Sri. G. Venu

CC. No.128 of 2013 Page No. 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS; AT: ARMOOR.

Present:-Sri G.VENU, B.A,L.L.M,PGDCL & IPR

Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Armoor.

Tuesday on this the 26 th day of May 2015

Calender Case No:128 of 2013

Crime No: 32 of 2013

Between:-

The State of Telangana through

Sub Inspector of Police, Balkonda. ....Complainant

// A N D //

MA Razi, S/o: Abdul Rasheed, Age: 21 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Driver of Indica Vista Car Br. No. AP 01 TV 3941, R/o H.No.4-8-492, Qursheed Nagar, Adilabad...…. Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of APP for the prosecution and of Sri. Amitab Kirad, Advocates for the accused, having heard and stood over for consideration, this court delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Balkonda against the accused for an offence punishable under section 304-A IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13-12-2013, while the PW-1 & 2 being the rider and pillion riders respectively of one motor cycle, whereas the deceased/Soma Narsaiah alone on another motor cycle bearing No. AP 25 J 5987 are returning back to their Velgatoor village after attending a marriage ceremony in Mupkal village, on the way, while the deceased being going ahead to the motor cycle of PW-1 & 2 was crossing the National Highway near the Mupkal Junction at about 02-50 noon in order to proceed to their village road, accused being the driver of Indica Vista Car bearing No. AP 01

TV 3951 by coming from Nirmal to Armoor with high speed in rash and negligent manner, dashed it to the motor cycle of the deceased and thereby, deceased fell down from his motor cycle and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Later, on the strength of Ex.P-1/report given by PW-1, PW-

26-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.128 of 2013 Page No. 2

8/Head Constable of Police, Balkonda/first Investigating officer registered a case in crime No. 32/2013 for an offence punishable U/sec. 304-A of IPC and issued Ex.P-9/F.I.R and examined and recorded his statement. Thereafter, he visited the place of offense and conducted the Ex.P-2/Scene of offence panchanama and also prepared the Ex.P-3/rough sketch of the scene in the presence of the two mediators/PW-4 & LW-9/Jaidi Rajanna and also held Ex.P- 5/Inquest over the dead body of the deceased in their presence. He further obtained the Ex.P-10/Photographs of the scene of offence including the dead body of the deceased and crime vehicles(Car and motor cycle) with the help of LW-6/Mekala Sayanna/Photographer and examined and recorded the statements of the family members of the deceased and also PW-3/eye witness. Thereafter, he referred the dead body for autopsy. Later, on 18-02- 2013, PW-7/S.I of Police being taken over the CD file from him, effected the arrest of the accused on his voluntary surrender before him through the PW- 6/Custodian of the crime Car and confessed to have committed this offence.

Later, he collected the crime car documents and the driving license of the accused and thereafter, referred the crime car for M.V.I inspection. Later, he collected the Ex.P-5/P.M.E report & Ex.P-8/M.V.I report, and after the completion of investigation, filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3. This Court took the cognizance of the case against the accused for an offence punishable under section 304-A IPC .

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of

Cr.P.C. He is examined under section 251 Cr.P.C and the substance of the accusation leveled against him is explained in his language for which he denied the allegation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

26-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.128 of 2013 Page No. 3

5. During the course of trial, to prove its case against the accused, prosecution in all examined the PW's.1 to 8 and got marked the Exs.P-1 to P-10. After the closure of prosecution side evidence, accused is examined under section 313

Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for an

offence punishable U/secs 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or

not ?

In order to decide the above point, the following points stand for

consideration:

1. Whether the deceased received injuries in the alleged incident

due to the alleged crime Car bearing No.AP 01 TV 3941?

2. Whether the accused is the driver of said crime Car at the time of this incident? If so, whether he drove the same in rash or negligent manner and thereby, caused for the injuries to the deceased and consequently for his death?

POINT No.1:-

8. In order to prove this point, initially, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW-1 to 3. They are the eye witnesses to the incident. PW-1/defacto complainant & PW-2 in one and the same lines deposed that while they are on a motor cycle, whereas the deceased/Soma Narsaiah alone on another motor cycle bearing No. AP 25 J 5987 are returning back to their Velgatoor village after attending the marriage ceremony of their relatives in Mupkal village, on the way near the Mupkal Junction on National Highway at about 02-50 noon, while the deceased being going ahead to their motor cycle is crossing the road at the said junction on National Highway inorder to

26-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.128 of 2013 Page No. 4

approach their village road, one Indica Vista Car bearing No. AP 01 TV 3951 by coming from Nirmal side to Armoor dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased and thereby, deceased fell down from his motor cycle and sustained fatal injuries on various parts of the body and died on the spot.

Thus their consistent evidence clearly picturize the manner and occurrence of this incident wherein the death of the deceased took place on the spot for the injuries received by him and also the involvement of the Car Bearing No.

AP 01 TV 3941.

9. PW-3 is an another eye witness to the incident. He also deposed in the same lines as that of PW-1 & 2. As per his evidence, he was following the motor cycle of the deceased and PW-1 & 2, hence, he could reach the place of offence within the very short span of the time. He further deposed that due to this incident, the front bumper of the Car is damaged. Thus, his evidence corroborates the evidence of PW-1 & 2 in establishing this point in favour of the prosecution.

10.PW-4 is the mediator for scene of offense panchanama and inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that on knowing this incident, he visited the place of offense and found that crime car and motor cycle of the deceased are available at that place. At that time, as the police conducted the Ex.P-4/Inquest over the dead body of the deceased, he acted as one of the mediators for it and put his signatures in it. He also deposed that police conducted the Ex.P-2/scene of offense panchanama and prepared the Ex.P-3/rough sketch of the scene in his presence. As per the contents of

Ex.P-2/scene of offense panchanama, both the crime car and motor cycle of the deceased are available at the place of offense at the time of preparation of Ex.P-2 to P-4. Hence, as the oral evidence of this witness is in consonance with the contents of Ex.P-2 to P-4, I hold that deceased died for the injuries

26-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.128 of 2013 Page No. 5

received by him as the crime car bearing No. AP 01 TV 3941 only dashed his motor cycle at the place of offence.

11.PW-5 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. His evidence coupled with the Ex.P-5/P.M.E report wherein the nature of injuries which are in anti motem in nature are reflected lends credence to the testimony of PW-1 to 4 in establishing the death of the deceased for the injuries received by him at the place of offence.

12.PW-8 is the First Investigating officer. He deposed in the lines of his investigation. He also deposed that when he visited the place of offense, both the crime vehicles were available at the place of offense. Ex.P- 10/Photographs obtained at the place of offence with the help of LW-6/Mekala

Sayanna/Photographer wherein the crime car and motor cycle of the deceased is reflected clinchingly establishes the manner and occurrence of this incident and also the involvement of the crime vehicles. In these circumstances, as no doubtful circumstances are elicited to disbelieve his evidence for the involvement of the crime car, I hold that the consistent evidence of this witness with the evidence of PW-1 to 5 establishes this point in favour of the prosecution.

