Sri Grandhi Srinivas

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Prl District Courts, Chittoor · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

Sri Grandhi Srinivas, III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, is posted at Prl District Courts, Chittoor, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,051 court orders on record since 2021. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, PRC, DVC cases.

2,051

Total Orders

Judgments

234

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/768/2021 Acquitted

The SHO, N.R.Pet,Andhra Pradesh vs A.Dinesh

11 Apr 2022

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

CHITTOOR.

PRESENT: Sri G.SRINIVAS III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th) day of April, Two thousand Twenty two.

CC.No.768 of 2021

(Cr.No.76/2020 of N.R.Pet Police Station)

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

N.R.Pet Police Station...Complainant.

And:

1. A. Dinesh, age 21 years, S/o C. Anandan, Appaiahgaripalli H.Wada, Chittoor rural mandal, Chittoor district.

2. A. CHnadrasekhar @ Sekhar, age 26 years, S/o Balakrishna, Bangareddypalli village, Chittoor rural mandal.

...Accused.

3. N. Reddybalajiraju, age 20 years, S/o. Late N. Subramanayam, D.No.001, Kollafaram village, Doddipalle Panchayath, Pileru Mandal, Chittoor District.

This case is coming before me on for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri M. Papaiah, Counsel for A1 to A3, upon hearing arguments of both sides, upon perusing the material on record and this matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, N.R.Pet Police Station filed charge sheet

before this Court against A1 to A3 in Cr.No.76 of 2020 of N.R.Pet Police Station

under section 379 of IPC and Secs.4&21(4) of MMDR Act. .

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that:

On 13.12.2020 at 2.30 PM, on receipt of credible information, LW7/SI of

Police along with LWs 1 to 5 went in a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No.AP09 PB 1217 and reached Thalambedu cross road, and conducted vehicle checking wherein noticed one tractor loaded with sand from Muthukuru side towards Chittoor, on

2

seeing police, A1 tried to skulk away from the spot but with the active assistance of

LWs 1 to 3, and 5 caught hold of him and enquired his whereabouts and bills pertaining to the transport of the sand in which A1 had admitted the guilt of the offence. Then, he arrested A1 and seized the tractor bearing No. AP04 BD 7506 and its trailer bearing No.AP03 U 132 loaded with sand under the cover of confession, arrest and seizure mahazarnama. Based on the police proceedings,

LW7 registered a case in Cr.No.76/2020 u/sec.379 IPC and Secs.4&21(4) of MMDR

Act and submitted copies of FIR to all the concerned officials. In the course of investigation, A2 surrendered in the PS and admitted that he is the owner of the said tractor and thereby LW7 arrested A2 on the same day at 5:20 PM and remanded A1 and A2 to judicial custody on 04.12.2020. Further on 19.12.2020, A3 came to the PS and voluntarily admitted that he is the registered owner of the tractor bearing No. AP04 BD 7506 and produced vehicle records of the same. After thorough verification of the records, LW7 served Sec.41-A CrPC notice to A3 on the same day. Further, on 10.02.2021, LW6/Mohan Reddy appeared before LW7 and produced the records of the crime vehicle i.e., trailer bearing No. AP03 U 132 and stated that he rented the same to A3 for Rs.130/- per day for agricultural purposes only on an oral agreement since 03.10.2020, but he has colluded with A1 and A2 and involved in the said crime without his notice. Thereby LW7 recorded the detailed statement of LW6 under sec.161(3) CrPC. On 07.03.2021, LW7 received proceedings from the Tahsildar,Chittoor and imposed a fine of Rs.2000/- vide ROC

No.A/APWALTA/101/2020, dated 06.03.2021. Thus, A1 to A3 committed offence under Sec.379 IPC and Secs.4&21(4) of MMDR Act. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. This court has taken cognizance against A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. On appearance of A1 to A3, copies of documents, on which, the prosecution intends to rely upon, were furnished to them as contemplated Under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

3

5. On further appearance of A1 to A3, they were examined under Sec:

239 Cr.P.C., for the accusation under section 379 of the Indian penal Code charge is framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu language and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined the P.Ws.1 to

P.W.4 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P3 were marked.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, A1 to A3 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining in Telugu, the incriminating evidence deposed against them by the prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Now the Point for determination is:Whether the prosecution has

proved its case against A1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the

offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code?

