DRAFT JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA
Present: Sri CH. BALA GANGADHARA TILAK ROY, X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalli (FAC) XIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015
SESSIONS CASE No.85/2012
(P.R.C.No.23/2011 on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka in Cr.No.287/2010 of Gajuwaka Traffic Police station, Visakhapatnam City)
NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT:State represented by the Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Traffic Police station, Visakhapatnam City. NAME OF THE ACCUSED:1.Gulla Mohan Rao @ Chicken Srinu @ Chepala Srinu, S/o. Late Veera Swamy, 36 years, Vadabalija, R/o.D.No.65-1-171/1,Veera Varalaxmi Nilayam, Srinivasa Nagar, Sriharipuram,Visakhapatnam, Ph:9948598290.
2.Adala Paparao, S/o. Tatarao, 39 years, Vadabalija, R/o.D.No. 65- 1-194/G,SrinivasaNagar, Coromonadal gate, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam, ph.92982 51200.
3.Narsipuram Ramprasad, S/o. Late Bhujunga Rao, 40 years, Patnaik, D.No.24-9-7/1, Kanithi Road, Guntinivanipalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, ph:5030902258.
4.Chodpalli Jagadeswara Rao, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, 45 years, Vadabalija, D.No.21-42-39, opposite to AVN College, Visakhapatnam, Ph:9550427699.
5.Sunkara Surya Prakash @ Chilaka @ Bujji, S/o. Late Satyanarayana, 38 years, Telaga, Sujatha Nagar, Near Ratnagiri Nagar, Swatvik Residency, 2nd floor, Visakhapatnam, Ph: 9298007347.
6.Chintala Srinivas, S/o. Late Venkatayya,R/o.D.No.26-23-2, Chaitanya Nagar, China Gantyada, Visakhapatnam.
Date, time and place of :On 26.09.2010 at about min-night, at Zinc Gate, New Gajuwaka, OccurrenceVisakhapatnam. Charges:Sec.302 & 201 r/w. 34 of IPC Plea of the AccusedAccused 1 to 6 pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Accused found not guilty Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty under section 302 r/w.34 of I.P.C., and accused 6 is found not guilty under sections 302, 201 r/w.34 of I.P.C., and shall be acquitted u/Sec.232 Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable u/Sections u/s.302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC. M.Os.1 to 9 and 11 to 15 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. M.O.10 shall be confiscated to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused 1 to 6 shall stand cancelled. Prosecution conducted bySri O. Ratan Raju, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Gajuwaka. Accused 1 to 6 were Sri M.Ravi, Advocate for A.1, Sri M.Satya Narayana, Advocate for defended by A.2 to A.5 and Sri Sk.Sharif, Advocate for A.6.
This Sessions case has come up on 18.09.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri O. Ratan Raju, Additional Public Prosecutor for State -
Complainant and Sri M.Ravi, Advocate for A.1, Sri M.Satya Narayana, Advocate for A.2 to A.5 and Sri Sk.Sharif, Advocate for A.6 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
01.The prosecution filed charge sheet, in Cr.No.287/2010, under section 302, 201 r/w.34 of I.P.C., of Gajuwaka Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam city, against A.1 to A.6. The state represented by Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Traffic
Police Station, Visakhapatnam city filed the charge sheet against all the accused.
02.The allegations of the charge sheet are as follows:
All the accused are the residents of different areas in Visakhapatnam and they are close friends doing various types of business. The two deceased by names Danda Srinivas and Danda Siva Nagaraju @ Siva (herein after referred to as first deceased and second deceased) who are brothers and that first deceased and second deceased are at logger heads with the accused in respect of various real estate transactions prior to the date of offence.
03.A.6 gave Rs.3,50,000/- to A.1 about six months prior to the date of offence and that the A.1 issued a blank cheque and executed a promissory notice and original documents relating to his sites in Sabbavaram and Gotiwada Villages for the money received from A.6. A.1 obtained the site from L.W.14 which is situated in Survey No.51/2 of Atchutapuram and got it registered in the name of
L.W.12 on 23.06.2010 and that A.1 signed as witness in the said registered sale deed. L.W.12 gave Rs.2,00,000/- to A.1 in connection with the said sale deed transaction and further promised to pay the balance of Rs.1,66,000/- within a period of 1 ½ months and that A.1 started abusing L.W.12 in foul words on the ground that the amount was not paid by L.W.12 to A.1. L.W.12 informed the same to A.6 about the abusive language of A.1 against L.W.12 and that A.6 promised to speak to A.1 on his return from Bombay. On 31-08-2010, while the
L.W.12 was returning from Atchutapuram at 8.30 P.M., the A.1 dashed against vehicle of L.W.12 near Sri Kanya Lodge at Gajuwaka which resulted in fall of
L.W.12. L.W.12 received medical treatment at R.K.Hospital, Gajuwaka and that
L.W.12 informed the incident to A.6.
