XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri J.V.V. Satyanarayana Murthy,
XII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle
Saturday, this 30th day of May, 2020
CALENDAR CASE NO.972/2019
Between:
State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police Station.
…Complainant
And:
Rallapalli Ayyappa, S/o Ganesh, Aged 23 years, K. Velama by caste, R/o Mogalipuram village, Sabbavaram Mandal.
…Accused
This case is coming before me on 28-05-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II for the prosecution; and of Sri S. Srinivas, Learned counsel for accused; and after having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
01.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 338 IPC in Crime No.222/2019 alleging as follows.
02.On 05-05-2019 at about 7.30 p.m, the accused being the driver of Scorpio bearing No. AP 05 AS 0007 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed while proceeding from Gullepalli village dashed against opposite coming auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 31
TW 7302 and further dashed the deceased by name Rongali
Demudamma who was present near water bore located at the right side of the road. As a result, the deceased and the inmate of the auto
Page 1
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019 rickshaw i.e., P.W.2 sustained grievous injuries on their person. While shifting the deceased to KGH, Visakhapatnam, she succumbed to injuries. Basing on the report given by P.W.1, P.W.12 registered a case, investigated into the case. Further he visited the scene of offence, examined the scene, prepared rough sketch, drafted scene observation reports. He also held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the deceased to postmortem examination, examined witnesses and recorded their statements. On 01-07-2019 he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After receipt of wound certificate of L.W.2/Bokam
Appalanaidu, postmortem certificate of deceased, M.V.I report and upon completion of investigation, L.W.16/R.V.V.S.S.Ch. Sekhara Rao, Inspector of Police filed charge sheet.
03.Cognizance of the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 of
IPC was taken.
04. Copies of records were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
05.When examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied the substance of accusation. On hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the particulars under Sections 304-A and 338 of
IPC were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language, for which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.
06.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution got examined PW.1 to P.W.12 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.18. The learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of L.W.11/Dr. N.
Devchand, L.W.12/Dr. K. Raja Sagar, L.W.15/M. Srinivasa Rao, Sub
Inspector of Police and L.W.16/R.V.V.S.S. Ch. Sekhara Rao, Inspector of
Police.
Page 2
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019
07.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material against him, for which he denied. He did not adduce any evidence on his behalf. However, Ex.D.1 and D.2 were marked through the cross examination of P.W.1.
08.Instead of oral arguments, the learned counsel for the accused as well as the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for state filed their written arguments.
09.As per the written arguments submitted by the Learned Asst.
Public Prosecutor, she specifically noted down in the written arguments that the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to
P.W.12 and out of them, P.W.1 to P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.8 supported the case of prosecution and corroborated each and every aspect. She further noted down in her written arguments apart from the testimony of the above said witnesses, the Motor Vehicle Inspector (P.W.11) and the
Investigating Officer (P.W.12) stated about their part of investigation and considering their evidence by leaving aside of the evidence of hostile witnesses, the accused may be convicted for the offences u/secs.338 and 304-A IPC.
10.The learned counsel for the accused submitted in his written arguments that there were contradictions and improvements in the evidence of material witnesses and apart from that he submitted though the witnesses are hear say witnesses but they deposed before this court as if they witnessed the incident and that itself is contradictory to the case of prosecution. He further mentioned in his written arguments that the crucial witnesses I.e, P.W.4, P.W.6 and P.W.7 turned hostile. He further submitted in his written arguments that the prosecution has to prove its
Page 3
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019 case beyond reasonable doubt but in this case the prosecution did not place any material to prove its case and thus, the accused may be acquitted.
11. The points for determination are:-
1) Whether the deceased Rongali Demudamma died in a road accident ?
2) Whether P.W.4 sustained grievous injury in a road accident ?
3) Whether the accused being the driver of Scorpio car bearing registration No. AP 05AS 0007 drove it in a rash or negligent manner, caused the death of deceased Demudamma and caused grievous injury to
P.W.4 ?
4) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 304-A and 338 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?