Point No.2:-

13.In order to prove this point, prosecution again relied upon the evidence of PW-1 to 3. PW-1 & 2 deposed that though this incident took place in their presence, they could not observe the driver of the said car as the said driver fled away from the place of offence by leaving the said car then and there itself immediately after the incident. Accordingly, they did not identify the accused in the Court as the driver of the crime car. In these circumstances, the evidence of PW-3 and PW-6 plays vital role. PW-6 is the defacto owner of

26-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.128 of 2013 Page No. 6

the crime car as the said car stands in the name of his wife. His evidence goes to show that he completely turned hostile and did not support the prosecution by deposing that he does not know anything about this case and also about the accused. Hence, his evidence would no more helpful to the case of the prosecution in establishing the identity of the accused as the driver of the crime car at the time of this incident.

14. The evidence of PW-3 goes to show that he witnessed that accused being the driver of the car was fleeing away from the place of offence by leaving the said car then and there itself, hence, he could state to the police that if the driver of the said car is shown to him, he could identify him. Accordingly, he identified the accused in the Court when his evidence was taken up. In these circumstances, the counsel for the accused would contend that as this witness failed to disclose the physical features of the accused in the earlier statement given by him to the police, more so, as he identified the accused for the first time in the Court after the long lapse of time from the time of occurrence of this incident, the Court shall not rely upon the sole evidence of this witness to incriminate the accused.

15.Admittedly, in the cross examination of PW-3, he deposed that there is one occupant in the crime car apart from the accused. PW-1 & 2 did not disclose this fact. Moreover, PW-3 further deposed in the cross examination that he disclosed the physical features of the accused as lean and in white colour complexion and he had seen him from five meters away. He also deposed that he could not notice the physical features of the remaining occupant of the said crime car. In these circumstances, as this witness had no prior acquittance with the accused and he had identified the accused in the Court for the first time after the occurrence of this incident, more so, failed to disclose the physical features of remaining occupant of the car, in the absence of any steps taken by PW-7/Investigating officer to conduct the

26-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.128 of 2013 Page No. 7

test identification parade of the accused after his arrest with this witness casts doubt to believe his evidence to incriminate the accused as the driver of the crime car at the time of this incident. Moreover, the contrary evidence of PW-7 who deposed that there was no occupant in the crime car except the accused in it fortifies that the evidence of PW-3 is not a trust worthy and reliable one. In these circumstances, as the evidence of PW-6 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution to establish this fact, more so, as the mere oral confession of the accused to the PW-7/Investigating Police Officer admitting his guilt is in-admissible in evidence under section 25 & 26 of the Indian

Evidence Act, I hold that the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for his involvement as the driver of the crime Car at the time of this incident.

16.In order to establish the rash or negligence on the part of the accused, prosecution again relied upon the evidence of PW-1 to 3 & 8. As per their evidence coupled with the Ex.P-2/Scene of offense panchanama and Ex.P- 3/rough sketch of the scene, while the deceased was crossing the National

Highway at Mupkal Junction, the crime Car dashed his motor cycle.

Admittedly, the Motor vehicle rules contemplates that the person who crosses the National Highway must be vigilant while crossing the road on

National Highway much less at the junctions in order to facilitate the free plying of the vehicles on the straight road of National High way. It is bounded duty on the said persons that he must cross the road after passing away of vehicles in the straight road on National Highway. As such, the contention of the accused that as the deceased crossed the road at junction on National Highway without any care and caution, his car could not avoid the dash of the same to the motor cycle of the deceased shall be accepted as true and correct as the same cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, as there is negligence on the part of the deceased itself, benefit of doubt can be

26-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.128 of 2013 Page No. 8

extended to the accused. Thus, prosecution failed to prove this point in its favour.

IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for an offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A IPC, hence, he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancel after the appeal time is over.

Typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26 th day of May, 2015.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1(LW-1): Baddam Srinivas/defacto complainant and eye witness --None--

PW-2(LW-2): Som Muthenna/Eye witness and cousin of the deceased

PW-3(LW-5): Kommula Rajanna/Eye witness

PW-4(LW-8): Bandam Sathya Goud/Panch for inquest and scene of offence panchanama

PW-5(LW-10): Dr. M. Sunanda/Medical Officer who conducted autopsy

PW-6(LW-7): Sri Arju/Husband of the owner of the Crime vehicle

PW-7(LW-13): K. Prathap Lingam/Investigating officer and filed the charge sheet PW-8(LW-12): SS Jai Kishan/1st Investigating officer

Exhibits Marked

Ex.P-1: Report given by PW-1.--Nil-- Ex.P-2: Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P-3: Rough sketch of the scene. Ex.P-4: Inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P-5: P.M.E report.

Ex.P-6: underlined portion of section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-6.

Ex.P-7: Driving license and crime car documents. Ex.P-8: M.V.I report. Ex.P-9: F.I.R. Ex.P-10: Photographs of the scene of offence having crime car and dead body of the deceased

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

26-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.128 of 2013 Page No. 9

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :AT: ARMOOR

C.C.NO.128 of 2013

1. Date of offence : 13-03-2013

2. Date of report/complaint : 13-03-2013

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 18-02-2013

4. Date of commencement of trial : 05-08-2014

5. Date of closure of trial : 24-02-2015

6. Date of sentence/order : 26-05-2015

COMPLAINANT:

The State of A.P. through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.: Balkonda

ACCUSED : M.A.Razi

Offence U/s.: 304-A IPC

Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence/order: Acquitted

Judl. Magistrate of F.C. Armoor To The Hon’ble I Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

26-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.271 of 2012 Page No. 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS; AT: ARMOOR.

Present:-Sri G.VENU, B.A,L.L.M,PGDCL & IPR

Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Armoor.

Thursday on this the 28 th day of May 2015

Calender Case No: 271 of 2012

Crime No: 56 of 2012

Between:-

The State of Telangana through

Sub Inspector of Police, Jakranpally. ....Complainant

// A N D // Meka Mohandas, S/o: Narsaiah, Age: 48 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occu: PET, ZPHS School, Perkit, Driver of Maruthi Omni bearing No. AP 25 TV 0068, R/o: H.No.1-20-2/17, Housing board colony, Armoor. ..…. Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of APP for the prosecution and of Sri. L.Bhoopathi Reddy, Advocate for the accused, having heard and stood over for consideration, this court delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Jakranpally against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 337 & 338 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23-05-2012 after attending the funeral ceremony of their relative namely Konaparthy Muthemma in

Brahmanapally village, while the injured/PW-2 & LW-2/Sriram Narsaiah being the own brothers and pillion rider and rider respectively of their motor cycle bearing No. AP 25 P 8659 were returning back to their

Nyalakal village from the said Brahmanapally, on the way, when they reached near by one Lazar's Agricultural field in the outskirts of

Brahmanapally at about 1-00 noon, accused being the driver of Omni

Maruthi van bearing No. AP 25 TV 0068 by coming in opposite direction with high speed in rash and negligent manner, dashed it to their motorcycle due to which they both fell down and sustained injuries on their various parts of the body. On knowing the same, PW-1 visited the

