. And moreover comparing to the P.W.1 and accused family regarding to the fnancial capacity, the accused family having fnancial capacity more than

P.W.1 family. The P.W.1 family much less getting income of the accused family members. And moreover there is no need to harass the P.W.1 for want of alleged additional dowry because the accused family is well settled and his sons married and residing with their family as well settled.

14. And moreover the parents of the accused is old aged parents and they are no more at present. And P.W.2 and P.W.3 are also admitted that their marriage performed at Ballaramma Temple of Singarayakonda. Except that she not adduced any ocular as well as documentary evidence. Even who are performed their marriage in the temple that persons were not examined by the prosecution. Not only adducing of their evidence and

Investigation Oficer i.e., P.W.4 is also not secured to the single piece of evidence with regarding to the P.W.1 marriage performed with the accused.

So whenever the prosecution is failed to establish about the P.W.1 is legal marriage wife of the accused, automatically under section 498-A of IPC ingredients are not attracted to the present case. So that the accused is entitled to the beneft of doubt.

15.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, there is no any material evidence against the Accused in respect of the Accused subjected

P.W.1 to cruelty with a demand to bring money from her parents, hence no need to discuss in length about under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act .

7

16.Therefore, above foregoing discussion made supra, the prosecution is miserably failed to prove that the Accused harassed to the

P.W.1 both physically and mentally for want of additional dowry. Hence,

Accused is entitled to the acquittal.

17.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the

ofence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and

section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, Accused is acquitted

under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said ofences and he is at

liberty. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties shall remain in

force for a period of six months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. In

this case no property is produced.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19 th day of September,

2022.

Sd/-G.VANI

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC:ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution : For Defence : P.W.1: I.Ananthamma-NONE – P.W.2: N.Meri P.W.3: N.Krishna P.W.4: A.Chenchu Ramaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: - Ex. P1: Report of P.W.1. Ex. P2: First Information Report. Ex. P3: Rough Sketch of the scene of ofence.

FOR DEFENCE: - -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL – Sd/-G.VANI

PJCJ, KANDUKUR,

FAC:AJMFC, KANDUKUR.

//TRUE COPY//

PJCJ, KANDUKUR,

FAC;AJFCM, KANDUKUR.