12. POINT NO.1:
In order to establish the death of the deceased Demudamma in a road accident, the prosecution let in oral testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.3,
P.W.5 and P.W.8. Out of them, P.W.1 is the son of the deceased as well as
Defacto Complainant in this case. As per his evidence, on 05-05-2019 at about 7.15 p.m, or 7.30 p.m, opposite to their house while his mother was taking water from public tap, one Scorpio vehicle came from
Gullepalli village at speed and dashed one auto and without controlling the vehicle, proceeded and dashed his mother. Due to which, his mother died at spot. Though he was cross examined at length but specifically it was not denied by the accused that the deceased died in a road accident. At the same time, the version of the accused is that he was no way connected to the case.
Page 4
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019
13.P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.8 also categorically corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of dashing of the deceased
Demudamma by a Scorpio vehicle. The said version also was not cross examined by the accused. Apart from oral evidence, the prosecution also placed documentary evidence for proving the death of the deceased i.e., Inquest Report (Ex.P.14) as well as the postmortem report of the deceased (Ex.P.15) through the Investigating Officer (P.W.12). Ex.P.14 and P.15 were marked with the consent of the accused through the evidence of P.W.12. The accused did not dispute in respect of the contents of Ex.P.14 and P.15.
14.As per Ex.P.14, the inquest was conducted by the
Investigating Officer in the presence of mediators and mediators opined during the inquest that the deceased Demudamma died in a road accident. Further, the doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased Demudamma shows that the deceased died due to head injury. Thus, it is clear that the accused did not rebut the evidence with regard to the death of the deceased in a road accident. Thus, the prosecution established that the deceased
Demudamma died in a road accident by way of oral testimony as well as documentary evidence. Accordingly, this point is answered.
15. POINT NO.2 :
As per the case of the prosecution, the accused being the driver of Scorpio vehicle initially dashed one auto wherein P.W.4 was traveling and later, he failed to control the car and dashed the deceased
Demudamma. The case of the prosecution shows two different parts and the Investigating Officer also investigated the case by connecting two different scene of offences. As per the case of prosecution, the initial
Page 5
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019 incident is that sustaining injuries by P.W.4 while he was traveling in an auto. There is no any evidence supported to the version of P.W.4.
Though the Investigating Officer examined P.W.6 and P.W.7 who happened to be eye witnesses to the first occurrence but they completely turned hostile by stating that they did not witness any incident. The Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor treated them as hostile and after seeking permission, she cross examined and got marked their
Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statements as Ex.P.3 and P.4 but nothing could be drawn in favour of prosecution.
16.P.W.4 being an injured though he did not support the case of prosecution, he categorically stated that on 05-05-2019 at about 7.30 p.m, while he was proceeding in an auto and when their auto reached near Mallunaidupalem village, one car dashed his auto and auto turned turtle and in that incident, he got fracture to his right leg. Admittedly, the said evidence was un-rebutted by the accused. P.W.4 categorically stated that he got treatment at Kala Hospital, Visakhapatnam which is a private hospital. Further, the prosecution got marked the wound certificate (Ex.P.18) through the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.12). Ex.P.18 was marked through P.W.12 with the consent of the accused which clearly shows fracture injury to the right thigh of P.W.4.
The injury was not disputed by the accused and as such I hold that the prosecution established that P.W.4 sustained grievous injury in a road accident. Accordingly, this point is answered.
17. POINT NO.3 :
In order to prove the rash or negligence act on the part of the accused who happened to be driver of Scorpio vehicle bearing No.
AP 05 AS 0007 including his identity as a driver of the crime vehicle at
Page 6
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019 the time of occurrence, the prosecution let in the evidence of P.W.1 who happened to be Defacto complainant and the son of the deceased
Demudamma. Apart from the oral testimony of P.W.1 in respect of the above said aspects, the prosecution also let in the evidence of P.W.2 to
P.W.8 who happened to be eye witnesses to the occurrence and out of them, P.W.4 is an injured. Apparently, P.W.6 and P.W.7 being eye witnesses to the occurrence, both the witnesses did not support the case of prosecution.