28-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.271 of 2012 Page No. 2

said place of offence and verified the same and later, after intimating the same to LW-1/Sriram Suman /defacto complainant who is the son of LW- 2/injured/Sriram Narsaiah, he shifted both the injured in a auto to one MJ hospital at Armoor. Thereafter, LW-1/Sriram Suman visited the said hospital and verified the sustaining of injuries to the injured. Thereafter, after ascertaining the particulars of the accused as the driver of the said crime van at the time of this incident, he approached the police and lodged Ex.P-2/report on 24-05-2012 at about 11-30 p.m. On the strength of the same, PW-4 registered a case in crime No. 56/2012 for the offences punishable U/sec. 279 & 337 IPC and issued Ex.P-3/F.I.R and examined and recorded his statement. Later, he visited the place of offense and conducted the Ex.P-4/Scene of offence panchanama in the presence of two mediators/PW-5 & LW-6/Battu Ranveer. Thereafter, he examined and recorded the statements of the injured/PW-2 & LW-2/Sriram Narsaiah and also their relative/PW-1 who shifted them to the hospital. Thereafter, he collected the Ex.P-5 & 6Injury certificates and after the completion of investigation, filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3. This Court took the cognizance of the case against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 337 & 338 IPC .

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of

Cr.P.C. He is examined under section 251 Cr.P.C and the substance of the accusation leveled against him is explained in his language for which he denied the allegation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, to prove its case against the accused, prosecution in all examined the PW's.1 to 6 and got marked the Exs.P-1 to

P-6. After the closure of prosecution side evidence, accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances

28-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.271 of 2012 Page No. 3

appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offences

punishable U/secs 337 & 338 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

In order to decide the above point, the following points stand for consideration:

1. Whether the injured received injuries in the alleged incident due to the alleged crime vehicle bearing No. AP 25 TV 0068?

2. Whether the accused is the driver of said crime vehicle at the time of this incident? If so, whether he drove the same in rash or negligent

manner and thereby, caused for the injuries to the injured ?

POINT No.1:-

8. Admittedly, prosecution failed to examine the injured/LW-2/Sriram

Narsaiah and his son/LW-1/Sriram Suman/defacto complainant as whereabout of their present residential particulars are not known. As such, in order to prove this point, initially, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of remaining injured/PW-2 & his relative/PW-1 who shifted both the injured to the hospital from the place of offence. Their evidence in one and the same lines goes to show that on the alleged date of incident i.e., on 23-05-2012 at about 1-00 noon, after attending the funeral ceremony of Konaparthy Muthemma in Brahmanapally village, while the injured/PW-2 & LW-2/Sriram Narsaiah being the pillion rider and rider respectively were returning back to their Nyalkal village from

Bhramanapally, on the way, one Omni Maruthi van by coming in opposite direction, dashed to their motorcycle due to which they sustained bleeding injuries on various parts of their body.

28-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.271 of 2012 Page No. 4

9. PW-1 belongs to the Brahmanpally village. Injured/PW-2 & LW-2/Narsaiah came to the Brahmanapally village to attend the funeral ceremony of maternal grand mother of PW-1. As such, as the PW-1 deposed that immediately after the incident, he visited the place of offence and shifted both the injured to the M.J Hospital at Armoor and later, informed the same to the LW-1/Suman i.e., son of LW-2/Injured/Narsaiah and as also deposed that by the time he visited the said place of offence, he did not find the said Omni Maruthi van at that place and he cannot say through whom he got the registration of the said Omni van and even he cannot say who among the two injured was riding the motor cycle at the time of this incident and also deposed that he did not lodge any written complaint in the police station regarding the said accident and further deposed that

LW-1/Suman lodged the complaint in the police station on the next day of incident at about 11-00 a.m, the accused would contend that the discrepant evidence of this witness casts doubt to believe his evidence to incriminate the alleged crime Omini van as the same is implanted in this case in order to claim the compensation to the injured. In these circumstances, in order to believe the evidence of this witness, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW-2.

10.PW-2 failed to depose the registration particulars of the crime Omini van and also failed to give the particulars of its driver by saying that after the incident as he sustained injuries and fell unconscious, he cannot say those particulars. However, the suggestion given by the Asst. Public

Prosecutor to this witness that on enquiry, he came to know the registration particulars of the crime the Omini Maruthi van and also the particulars of its driver is not denied by the accused by giving any such suggestion to the Investigating officer/PW-4 by confronting the same, I hold that this incident took place due to the alleged crime Omini Maruthi van only.

28-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.271 of 2012 Page No. 5

11. PW-5 is the mediator for scene of offence panchanama. He deposed that at about 2½ years back, on one day, when himself and LW-6/Battu

Ranveer were coming to Armoor on a motorcycle from their Brahmanpally villager on the way, near their village turning leads to Armoor, they found the presence of the police. Later, they came to know that the Omni

Maruthi van available at that place, dashed to the motor cycle in opposite direction at that place, due to which one Sriram Narsaiah and Sudershan who were on the said motorcycle sustained injuries. As such, police prepared the Ex.P-4/scene of offence panchanama and obtained their signatures in it. As the evidence of this witness is not challenged by the accused by did not choose to cross examine, I hold that his evidence corroborates the evidence of PW-1 & 2 that this incident took place due to the crime Omni van only.

12.PW-6 is the Doctor who provided treatment to the injured and issued injury certificate. His evidence coupled with the Ex.P-5 & 6/Injury certificates wherein the nature of the injuries received by the injured are reflected is corresponding to the nature of the injuries deposed by PW-1 & 2, hence, it lends credence to the testimony of PW-2 that PW-2 and the remaining injured/LW-2/Narsaiah sustained injuries reflected in the Ex.P-5 & 6.

13.PW-3 & 4 are the Investigating officers. As the evidence of PW-4 coupled with the Ex.P-3/F.I.R issued by him wherein the registration particulars of the Omni Maruthi van are reflected corroborates the evidence of PW-1, 2 & 5 and as the same is not denied by the accused, I hold that the evidence of above all witnesses clinchingly establishes the involvement of the crime Omini Maruthi Van bearing No. AP 25 TV 0068 in the alleged incident and the sustaining of injuries to the injured in the said incident.

28-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.271 of 2012 Page No. 6

Point No.2:-

14.As stated supra, PW-1 & 2 failed to disclose the particulars of the driver of Crime Omni Van in their evidence and even they failed to identify the accused as the driver of the said crime van at the time of this incident.