09.POINT:In this case, the prosecution has cited as many as seven witnesses, but examined only P.Ws.1 to 4, since other witnesses were given up by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

10.When the evidence of PW1 P.Mohan Babbu is perused he testified that on 3.12.2020 at about 2.30 pm on receipt of information one Gangaiah (LW3) collected the panchayatdar on the way and informed them for calling immediately they reached to Thalambedu cross, Chittoor and noticed one tractor with a load of sand and on seeing them the accused who is the driver of tractor tried to escape and then he along with staff caught hold of accused and on enquiry of PW4, A1 revealed his name and address and confessed about his guilt and also confessed about the owner and maintenance of vehicle are A2 and A3 and also not shown any license or permit to transport the sand and then he prepared mahazarnama and Ex.P1 is signature on mahazarnama.

11.When the evidence of PW2 T.Babu is perused, he testified that on

4

3.2.2020 at about 2.00 pm on the request of police he accompanied PW4 and reached Thalambedu cross and noticed one tractor bearing No.AP 04 BD 7506 and trailer No.AP 03 U 132 with a load of sand and on seeing them the accused being the driver of accused tried to escape and then they caught hold of him and on enquiry he revealed his name and address and confessed about the commission of offence and also not shown any valid permit or license aand then PW4 prepared

Ex.P2 mahazarnama.

12.When the evidence of PW3 K.Mohan Reddy is perused, he testified that have a trailer bearing No.AP03 U 132 and one year ago he have given his trailer to one Reddi Balaji for the purpose of transporting the urea and as he has no other alternate and on humanitarian ground he have given his trailer. In the year 2021 police informed him that this trailer was involved in an offence of illegal transport of sand and also informed him to take the trailer through court and accordingly he received his trailer from court for interim custody.

13.When the evidence of PW4 M.Anil Kumar the then Sub Inspector of

Police, NR Pet Police Station is perused he testified that on 3.12.2020 at about 2.30 pm on receipt of information he along with mahazardars, staff and mediators reached to a bridge near to Thalambedu cross and there they noticed one tractor bearing No.AP 04 BD 7506 and its trailer NoAP 03 U 132 with a load of sand proceeding towards Chittoor and on seeing them the accused being the drier of accused tried to escape and on suspicion he with the assistance of staff caught hold of accused and on enquiry he revealed his name and address and also confessed about his guilt in commission of offence and also not shown any permit or license. Accused further confessed that on the instructions of A2, he is transporting the and. Then he prepared Ex.P2 confession, arrest and seizuare mahazarnama and obtained the signatures of mediators and accused. Basing on

Ex.P2 he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.76 of 2020 and issued Ex.P3 first information report and then A1 and A2 remanded to judicial custody and then he served Sec.41(a) Cr.P.C. notice to A3 and later he filed charge sheet against the

5

accused.

14.During the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, PW1 stated that he did not enquiry pertaining to from whom where the accused loaded the sand they have not verified whether A1 is having driving license or not at the time of raid. They did not investigate whether A2 is acting owner of crime vehicle or not except confession of A1. Whereas PW2 stated that he did not receive written summons from PW4 to act as mediator and he has given evidence on behalf of NR

Pet police in four cases as mediator and the scene of offence is a busy locality he do not know who scribed Ex.P1 and he along with other person signed on Ex.P2 at police station. PW4 stated that the scene of offence is a busy locality and he did not mention about the engine number or chasis number in Ex.P2 and he did not prepare rough sketch of the scene of offence.

15.The prosecution not secured any independent witnesses either at the scene of offence during arrest of accused or seizure of property though it is a busy locality. PW2 who is mediator accompanied PW4 on the phone call from Police and previously he gave evidence in four cases and hence this witness may be treated as stock witnesses to the prosecution. On observation, some latches had been found in the investigation made. The testimony of the police witnesses without corroboration from independent witnesses and non explanation as to non securing of independent witness in this case can be invariably treated as failure on the part of the investigation. The essential ingredients as mentioned in the provisions under which the accused had been charged are not at all established in the case.

Therefore the reasons no adverse inference can be taken against the accused.

16.Apart from the above material latches, most important aspect is that confession before the police officer is inadmissible. In this case, the entire evidence of PW.4 is based on the voluntary statement of accused which is hit by Sec.25 of

Indian Evidence Act since the confession of any accused person before police personnel is inadmissible while in police custody as per Section 26 of Indian

6

Evidence Act. The prosecution did not secure any independent witnesses, such as arrest and seizure of property from the accused is in contravention of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. Prosecution utterly failed to discharge the burden lies upon by producing the relevant, cogent and substantive piece of evidence. Therefore, it is clear that the case is lack of evidence to convict the accused and prosecution had not succeeded in proving the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

17. In the result, I find A1 to A3 not guilty for the offence U/Sec.379 of IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked property which was already given to the owner of the property during the pendency of trial shall holds good.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 11 th day of April, 2022.

