Smt. Jayanthi

1 C.C.No.102 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT: MAHBUBABAD (Dated on this the 27th day of December, 2016)

PRESENT: K. JAYANTHI PJCJ-Cum-JFCM FAC.Addl. Junior Civil Judge

MAHBUBABAD

C.C.No. 102 of 2014

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana Represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kesamudram Police Station. ….Complainant

A N D

Lakavath Suman @ Koti S/o Balu, 25 years, R/o Rajiv Nagar thanda, Rangapuram village. …Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on dt.21.12.2016 in the presence of Smt.M.Santhoshi, the learned APP on behalf of prosecution, Sri.Sy. Raheem Patel, Advocate for accused, upon perusing the entire material on record, upon hearing the arguments on either side and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Accused arraigned before this court for a charge under

Sections 304-A, 337 IPC.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kesamudram Police Station filed

Report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure with the following averments, in brief:-

A) On dt.19.3.2014, at about 12.00 hours, PW1 lodged a report stating that on 18.3.2014 at about 7.15 p.m., at the outskirts of

Kesamudram village nearby petrol bunk an accident was occurred due 2 C.C.No.102 of 2014 to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 36 Y 3013/3020 gave dash to a motor cycle bearing

No. AP 36 AW 1725. As a result, the deceased Guguloth Vamshi aged (11 years) was succumbed to injuries at the spot. PW4 sustained simple injuries over his left leg and PW5 sustained bleeding injuries over ears.

B) Basing upon the above complaint, PW.10 registered a case in crime No. 56/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 IPC and issued FIR to all concerned. During the course of investigation he examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama, shifted the crime vehicle to the Police Station and conducted inquest panchanama. On 22.3.2014 at 10.00 a.m., the accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. On completion of investigation and after collecting documentary evidence PW12 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 337 IPC.

3. Considering the material on record, this court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Code of Criminal

Procedure.

3 C.C.No.102 of 2014

5. The accused was examined under Section 251 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. The substance of accusation for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 IPC, read over and explained to the accused person in Telugu, for which the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 12 and exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.10 and MO1 is marked. PW.1 is the complainant; PW.2 and PW.3 are the Eye witnesses; PW.4 and PW.5 are the injured; PW.6 is circumstantial witness; PW.7 is a Medical Officer; PW.8 is a Motor Vehicle Inspector;

PW.9 is a mediator for inquest panchanama and scene of offence panchanama; PW.10 is an First Investigating Officer; PW.11 is a

Medical Officer and PW.12 is a second Investigating Officer.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined on the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of PWs as envisaged under Section 313(1)(b) of Code of Criminal

Procedure and the accused denied the accusation and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. This court heard the arguments on either side and perused the entire record.

NOW THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IS WHETHER THE

PROSECUTION HAS PROVED THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED FOR

THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/Ss 304-A, 337 IPC BEYOND ALL

REASONABLE DOUBTS?

4 C.C.No.102 of 2014

9. It is the brief case of the prosecution that on dated 18.3.2014 at about 7.15 p.m., at the outskirts of Kesamudram village nearby petrol bunk an accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused through his tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 36 Y 3013/3020 gave dash to motor cycle bearing No. AP 36 AW 1725. As a result, the deceased Gugulothu Vamshi succumbed to injuries at the spot and PW4 sustained simple injuries over his left leg and PW5 sustained bleeding injury over his ears. In order to prove the said allegations, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 12.

10. PW1 is the de facto complainant and mother of the deceased

Guguloth Vamshi. She deposed that about two years back her husband and two sons went to Darga to offer a customary rite. At about 7.00 p.m., at petrol bunk one tractor came in a speedy manner in opposite direction and gave dash to her husband’s motor cycle. As such, her husband fell down and one son sustained injury and another son died at the spot. It is the evidence of PW1 that her husband sustained injury over his leg and PW5 sustained blood oozing injury from his ears. PW1 came to know the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle. Ex.P1 is the complaint given by her.

11. PW.2 is an eye witness to the alleged accident. He deposed that the accused is a tractor driver. About two years back PW2 one Shankar and Ramesh boarded the tractor of accused as labourers and after completion of work when they were returning in the same tractor, at about 7.00 p.m., at Kesamudram village one bike came in opposite 5 C.C.No.102 of 2014 direction and dashed to the tractor. As a result, one boy died at the spot. It is the evidence of PW2 that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of bike rider. He further deposed that the bike was driven by the deceased Gugulothu Vamshi.

12. PW3 being an another eye witness also deposed in similar lines.

13. PW4 is an injured and eye witness to the accident. He deposed that on 18.3.2014 he along with his sons went to Darga. It is the evidence of PW4 that he was riding the bike and one of his son sat

before him and his elder son (PW5) sat behind him. He further

deposed that when they were proceeding towards Darga at about 7.00 or 7.15 p.m., a tractor with trailer came in opposite direction in a speedy manner suddenly it was taken cut by the tractor driver, due to which the tractor engine big tyre hit the motor cycle. As a result, Pw4 along with children fell down. He further deposed that his younger son fell on the right side of the road and tractor trailer caused the instant death of his younger son, namely, Gugulothu Vamshi. He further deposed that his motor cycle fell on him and on his elder son, as such he sustained injury over his leg and his elder son (PW5) sustained bleeding injuries from both ears. He further deposed that at that time he was in semi-conscious condition. It is the evidence of

PW4 that the accused is driver of tractor bearing NO. AP 36 Y 3013 at the time of accident. It is further evidence of PW4 that he and his son were shifted to Area Hospital, Mahabubabad. From there again

PW5 was shifted to Khammam for better treatment. It is the evidence 6 C.C.No.102 of 2014 of PW4 that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the accused.

14. PW5 is another injured and brother of the deceased Guguloth

Vamshi. He deposed that on 18.3.2014 he along with his brother and father were proceeding to Darga on a bike which was driven by PW4.

He further deposed that at about 7.15 p.m., the accident was occurred dashed by one tractor and trailer in opposite direction. He further deposed that big tyre of the tractor contacted with motor bike tire. As a result, his brother fell on the right side and he and his father fell on the left side and bike was also fell on them. As a result, PW5 lost his conscious. It is the evidence of PW5 after the accident the driver ran away from the spot. It is the evidence of PW5 that the accused is driver of tractor and trailer.