Moreover, Ex.P-3/F.I.R was lodged at belated stage i.e., on 24-05-2012 at about 11-00 p.m though the incident took place on 23-05-2012 at about 1- 00 noon. In these circumstances, in the absence of evidence of LW- 1/Sriram Suman who lodged the Ex.P-2/report and on the strength of the same only, Ex.P-3/F.I.R was issued to give satisfactory explanation for giving the Ex.P-2 in the police station at belated stage, the contention of the accused that as the injured are not having any valid driving license and that as their motor cycle was not having any valid insurance, rash and negligence attributed to the driver of above crime Omni van by making him responsible as the driver of the said van at the time of this incident cannot be ruled out. As the PW-1 deposed that he cannot say through whom he got the particulars of the accused as the driver of the said crime van at the time of this incident and also failed to give the particulars of the accused in his evidence, more so, as the PW-2 failed to depose the said particulars in his evidence by saying that he does not know those particulars for his un consciousness for the injuries received by him, I hold that their evidence would not helpful to the case of the prosecution in incriminating the accused as the driver of the crime van at the time of this incident. Except the evidence of PW-3/Police Officer who deposed that on the oral confession of the accused admitting his guilt, he effected the arrest of the accused, there is no other evidence on record to incriminate the accused. In these circumstances, as the evidence of PW-3 is not admissible in evidence under section 25 & 26 of Indian Evidence Act, I hold that prosecution failed to prove this fact in its favour.

28-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.271 of 2012 Page No. 7

15.In order to establish the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the Omini Maruthi van, prosecution again relied upon the evidence of circumstantial witnesses/PW-1 & 5. PW-2 did not depose in his evidence that due to the rash or negligence of the driver of the Omni van only, this incident took place. PW-1 deposed that there is a turning on the road at the place of offence and by the time, he visited the place of offence, he did not find the said van at that place. Moreover, he no where deposed in his evidence that due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver of the Omni van only, this incident took place. PW-5 being the mediator for scene of offence panchanama also failed to depose that due to the rash and negligence driving of the Omni van only, this incident took place.

Moreover, he deposed that he came to know the manner and occurrence of this accident through the police only, hence, evidence of these witnesses would not helpful to the case of the prosecution in establishing this fact in its favour. The perusal of Ex.P-4/Crime details form wherein the rough sketch of the scene of offence is drafted goes to show that there is sharp curve/turning at the place of offence, hence, the probability and the contention of the accused that as the injured are not having any driving license and that their motorcycle is not having valid insurance documents, the rash and negligence driving attributed to the driver of the crime Omni van shall be accepted as true and correct. Moreover, the contrary evidence of PW-4 that PW-2 is the rider of the motorcycle at the time of this incident fortifies that in order to claim compensation, the rash and negligence is attributed to the driver of the crime Omini van. Thus, prosecution failed to prove this point in its favour beyond all reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, accused is entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt.

28-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.271 of 2012 Page No. 8

IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.337 & 338 IPC, hence, he is acquitted for the same

U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancel after the six months.

Typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of May, 2015.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1(LW-4): Konaparthi Naveen/circumstantial witness --None-- PW-2(LW-3): Siram Sudershan/Injured PW-3(LW-8): V. Shivaram/1st Investigating officer PW-4(LW-9): N. Ashok/Investigating officer and filed the charge sheet PW-5(LW-5): Gurai Laxmi Narayana/Panch for scene of offence panchanama PW-6(LW-7): Dr. B. Madhu Shekar/treated the injured

Exhibits Marked

Ex.P-1: Underlined portion of under section 161 Cr.P.C --Nil-- statement of PW-1. Ex.P-2: Report given by LW-1/Sriram Suman. Ex.P-3: F.I.R. Ex.P-4: Scene of offence panchanama(CDF). Ex.P-5 & P-6: Injury certificates of PW-2 & LW-2/Narsaiah

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

28-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No.271 of 2012 Page No. 9

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :AT:

ARMOOR

C.C.NO.271 of 2012

1. Date of offence : 23-05-2012

2. Date of report/complaint : 24-05-2012

3. Date of apprehension of the accused: 18-06-2012

4. Date of commencement of trial : 31-12-2013

5. Date of closure of trial : 28-05-2015

6. Date of sentence/order : 28-05-2015

COMPLAINANT:

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.: Jakranpally

ACCUSED : Me ka Mohandas

Offence U/s.: 337 & 338 IPC

Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence/order: Acquitted

Judl. Magistrate of F.C. Armoor To The Hon’ble I Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

28-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No. 19 of 2012 Page No. 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS; AT: ARMOOR.

Present:- Sri G.VENU, B.A,L.L.M,PGDCL & IPR

Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Armoor.

Monday on this the 25 th day of May 2015

Calender Case No:19 of 2012

Crime No: 171 of 2011

Between:- The State of Telangana through

Sub Inspector of Police, Nandipet.....Complainant

// A N D //

Kurme Mahipal s/o: Shanker, Age: 25 yrs, Caste: SC Mala, Occ: Student, driver of Hero Honda Passion Pro bearing No. AP 25 AF 6588, R/o Nikalpur village of Nandipet Mandal. ..…. Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of APP for the prosecution and of Sri. G. Anand, Advocate for the accused, having heard and stood over for consideration, this court delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandipet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 337 & 304-A IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23-11-2011, while the deceased/Yekkala Mallesh and the PW-1/injured were returning to

Nikalpoor village on a scooter bearing No. AP 25 B 7700 from Akula

Konduru village, on the way, when they reached to the outskirts of kondapur village after crossing one Sri Sai VidyaNikethan High School at about 07-30 P.m., accused being the rider of Hero Honda Passion Pro motor cycle Bearing No. AP 25 AF 6588 by coming in opposite direction with a high speed in rash and negligent manner, dashed it to their scooter due to which deceased, PW-1 and also the accused sustained injuries.

Thereafter, deceased was shifted to Government hospital at Nizamabad in 108 ambulance. Later, on the advice of the doctor, the deceased was admitted in Gandhi hospital at Secunderabad, but he succumbed to the injuries on 24-11-2011 at about 08-00 a.m. As such, on the strength of

25-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No. 19 of 2012 Page No. 2

Ex.P-1/report given by PW-2/mother of the deceased, LW-12/Mahender

Singh/A.S.I of Police, Nandipet registered a case in crime No. 171/2011 for the offences punishable U/sec. 337 & 304-A IPC and issued Ex.P-4/F.I.R and examined and recorded her statement. Later, he visited the Gandhi hospital at Secunderabad where the dead body of the deceased was kept and held Ex.P-2/Inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of two mediators/PW-3 & LW-7/Penjarla Gangaram and examined and recorded the statements of the family members of the deceased. He also got the Photographs of the dead body of deceased through LW-5/Sk. Hareef/Photographer and referred the dead body for conducting autopsy. Thereafter, he visited the place of offence and conducted the Ex.P-3/Scene of offence panchanama(CDF) in the presence of above same mediators and referred the crime motor cycle of the accused for M.V.I inspection. Later, he visited one Sigma hospital at

Nandipet where the PW-1/injured was admitted and examined and recorded his statement and referred him for obtaining Ex.P-6/Injury certificate. Thereafter, on 13-01-2012, PW-4 effected the arrest of the accused on his voluntary surrender before him and confessed to have committed this offence. Later, he collected the Ex.P-5/P.M.E report, Ex.P- 6 & 7/Injury certificates of PW-1 and the accused respectively and Ex.P- 8/M.V.I report, and after the completion of investigation, filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3. This Court took the cognizance of the case against the accused for the offences punishable under section 337 & 304-A IPC .