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution: P.W.1P. Mohan Babu P.W.2T. Babu P.W.3K. Mohan Reddy P.W.4M. Anil Kumar

Witnesses examined on behalf of defence: Nil

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution:

Ex.P.1Signature on mahazarnama

Ex.P.2Mahazarnama

Ex.P.3First-hand Information Report in Cr.No.76/2020 u/sec.379 IPC and Sec.4&21(4) of MMDR Act at N.R.Pet PS

7

Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:

Nil

Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution: Nil.

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Chittoor.

8

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

CHITTOOR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C. No.768 of 2021

Date of offence03.12.2020 Date of filing03.12.2020 Date of taken of file30.04.2021 Date of apprehension (appearance)09.12.2021 Date of commencement of trial 06.01.2022 Date of close of trial 06.04.2022 Date of Judgment11.04.2022 ComplainantThe State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, N.R.Pet Police Station (Cr.No.76 of 2020)

Name of the Father nameAge Calling ReligionResidenceMandal accused

1. A. Dinesh, age 21 years, S/o C. Anandan, Appaiahgaripalli H.Wada, Chittoor rural mandal, Chittoor district.

2. A. CHnadrasekhar @ Sekhar, age 26 years, S/o Balakrishna, Bangareddypalli village, Chittoor rural mandal.

3. N. Reddybalajiraju, age 20 years, S/o. Late N. Subramanayam, D.No.001, Kollafaram village, Doddipalle Panchayath, Pileru Mandal, Chittoor District.

Nature of offenceunder Section 379 of IPC Plea of the accused Not guilty FindingNot guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, I find A1 to A3 not guilty for the offence U/Sec.379 of IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked property which was already given to the owner of the property during the pendency of trial shall holds good.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor. Copy to The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor.

CC/836/2021 Acquitted

Sub inspector of Police G.D Nellore P.S,Andhra Pradesh vs A1. G. Babu

11 Apr 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

CHITTOOR.

PRESENT: Sri G.SRINIVAS III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th ) day of April, Two thousand Twenty two.

CC.No.836 of 2021

(Cr.No.125/2020 of G.D.Nellore Police Station)

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

G.D.Nellore Police Station...Complainant.

And:

1. G. Babu, age 19 years, S/o G.Venkatesulu Reddy, Battujanganapalli, H/o Balaganganapalli, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. K. Hemadri, age 32 years, S/o.Krishnaiah, Krishnaiah, Mitta Kothur ST colony, H/o Pathapalyam, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

3. G.Naveen, age 20 years, S/o. G. Surendra Reddy, Govindareddipalli, H/o. Vepanjeri, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

4. Naguru Venkatesh Reddy, age 33 years, S/o. N.Subramanyam Reddy, D.No.09-26, Battujanganapalli village, Vinjam Panchayat,G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

5. Babu@ SU Nagabusanam, age 37 years, S/o. P. Subramanyam Modaliar, Mitta Kothur village, Pathapalem Panchayath, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

6. G.Vasudeva Reddy, age 59 years, S/o. G. Rami Reddy, D.No.5-12, Govindareddypalli village, Vepanjeri panchayath, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District. 7.Surendra Reddy, age 47 years, S/o. G.Vasudeva Reddy, E Govindareddypalli village, Vepanjeri panchayath, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

8.GachalaRavindra,age40years,S/o. G.Venkataswamy,D.No.2-504, Achari street, Kongareddypalli,

...Accused.

Chittoor Mandal & District.

This case is coming before me on 08.04.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri C. Bhanusekhar Reddy and Smt.Gomathi, Counsels for A1 to A8, upon hearing arguments of both sides, upon perusing the material on record and this matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, G.D.Nellore Police Station filed charge sheet

before this Court against A1 to A8 in Cr.No.125 of 2020 of G.D.Nellore Police

Station under sections 468, 471, 120(B), 409, 379 read with 34 IPC and Secs.4 & 21(4) of MMDR Act.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that:

On 26.05.2020 at 11.00 AM at Yellapali sand reach cross road, GD Nellore

Mandal, wherein A1 to A3 committed theft of sand while transporting the same through three tractors and trailers bearing Nos. 1. Tractor bearing No.AP03 TD 8815 and trailer bearing No.AP03 TL 2983, 2. Tractor bearing No. AP 03 AX 5766 and trailer bearing No. AP03 AX 5749 and 3. Tractor bearing No.AP03 AA 9096 and trailer bearing No. AP03 AA 9097 by usage of forged bills and cheated the

Government with the support of A4 to A8. Thereby, A1 to A3 got arrested and seized 3 sand loaded tractors and its trailers under a cover of mahazarnama.