15. PW6 is owner of tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 36 Y 3013/3020. He further deposed that about two years back at 7.00 or 7.30 p.m., at Kesamudram village near Darga an accident took place.

It is the evidence of PW6 that the accused is driver of tractor at the time of accident. But, he does not know on whose negligence the accident was occurred. He came to know one boy was died in the said accident and two persons were sustained injuries. PW6 surrendered the accused before the Police.

16. PW7 is Medical Officer who treated the injured and gave medical certificates which are marked as Ex.P4 and Ex.P5.

7 C.C.No.102 of 2014

17. PW8 is Motor Vehicle Inspector. He deposed that on 24.3.2014 on requisition from the Sub Inspector of Police, Kesamudram, he examined crime vehicle No. AP 36 Y 3013/3020 and gave opinion that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects. Ex.P6 is the report given by Motor Vehicle Inspector.

18. PW9 is one of the panch witnesses to Crime Details Form and

Inquest report. He deposed that about two years back there was an accident at the outskirts of Kesamudram village and in that regard police conducted Crime Details Form and Inquest panchanama in his presence. Ex.P7 is the Inquest panchanama and Ex.P8 is the Crime

Details Form.

19. PW10 is the First Investigating Officer who deposed that basing upon the report given by PW1 he registered the case and examined the witnesses and conducted Crime Details Form and Inquest panchanama in the presence of mediators.

20. PW11 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Guguloth Vamshi. Ex.P10 is the Post

Mortem Examination report.

21. PW12 is the second Investigating Officer who verified the investigation done by PW10, affected the arrest of the accused and after collecting the documentary evidence, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 IPC.

8 C.C.No.102 of 2014

22. As per the evidence supra, as per Ex.P1 the alleged incident took place on 18.3.2014 at 7.15 p.m., and report was lodged on 19.3.2014 at 12.00 hours. Ex.P1 as well as First Information Report are absolutely silent as to why report was lodged with delay of about sixteen hours. PW1 came to know about the alleged accident on the same day at 7.30 p.m.

23. The learned counsel for the accused contended that even though

PW1 came to know the accident at 7.30 p.m., she did not lodge complaint immediately. It is the contention on behalf of the accused that the bike was driven by the deceased Gugulothu Vamshi (minor) but not PW4. As such, to improve their case the said delay was occurred.

24. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident three persons were riding on the motor bike. PW4, PW5 and PW10 admitted the said fact. PW12 also admitted that riding by three persons on motor bike is in violation of the provisions under Motor Vehicle Act.

25. The time of alleged accident is about 7.15 p.m., and it was almost dark night at that time. It is the evidence of PW4 that after the accident he fell semi-conscious state and PW5 lost his consciousness.

PWs 2 and 3 being eye witnesses deposed that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bike rider namely the deceased Gugulothu Vamshi. Except the evidence of PW4 there is no direct evidence to prove that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident.

9 C.C.No.102 of 2014

26. Admittedly, PW10 and PW12 being Investigating Officers did not conduct any Test Identification Parade proceedings in the presence of

PW4 at the earliest point of time. PW4 admitted that he came to know about the name of the accused after admitting his son in the hospital.

He did not state the physical features of the accused before the police in his Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C statement. He admitted that he deposed that tractor number as it was noted down on his palm. PW6 being the owner of tractor and trailer is not an eye witness to the accident. It is the evidence of PW6 he has given his tractor and trailer to his brother- in-law. PW6 came to know about the accident through his brother-in- law as such his evidence to the effect that the accused was driver of tractor at the time of accident cannot be believable.

27. It is pertinent to mention here that nearby accident spot, there is a curve. It is the evidence of PW4 that before petrol bunk, there is a curve but however he denied that as there a turning, there is no possibility to drive the vehicle with high speed. PW5 also admitted that there is a turning near petrol bunk and Darga is on the left side of the road. PW9 being panch witness to Crime Details Form also admitted that there is a curve road while proceeding towards

Kesamudram village from petrol bunk. He further stated there is approach road to reach main road after accident spot. As per the evidence of PW9 the accident spot road is a double road. Pw10 being the Investigating Officer also deposed that there is curve road opposite Mahalaxmi Petrol Bunk and there is a link road as shown in

Ex.P8 to reach main road.

10 C.C.No.102 of 2014

28. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that as almost all the material witnesses have clearly admitted that there is a curve near petrol bunk as such there is no possibility to drive any vehicle with high speed. He further contended that as PW4 driven his motor bike with two other riders and as the deceased son Gugulothu

Vamshi sat before him who is above 5 feet height, as such, due to negligent driving on the part of motor bike as they lost control and dashed to tractor and trailer as such accident was occurred but not due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. He further contended that all the above said circumstances supports the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 who stated that the motor bike came and dashed to tractor. Under these circumstances, the evidence of Pw4 not corroborated by any other evidence cannot be believable to prove the identification of accused.

29. The delay in lodging report is also fatal to the case of prosecution. The injuries sustained by Pw4 and PW5 and death of the deceased Gugulothu Vamshi are not in dispute. The only dispute is that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused.

30. In this regard, the evidence produced by the prosecution is not cogent, trustworthy and believable to prove the charge against the accused and the accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

11 C.C.No.102 of 2014

31. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 IPC and he is hereby acquitted for the said offences under Section 255 (1) Code of Criminal

Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused and surety bonds shall stay in force for a period of six months. M.O.1, tractor and trailer bearing

No. AP 36 Y 3013/3020 already returned to its owner on interim custody is hereby made absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27th day of December, 2016.