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of

Cr.P.C. He is examined under section 251 Cr.P.C and the substance of the accusation leveled against him is explained in his language for which he denied the allegation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

25-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No. 19 of 2012 Page No. 3

5. During the course of trial, to prove its case against the accused, prosecution in all examined the PW's.1 to 4 and got marked the Exs.P-1 to

P-8. After the closure of prosecution side evidence, accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the

offences punishable U/secs 337 & 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or

not ?

POINT:-

8. In order to prove this point, initially, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW-1. He is none other than the injured-cum-eye witness. His evidence goes to show that on 23-11-2011 at about 04-30 p.m., himself and his friend/deceased/Ekkala Mallesh went to his sister's house in

Nikalpur village on a Scooter bearing No. 7700 from their Akula Konduru

Village as his brother-in-law was fell ill. Later, while himself and the deceased being the rider and pillion rider respectively were returning back to the Akula Konduru village, on the way, when they reached nearby one turning in the outskirts of Thondapur village at about 07-30 p.m., accused being the rider having pillion rider on a Hero Honda Passion Pro motor cycle bearing No. 6588 by coming in opposite direction to their Scooter with high speed, dashed it to their scooter, due to which they all fell down from their respective vehicles and sustained bleeding injuries. Thereafter, they were shifted to the hospital in 108 ambulance. Later, he came to know that the deceased was succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in one Gandhi hospital in Secunderabad on 24-112014. In the

25-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No. 19 of 2012 Page No. 4

cross examination, though he deposed that he cannot describe the colour of the motor cycle of the accused and also cannot identify the pillion rider of the motor cycle of the accused, the admissible suggestion given by the accused that in the incident, accused also sustained injuries and his motor cycle is damaged clinchingly establishes that there was head on collusion between the Scooter and the motor cycle Bearing No. 6588. Ex.P-8/Motor

Vehicle Inspection report marked through the PW-4/Investigating Officer goes to show that front bumper, front number plate of the motor cycle Br.

No. AP 25 AF 6588 belongs to the accused was damaged. Thus, the oral evidence of PW-1 clinchingly establishes that himself, accused and the deceased sustained injuries as there was a collusion between the motor cycle of the accused and scooter bearing No. AP 25 B 7700 which resulted into the sustaining of injuries to the deceased and consequently his death.

9. PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. Her evidence goes to show that she testified the contents of Ex.P-1/report given by her to the police wherein the registration particulars of both the crime vehicles are reflected.

Though her evidence is in the nature of circumstantial evidence, it corroborates the evidence of PW-1 in establishing that her son was died for the injuries sustained by him as the motor cycle of the accused and the scooter driven by PW-1 were colluded against each other in opposite direction at the place of offence.

10.PW-3 is the one of the mediator for scene of offence panchanama and inquest. His evidence goes to show that on knowing the occurrence of this incident, he visited the Gandhi hospital at Secunderabad where the deceased was died for the injuries received by him in the above incident.

As such, police conducted Ex.P-2/Inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and in the presence of LW-7/Penjarla Gangaram.

He further deposed that after the prepare of Ex.P-2, police took away them to the place of offence and prepared the Ex.P-3/Crime detail form in

25-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No. 19 of 2012 Page No. 5

their presence and obtained their signatures in it. Thus, his evidence also corroborates the evidence of PW-1 in establishing the death of the deceased for the injuries received by him and also establishes the sustaining of injuries to the accused and PW-1 at the place of offence as the Scooter and the motor cycle of the deceased were colluded agaisnt each other in opposite direction.

11.PW-4 deposed the part of investigation done by LW-12/Mahender

Singh/A.S.I of Police, Nandipet who registered this case and consequently, issued Ex.P-4/F.I.R and visited the place of offence and the hospitals where the deceased and PW-1 were admitted. This much of evidence of

PW-4 is consistent with the evidence of PW-1 to 3, hence, I have no hesitation to hold that prosecution established these facts in its favour.

Now the question is whether this incident took place due to the rash or negligence riding of the accused only.

12.As stated supra, the admissible suggestion given by the accused that he also sustained injuries in the above incident clearly goes to show that he is present at the place of offence and his motor cycle was driven by him only at the time of this incident. Ex.P-7/Injury Certificate of accused fortifies the same. As the PW-3 deposed that he came to know that deceased being the rider, whereas the PW-1 being the pillion rider of the scooter were proceeding, the motor cycle of the accused dashed to their scooter, more so, as he failed to describe the place of offence to attribute the rash or negligence on the part of the accused, his evidence would no more helpful in establishing the alleged rash or negligence on the part of the accused.

13.As per the evidence of PW-1 & 4, PW-1 is the rider of the scooter.

Moreover, as per the evidence of PW-1, his niece was with him on the scooter and the accused is also having a pillion rider on his motor cycle.

25-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No. 19 of 2012 Page No. 6

Either PW-4 or LW-12/First Investigating Officer failed to examine and record the statement of said pillion rider of motor cycle of the accused to know the truth in order to attribute the rash or negligence on the part of the accused. Moreover, the admission of PW-1 in his evidence goes to show that he is not having any driving license to ride the scooter and that the said scooter belongs to his friend and the same is not having any insurance, whereas the motor cycle of the accused is having valid insurance. This goes to show that the contention of the accused that as his motor cycle is having valid insurance, rash or negligence is attributed to him to claim compensation to the family members of the deceased cannot be ruled out. As PW-3 failed to depose the rash or negligence either on the part of the accused or PW-1 by describing the place of offence at the time of preparation of Ex.P-3/Crime detail form and as the prosecution failed to examine the LW-12/Mahender Singh who prepared the Ex.P-3 and that as nothing is reflected in the Ex.P-3 to establish the rash or negligence on the part of the accused, it entitles the accused to get benefit of doubt for lack of evidence in establishing the alleged criminal rash or negligence on the part of the accused. Moreover, the perusal of Ex.P-8/M.V.I report goes to show that the left side rear view mirror and the gear liver of the motor cycle was damaged. When this damage coupled with the Ex.P-3/Crime detail form is minutely verified, it goes to show that the motor cycle of the accused was fell down on the left side of the road in the way of the accused, whereas the scooter driven

PW-1 is fell down in the middle of the road. This is what reflected by rough sketch in the Ex.P-3 also. In these circumstances, the admission of the PW-1 that this incident took place near a turning at the place of offence gives rise to draw an inference as contended by accused that due to the rash or negligence of the PW-1 only, this incident took place.

Moreover, without having any valid driving license and insurance, the driving of scooter by PW-1 gives rise to draw an inference as contended by

25-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No. 19 of 2012 Page No. 7

the accused that his motor cycle was implanted and that the rash or negligence is attributed to him to claim compensation to the family members of the deceased. Thus, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for which accused is entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt.

IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.337 & 304-A IPC, hence, he is acquitted for the same

U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancel after six months.

Typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25 th day of May, 2015.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1(LW-3): Rajula Kamalapathi/Eye witness & injured --None--

PW-2(LW-1): Yekkala Komaravva/defacto complainant /mother of the deceased PW-3(LW-6): Yadla Purna Chander Rao/Panch for scene of offence and inquest panchanama

PW-4(LW-13): A. Sreedhar Kumar/Investigating officer and filed the charge sheet

Exhibits Marked

Ex.P-1: Report given by PW-2.--Nil-- Ex.P-2: Inquest panchanama. Ex.P-3: Scene of offence panchanama(CDF). Ex.P-4: F.I.R.

Ex.P-5: P.M.E report. Ex.P-6: Injury certificate of PW-1. Ex.P-7: Injury Certificate of accused. Ex.P-8: MVI report.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

25-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No. 19 of 2012 Page No. 8

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :AT: ARMOOR

C.C.NO.19 of 2012

1. Date of offence: 23-11-2011

2. Date of report/complaint : 24-11-2011

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 13-01-2012

4. Date of commencement of trial : 22-04-2014

5. Date of closure of trial : 24-02-2015

6. Date of sentence/order : 25-05-2015

COMPLAINANT:

The State of A.P. through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.: Nandipet

ACCUSED : Kurme Mahipal

Offence U/s.: 304-A & 337 IPC

Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence/order: Acquitted

Judl. Magistrate of F.C. Armoor To The Hon’ble I Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

25-05-15 JFCM, Armoor

CC.No: 246/2013 Page. 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, AT: ARMOOR

Present: Sri G. Venu, B.A.LL.M., PGDCL & IPR

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.

Monday this the 25 th day of May 2015

Calender Case No: 246/2013

Crime No: 127/2013

Between:-

The State of Telangana through

Sub Inspector of Police, Balkonda.…..Complainant.

// A N D // Talveda Ajay Goud, S/o: Ramagoud, Age: 22 years, Caste: Goud, Occ: Labour, R/o. Ilapoor village of Nandipet Mandal, Now present at Balkonda

village & Mandal. ....Accused

This case came before me for final hearing on 22-05-2015 in the presence of APP

for the prosecution and of Sri. S. Jagan, Advocate for the accused and being stood over for consideration till this day after hearing both the parties and going through the documents & material objects on record, this court delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Balkonda filed charge sheet against the accused for an offence punishable U/section 380 IPC.

2. The case of prosecution is that on 09-05-2013 at about 10-00 p.m., as usual, PW-1 parked his MO-1/motor cycle bearing No. AP 25 AA 2292 within the compound wall premises of his house situated in Nagampet village. Later, he along with his family members went to the terrace of their house to take sleep. Thereafter, at about 11-00 pm., as he heard that his motor cycle was started, on suspicion, he woke up and when verified, he found that one culprit is taking away his motor cycle.

Though he tried to apprehend the said culprit, he fled away with the said motor cycle beyond his apprehension. As such, he along with his villagers/LW-2/Eleti Chinna Gangadhar and LW-3/Bheemanolla Muthenna searched for the said motor cycle, but as they could not find the same,

25-05-2015 JFCM, Armoor

CC.No: 246/2013 Page. 2

PW-1 approached the police on 14-05-2013 and lodged Ex.P-1/report. On the strength of the same, PW-4/Head Constable of Police,

Balkonda/Investigating Officer being the Station House Officer registered a case in Cr.No.127/2013 for an offence punishable under section 380

IPC and issued Ex.P-4/FIR and examined & recorded his statement.

Later, he visited the place of offence and conducted the Ex.P-2/scene of offence panchanama(CDF) in the presence of two mediators PW-2 & LW- 7/Kola Srinivas and examined and recorded the statements of LW-2/Eleti

Chinna Gangadhar and LW-3/Bheemanolla Muthenna. Thereafter, on 27- 05-2013, as PW-6 informed to the PW-1 & LW-4/Gopal Muthyam Reddy that the above stolen away motor cycle is available with the accused in his house in Ilapur Village of Nandipet mandal, they went to the house of the accused and caught hold the accused along with the stolen away motor cycle and handed over him to the police. Hence, PW- 5/Investigating Officer, secured the presence of two mediators/PW-3 &

LW-9/Medipally Ramesh and recovered the stolen away MO-1 in their presence under a cover of Ex.P-3/Confession cum Recovery panchanama in pursuance of the confession of the accused that he committed theft of the same. Later, PW-5 examined and recorded the statements of PW-1 &

LW-4/Gopal Muthyam Reddy and PW-6 and effected the arrest of the accused. Later, after the completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3. This court took cognizance of the case against the accused for an offence punishable under sections 380 or in the alternative 411 IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of

Cr.P.C. He is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges U/Sec. 380 or in

25-05-2015 JFCM, Armoor

CC.No: 246/2013 Page. 3

the alternative 411 IPC are framed against him, read over and explained to him in his language for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, to prove its case against the accused, prosecution in all examined the PW's.1 to 6 and got marked the Ex.P-1 to

Ex.P-5 and MO-1. After the closure of prosecution side evidence, accused are examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied those circumstances as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

6. The counsel for accused would contend that the evidence available on record through the examination of prosecution witnesses is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, hence, prayed to give benefit of doubt and consequently, acquit him. On the other hand, APP would contend that the evidence of prosecution witnesses PW-1 to 6 coupled with the documents Ex.P-1 to P-5 and MO-1 is consistent, cogent and corroborate with each other and the same proves the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, hence, prayed to convict the accused.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 380 or in the alternative 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

9. In order to prove this point, initially, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW-1. He testified the contents of Ex.P-1/report given by him to the police. He further deposed that as the theft of his motor cycle took place

25-05-2015 JFCM, Armoor

CC.No: 246/2013 Page. 4

in his presence in the night hours and though he could follow the said culprit, he fled away with the stolen away motor cycle beyond his apprehension, hence, he could not see the identification particulars and the physical features of the said culprit. He also identified the recovered

MO-1/motor cycle as that of his stolen away motor cycle. Except to elicit in the cross examination of this witness that on 27-05-2013, police informed to him that they found the stolen away motor cycle in Navipet village, nothing is elicited to dis believe his evidence to dispute the alleged theft of his motor cycle. Hence, as the oral evidence of this witness corroborates the contents of Ex.P-1, more so, the explanation given by this witness in lodging the Ex.P-1 in the police station at belated stage i.e., after five days of the incident is a satisfactory one, I hold that the evidence of this witness establishes the theft of his motor cycle from the place of offence in the night hours.

10.PW-2 is one of the mediator for scene of offence panchanama. He deposed that on the strength of a report given by PW-1 that his parked motor cycle was stolen away from his house premises in the night hours, a case is being registered in the police station. Hence, police visited the house of PW-1 and conducted Ex.P-2/Scene of offence panchanama in his presence and in the presence of LW-7/Kola Srinivas. As this witness deposed that he came to know that the motor cycle of PW-1 was stolen away in the night hours of 13-05-2013, the counsel for the accused would contend that as this witness being the villager of PW-1 deposed falsehood to help the PW-1, hence, the Court shall not believe the evidence of this witness in establishing the theft of MO-1 from the place of offence on 09-05-2013 in the night hours.