18.P.W.1 categorically deposed before this court that on 05-05-2019 at about 7.15 p.m or 7.30 p.m, opposite to their house while his mother was taking water from public tap, the accused being the driver of Scorpio vehicle came from Gullepalli village at speed and dashed one auto and without controlling the scorpio vehicle dashed his mother due to which, his mother died at spot. He further stated about giving report (Ex.P.1) to the police.
19.Quite surprisingly, P.W.1 deposed in his cross examination that he did not state before the police that he was present at the scene of offence as well as he did not mention the same fact in Ex.P.1. It shows that he did not witness the incident. Though he did not mention the name of the accused in Ex.P.1 and even he did not speak about the identity of the accused before the police but he deposed before this court that he mentioned the name of the accused in Ex.P.1. At one stage, he stated that he scribed Ex.P.1 and again he contradictorily stated that he did not scribe Ex.P.1 and it was scribed by someone.
20.P.W.1 categorically identified the accused as a driver of the crime vehicle during the course of his chief examination. Contrary to his earlier version, in his cross examination he deposed that he did not
Page 7
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019 witness while the accused was driving the vehicle. At the same time he deposed that the accused along with four persons got down the vehicle.
It is a completely new version since the case of prosecution does not disclose about the inmates of the scorpio vehicle. Merely getting down from the scorpio vehicle, does not mean that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle.
21.As per the case of prosecution and even as per Ex.P.1, initially the accused dashed one auto wherein P.W.4 and others were traveling and later he failed to control the vehicle and then dashed the deceased but P.W.1 stated that he did not witness the injuries sustained by the inmates of auto and he did not know the number of the auto and even he did not mention the number of the auto in Ex.P.1. In fact Ex.P.1 discloses the number of the auto and witnessing dashing of auto by scorpio vehicle as well as the injuries sustained by P.W.4.
22.P.W.1 specifically deposed that his mother died at spot. In fact as per the case of prosecution, the deceased died on the way while she was being shifted to KGH, Visakhapatnam. In the same way, P.W.1 stated to the police but he denied the said statement and the same was exhibited on behalf of the accused as Ex.D.1. Though P.W.1 stated to the police about the number of scorpio vehicle AP 05AS 0007 but he denied the said statement and the relevant portion of the said statement was marked as Ex.D.2. P.W.12 being an Investigating Officer admitted Ex.D.1 and D.2 during his cross examination.
23.P.W.1 further stated a developed version as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused in his written arguments that the
Sub Inspector of Police came to scene of offence and shifted his mother to hospital through 108 ambulance. In fact as per the evidence of the
Page 8
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019
Investigating Officer (P.W.12) on 05-05-2019 at about 11.30 p.m, P.W.1 came to police station and presented a written report. So that the version of P.W.1 is inconsistent to the case of prosecution and through the evidence of P.W.1, the prosecution failed to prove rash or negligent act on the part of the accused as well as his identity.
24.P.W.2 is the husband of the deceased Demudamma. He too deposed like P.W.1 with slight development by stating that the scorpio vehicle ran over his wife and later the vehicle dashed one wooden bridge and stopped there. He too deposed like his son i.e., his wife died at spot and the Sub Inspector of Police came there shifted his wife through 108 ambulance and the same is contrary to the case of the prosecution.
25.P.W.2 though he stated before the police that one Scorpio vehicle dashed one auto, due to which one Appalanaidu (P.W.4) sustained injury but in his cross examination he deposed that he did not witness the scorpio vehicle dashed one auto and he did not know one
Appalanaidu. Though he stated the number of the crime vehicle to the police but he denied the said fact. P.W.1 stated that the police came to scene of offence three days after the incident whereas P.W.2 stated that the police came to scene of offence on the next day. He further stated a different version that four persons got down from Scorpio vehicle and they ran away. As per the version of the prosecution, the witnesses who are shown as eye witnesses, mostly are relating to the deceased stood at scene of offence at the time of the incident. It creates a doubt about their presence at the scene of offence. I can say that the evidence of
P.W.2 along with P.W.1 is not corroborated with the case of prosecution, though their evidence is corroborative with each other.