Sd/- K. JAYANTHI

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS MAHBUBABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

(On behalf of Prosecution) (On behalf of defence)

PW.1 Gugulothu Sunitha (Complainant) -NIL- PW.2 Lakavath Vala (Eye witness) PW.3 Amangoth Shankar (Eye witness) PW.4 Guguloth Devender ( Injured) PW.5 Guguloth Siddu (Injured) PW.6 Maloth Ramdas ( Circumstantial witness) PW.7 Dr. P. Sathish Kumar (Medical Officer) PW.8 P. Ranga Rao (Motor Vehicle Inspector) PW.9 Gugulothu Eeru Naik PW.10 I. Ramji Naik ( First Investigating Officer) PW.11 Dr. P. Malathi ( Medical Officer) PW.12 P.Ranjith Rao (Second Investigating Officer)

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of Prosecution) (On behalf of defence)

Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 -NIL- Ex.P.3 Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P4 Wound Certificate Ex.P5 Wound Certificate Ex.P6 Motor Vehicle Inspector Report Ex.P7 Signature of PW9 on the Inquest Report Ex.P8 Signature of PW9 on the Crime Details Form 12 C.C.No.102 of 2014

Ex.P9 First Information Report Ex.P10 Post Mortem Certificate

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 is tractor No.AP 36 Y 3013 and trailer No. AP 36 Y 3020

Sd/- K. JAYANTHI

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS MAHBUBABAD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: AT MAHBUBABAD (Dated on this the 29th day of April, 2017)

PRESENT: Smt. K. JAYANTHI, Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Mahbubabad

C.C.No.162 of 2015

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana, Represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahbubabad Town Police Station. ….Complainant

A N D

Sri. Doli Sai Kiran @ Kiran Kumar, S/o late Doli Ramesh, age 31 years, R/o H.No.2-3-99, Bestha Bazar, Mahbubabad.…Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on dt.28.04.2017 in the presence of Smt.M.Santhoshi, the learned APP on behalf of prosecution, Sri. M.Suresh Reddy, the learned counsel for accused, upon hearing the arguments on either side, upon perusing the entire material on record and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Accused arraigned before this court for a charge under Section 304-A IPC.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahbubabad Town Police Station filed

Report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure with the following averments in brief:-

(a) On dated 27.08.2015, at 11.00 hours, PW.3 lodged report stating that on dated 25.08.2015, as the grand father of his friend by name

CC 162 of 2015 Prl. Judl.First Class Magistrate

Mahbubabad 2

Sappidi Chandraiah (aged 90 years) was suffering with some infection over his hand as such PW.3, his friend were taken him on a bike bearing No.AP 36 AH 8229 and proceeding towards

Mahbubabad to go to a hospital. On the way, at about 10.40 a.m., when they reached near Mahbubabad under-bridge, the accused drove his car bearing No.AP 36 AW 5432 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and gave dash to the motor bike of PW.3, as such they lost control and fell down. As a result, Sappidi

Chandraiah became unconscious and sustained minor injuries. As such immediately, the injured was shifted to Mamatha hospital,

Khammam.

(b)Basing upon the complaint, PW.9 registered a case as in Crime

No.154 of 2015 for the Offence under Section 337 IPC and issued

First Information Report to all concerned. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, and conducted scene of offence panchanama proceedings in the presence of mediators.

Subsequently, on dated 28.8.2015, at 03.05 a.m., PW.9 received intimation that the injured Sappidi Chandraiah succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. As such he visited Area hospital,

Mahbubabad, held inquest panchanama and subjected the dead body of Post-mortem examination. PW.9 gave Section Alteration Memo altering the Section of Law from 337 IPC to 304-A IPC. PW.9 affected the arrest of accused and released him on bail on furnishing sureties. PW.9 gave requisition to Motor Vehicle Inspector to inspect crime vehicle. Moreover, on completion of investigation,

PW.9 filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.

3. Considering the material on record, this Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.

CC 162 of 2015 Prl. Judl.First Class Magistrate

Mahbubabad 3

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. The accused was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The substance of accusation for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC was read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu, for which the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 9 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.10. PW.1 is the Eyewitness;

PW.2 is a Circumstantial witness; PW.3 is an eyewitness-cum-

Complainant; PW.4 is a Photographer; PW.5 is a Medical Officer;

PWs.6 and 7 are the panch witnesses; PW.7 is the Motor Vehicle

Inspector; and PW.9 is the investigating officer.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined on the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of PWs as envisaged under Section 313(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused denied the accusation and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. During cross-examination of Pws.1 and 2, Ex.D.1 and

D.2 were marked.

8. This Court heard the arguments on either side and perused the entire record.

NOW THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IS WHETHER THE

PROSECUTION HAS PROVED THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED FOR

THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 304-A IPC BEYOND ALL

REASONABLE DOUBTS?

9. It is the brief case of the Prosecution that on dated 25.08.2015, at about 10.40 a.m., at under-bridge area, Mahbubabad, an accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused through his Car bearing

CC 162 of 2015 Prl. Judl.First Class Magistrate

Mahbubabad 4

No.AP 36 AW 5432, gave dash to the bike of PW.3. As a result of accident, the deceased Sappidi Chandraiah sustained minor injuries and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment on dated 28.8.2015 around 03.05 a.m.. In order to prove the said allegations, the

Prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Pws.1 to 9.

10.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:-

(a) that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of alleged incident; and

(b)that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of accused; and

(c) that the deceased Sappidi Chandraiah succumbed to injuries in a road accident.

11.PW.1 is an eyewitness. It is the evidence of PW.1 that on dated 26.8.2015, around 11.30 a.m. as his grandfather was suffering with some infection on his left hand as such he was unable to sit on the bike as such PW.1 called PW.3, who came on his bike No.AP 36 8229.

Thereafter, PW.1, PW.3 and Sappidi Chandraiah proceeded to the hospital of Dr. Murali Naik, Mahbubabad. It is the evidence of PW.1 that PW.3 was riding the bike and PW.1 and his grandfather sat as pillion riders. When they reached near under-bridge, PW.1 observed that their bike and car of the accused were proceeding in parallel direction and suddenly one lorry came in opposite direction and to escape the same, the accused turned his car towards motor bike of PW.3 and in turn motor bike turned towards car, as such motor bike handle struck to car, as there was footpath besides motor bike, it was turned towards car. As a result of accident, Sappidi Chandraiah sustained injuries over his neck and knees. PW.1 sustained scratch injury over his shoulder and PW.3 sustained injuries over his hands and backside of fingers. It is further evidence of PW.1 that immediately, Sappidi

CC 162 of 2015 Prl. Judl.First Class Magistrate

Mahbubabad 5

Chandraiah was shifted to the hospital of Dr. Murali Naik, who treated him for one day. Thereafter, as the condition was serious, Sappidi

Chandraiah was shifted to Khammam, from there again he was shifted to Hyderabad for better treatment. It is further evidence of PW.1 that on

dated 28.8.2015, he succumbed to injuries. PW.1 could not say on

whose negligence, the accident was occurred.