25-05-2015 JFCM, Armoor

CC.No: 246/2013 Page. 5

11.PW-4 being the Investigating Officer deposed in the lines of his investigation. Hence, as his consistent evidence coupled with the Ex.P- 4/FIR issued by him corroborates the evidence of PW-1, I hold that prosecution could prove that unknown offender committed theft of MO-1 from the place of offense.

12.In order to prove that accused had committed this theft, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW-3, 5 & 6. PW-3 is one of the mediators for confession cum recovery panchanama of accused. His evidence goes to show that on 27-05-2013, he came to know that the stolen away motor cycle of PW-1 was found available in Navipet village. As such, himself and PW-1 went to the said place and found the presence of the accused with the stolen away MO-1 near one Petrol bunk in the said village. Immediately, they caught hold the accused and brought him along with the motor cycle to the Balkonda police station and handed over him to the police. Thereafter, as the police questioned the accused, he confessed to have committed theft of said motor cycle, hence, police recorded the Ex.P-3/Confession panchanama of the accused and recovered the motor cycle under it in his presence and in the presence of

LW-9/Medipally Ramesh and obtained their signatures in it.

13.The evidence of PW-5 goes to show that on 27-05-2013 at about 08-00 p.m., PW-6 & LW-4/Gopal Muthyam Reddy brought the accused along with the stolen away MO-1 to their police station and handed over the same along with the accused to him. As such, he secured the presence of two mediators/PW-3 & LW-9/Medipally Ramesh and when questioned the accused in their presence, as the accused confessed to have committed theft of MO-1 and concealed the same in his house , he recovered the

25-05-2015 JFCM, Armoor

CC.No: 246/2013 Page. 6

said motor cycle/MO-1 under a cover of Ex.P-3/Confession cum recovery panchanama and effected the arrest of the accused.

14.In the above circumstances, as per the version of the prosecution through the evidence of PW-5/Investigating Officer, as the accused aong with the MO-1/motor cycle was brought to the police station and handed over to him by PW-6 & LW-4/Gopal Muthyam Reddy, it is just and necessary to go through the evidence of PW-6 to come to a conclusion on this fact. Accordingly, the perusal of evidence of PW-6 goes to show that he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution by deposing that he does not know anything about this case and even does not know about the PW-1, LW-4/Gopal Muthyam Reddy and also the accused. In these circumstances, the evidence of PW-6 would no more helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the recovery of MO-1 from the possession of the accused. As such, it is just and necessary to see that how far the evidence of PW-3 & 5 is trustworthy and believable to come to a conclusion on this fact.

15.As stated supra, PW-3 deposed that on knowing that stolen away MO- 1 was found with the accused in Navipet village, himself and PW-1 went to the said village and apprehended the accused with the MO-1 near one

Petrol bunk. On the other hand, PW-1 did not depose that he along with the PW-3 caught hold the accused with the stolen away MO-1 near one

Petrol bunk in Navipet village. He further deposed that he came to know through the police only on 27-05-2013 that they caught hold the accused in Navipet village. Thus, his contrary evidence casts doubt to believe the evidence of PW-3. Moreover, as per the version of the prosecution, LW- 4/Muthyam Reddy and PW-1 and also PW-6 caught hold the accused near his house in Ilapur village in Nandipet mandal and handed over the

25-05-2015 JFCM, Armoor

CC.No: 246/2013 Page. 7

accused along with the MO-1 to the police. As this fact is not deposed by

PW-5 in his evidence, but deposed that on 27-05-2013 at about 8-00 p.m., LW-4/Gopal Muthyam Reddy and PW-6 brought the accused along with the MO-1 to their police station and handed over the same to him, I hold that the evidence of PW-5 also casts doubt to believe the same in the absence of any evidence from LW-4/Gopal Muthyam Reddy and the hostile evidence of PW-6. In these circumstances, as the PW-3 deposed in his evidence that he along with the PW-1 caught hold the accused in

Navipet village and handed over to the Balkonda police, I hold that the inconsistent evidence of PW-3 & 5 entitles the accused to get benefit of doubt in establishing the recovery of MO-1 from his possession in his house in Ilapur village of Nandipet mandal. Thus, though the prosecution could establish the theft of MO-1, it failed to establish the recovery of the same from the possession of the accused in pursuance of his confession, hence, accused is entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt.

In the result:- accused is found not guilty, hence, he is acquitted U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/sec. 380 or in the alternative 411 IPC. MO-1 is already given in interim custody to PW-1 vide Crl. M.P. No. 366 of 2013, dtd. 04-06-2013, hence, the same shall stand good after the appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancel after six months.

Typed on dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25 th day of May, 2015.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Armoor

25-05-2015 JFCM, Armoor

CC.No: 246/2013 Page. 8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENDCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:- FOR DEFENCE.

PW-1(LW-1): Gaddam Muthyam Reddy/defacto complainant --None-- PW-2(LW-6): Rampur Ganga Reddy/Panch for scene of offence panchanama PW-3(LW-8): Soma Linga Reddy/Panch for confession & recovery panchanama of accused. PW-4(LW-10): G. Shyam Sundar Rao/First Investigating Officer PW-5(LW-11): G. Amarnath/Investigating Officer and filed charge sheet PW-6(LW-5): Syed Sajid @ Sajju/Witness

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P-1:- Report given by PW-1.-NIL- Ex.P-2:- Scene of offence panchanama(CDF). Ex.P-3:- Confession panchanama of accused. Ex.P-4:- F.I.R. Ex.P-5:- Underlined portion of section 161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW-6.

Material Object

MO-1:Motor cycle bearing No. AP 25 AA 2292

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Armoor

25-05-2015 JFCM, Armoor

CC.No: 246/2013 Page. 9

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :AT: Armoor

C.C.NO. 246 of 2013

1. Date of offence: 09-05-2013

2. Date of report/complaint: 14-05-2013

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 27-05-2013

4. Date of commencement of trial : 5-08-2014

5. Date of closer of trial: 13-02-2015

6. Date of sentence/order: 25-05-2015

COMPLAINANT

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.: Balkonda

ACCUSED :Talveda Ajay Goud Offence U/s.: 380 IPC or in the alternative under section 411 IPC

Finding : Not guilty

Sentence/order : Acquittal

Judicial Magistrate of F.C.,

Armoor

To: The Hon’ble I Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Nizamabad

25-05-2015 JFCM, Armoor

CC. No. 366/2012Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS; AT:

ARMOOR

PRESENT:Sri.G.VENU, B.A., LL.M.,PGDCL & IPR,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.