Based on the said arrest and seizure mahazarnama dated 26.05.2020 at 11.00 AM,

LW7/Former SI of Police registered a case in Cr.No.125/2020 u/secs. 468, 471, 120(B), 409, 379 read with 34 IPC and Secs.4 & 21(4) of MMDR Act at G.D.Nellore

PS. Then, LW6/Tahsildar, G.D.Nellore imposed fines on three sand tractors. Further,

A1 to A3 who were arrested on 26.05.2020 at 2.45 PM were remanded to judicial custody. Then, LW7 served notices u/sec.41-A CrPC to A4 to A8. Thus, it is clearly established that A1 to A8 have committed offences u/secs. 468, 471, 120(B), 409, 379 read with 34 IPC and Secs.4 & 21(4) of MMDR Act. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. This court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 468, 471, 120(B), 409, 379 read with 34 IPC.

4. On appearance of A1 to A8, copies of documents, on which, the prosecution intends to rely upon, were furnished to them as contemplated Under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. On further appearance of A1 to A8, they are examined under Sec:

239 Cr.P.C., for the accusation under sections 468, 471, 120(B), 409, 379 read with 34 IPC charge is framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu language and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined the P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, A1 to A8 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining in Telugu, the incriminating evidence deposed against them by the prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Now the Point for determination is:Whether the prosecution has

proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the

offence under sections 468, 471, 120(B), 409, 379 read with 34 of the

Indian Penal Code?

09.POINT:In this case, the prosecution has cited as many as eight witnesses, but examined only P.Ws.1 to 4, since other witnesses were given up by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

10.When the evidence of PW1 Prahu John is perused, he deposed that on 26.5.2020 at bout 10.30 am on receipt of information y PW4 immediately he along with staff and panchayatdars reached Yellapalli rach, Thugundram post,

G.D.Nellore Mandal and there they noticed three tractors with a load of sand on seeing them the accused who is driver of tractor tried to escape and then they caught hold of accused.

11.When the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 B.Sireesha and B.Asirvadam is perused, they testified that in the yeat 2020 on one day on the request of police officials they went to police station and on their request they signed on some white papersut they do not know its contents. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are the signatures of

PWs.1 and 2. At this stage the learned Assistant Pulic Prosecutor declared PWs.2 and 3 as hostile with the permission of the court though they were cross examined nothing was elicited from their evidence.

12.When the evidence of PW4 the then Sub Inspector of Police,

G.D.Nellore is perused, he deposed that on receipt of information immediately he along with staff reached Yellapalle sand reach by securing the mddiators and noticed three tractors and trailors i.e. (1) AP 03 TD 8815 and its trailer No.AP 03 TD 2983 (2) AP 03 AX 5766 and its trailer No.AP 03 AX 5749 and (3) AP 03 AA 9096 and its trailer No.AP 03 AA 9097 with load of sand along with drivers and owners of tractors and on enquiry they revealed their names and address particulars and confessed their guilt and on enquiry they confessed about their commission of offence without any permit or license of transporting of sand and then he prepared

Ex.P3 mahazarama. Basing on mahazarnama he registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.125 of 2020 and issued Ex.P4 first information report and later he handed over the file to LW8-Sub Inspector of Police and after completion of investigation and the Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

13.During the cross examination of prosecution witnesses, PW1 stated that they reached the reach for about half an hour, he do not know about the extent of reach. Except handing over the tractors and drivers, he do not know anything about this case. whereas PW4 stated that he did not secure any inhabitants of scene of offence and some people were gathered and also PWs.1 and 4 denied the several suggestions which were posed by the learned defence counsel. The prosecution failed to prove that accused committed forgery of bills and used it as a genuine document with criminal conspiracy to commit an offence and entrusted with the property i.e. sand in the capacity of public servant or in the way of his business. Here in this case, there is no discussion anywhere in the evidence about the offences U/Sec.468, 471, 120(B) 409 r/w 34 IPC except only about Sec.379 of IPC except in the charge sheet. The prosecution had not examined the evidence of LW6 who is Tahsildar of G.D.Nellore mandal who imposed fine of Rs.9000/- through challan on the sand by three tractors produced by PW4 and also not examined the Investigating Officer and filed charge sheet against the accused and did not secure any independent witnesses either at the scene of offence during arrest of accused or seizure of property though PW4 admitted in his cross examination about the gathering of public. The investigating officer not seized any papers regarding to ownership of crime vehicles and also not produced any photographs regarding the scene of offence and the quantity of sand seized from the tractors. On observation, some latches had been found in the investigation made. The testimony of the police witnesses without corroboration from independent witnesses and non explanation as to non securing of independent witness in this case can be invariably treated as failure on the part of the investigation. The essential ingredients as mentioned in the provisions under which the accused had been charged are not at all established in the case.