12.PW.2 is a son of the deceased Sappidi Chandraiah. He is mere

Circumstantial witness. He deposed that on dated 25.08.2015, he came to know through PW.1 that there was an accident near under-bridge area, Government hospital, Mahbubabad, dashed by one car.

Immediately after receiving information, PW.2 proceeded to

Government hospital and found his father sustained fracture injury over his hands, legs and neck. From there, his father was shifted to Mamatha hospital, Khammam, but in view of serious condition, Mamatha hospital authorities did not get admitted him as such he was shifted back to Government hospital, Mahbubabad, where he succumbed to injuries on dated 28.9.2015 at 3.00 a.m.

13.PW.3 is the De facto Complainant and grand son of the deceased

Sappidi Chandraiah. He deposed that on dated 25.8.2015, as Sappidi

Chandraiah was suffering with ill-health, he was being shifted to the hospital of Dr. Murali Naik on bike No.AP 30 AH 8229. PW.3 was riding the bike and PW.1 sat as pillion rider by holding his grandfather.

On the way, when they reached near under-bridge, one car came from back side and hit motorbike. As a result, three of them fell down and

Sappidi Chandraiah sustained injury over knee joint, leg fingers and forehead. Immediately, Sappidi Chandraiah was shifted to the hospital of Dr. Murali Naik, from there he was shifted to Mamatha hospital,

Khammam and from there again he was shifted to Hyderabad. As

Sappidi Chandraiah was not recovered in spite of best efforts he was shifted back to Government hospital, Mahbubabad. On dated 28.9.2015

CC 162 of 2015 Prl. Judl.First Class Magistrate

Mahbubabad 6 during night hours, Sappidi Chandraiah succumbed to injuries. It is the evidence of PW.3 that the accused was the driver of Crime car at the time of alleged accident. PW.4 is a photographer, who took photoes of death body at Area hospital, Mahbubabad, which are marked as Ex. P.1.

14.PW.5 is the Medical Officer, who held autopsy over the dead body of Sappidi Chandriaha and issued Post-mortem Examination

Report, which is marked as Ex. P.2. PWs.6 and 8 being the panch witnesses to Crime Details Form did not support the case of prosecution except admitting their signatures on the panchanama. PW.7 is the

Motor Vehicle Inspector, who deposed that after inspecting Crime vehicle Car bearing No.AP 36 AW 5432, she gave Report stating that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects. Ex. P.4 is the Report given by her. PW.9 is an investigating officer, who registered the case, did the entire investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

15.As per the evidence supra, admittedly there is no dispute about the identity of accused in this case. As per First Information Report, case was registered against the Accused. The accused also not disputing the same. The only contention on behalf of the accused is that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving and the deceased Sappidi Chandraiah was not died due to injuries sustained by them. It is the contention on behalf of the accused that as the deceased was old-aged person about 95 years suffering with severe ill-health, he died due to cardiac infection.

16.Coming to the aspects of rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused, it is the evidence of PW.1 that motorbike of PW.3 and Car of the accused were proceeding in parallel direction and as one lorry came in opposite direction, in order to escape the same, both car and bike turned with each other, as such as the handle of motorbike struck to car and three of them fell down. None of the Prosecution witnesses

CC 162 of 2015 Prl. Judl.First Class Magistrate

Mahbubabad 7 have deposed that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused, the accident was occurred. On the contrary, PW.1 deposed that he could not say on whose negligence, the accident was occurred. PW.3 also admitted that if a vehicle collides bike from back side with a rash and negligent driving with high speed, there is every scope to damage motor bike. He further admitted that there is sharp turning in front of

ROB. The contents of Scene of offence panchanama are not proved. If really there is rash and negligent driving and collision in between two vehicles, there is every likelihood of causing heavy damage to both the vehicles, as admitted by PW.7. It is the evidence of PW.7 that on inspection of crime vehicle, she found minor scratches on left side of bumper. She admitted that the said scratches are not outcome of accident. Thus, the Prosecution has failed to prove that in view of rash and negligent driving of the accused, the accident was occurred.

17.As can be seen from the record, there is no dispute about the death of the deceased Sappidi Chandraiah. It is the contention on behalf of the accused that he was not died due to injuries received in a road accident. In this regard, PW.1 admitted that his grand father was aged about 95 years and he was not died due to injuries sustained in the accident. PW.2 also admitted that his father was being suffering with infection as such he was being taken to hospital. PW.5 and PW.9 clearly admitted that the deceased Sappidi Chandraiah was not died due to injuries mentioned in Ex. P.2, Post-mortem Examination Report.

Further, Pws.1 to 3 deposed that the deceased Sappidi Chandraiah died at Area hospital, Mahbubabad, whereas it is the story of Prosecution that he died at Mamatha hospital, Khammam. The said contradictions were elicited during cross-examination of Pws.1 and 2 as Ex.D.1 and

D.2. Hence, in view the above-said clear admissions on the part of

PWs, this Court holds that the deceased Sappidi Chandraiah not died due to injuries received in a road accident, but he died due to shock as admitted by PW.5.

CC 162 of 2015 Prl. Judl.First Class Magistrate

Mahbubabad 8

18.In view of my above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and the accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

19.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and is hereby acquitted under section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused and surety bonds shall stay in force for a period of six months.

Typed in personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court,

on this the 29 th day of April, 2017.