04.On 26-09-2010 at about 8.30 P.M., A.1 telephoned to L.W.12, to come to Sriharipuram market place for a discussion about the matter but L.W.12 did not go there. On the same day, L.W.12, A.6, L.W.22, L.W.10 and L.W.13 along with first deceased and second deceased, L.W.16 and others reached near the house of
L.W.22 and warned A.1 on cell phone and to discuss about the amount due from the L.W.12 to A.1. L.W.10 at that time called L.W.13 on cell phone of L.W.12 and questioned about the audacity of A.1 and to come to Zinc gate to settle scores. At about 9.30 P.M., A.1 and A.6 also spoke with each other on their cell phones.
Thus, A.1 to A.5 are aware of the presence of first deceased and second deceased along with others at the spot of offence.
05.At about 10.30 P.M., L.W.18 who is the brother-in-law of A.1 was going on his motorcycle and reached zinc company. L.W.12, L.W.10, first deceased and second deceased, L.W.11 and A.6 beat L.W.18 with hands. L.W.22 chastised all the people and sent away L.W.18 and others who were standing on the left side of the road. At about midnight, A.1 came there on the road from
Sriharipuram towards New Gajuwaka driving red colour Maruthi Swift car bearing
No. AP 31 AT 4193 at high speed and dashed against first deceased and second deceased and that first deceased and second deceased were consequently jolted in such a way that they flied into the air and hit against the front glass of the car and fell on the road. The front glass of the car was also broken. The letter “G.M.R” were also found painted on the car and it is an abbreviation of the name of A.1. Besides A.1 who is driving the car, A.2 to A.5 were also seated in car and that they ran away.
06.L.W.22 lifted first deceased and second deceased with the help of others and took them to R.K.Hospital, Gajuwaka and then to Care Hospital and that the first deceased and second deceased were taken to K.G.Hospital,
Visakhapatnam on the advice of the above mentioned two hospitals. The first deceased and second deceased were admitted in K.G.Hospital, Visakhapatnam, while they were in unconscious condition. At about 12.30 P.M., on 27.09.2010 first deceased by name Danda Srinivas expired and second deceased by name
Danda Siva Naga Raju on 28.09.2010 died at about 7.00 A.M., due to their injuries.
07.On a report given by A.6, a case in Cr.No.287/2010 on the file of
Gajuwaka Traffic police station was registered under sections 337, 338 of I.P.C., on 27.09.2010 at 11.00 hrs by L.W.42. During the investigation after the demise of first deceased, the section of law was altered into 304-A IPC. During the course of inquest of first deceased and second deceased, it came to light that the accused Nos.1 to 5 have deliberately committed the offence in order to kill the deceased and there after the section of law was again altered into one under section 302 I.P.C. During the investigation, L.W.41 seized the broken glass pieces of the car, blood stained tar road flakes, control tar road flakes, under the cover of mediators report on 27.09.2010 at about 12.30 P.M., which is attested by
L.Ws.20 and 21. L.W.41 also took digital photographs at that time. On the same day at about 6 P.M., L.W.41 seized the car bearing No.AP 31 AT 4193 which belonged to A.1 which was found on the left side of service road leading from
Burma Camp to Tatichetlapalem in Kancharapalem area of Visakhapatnam. The photographs were also taken at that time and that the mediator's report was drafted which is attested by L.Ws.20 and 21. At the time of examination of A.6 on 28.09.2010 as a witness under section 161 Cr.P.C., L.W.42 Inspector of Police seized a cheque with No.033389-530233002 which was drawn by A.1, a promissory note for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, which was executed by A.1 and the original document No.2208/2008 and other connected documents.
08.L.W.37 conducted post mortem examination over the dead bodies of first deceased and second deceased and found eleven injuries on the body of first deceased opined that first deceased died due to head injury and that twelve injuries were found on the body of second deceased and opined that the death of second deceased is due to head injury associated with fracture injury of left tibia.