TUESDAY THIS THE 26 th DAY OF MAY 2015

CALENDAR CASE NO. 366 OF 2012

(Crime No:76/2012)

Between: The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, Jakranpally … Complainant // And //

Bhukya Shanker @ Unni S/o: Ramdas, Age: 30 years, Caste: Lambada, R/o. Jakranpally thanda,

Jakranpally mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.....Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on this 26.5.2015 in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for the complainant and Sri.R.Suresh Kumar, counsel for accused and being stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of police, Jakranpally filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 353 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on13-07-2012 at about 7-30 p.m., when the PW-1 & 2 being the police constables of Jakranpally police station were on their duty in the said police station, PW-7/A.S.I of Police, Jakranpally being the Station House Officer received an information from 108 ambulance service that one tractor dashed to one motor cyclist near the

Jakranpally thanda. As such, on the instructions of PW-7, PW-1 & 2 went to the said place of offence and verified the same. As PW-3, 6 & 8 being the eye witnesses to the said incident informed to them that the said tractor went to Jakranpally thanda, PW-1 & 2 along with them went to the said

Jakranpally thanda and found the availability of one tractor having cage wheels with which the said accident took place. Accordingly, while they are

Dtd: 26-05-2015JFCM, Armoor

CC. No. 366/2012Page No.2

enquiring with regard to the said incident, accused came there and picked up a quarrel with them and also abused them in filthy language. He further assaulted them and thereby, obstructed them from discharging their official functions. Hence, on the strength of Ex.P.1/report given by PW-1, PW- 7/Investigating Officer registered it in Cr.No.76/2012 for an offence punishable U/sec.353 IPC and issued Ex.P-6/FIR and examined and recorded his statement and the statements of PW-2, 3, 6 & 8. Thereafter, he visited the place of offence and conducted the Ex.P-7/Scene of offense panchanama in the presence of PW-4 and 5. Thereafter, PW-9/Sub

Inspector of Police being taken over the CD file from him, effected the arrest of the accused on 16-07-2012 and after the completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused, hence, the charge.

3. This Court took cognizance of the case against the accused for an offence punishable under section 353 IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of

Cr.P.C. He is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.. A charge under section 353 IPC is framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in his language for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, to prove its case against the accused, prosecution in all examined the PW's.1 to 9 and got marked the Exs.P-1 to

Ex.P-7. After the closure of prosecution side evidence, accused is examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied

Dtd: 26-05-2015JFCM, Armoor

CC. No. 366/2012Page No.3

those circumstances as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for an offence

punishable under section 353 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT :-

8. As stated supra, in order to prove this point, prosecution initially relied upon the evidence of PW-1. He being the defacto complainant-cum-victim, testified the contents of Ex.P-1/report given by him to the Police. PW-2 being accompanied the PW-1 witnessed the alleged incident, hence, both of them deposed in one and the same lines that on 13-07-2012, while they were performing their duty in the Jakranpally police station at about 07-30 p.m., they received an information from 108 ambulance service that an accident occurred to a motorcyclist with a tractor near the Jakranpally thanda. As such, on the instructions of their ASI of Police, they went to the said place of offence. PW-3, 6 & 8 being present at the place of offence and also witnessed the said accident informed to them that the tractor which caused for the said accident to the motor cycle went towards the

Jakranpally thanda. Hence, both of them with the said eye witnesses went to the Jakranpally thanda and found the parking of said crime tractor near one house. Accordingly, while they are observing the said tractor, accused came there and abused them in filthy language and pushed them aside by saying that he would go to the Abroad within one week, hence, nothing would happen to him. Thus, as he obstructed them from discharging their official functions, they returned back to their police station and lodged Ex.P- 1/report at about 12-10 mid night in the intervening night of 13/14-07-2012.

Dtd: 26-05-2015JFCM, Armoor

CC. No. 366/2012Page No.4

As the remaining eye witnesses/PW-3, 6 & 8 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution by deposing that they do not know anything about this case and the police never examined them and recorded their statements, the Counsel for the accused would contend that in the absence of any material documentary evidence to say that the alleged accident took place, and that PW-1 & 2 had visited the said place of offence, the Court shall not rely upon their interested evidence to believe their evidence.

9. In the cross examination, PW-1 deposed that he does not know whether any

FIR was issued regarding the said accident, whereas the PW-2 deposed that an FIR with Crime No. 77 of 2012 was registered. Moreover, PW-7/A.S.I of

Police/1st Investigating officer failed to depose about the registering of such accident case. PW-9 who filed charge sheet deposed that no such accident case is registered. This contradictory & discrepant evidence goes to show as contended by the accused that as he failed to give proper reply to the

PW-1 & 2, he was falsely implicated in this case cannot be ruled out.

Admittedly, either the PW-7 or the PW-9 failed to collect any documentary evidence to ascertain that PW-1 & 2 are on duty at the time of this alleged incident and they visited the place of offence. In these circumstances, as there is no injury certificate to say that PW-1 & 2 were assaulted by the accused, more so, as the eye witnesses/ PW-3, 6 & 8 and even the mediators for scene of offence panchanama/PW-4 & 5 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution to believe the oral evidence of PW-1 & 2, the contention of the accused that a false case has been registered against him shall be accepted. Thus, accused is entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt for lack of evidence.

Dtd: 26-05-2015JFCM, Armoor

CC. No. 366/2012Page No.5

In the result:- Accused is found not guilty, hence, he is acquitted

U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for an offence punishable under section 353 IPC. His bail bonds shall stand cancel after the six months.

Typed on dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26 th day of May, 2015.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Armoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENDCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:- FOR DEFENCE.

PW-1(LW-1): G.Rajeshwar Reddy/Complainant/ Victim --None-- PW-2(LW-2): Y. Ashok/Eye Witness PW-3(LW-3): Ajmeera Gangadhar/Eye witness PW-4(LW-6): Malavath Ravi Singh/Panch for scene of offence PW-5(LW-7): Malavath Srinu/Panch for scene of offence PW-6(LW-5): Bhukya Sairam/Eye witness PW-7(LW-8): A. Jagadishwar Rao/1st Investigating Officer PW-8(LW-4): Ajmeera Shanker/Eye witness PW-9(LW-9): N. Ashok/Investigating Officer and filed charge sheet

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1:- Report given by PW-1 to the Police. -NIL- Ex.P-2:- Underlined portion of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.3. Ex.P-3:- Signature of PW-4 on Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P-4:- Signature of PW-5 on Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P-5:- Underlined portion of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW-6. Ex.P-6:- F.I.R. Ex.P-7:- Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-8:- Underlined portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-8.

Material Objects

-NIL-.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.

Dtd: 26-05-2015JFCM, Armoor

CC. No. 366/2012Page No.6

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :AT: ARMOOR

C.C.NO. 366 of 2012

1. Date of offence: 13-07-2012

2. Date of report/complaint: 14-07-2012

3. Date of apprehension of the accused: 16-07-2012

4. Date of commencement of trial: 05-11-2013

5. Date of closer of trial: 19-02-2015

6. Date of sentence/order: 26-05-2015

COMPLAINANT

The State of A.P. through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.: Jakranpally

ACCUSED : Bhukya Shanker @ Unni

Offence U/s.: 353 IPC

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence/order: Acquitted.

Judicial Magistrate of F.C.

Armoor

To The Hon’ble I Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Nizamabad

Dtd: 26-05-2015JFCM, Armoor