Prl.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

MAHBUBABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED-

(On behalf of Prosecution)(On behalf of defence)

PW.1 Sri. S. Ramreddy (Eyewitness) PW.2 Sri. Saidi Reddy (Circumstantial witness)-NIL- PW.3Sri. Alli Venugopal (Complainant) PW.4Sri. Sk. Pasha (Photographer) PW.5Sri. K.Chandrasekhar (Medical Officer) PW.6Sri. Bhukya Sagar (Panch witness) PW.7Smt. G.Shiva Swapna (MVI) PW.8Sri. Maloth Mangilal (Panch witness) PW.9Sri. M. Prasada Rao (IO)

EXHIBITS MARKED:- (On behalf of Prosecution)

Ex.P.1 Four positive photographs with CD Ex.P.2Post-mortem Examination Report Ex.P.3Signature of PW.6 on Crime Details form Ex.P.4MVI Report Ex. P.5Signature of PW.8 on Crime Details Form Ex. P.6Report

CC 162 of 2015 Prl. Judl.First Class Magistrate

Mahbubabad 9

Ex. P.7First Information Report Ex. P.8Inquest Panchanama Ex. P.9Crime Details Form Ex. P.10Section Alteration Memo (On behalf of defence)

Ex.D.1Portion of 161 CrPC Statement of PW.1 Ex.D.2Portion of 161 CrPC Statement of PW.2

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- -NIL-

Prl.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

MAHBUBABAD

CC 162 of 2015 Prl. Judl.First Class Magistrate

Mahbubabad

1 C.C.No. 382 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT: MAHBUBABAD (Dated on this the 28th day of December, 2016)

PRESENT: K. JAYANTHI PJCJ-Cum-JFCM FAC.Addl. Junior Civil Judge

MAHBUBABAD

C.C.No. 382 of 2014

BETWEEN:-

The State of Telangana Represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Rural Police Station. ….Complainant

A N D

A1. Polepangu Ellaiah So Lachaiah 38 years, A2. Polepangu Jyothi W/o Ramesh, 30 years, Both are R/o Kambalapally village. …Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on dt.22.12.2016 in the presence of Smt.M.Santhoshi, the learned APP on behalf of prosecution, Sri.M. Suresh Reddy and of Sri. D. Nageshwar Rao, Advocates for accused, upon perusing the entire material on record, upon hearing the arguments on either side and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Accused arraigned before this court for a charge under

Sections 497, 447 IPC against A1 an Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Rural Police Station filed Report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure with the following averments, in brief:-

A) On dt.13.3.2014 at about 15.00 hours, PW1 lodged a report stating that the accused No.2 is his wife. For the last four years the 2 C.C.No. 382 of 2014 accused No.1 developed illicit intimacy with A2 and in collusion with each other the accused persons harassing PW1. On 27.2.2014 around 11.00 p.m., on hearing noise from the terrace he rushed there and found that A1 and A2 were in compromising situation indulging with sexual acts. PW1 tried to caught hold A1. But the accused No.1 caught hold his hands firmly and went towards back, immediately A2 broken the chillies and poured chilly flakes into his eyes. A1 also attacked him and beat him and tried to push him from the building.

PW1 raised hue and cries, as such one Kathula Shekar and

Kanchanapalli Malsoor witnessed the incident.

B) Basing upon the above complaint, L.W.9/P. Pavan Kumar, Sub-

Inspector of Police registered a case as in Crime No.48 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 497, 447 and 324 r/w 34 IPC and issued First Information Report to all concerned. During the course of investigation, he examined PW1 and referred him to Area Hospital,

Mahabubabad. Later on he visited scene of offence, conducted Crime

Details Form in the presence of mediators and examined other witnesses, affected the arrest of the accused and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections. 497, 447 IPC against A1 and an offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2.

3. Considering the material on record, this court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 497, 447 IPC against A1 and

Section 324 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2.

3 C.C.No. 382 of 2014

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure.

5. The accused were examined under Section 239 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. A charge under Sections 497, 447 IPC against A1 and Section 324 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2 framed, read over and explained to the accused person in Telugu, for which the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.4. PW.1 is the complainant; PW2 is an Eye witness; PW.3 is a witness; PW5 is an

Investigating Officer and PW.6 is Medical Officer.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined on the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of PWs as envisaged under Section 313(1) (b) of Code of

Criminal Procedure and the accused denied the accusation and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. This court heard the arguments on either side and perused the entire record.

NOW THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IS WHETHER THE

PROSECUTION HAS PROVED THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED FOR

THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 497, 447 AGAINST A1 AND

324 R/W 34 IPC AGANST A1 AND A2 BEYOND ALL REASONABLE

DOUBTS?

4 C.C.No. 382 of 2014

9. It is the brief case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 developed illicit intimacy with A2 who is wife of Pw1 and on 27.2.2014 at 11.00 p.m., PW1 caught hold them red-handedly while they were indulging in sexual act and when PW1 tried to caught hold A1, A1 and

A2 with common intention poured chilly flakes into the eyes of Pw1 and caused simple injuries to him. In order to prove the said allegations, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 6.

10. PW.1 is the de facto complainant. He deposed that A2 is his wife. His marriage was performed with A2 in the year 2000 and out of wedlock they blessed with two children. It is further evidence of PW1 that on 27.2.2014 at about 11.00 p.m., or 12.00 mid night Pw1 heard some noise from the terrace of their house. Immediately, he went there and noticed that A1 and A2 were participating in sex and PW1 caught A1. In the meanwhile A1 caught hold the hands of PW1 and

A2 broken chilly flakes and poured into eyes of PW1. A1 beat him and bend him back. On hearing the hue and cries, one Kathula Shekar came to his house. Thereupon, A1 ran away from the scene which was witnessed by one Malsoor.

11. PW.2 is an Eye witness. He deposed that the PW1 is neighbor.

The house of PW1 is situated besides the house divided by one road.

He deposed that in the year 2014, during night hours, he heard hue and cries of PW1 and on the next day PW2 came to know from PW1 that A2 poured chilly flakes in his eyes at 12.00 in the mid night at their terrace.

5 C.C.No. 382 of 2014

12. PW3 is a circumstantial witness. He deposed that on 27.2.2014 during night hours when he was entering into the village with DCM load, PW1 met him on the road and told that A2 poured chilly flakes into his eyes.

13. PW4 is an Eye witness. He deposed that the house of PW1 is situated in front of his house. It is the evidence of PW4 that on 27.2.2014 at about 11.00 p.m., he heard some disputes in between

PW1 and A2 on the terrace of their house. PW4 came to know through PW1 that A1 caught hold him and A2 poured chilly flakes into his eyes.