On 02.10.2010 at about 12 noon, A.1 was arrested at the power grid situated by the side of Hill Top Guest House road at Steel plant area in the presence of
L.Ws.27 and 28, and he was interrogated. A.1 disclosed and produced his black and grey colour Nokia cell phone 99485 98290 and it was seized under the cover of mediator's report. The A.1 voluntarily disclosed to show the house of his brother-in-law and also other accused who travelled in the car at the time of offence and also produced the record relating to the car and on the same day at about 14 Hrs., A.1 along with the police party including the mediators went to
Karnavanipalem junction at the Kanithi road, where A.1 showed A.2 to A.5.
L.W.42 arrested them under the cover of mediators report attested by L.Ws.27 and 28. On the same day, at about 15.30 Hrs., A.1 took the police party including the mediators to the house of his brother-in-law i.e., L.W.16 at Tikkavanipalem of
Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam, and produced the Registration certificate,
Insurance and Pollution Certificates and also his driving license and the same was seized under the cover of mediators report, which is attested by L.Ws.20 and 21.
A.1 to A.5 were produced before the court for remand on 03-10-2010.
09.The investigation disclosed that A.6 intentionally gave false report regarding the offence knowing fully that A.1 to A.5 are occupants of the car bearing No.AP 31 AT 4193 and that A.1 is driving the car at the time of the commission of the offence and that A.1 to A.5 have motive to commit the offence, in such a way as if it is a minor traffic accident and to screen A.1 to A.5. A.6 was arrested on 04.11.2010 and was produced before the Court for remand. L.W.38 conducted examination over the viscera of both the deceased and also the other material objects viz., blood stained apparels of first deceased and second deceased and submitted his opinion. L.W.39 conducted the examination over the material objects like broken glass pieces and submitted his opinion. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed after collecting the call list regarding cell phone calls, and thus the accused 1 to 6 are liable for punishment under sections 302, 201 r/w.34 of I.P.C.,. Hence, the charge sheet.
10. The learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka has taken the cognizance of offence under section 302 of I.P.C., r/w 34 of I.P.C., against A.1 to A.5 and under section 201 of I.P.C., against A.6 on 14.06.2011 and committed this Case to the Sessions Division,
Visakhapatnam as the offence u/Sec.302 IPC., which is exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions. The Honourable Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam has made over this case to this Court for disposal according to Law.
11. After appearance of the accused A.1 to A.6 before this Court and after hearing the prosecution and defence counsel, a charge u/Sec.302 of I.P.C r/w.34 of I.P.C., was framed against the accused 1 to 5 and a charge under section 201 of I.P.C., was framed against the A.6 and the contents of the charge were read over and explained to all the accused in Telugu. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
12. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.34 were examined and
Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-45 and M.Os.1 to 15 were marked. While, on behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked during the trial of the case.
13. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused 1 to 6 were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and they were explained about the incriminating evidence available on record against them in the prosecution evidence. During the said examination, the accused 1 to 6 stated that the police unnecessarily filed this case against them and they have not committed the offence and they do not know anything about this case.
14.After hearing the arguments of the Additional public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused 1 to 6, the case is posted for Judgment.
15. The points for consideration are:
01. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused 1 to 5 for the offence punishable u/Section 302 r/w.34 of I.P.C., and the guilt of the accused 6 for the offence punishable u/Section 201 of I.P.C?
02. To what relief?
POINT NO.1:
16.The charge under section 302 r/w.34 of I.P.C.: The allegations of the prosecution are that there was a dispute with regard to the real estate business in between accused and the deceased 1 and 2 who are by names Danda Srinivas and Danda Siva Nagaraju @ Siva (herein after referred to as first deceased and second deceased). The allegations of the prosecution disclosed that there were some money transactions between A.1 and A.6 and consequently, that the A.1 executed blank cheque and promissory note and delivered them along with some original documents under his signature to A.6. Other allegations of the prosecution are with regard to sale of property by A.1 to L.W.12 after entering into a sale transaction with L.W.14 and that the L.W.12 fell in arrears of payment of a part of sale consideration amount to the A.1 in that context. Consequently, the A.1 verbally abused L.W.12 on account of non-payment of due amounts by the L.W.12 to A.1. Thus these incidents consequently lead to the alleged motor vehicle accident alleged to have been caused by the A.1 to the first deceased and second deceased on the date of offence i.e., 26.09.2010.