Page 9
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019
26.P.W.3 being an eye witness, he deposed that he noticed while the deceased was crossing the road in front of her house, the accused being the driver of scorpio vehicle bearing no. 0007 came from
Gullepalli village at speed and dashed the deceased. As per the case of prosecution, while the deceased was bringing water from public tap, the incident occurred whereas contrary to the version of the prosecution,
P.W.3 stated a different version. Though he stated before the police that the scorpio vehicle dashed one auto and later dashed the deceased and further, he stated before the police that one Bokam Appalanaidu sustained injuries but he did not speak those facts before this court.
27.P.W.3 quite interestingly deviated from his earlier version by stating that he did not witness any auto, he did not witness the scorpio vehicle dashed one auto and he did not witness the injured Appalanaidu.
Further in a hostility manner P.W.3 quite contrary to his earlier version stated that he did not state before the police that the driver of the scorpio vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed opposite auto bearing no. AP 31 TW 7302, due to which, the passenger of auto namely Bokam Appalanaidu sustained fracture injury to his both legs. So that it is clear that the evidence of P.W.3 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the rash or negligent act on the part of the accused including his identity as the driver of the crime vehicle.
28.P.W.4 is a crucial witness since he is an injured in this case.
Though he sustained an injury in an accident and stated about his injury in an accident but he completely turned hostile in respect of the identity of the accused as well as rash or negligent act on the part of the accused. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor treated the witness as hostile and after seeking permission from the court, she cross examined
Page 10
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019
P.W.4 and got marked his sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P.2 but nothing could be drawn in favour of the prosecution.
29.P.W.8 being an eye witness to the occurrence, he too deposed like other witnesses by suppressing the fact of dashing auto and sustaining injuries by P.W.4. At the same time he deposed that he did not know the driver of the Scorpio vehicle. As such much weight need not be given to the part of the evidence of P.W.8.
30.Apart from the appreciation of the oral testimony of the above said witnesses, I would like to appreciate the evidence of the investigational aspects being done by P.W.12 who happened to be an
Investigating Officer in this case. In a routine manner, he started investigation by receiving a written complaint from P.W.1, issuing F.I.R (Ex.P.12), visiting the scene of offence, preparing rough sketch of the scene of offence (Ex.P.13), visiting KGH, Visakhapatnam, conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators (Ex.P.14), sending the dead body of the deceased to the postmortem examination, obtaining postmortem report of deceased (Ex.P.15), visited the scene of offence, preparing two different observation reports (Ex.P.16 and P.17) in the presence of mediators. Though he prepared scene observation reports by fixing two places as scene of offences but where those two scene of offences were situated, not deposed by P.W.12 as well as apparently no incriminating material was seized at the scene of offence.
31.Admittedly, the mediators (P.W.9 and P.W.10) in whose presence scene of offences were inspected and prepared scene of observation reports by the Investigating Officer, turned hostile and simply they stated that the police obtained their signatures (Ex.P.5 to
Page 11
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019
P.10) on some written papers and they did not know the contents of the said papers. They completely deviated from the case of prosecution and as such the prosecution failed to prove the genuineness of Ex.P.16 and
P.17.
32.P.W.11 being Motor Vehicle Inspector who deposed about receiving requisition from the Station House Officer of Sabbavaram
Police Station and he examined the crime vehicle i.e., Scorpio vehicle bearing No. AP 05 AS 0007 at the premises of police station and he opined that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects and accordingly issued a certificate (Ex.P.11). No doubt it was not rebutted by the accused. At the same time it is expected from the prosecution to prove that whether the accused is connected to the crime vehicle or not. Admittedly, P.W.12 neither chose to examine the owner of the crime vehicle as a witness nor the prosecution took steps to examine.