14. PW5 is the Investigating officer, who registered the case, did entire investigation and filed charge sheet.

15. PW6 is the Medical Officer who examined PW1 and issued medical certificate which is marked as Ex.P4.

16. As per the evidence supra, except the evidence of PW1, there is no direct evidence to corroborate his version. PWs 2 to 4 did not state that they were witnessed A1 either on the terrace or besides the house of PW1. Their evidence is merely circumstantial in nature. All of them stated that they came to know about the alleged incident i.e., pouring chilly flakes into the eyes of PW1 with A2. They did not state any incriminating evidence against A1. But PW6 being medical officer stated that he did not found any eye injury over PW1. He gave certificate stating that no external injuries were found.

6 C.C.No. 382 of 2014

17. As can be seen from the record the alleged incident took place on 27.2.2014 at 11.00 p.m.,, whereas, report was lodged on 13.3.2014 at 15.00 hours with a delay of about 14 days. Ex.P1 and

First Information Report are absolutely silent about the explanation for the said delay of about 14 days. In fact, in Ex.P2 at column No. 8, it was mentioned that there is no delay. In this regard, it is the evidence of PW1 that as A1 absconded from the village and A2 went to her parents’ house, as such, PW1 lodged complaint with delay. But the said explanation was not found in Ex.P1 and it is not in satisfactory nature.

18. It is admitted by PW1 that A2 filed a case against him at Thorrur

Court under Section 498-A IPC. PW1 further admitted that during the subsistence of marriage with A2, he got married one Marwadi woman at Khammam even prior to the alleged incident. He further deposed that even the second wife also left his company. It is contended on behalf of A1 that as accused No.1 acted as an elder on behalf of A2 to resolve the matrimonial dispute and as A1 admonished Pw1 as such keeping in mind the said grudge, a false case foisted against A1 and

A2.

19. As can be seen from the record PW2 also admitted about the character of Pw1 stating that PW1 developed illicit intimacy with a

Marwadi woman. When the character of PW1 itself is in question, the evidence given by PW1 without any corroborative evidence cannot be cogent, trustworthy and believable to prove the evidence against the accused.

7 C.C.No. 382 of 2014

20. Further, the prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused persons caused simple injuries to PW1. As a medical officer himself stated that he did not find any injury over the eye of PW1 or any other external injuries.

21. In view of my above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 447, 497 IPC against A1 and Sec.

324 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt and they are entitled for acquittal.

22. IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences under Section 497, 447 IPC and A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and they are hereby acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

The bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stay in force for six months.

Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28th day of December, 2016.

Sd/- K. JAYANTHI

FAC. ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS MAHBUBABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED-

(On behalf of Prosecution) (On behalf of defence)

PW.1 Polepangu Ramesh (Complainant) -NIL- PW.2 Kanchanapalli Malsoor(Eye witness) PW.3 Shaik Saleem (Witness) PW.4 Kathula Shekar (Eye witness) PW.5 L. Pavan Kumar (I.O.) 8 C.C.No. 382 of 2014

PW.6 Dr. Madhu Sudhan Rao, (Medical Officer)

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of Prosecution) (On behalf of defence)

Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.D1 is the relevant portion of PW3. Ex.P.2 First Information Report Ex.P.3 Crime Details Form Ex.P.4 Medical Certificate

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- -NIL-

Sd/- K. JAYANTHI

FAC. ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS MAHBUBABAD

CC 24 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: AT MAHBUBABAD (Dated on this the 29th day of April, 2017)

PRESENT: Smt. K. JAYANTHI Prl.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MAHBUBABAD

C.C.No. 24 of 2016

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana Represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahbubabad Town Police Station.….Complainant

A N D

A2Shaik Mahboob Bee, W/o Mahammad, age 41 years, Occ:Housewife R/o Giriprasad nagar, Mahbubabad. A3Syed Sulthana Begum, W/o Mumthaj, age 39 years, Occ:Housewife R/o Giriprasad nagar, Mahbubabad. A4Shaik Raheemunnisa, W/o Rahamath Ali, age 40 years, Occ:Housewife R/o Giriprasad nagar, Mahbubabad. A5Malleboina Sriramulu, S/o Mallaiah, age 42 years, Occ:Carpenter R/o Apparajupally, Gudur Mandal A6Mallam Kanakalaxmi @ Vijayalaxmi, W/o Vijay Kumar, age 51 years, R/o Old Bazar, Mahbubabad.…Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on dt.28.04.2017 in the presence of Smt.M.Santhoshi, the learned APP on behalf of prosecution, Sri.J.Siddhartha, Advocate for accused, upon hearing the arguments on either side, upon perusing the entire material on record and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Accused persons A2 to A6 arraigned before this court for a charge under Section 508, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

1 of 6 Prl.Judl.First Class Magistrate

Mahbubabad

CC 24 of 2016

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahbubabad Town Police Station filed

Report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure with the following averments, in brief:-

(a) On dated 09.08.2015, at 12.00 hours, PW.1 lodged report stating that on dated 28.07.2015 during night hours, A3 came to their house and requested PW.1 to come along with her to the hospital, wherein her daughter was admitted. When PW.1 came out, she found that A3's sister-in-law, another muslim woman and one male person were present and they were taken her in an autorickshaw to the house of one Kanakamma, situated at fish market street, Mahbubabad. The said Kanakamma told PW.1 that "లక గడయ ల పటటనవర పజల కరరరట బరగరర డబబల మద పడతవ , by saying so asked PW.1 to” sit in the Puja. Due to fear, PW.1 refused to stay there and she was brought back by the accused to her house in an auto. They told not to disclose to anyone till getting money. On dated 7.8.2015, PW.1 disclosed to her husband and family members and a Report was lodged to the Police that the accused persons made her to sit in

Kushudra Puja.

(b)Basing upon the said complaint, PW.5 registered a case as in Crime

No.146 of 2015 for the offence under Section 506, 508 r/w 34 IPC.

During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted Crime Details Form, apprehended the accused, affected their arrest and got them remanded to judicial custody. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 506, 508 r/w 34 IPC showing the Accused

No.1 as absconding.

3. Considering the material on record, this court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 508, 506 r/w 34 IPC against Accused persons A2 to A6.

2 of 6 Prl.Judl.First Class Magistrate

Mahbubabad

CC 24 of 2016

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure.