Therefore the reasons no adverse inference can be taken against the accused.

14.Apart from the above material latches, most important aspect is that confession before the police officer is inadmissible. In this case, the entire evidence of PW.4 is based on the voluntary statement of accused which is hit by Sec.25 of

Indian Evidence Act since the confession of any accused person before police personnel is inadmissible while in police custody as per Section 26 of Indian

15. In the result, I find A1 to A8 not guilty for the offence under Secs. 468, 471, 120(B), 409, 379 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of

Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of A1 to A8 shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked property which was already given to the owner of the property during the pendency of trial shall holds good.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 11 th day of April, 2022.

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:

P.W.1Prabhu Johan P.W.2B. Sireesha P.W.3B. Asirvadham P.W.4B. Madhusudhan Rao

Witnesses examined on behalf of defence: Nil

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution:

Ex.P.1Signature of PW2 on Mahazar Ex.P.2Signature of PW3 on Mahazar Ex.P.3Mahazarnama Ex.P.4First-hand Information Report in Cr.No.125/2020 u/secs. 468, 471, 120(B), 409, 379 r/w 34 IPC at G.D.Nellore PS

Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:

Nil

Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution: Nil.

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Chittoor.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

CHITTOOR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C. No.836 of 2021

Date of offence26.05.2020 Date of filing26.05.2020 Date of taken of file15.05.2021 Date of apprehension (appearance)29.11.2021 Date of commencement of trial 10.01.2022 Date of close of trial 08.04.2022 Date of Judgment11.04.2022 ComplainantThe State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, G.D.Nellore Police Station (Cr.No.125 of 2020)

Name of the Father nameAge Calling ReligionResidenceMandal accused

1. G. Babu, age 19 years, S/o G.Venkatesulu Reddy, Battujanganapalli, H/o Balaganganapalli, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. K. Hemadri, age 32 years, S/o.Krishnaiah, Krishnaiah, Mitta Kothur ST colony, H/o Pathapalyam, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

3. G.Naveen, age 20 years, S/o. G. Surendra Reddy, Govindareddipalli, H/o. Vepanjeri, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

4. Naguru Venkatesh Reddy, age 33 years, S/o. N.Subramanyam Reddy, D.No.09-26, Battujanganapalli village, Vinjam Panchayat,G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

5. Babu@ SU Nagabusanam, age 37 years, S/o. P. Subramanyam Modaliar, Mitta Kothur village, Pathapalem Panchayath, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

8. Gachala Ravindra, age 40 years, S/o. G.Venkataswamy,D.No.2-504, Achari street, Kongareddypalli, Chittoor Mandal & District.

Nature of offenceunder Sections 468, 471, 120(B), 409, 379 r/w 34 IPC r/w 34 of IPC

Plea of the accusedNot guilty Finding of the courtNot guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, I find A1 to A8 not guilty for the offence under Secs. 468, 471, 120(B), 409, 379 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal

Procedure Code. The bail bonds of A1 to A8 shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked property which was already given to the owner of the property during the pendency of trial shall holds good.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor. Copy to

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor.

CC/300185/2018 Acquitted

SI of police CHIttoor Taluk PS vs P.Victor Nair

13 Apr 2022

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

CHITTOOR.

PRESENT: Sri G.SRINIVAS III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

Wednesday, this the Thirteenth (13th) day of April, Two thousand Twenty two.

CC.No.185 of 2018

(Cr.No.34/2018 of Chittoor Taluk Police Station)

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Chittoor Taluk Police Station...Complainant.

And:

P. Victor Nair, aged 21 years, S/o. S. Pushkaran Nair, Austinabad, Prothrapur, Victor Store, Near Mariamman Temple Village, Erlabad Police Station, Port-Blair, Andaman and

Nicobar Island....Accused.

This case is coming before me on 08.04.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri P.V.Guneswaran and T.Mohan, Counsels for accused, upon hearing arguments of both sides, upon perusing the material on record and this matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chittoor Taluk Police Station filed charge sheet before this Court against the accused in Cr.No.34 of 2018 of Chittoor Taluk

Police Station under section 304-A IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) of MV Act.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that:

On 18.05.2018, the complainant by name A.Narasimha Rao(LW1) unloaded a cattle feed at Gudiyatham of Tamil Nadu along with the deceased by name Avula

Gopi and parked the lorry near to one Indian Oil Petrol Bunk, Murukambattu,

Chittoor and at about 10.00 PM, when the deceased was crossing road to a tea stall in front of Apollo Medical College, wherein accused drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased resulting which he was unconscious and sustained injuries on his head, left hand and left leg and got shifted to the Government Hospital, Chittoor by LW1 and was further shifted to