33.Quite interestingly, the incident occurred on 05-05-2019 but on 01-07-2019 the Sub Inspector of Police served a notice u/sec.41-A
Cr.P.C to the accused and thereby the accused produced the crime vehicle and then he gave a requisition to motor vehicle inspection for its inspection. The reasons are best known to him for sending the crime vehicle at a belated stage and in such circumstances how the defects of the crime vehicle can be noted down by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and in such lines no explanation was offered by the prosecution. Moreover,
P.W.12 did not try to secure the damaged auto and try to get it examined by Motor Vehicle Inspector and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Page 12
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019
34.It is an apparent on the face of record that the F.I.R (Ex.P.12) does not disclose the name of the accused and it discloses only the driver of the crime vehicle. If at all P.W.1 knew the accused, he might have mentioned the particulars of the accused in Ex.P.1 or atleast physical features of the accused. In this regard, I draw an attention that it is settled principle of law that in cases where the accused is not arrested from the scene of offence itself or the accused is not known to the eye witnesses prior to the crime in question, the identity of the accused has to be established by conducting Test Identification Parade.
If this procedure has not been gone through, the identity of the accused for the first time in the court room has no evidentiary value and the accused disallows, in such cases to be acquitted on the ground of lack of identification.
35.As I discussed above, apparently, F.I.R does not disclose name of the accused and further no vehicle record was seized by the
Investigating Officer. These circumstances do not make me to believe the version of the eye witnesses in respect of identity of the accused in the court hall. In this connection, I would like to rely upon a decision reported in Syed Zameer Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2002 (1)
ALD (Crl.) 903 (A.P) wherein his lordship held in para 7 as
follows :
“Keeping in view of the said principles the facts are examined. It is a case where the accused is said to have surrendered before the police after the incident and confessed before them and got released on bail.
Both the injured have identified the accused before the Court. But the identification of the accused and the name of the accused did not find place at the earliest point of time. I.e., at the time of giving FIR. It is for
Page 13
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019 the prosecution to show that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident and he was responsible for causing the accident. If really the driver is known to them, the injured would have identified the accused- driver at the earliest point of time. The lorry and its trip that were not seized. These are some of the circumstances which carry doubt about the identity of the person by the injuries. They do not in any way inspire confidence regarding the identify of the person who drove the vehicle. Unfortunately, a confession was made by the accused by going over to the Police Station. The same is not admissible in evidence. The non- conducting of the identification parade, is one of the important circumstances to doubt about the identity of the person who drove the vehicle, applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decisions, I cannot but hold that the evidence regarding the identity of the person is not reliable.”
36.Admittedly, as per the case of prosecution, the incident occurred during night hours and there was no possibility for the witnesses to witness the accused as driver of the crime vehicle and moreover as per the case of prosecution, the accused fled away from the scene of offence and in such circumstances there was no any ample opportunity for the witnesses to identify the accused as driver of the crime vehicle. In such circumstances invariably, the investigating officer might have conducted test identification parade of the accused but he did not choose to take steps in such lines and the reason are best known to him.
37. In this connection I rely upon a decision reported in
Pigimaraji Rangarao Vs. State of A.P reported in 2009 (1) ALD
(Crl.) 971 (A.P) wherein his lordship held in para 17 as follows :
Page 14
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019
According to P.W.3 – Modadugu Srinivasa Rao, after the accident, the lorry was topped near the place of accident and the driver ran away.
P.W.4-Thatikonda Venkateshwarlu, deposed that after the incident, the lorry covered a small distance and was stopped and the accused ran away. Of court, P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 deposed that accused drove the lorry at the time of accident. The circumstances that there was no prior acquaintance between the witnesses and accused and the fact that the lorry was stopped at a distance of 20 or 25 feet from the place of accident and the driver after stopping the lorry, ran way from the place of accident, show that the witnesses had no opportunity to have a good look at the accused. In such circumstances, it is obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to elicit the descriptive particulars of the accused from the witnesses and to hold Test identification Parade, which would establish the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
When a witness, who had no prior acquaintance with the accused and who had seen the accused for the first time, for a few seconds, states to the police that he can identify the accused, the Investigating Officers should take steps for holding the Test Identification Parade, wherein the given case, the witnesses had considerable time and opportunity to observe the offender, the situation would be different. When the witnesses identified the accused in the Test identification Parade and also before the court, then there may not be any doubt to accept the evidences of such witnesses with regard to the identify of the accused and the same establishes the identity of the accused. The primary object of holding a Test Identification Parade is to enable the witnesses to identify the person involved in the offence, who were not previously known to them. This serves the purpose of saying the bonafides of the
Page 15
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019 witnesses and when the same corroborates, the testimony in the court, can be safely accepted. However, each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. Thus, the important factor is, whether the witnesses had an opportunity to see the accused or not.”