5. The accused A2 to A6 were examined under Section 251 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. The substance of accusation for the offence punishable under Section 508, 506 r/w 34 IPC framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 5 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.3. PW.1 is the de facto complainant-cum-victim; Pws.2 and 3 are eyewitnesses; PW.4 is a

Circumstantial witness; and PW.5 is the investigating officer.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused A2 to A6 were examined on the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of PWs as envisaged under Section 313(1)(b) of Code of

Criminal Procedure and the accused denied the accusation and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. During cross-examination of

Pws.2 and 4, Ex.D1 and D2 were marked.

8. This Court heard the arguments on either side and perused the entire record.

NOW THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IS WHETHER THE

PROSECUTION HAS PROVED THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED

FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 508, 506 r/w 34 IPC?

9. It is the brief case of the prosecution that the accused A1 to A6 in collusion with each other induced PW.1 with delusive words to believe that she will be rendered on object of the Divine displeasure if she sits to perform Kushudra Puja to get gold and money and threatened her if she discloses to anybody about the same. In order to prove the said

3 of 6 Prl.Judl.First Class Magistrate

Mahbubabad

CC 24 of 2016

allegations, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 5.

10.PW.1 is the de facto Complainant-cum-Victim. She deposed that on dated 08.08.2015, at 9 p.m., when she was sleeping in her house, A3 came to her and informed that her daughter is suffering with ill-health and requested PW.1 to come along with her to the hospital. At the request of A3, PW.1 agreed to go with her and when she came outside, she observed that along with A3, another lady was also present. They were taken her in an auto to the house of one Kanakamma, at Chapala

Bazar. When PW.1 questioned, A3, A6 and others informed her that when a person born on Laxmi gadiya will sit in Kshudra Puja, they would get gold and money. But, PW.1 refused to do so on fear.

Subsequently, the said persons dropped PW.1 at her house.

11.PW.2 and PW.3 being eyewitnesses deposed that on dated 8.8.2015, A3 and others took PW.1 along with them and on the same day around 10.30 p.m., PW.1 came back home with some tension and fear. On enquiry, PW.1 disclosed that the accused persons tried to made her to sit in Kshudra Puja to get gold and money. Pws.2 and 3 came to know that as PW.1 born in Laxmi gadiya, if she sits in Kshudra Puja, they will get gold and money and with false misrepresentations, she was taken to the house of A6 at fish market lane, Mahbubabad. PW.4 being

Circumstantial witness to the case of prosecution gave different story, as if she is a victim. The evidence of PW.4 is not corroborated with Pws.1 to 3 nor elicited in Ex. P.1. PW.5 is the investigating officer, who did the entire investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

12.As per the evidence supra, admittedly there is a delay of eleven days in lodging the Report as admitted by PW.5, investigating officer.

No reasons were mentioned either in Ex. P.1 or in the First Information

Report with regard to the said delay of eleven days. Further, as per Ex.

P.1, the date of alleged offence mentioned as dated 28.7.2015, whereas,

4 of 6 Prl.Judl.First Class Magistrate

Mahbubabad

CC 24 of 2016

Pws.1 and 2 deposed the date of offence as 8.8.2015. On the contrary,

PW.2 deposed that she never disclosed to the Police that the alleged incident took place on 8.8.2015, which is marked as Ex.D.1. In this case, PW.4 is shown as mere circumstantial witness. Whereas, she gave evidence as if she is the victim of the offence. The evidence of Pw.4 is not corroborating with the evidence of Pws.1 to 3. PW.4 deposed that she gave complaint to the Police, but no such complaint was placed

before this Court. Pws.2 and 3 are also mere circumstantial witnesses,

who came to know the alleged incident through PW.1. The investigating officer did not collect any incriminating evidence from the scene of offence to show that the accused persons allegedly forced PW.1 to sit in

Kshudra Puja to render an object of divine displeasure or threatened her with dire consequences. PW.5 being investigating officer did not examine any of the independent witnesses or adjacent neighbours of

PW.1 or A.6 to corroborate the version of Prosecution story. In view of all these grounds, the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 is not cogent, trustworthy and believable to connect the accused persons A2 to A6 for the offences charged.

13.In view of my above discussion, this Court holds that the

Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 508, 506 r/w 34 IPC and the accused A2 to A6 are entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

14.IN THE RESULT, the accused A2 to A6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 508, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are hereby acquitted under Section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

The bail bonds of accused and surety bonds shall stay in force for six months.

Typed in personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court,

on this the 29 th day of April, 2017.

5 of 6 Prl.Judl.First Class Magistrate

Mahbubabad

CC 24 of 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

(On behalf of Prosecution)(On behalf of defence)

PW.1 Smt.Janagam Saritha (Complainant)-NIL- PW.2 Smt. Janagam Jyothi (Eye witness) PW.3 Smt. M.Vijaya (Eye witness) PW.4 Smt.B.Kanthamma (Circumstantial witness) PW.5 Sri.M.Prasad Rao (IO)

EXHIBITS MARKED:- (On behalf of Prosecution)

Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 First Information Report Ex. P.3Crime Details Form (On behalf of defence)

Ex.D.1Portion of 161 CrPC Statement of PW.2 Ex.D.2Portion of 161 CrPC Statement of PW.4

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- -NIL-

Prl.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLAS

MAHBUBABAD

6 of 6 Prl.Judl.First Class Magistrate

Mahbubabad

1 C.C.No.368 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT: MAHBUBABAD (Dated on this the 31st day of December, 2016)

PRESENT: K. JAYANTHI PJCJ-Cum-JFCM FAC.Addl. Junior Civil Judge

MAHBUBABAD

C.C.No. 368 of 2013

BETWEEN:-

The State of Telangana Represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Rural Police Station. ….Complainant

A N D

A1. Kavati Janardhan S/o Venkanna, 23 years, A2. Rayala Sudheer S/o Rangaiah, 21 years, Both are R/o Amangal village. …Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on dt.29.12.2016 in the presence of Smt.M.Santhoshi, the learned APP on behalf of prosecution, Sri.M. Suresh Reddy, Advocate for accused, upon perusing the entire material on record, upon hearing the arguments on either side and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Accused arraigned before this court for a charge under

Section 326 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Rural Police Station filed Report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure with the following averments, in brief:-

A)On dt.29.5.2013, at about 19.00 hours, LW1 lodged a report stating that on 27.5.2013 at about 8.30 p.m., when her son was returning from police station after meeting with Deputy 2 C.C.No.368 of 2013

Superintendent of Police, on the way Pujari Yakanna followed and when PW1 reached at Gram Panchayath Office, four persons rushed there, one Kavati Janardhan hacked with axe over leg,

Raila Sudheer beat him with a rod over his hand. PUjari

Yakanna, Pujari Srinu, Kavati Sathish and Sheshagani Nagesh all of them gagged mouth with cloth and beat with hands and attempted to kill, one Kavati Janardhan axed him on legs and also caused fracture injury over left hand and threatened him with dire consequences.