CMC Hospital, Vellore for better treatment. Based on the complaint of LW1, a case was registered in Cr.No.34/2018 u/sec.337 IPC at Chittoor Taluk PS on 19.05.2018

2

by LW13/ASI and submitted copies of FIR to all the concerned officials. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of 6 witnesses vide CD Part-II and visited the scene of the offence and drafted the rough sketch of the same, seized no incriminating material at the scene of the offence and thereafter served

Sec.41-A CrPC notice to accused and obtained two sureties for the bail of the accused and then the accused produced the records of the said crime vehicle i.e.,

Registration Certificate of the crime vehicle-KTM/RC 200 BS III Motorcycle bearing

No.TN14C9975, Insurance and Driving License of the accused, and the same was released to the concerned authority under a proper acknowledgment. Further, on 28.05.2018 at 2.00 PM, while he was present n the PS, he received a death intimation about the deceased Gopi as he was succumbed to death on 28.05.2018 at 10.25 AM while undergoing treatment and based on the death intimation of the deceased, LW13 has altered the section of law from Sec.337 IPC to Sec.304-A IPC and submitted altered copies of FIR to the concerned officials. In the course of further investigation, on 29.05.2018, he visited the Medical College, Guntur and taken the dead body of the deceased with the permission of the Professor to mortuary room of General Hospital, Guntur and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Then LW11/Dr.A.Ramesh Babu who conducted PM

Examination over the dead body and issued report to that effect in which he opined that the deceased would appear to died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. Further, LW12/MVI, who inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident is not happened due to any prior mechanical defects of the vehicle, then, LW14/SI of Police verified the investigation of LW13 and found it to be on correct lines and further laid charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. This court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under section 304-A IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) of MV Act.

4. On the further appearance of the accused, copies of documents, on which, the prosecution intends to rely upon, were furnished to him as contemplated Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the substance of the accusation for the offences punishable u/sec.

3

304-A IPC and Sec.134(a) and (b) of MV Act against the accused, in Telugu, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined the P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P5 was marked.

7.Since, the witnesses are declared hostile and there is no incriminating material available against the accused, Sec.313 CrPC is dispensed with.

8. Now the Point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has

proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the

offence under section 304-A IPC and Sec.134(a) and (b) of MV Act?

09.POINT:In this case, the prosecution has cited as many as fourteen witnesses, but examined only P.Ws.1 to4, since other witnesses were given up by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

10.When the evidence of PW1 A.narasimha Rao is perused, he testified that about four years back on one day he along with the deceased were coming to

Chittoor with a load of cattle near Apollo Medical College near Murakambattu while the deceased crossing the road for his natural calls, one two wheeler hit to the deceased due to which he sustained bleeding injuries, and the he was shifted to

Government Hospital, Chittoor for treatment and on the advise of the doctors, they shifted the injured to CMC Hospital, Vellore for better treatment and then they shifted to Government Hospital, Guntur as they are native of Guntur district and subsequently, he was succumbed to injuries and he do not know who is responsible for accident and he was in Hospital and police obtained his signature on some written papers but he do not know its contents. Ex.P1 is the signature on report.

11.When the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 viz., Swarajyam and D.Srinivasa

Rao is perused, they testified that they do not know anything about the facts of this case and they do not know how the accident was occurred and police never examined him and recorded her statements. At this stage the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor declared PWs.1 to 3 as hostile with the permission of the court as they resiled from their earlier versions. They were cross examined by the learned

4

Assistant Public Prosecutor but nothing was elicited from their evidence except their Ex.P2 Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1, Ex.P3 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of

PW2 and Ex.P4 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

12.When the evidence of PW4 S.K.Nagulu is perused, he testified that about four years back on one day while he was in his house, he received a phone call from his friend that his son died in an accident and police conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased Gopi in his presence and he signed on Ex.P5 inquest report.

13.The prosecution not examined the eye witnesses to the incident, the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased, the motor vehicle inspector who inspected the vehicle, who registered, investigated and served

Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice and also not examined who laid charge sheet by the prosecution. No one entered into the witness box and gave evidence regarding the manner of accident and other things. No official witnesses were examined by the police. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor endorsed in the memo of evidence that matter is settled out of court, material witnesses turned hostile and hence she has given up the evidences of all other witnesses.

14.In the overall gist of the oral and documentary evidences I am of the opinion that there is no correlation among the prosecution witnesses in regard to the identity of the accused and driving of the crime vehicle in a rashness and negligent manner and accused had not given first aid to the deceased and not intimated the same to the nearest police station. the scene of offence is a busy locality and number of vehicles ply over it but the prosecution not secured the independent witness. The mateiral witnesses who is said to be eye witness PW2 and 3 are not eye witnesses to the incident but they are only hear say witnesses.