17.The first aspect is whether the prosecution adduced any evidence to prove any transaction of sale, among A.1, L.W.12 and L.W.14. The prosecution examined L.W.12 as P.W.10 and L.W.14 as P.W.12. P.W.10 deposed that he got acquaintance with A.6 but he does not know who are A.1 to A.5. The P.W.10 has not stated anything with regard to the sale transaction between A.1 and P.W.10 through P.W.12. Even the evidence of P.W.12 does not enclose that he sold or executed any sale deed directly to P.W.10. It is the A.1 who sold some plots to some persons by forming plots in the land of P.W.12. It is P.W.12 who registered the plots in favour of the purchasers. So, the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 12 do not disclose any transaction among the P.W.10 and A.1 through P.W.12. Therefore, in view of the evidence of P.W.10, the allegation of the prosecution that he was due to pay some amount to A.1 and that A.1 abused P.W.10 in connection with the due amount is unbelievable.
18. It is the allegation of the prosecution that P.W.10, P.W.8, P.W.11 and
P.W.14 along with A.6 and P.W.19 and others, went to the house of P.W.19. But the evidence of P.W.10 or P.W.11 do not disclose that all of them went to the house of P.W.19 in order to have a negotiation with A.1 about the abusive language used by the A.1 against P.W.10. There is no evidence of these witnesses that they altogether went to the accident spot and they were present along with first and second deceased at the time of offence on the date of offence. The evidence of P.Ws.10, 8, 11 and 14 disclosed their non-acquaintance with A.1 to A.5.
19.There is nothing in the evidence of them that A.6 was also present along with them at the time of offence, date of offence and scene of offence.
P.W.19 has spoken about the happening of some motor vehicle accident near his house but he did not see which vehicle hit the first and second deceased. He even expressed ignorance about the knowledge and acquaintance with P.Ws.8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19 A.1 and A.6. So this evidence of P.Ws.8, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 19 is absolutely disproving the allegations of the prosecution against A.1 to the effect that he drove red colour maruthi swift car bearing No.AP 31 AT 4193 in high speed and dashed against the deceased 1 and 2. The evidence of these witnesses is revealing nothing about witnessing of the accident to the first and second deceased. When they have not seen the actual accident and when they have not got any knowledge about the crime vehicle, their evidence cannot be considered to say that the A.1 has driven the said crime car and dashed against first and second deceased by driving the car in rash and negligent manner.
20.There is nothing which shows that A.1 has driven the alleged car in rash and negligent manner. The prosecution has thus failed to establish that the accident was caused to first and second deceased with the crime vehicle car and that it was driven by A.1 at the time of cause of accident to the first and second deceased. When such evidence is not placed by the prosecution, then no proof can be said to have been placed to say that the A.1 with a criminal intention to cause the death of first and second deceased has driven the crime vehicle at such high speed and dashed the first and second deceased.
21.Therefore, either the rash and negligent act in driving the crime vehicle car cannot be attributed to the A.1 or so also the criminal intention to kill the first and second deceased by driving the car against them. In the absence of such evidence, the alleged criminal intention to kill the deceased first and second deceased in the manner alleged by the prosecution cannot be fastened on A.1.
Even, the very evidence of P.W.1 who is wife of deceased first deceased Danda
Srinivas and P.W.2 who is wife of second deceased Danda Siva Nagaraju @ Siva, have not spoken anything suspecting about the death of first and second deceased in the manner alleged by prosecution.
22.So the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not of any help to prosecution to say that A.1 has driven the crime car with an intention to kill first and second deceased. P.W.3 who is mother of first and second deceased, P.W.4 who is relative of first deceased by name Srinivas did not see accident and they do not know about the facts of the case alleged by the prosecution. P.W.5 who is father-in-law of second deceased by name Siva Naga Raju has also not seen accident and he did not make any enquiry about the cause of the death of second deceased.
P.Ws.1 and 2 identified M.Os.1 to 5 as the clothes belonging to the first and second deceased. P.W.5 has denied her statement in Ex.P.1. P.W.6 also denied his statement in Ex.P.2 and he did not speak about the circumstances relating to the manner of the accident. He came to know about the accident through one of his relatives.
23.P.W.7 is the neighbour of the first and second deceased but he did not know how the deceased first and second deceased died. He only came to know on enquiry that first and second deceased met with an accident and that he informed to the wife of deceased by name Srinivas through phone. So the evidence of all these witnesses is not at all establishing the case of the prosecution with regard to the criminal intention of the A.1 to drive the car with rash and negligent manner and with an intention to kill the first and second deceased. P.W.8 has no knowledge of the accused or the first and second deceased. He does not also know about the case facts. He does not also know about the accident. So others evidence is not in any way helpful to the prosecution to prove its case.