B)Basing upon the above complaint, PW.9 registered a case as in

Crime No.106 of 2013 for the offence under Section 326 r/w 34

IPC. During the course of investigation, she examined the witnesses, visited scene of offence and seized one stick in the presence of mediators. Later on, she visited Satya Hospital,

Warangal and examined LW2/Rapolu Sailu and PW2/ Rapolu

Mangamma. During the course of investigation, as offence was not made out against some of the accused persons as such after seeking permission from Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Mahabubabad vide Memo.C.No. 72/SDM/13, dt. 5.7.2013, the names of other accused persons and offence under Section 307

IPC are deleted. On 9.6.2013 at 09.00 hours PW9 affected the arrest of accused, got them remanded to judicial custody. On completion of investigation, after collecting wound certificate,

PW9 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC.

3 C.C.No.368 of 2013

3.Considering the material on record, this court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused were examined under Section 239 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. A charge under section 326 r/w 34 IPC framed, read over and explained to the accused person in

Telugu, for which the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 and exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.10. PW.1, PW3 to P6 are eye witnesses; PW2 is circumstantial witness; PW.7 is mediator; PW9 is Medical Officer; PW9 is an investigating officer.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined on the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of PWs as envisaged under Section 313(1) (b) of

Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused denied the accusation and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.This court heard the arguments on either side and perused the entire record.

NOW THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IS WHETHER THE

PROSECUTION HAS PROVED THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED

FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 326 r/w 34 IPC

BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS?

4 C.C.No.368 of 2013

9.As can be seen from the record, initially the prosecution alleged the offences punishable under Section 307, 324 r/w 34 IPC against one Kavathi Janardhan and eight others. Subsequently, the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and other accused persons names were deleted in view of the proceedings of Sub-

Divisional Police Officer vide Memo.C.No. 72/SDM/13, dt.

5.7.2013.

10.It is the brief case of the prosecution that on dt.27.5.2013 at 8.30 p.m., at Amangal village the A1 and A2 voluntarily caused grievous injuries over legs, hands of LW2/Rapolu Sailu by means of sticks. In order to prove the said allegations, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 9.

11.PW2 is wife of the injured Rapolu Sailu. She deposed that in the year 2013, when her husband was returning from Mahabubabad to Amangal around 10.00 p.m., at Government School the accused persons attacked him with axe and caused fracture injuries over left hand and both legs. She came to know about the incident through somebody else. According to PW2, the accused and five others beat her husband in connection with a love affair of a pair of Amangal village.

12.PW1, PW3 to PW6 being eye witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and stated that they did not witness anything and they does not know anything about this case.

13.PW7 is one of the Panch Witnesses to the Crime Details Form.

He also did not support the case of prosecution except admitting 5 C.C.No.368 of 2013 his signature on Crime Details Form, which is marked as Ex.P6.

14.PW8 is the Medical Officer, who examined LW2/Rapolu Sailu and issued Medical Certificate which is marked as Ex.P7.

15.PW9 is an Investigating Officer, who registered the case, did the entire investigation and filed charge sheet.

16.As per the evidence supra, except the evidence of PW1, there is no other evidence to corroborate her version. Even she is not an eye witness to the alleged incident as admitted by her.

17.As can be seen from the record, the prosecution has failed to examine the de facto complainant and the injured in this case, even though after providing sufficient opportunity by re-opening the case.

18.PWs.1, PW3 to PW7 being material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. The contents of scene of offence panchanama are not proved. Even PW9 being investigating officer categorically admitted that victim himself provoked the accused. She further stated that keeping in mind the land disputes LW2/Rapolu Sailu has been making false complaints against A1 and his family. She did not examine any of the adjacent neighbor as admitted by her. As per complaint and as per evidence of PW1, the accused persons attacked LW2/ Rapolu

Sailu with axe, whereas, it is the version of PW9/Investigating

Officer that the accused persons attacked the injured with sticks.

Hence, the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated with the 6 C.C.No.368 of 2013 evidence of PW9, however delay in lodging report is also fatal to prosecution.

19.In view of my above discussion, this Court holds that the evidence of PW1 coupled with the evidence of PW8 and PW9 is not cogent, trustworthy and believable to prove the charge against the accused. Hence, the A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.

20.IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC and they are hereby acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused and surety bonds shall stay in force for a period of six months. MO1 i.e., two sticks shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 31st day of December, 2016.

Sd/- K.JAYANTHI

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS MAHBUBABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED-

(On behalf of Prosecution) (On behalf of defence)

PW.1 Koneti Somaiah (Eye witness) -NIL- PW.2 Rapolu Mangamma ( Circumstantial witness) PW.3 Enugula Krishna (Eye witness) PW.4 Pidugu Venkanna (Eye witness) PW.5 Kadaboina Venkanna (Eye witness) PW.6 Chennaboina Ravi (Eye witness) PW.7 Bollem Ramana ( PW for CDF) PW.8 Dr. B. Radha Krishna ( Medical Officr) PW.9 K. Rajya Laxmi ( I.O) 7 C.C.No.368 of 2013

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of Prosecution) (On behalf of defence)

Ex.P.1 Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P.2 Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C Statement of PW3 -NIL- Ex.P.3 Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C Statement of PW4 Ex.P.4 Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C Statement of PW5 Ex.P.5 Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C Statement of PW6 Ex.P.6 Signature of PW7 Ex.P7 Medical Certificate Ex.P8 First Information Report Ex.P9 Complaint Ex.P10 Crime Details Form

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1 is two sticks (Vide CPR No. 91/2013)

Sd/- K. JAYANTHI

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS MAHBUBABAD