38.As I discussed above, the witnesses simply stated that the vehicle came at speed infact merely coming the vehicle at speed does not amount to rash or negligent Act on the part of the accused and further, there are several contradictions and developments by the witnesses as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused in his written arguments and as such their evidence does not make me to believe that the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash or negligent manner, caused the death of the deceased Rongali Demudamma and caused grievous injury to P.W.4. Accordingly, this point is answered.
39. POINT NO.4 :
In order to prove the case of prosecution for the offences u/secs.338 and 304-A IPC, initially, the prosecution has to prove the death of the deceased in connection with the offence u/sec.304-A IPC and grievous injury to an injured in connection with the offence u/sec.338 IPC and further commonly it is to be proved in respect of rash or negligent act on the part of the person who caused the death of the deceased as well as grievous injury to an injured including the identity of the person who caused it.
40. No doubt here in this case as I discussed under points 1 and 2, the prosecution established the death of the deceased in a road accident as well as grievous injury to P.W.4 in a road accident but prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused being a driver of scorpio vehicle drove it in a rash or negligent manner and caused the
Page 16
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019 death of the deceased and grievous injury to P.W.4 and as such, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, this point is answered.
41.In the result, I find the accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 338 and 304-A IPC and acquit him under Section 255(1)
Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused with that of his sureties shall be remained in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
42.No property is produced before this court, hence no property orders are passed.
Dictated to the Stenographer of III Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 30th day of May, 2020.
XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined For Prosecution
PW.1R. Ravi Kumar PW.2R. Krishna Rao PW.3S. Gangunaidu PW.4B. Appalanaidu PW.5S. Rama Rao PW.6S. Ramana PW.7S. Simhachalam PW.8P. Laxman PW.9B. Gangunaidu PW.10R. Venkataramana PW.11I. Venugopala Rao PW.12N. Prabhakara Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police
For Accused: None
Page 17
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019
No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of : Prosecution:
Ex.P.1Complaint report of P.W.1 Ex.P.2Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.3Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.4Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.5Signature of P.W.9 on a written paper Ex.P.6Signature of P.W.9 on a written paper Ex.P.7Signature of P.W.9 on a written paper Ex.P.8Signature of P.W.10 on a written paper Ex.P.9Signature of P.W.10 on a written paper Ex.P.10Signature of P.W.10 on a written paper Ex.P.11Motor Vehicle Inspection report Ex.P.12Original F.I.R Ex.P.13Rough Sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P.14Inquest report Ex.P.15Postmortem Report Ex.P.16Scene Observation report Ex.P.17Scene observation report Ex.P.18Wound certificate of P.W.4
Accused:
Ex.D.1 : Specific portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.D.2 : Specific portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2
No. of Material Objects Marked - NIL -
XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
ANAKAPALLE
Page 18
XII AMM/AKP C.C.No.972/2019
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri J.V.V. Satyanarayana Murthy,
XII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle
Saturday, this 30th day of May, 2020
CALENDAR CASE NO.972/2019
Name of the Complainant, if : State represented by the Sub anyInspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police Station. Name of the accused, if any: Rallapalli Ayyappa, S/o Ganesh, Aged 23 years, K. Velama by caste, R/o Mogalipuram village, Sabbavaram Mandal. Date of Offence: 05-05-2019 Date of report or complaint: 05-05-2019 Date of apprehension of : --- accused Date of commencement of trial: 13-01-2020 Close of trial: 28-05-2020 Date of Judgment: 30-05-2020 Whether the accused is in jail or bail : Accused is on bail Explanation of delay and remarks: No delay
Offence :under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC.
Finding of the court :Accused found not guilty
Sentence : In the result, I find the accused not guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC and acquit him under Section 255(1)
Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused with that of his sureties shall be remained in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No property is produced before this court, hence no property orders are passed.
XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
ANAKAPALLE
Page 19