Hence, the reasons no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused as to commission of offence. Prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Mere presumptions not assumptions are not sufficient to convict the accused. In view of the above discussed evidence placed before the court it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the present case is fit for acquittal. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

5

15. In the result, I found accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.304-A IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) of MV Act and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 13 th day of April, 2022.

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution: P.W.1A. Narasimha Rao P.W.2Swarajyam P.W.3D. Srinivasa Rao P.W.4S.K.Nagulu

Witnesses examined on behalf of defence: Nil

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution:

Ex.P.1Signature of PW1 on Report Ex.P.2Statement u/sec.161(3) CrPC of PW1 Ex.P.3Statement u/sec.161(3) CrPC of PW2 Ex.P.4Statement u/sec.161(3) CrPC of PW3 Ex.P.5Inquest Report

Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:

Nil

Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution: Nil.

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Chittoor.

6

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

CHITTOOR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C. No.185 of 2018

Date of offence18.05.2018 Date of filing19.05.2018 Date of taken of file11.06.2018 Date of apprehension (appearance)28.08.2018 Date of commencement of trial 08.04.2022 Date of close of trial 08.04.2022 Date of Judgment13.04.2022 ComplainantThe State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station (Cr.No.34 of 2018)

Name of the Father nameAge Calling ReligionResidenceMandal accused P. Victor Nair, aged 21 years, S/o. S. Pushkaran Nair, Austinabad, Prothrapur, Victor Store, Near Mariamman Temple Village, Erlabad Police Station, Port-Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Island.

Nature of offenceunder Section 304-A IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) of MV Act. Plea of the accusedNot guilty Finding of the courtNot guilty Sentence or order:In the result, I found accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.304-A IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) of MV Act and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor.

Copy To: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor.

CC/300221/2017 Acquitted

SI Of policed Penumur PS vs M.Mallikarjuna Reddy

12 Apr 2022

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

CHITTOOR.

PRESENT: Sri G.SRINIVAS III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

Tuesday, this the Twelfth (12th) day of April, Two thousand Twenty two.

CC.No.221 of 2017

(Cr.No.23/2017 of Penumur Police Station)

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Penumur Police Station....Complainant.

And:

1. M. Mallikarjuna Reddy, aged 49 years, S/o. M. Chinnayulu Reddy, Gudyanampalli village, Penumuru Mandal.

2. P. Jayaram Reddy, aged 76 years, S/o. Chengal Reddy, Gudyanampalli village, Penumuru Mandal.

3. P. Ramesh Reddy, aged 36 years, S/o. P. Jayaram Reddy, Gudyanampalli village, Penumuru Mandal.

4. M. Jagannadha Reddy, aged 66 years, S/o. Munirathnam Reddy, Gudyanampalli village, Penumuru Mandal.

5. M. Sridhar Reddy, aged 35 years, S/o. K. Munaswamy Reddy, Gudyanampalli village, Penumuru Mandal.

6. M. Krishna Reddy, aged 66 years, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, Gudyanampalli village, Penumuru Mandal.

7. N.Bhaskar Reddy, age 43 years, S/o. Arunachalam Reddy, Kandriga village, Gudyanampalli Post, Penumuru Mandal.

8. K. Subramanyam Mandadi, age 47 years, S/o. K. Anji Mandadi, Singamvandlavuru village, Pulikalu Panchayath, Penumuru Mandal.

9. K. Prasad Babu @ K. Prasad, age 28 years, S/o. Subramanyam, Godugumanupalli village, Penumuru Mandal.

… Accused.

This case is coming before me on 08.04.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri C.K.Raghu Counsel for A1 to A9, upon hearing arguments of both sides, upon perusing the material on record and this matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Penumur Police Station filed charge sheet

before this Court against the accused in Cr.No.23 of 2017 of Penumur Police

Station under sections 143,353 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code.

2

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that:

On 17.05.2017 at about 8.45 AM at Gudyanampalli village of Penumur

Mandal, on receipt of a call from Dial-100, Chittoor wherein LW1/Head Constable along with LW2/Police Constable went to the above-said place to enquire about the issue of mangoes between LW3/Mohan Reddy and his brother i.e., A1, wherein

A1 to A7 formed into an unlawful assembly, pushed down LW1 and taken away the tractor bearing No.AP03 P 3063 along with the mangoes from the mango tress that are situated in the disputed land and caused obstruction to LW1 and LW2 while discharging their legitimate duties. Based on the special report of LW1, a case was registered in Cr.No.23/2017 u/secs.353, 143 read with 149 IPC at Penumur PS by

LW4/SI of Police. Further, on the same day, he has examined Lws 1 to 3 and recorded their detailed statements u/sec.161(3) CrPC and visited the scene of the offence and drafted the rough sketch of the same. Based on the statement of eye witness i.e., LW3, LW4 has added the names of A8 and A9. Then on 06.06.2017, A8 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and on 08.07.2017, A9 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. During the course of investigation, A1 to A7 were surrendered before the Hon’ble III AJFCM, Chittoor and released on bail vide CrlMP.No.1309/2017 on the file of Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor. It is prima facie established that A1 to A9 have committed offences under

Secs.143,353 read with 149 IPC. Hence, the Charge sheet.

3. This court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 143,353 read with 149 of IPC.

4. On appearance of the A1 to A9, copies of documents, were furnished to them as contemplated Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. A1 to A9 were examined under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure

Code by explaining the substance of the accusation for the offences punishable under section 143,353 read with 149 of IPC, in Telugu, for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

3

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined the P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A9 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in question form in Telugu, deposed for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.

9. Now the Point arouse for determination is: Whether the prosecution is

able to bring home the guilt of A1 to A9 u/secs. 143,353 read with 149 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:In this case the prosecution has cited as many as 4 witnesses but examined only P.Ws 1 and 2 since the other two witnesses were given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

11. When the evidence of PW1 A.G.Vadivelu is perused, he testified that on 17.5.2017 at about 7.45 am on receipt of call from dial 100 he along with staff reached Gudiyanampalle village and found tractor loaded with mangoes and also some public were gathered and on en enquiry he found PW2 informed through dial 100 and on enquiry about the reason for galata some persons formed into an unlawful assembly and pushed him on his back side and then they took away the tractor with load of mangoes on that they all obstructed his legitimate duties. They also kept his motor cycle by the side of road and he lodged Ex.P1 report in the police station. In his cross examination he admitted that basing on the information through dial 100 he did not register as a crime and prior to incident he never visited the scene of offence and he have no acquaintance with A1 to A9 he do not know whether PW2 is running the wine shop at Penumur or not. He stayed for half an hour at the scene of offence and reached the police station and on the same day at 3.00 pm, he gave report and he have not mentioned but he have not mentioned the reasons for delay for giving complaint.

4

12.The last evidence let in by the prosecution is that of PW2 Mohan

Reddy is perused, he testified that he have civil disputes with accused with regard to mango garden and at about six years back, on one day accused cut the mangoes and loaded the same into a tractor and they tried to carry said mangoes and on that he called to dial 100 and informed the same and later none were come to the scene of offence in his presence and he do not know what happened later.

At this stage the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared PW1 as hostile with the permission of the court and he was cross examined by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor but nothing was elicited from the cross examination of this witness except his Sec.161 Cr.P.c. examination which was marked as Ex.P2.

13.The PW2 who is material witness to this case and who gave information through dial 100 to police turned hostile and hence his evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution. PW2 who reached the scene of offence and find out that PW2 called him through dial 100 and gave information to him and known the reason for galata at that time many other persons were also present at the scene of offence. But the prosecution did not secure any of the independent witness. In this case, only the complainant-A.G.Vadivelu/LW1/PW1 and M.Mohan

Reddy/PW2 was examined. but no official witnesses were examined, even who investigating officer was not examined by the prosecution. No person identified and gave evidence that A1 to A9 formed into an unlawfully assembly and pushed down the complainant and taken away the tractor bearing No.AP03 P 3063 along with mangoes which was taken from the mango trees situated in disputed land.

Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt against the accused for the offence

U/secs.143, 353 r/w 149 IPC. Therefore, it is clear that the case is lack of evidence to convict the accused and prosecution had not succeeded in proving the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the sole evidence of P.W.1 is unsafe to base conviction on accused. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

14. In the result, A1 to A9 are found not guilty for the offence punishable

under Sections 143, 353 read with 149 of IPC and they are acquitted under

5

Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of the A1 to A9 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 11 th day of April 2022.

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution: P.W.1A.G. Vadivelu P.W.2Mohan Reddy

Witnesses examined on behalf of defence: Nil

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution:

Ex.P.1Report of PW1 Ex.P.2Statement of Section 161(3) CrPC of PW2

Exhibits marked on behalf of defence: Nil.

Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution: Nil.

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Chittoor.

6

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: CHITTOOR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C. No.221 of 2017

Date of offence17.05.2017 Date of filing17.05.2017 Date of taken of file19.07.2017 Date of apprehension (appearance)10.09.2018 Date of commencement of trial 06.04.2022 Date of close of trial 08.04.2022 Date of Judgment12.04.2022 ComplainantThe State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Penumur Police Station (Cr.No.23/2017)