24.P.W.9 does not know the accused 1 to 6. He knows the first and second defendants. P.W.9 does not know how the accident occurred and he has not enquired about the accident. He came to know that the accident took place when a car hit some persons. He does not even know how many persons sustained injuries. His house is situated at a distance of 200 meters from the scene of accident. He denied statement in Ex.P.4, P.W.8 denied his statement in
Ex.P.3. P.W.10 denied his statement in Ex.P.5. P.W.11 denied his statement in
Ex.P.6. P.W.13 stated that he possessed the crime car and sold it to Reddy cars and cars in the year 2008 and that they have given the sale letter to him. P.W.13 has no knowledge whether one Gulla Mohan Rao purchased the car, he denied the statement in Ex.P.7. So it is not established that the crime car was purchased by A.1. It is not known who purchased the car, at best it can be said that P.W.13 is the owner of the car. P.W.14 is brother-in-law to A.1 and that he never received any records from A.1 and that A.1 never informed about his involvement in accident. P.W.14 denied the statement in Ex.P.8. P.W.15 is friend of A.1 and he knows P.W.16 also.
25.P.W.15 did not know the first and second deceased and that he came to know about the accident but he did not know who sustained injuries in the accident. It is only hear say evidence. However, in the cross-examination by public prosecutor he admitted that A.1 and others were present when he went to
Scindia High School, and he was not aware of what was spoken by A.1 on telephone. He also telephoned to L.W.18 who is P.W.16. P.W.16 stated that he is brother-in-law of A.1 and that he has given complaint to police. So this evidence of P.Ws.14, 15 and 16 is not revealing anything with regard to the criminal intention on the part of A.1. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W.15 that the
A.1 has driven a crime car and dashed the deceased 1 and 2. So all this evidence is not establishing anything with regard to the criminal intention of A.1 to kill first and second deceased in the manner alleged by the prosecution.
26.P.W.16 denied the evidence alleged in Ex.P.9. P.Ws.16 and 15 being brother-in-law and friend of A.1 may speak in favour of A.1. Though their evidence is not to be considered to say that the A.1 has no criminal intention but the other evidence of witnesses of prosecution is not at all proving any circumstance which suggests that the A.1 has driven crime car and caused accident to the first and second defendants, leaving apart criminal intention on the part of A.1 to kill first and second deceased.
27.P.W.18 is a mediator who stated that he never acted as mediator for the observation of the scene of offence, seizure of materials under Exs.P.14, P.15,
P.16 and P.17 under mediator reports. Infact Exs.P.4 to P.17 are the signatures of mediators on alleged mediator reports. Though the police requested him to act as a mediator he has not seen and inspected the scene of offence and seizure of broken glass pieces of the car, blood stained tar road flakes, control flakes, crime vehicle under the cover of mediators reports. He was also not present at the time of conducting of inquest over the dead bodies of the first and second deceased.
P.W.20 does not know first and second deceased but he admitted his signatures in
Exs.P.19 and 20. However, P.W.20 denied his presence at the time of inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased 1 and 2. He denied the suggestive case of the prosecution with regard to his presence at the inquest.
28.P.W.21 also denied that he acted as mediator, however he admitted his signatures on Exs.P.21, 22 and 23, but he did not admit the seizure of crime car in his presence, the observation of the scene of offence by he investigating officer, the seizure of Material Objects, at the scene of offence, and the seizure of the crime car in the presence of the mediators who are mentioned in Ex.P.22.
29.Thus the evidence which is discussed above is unreliable and unbelievable to say that the A.1 has driven the crime car in rash negligent manner and caused accident to the first and second deceased and that A.1 has got criminal intention to kill first and second deceased and that the death was caused by A.1 to the first and second deceased, in such a manner. Even, the above discussed evidence through P.Ws.1 to 21 has not disclosed about the presence of A.2 to A.5 in the crime car when it was driven by A.1 at the time of alleged accident to the first and second deceased on the date of offence at the scene of offence. So it cannot be said that the A.2 to A.5 have shared criminal intention with A.1 to cause the death of first and second deceased in the manner alleged by prosecution.
30.P.W.22 is the head constable who handed over the dead body of the deceased for post postmortem examination by the Doctor. P.W.23 is Circle
Inspector of Police, while working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Gajuwaka Police station, registered a report given by P.W.16 as in Cr.No.493/2010 under sections.341, 323, 379 r/w.34 of I.P.C., and that he visited the scene of offence at the Zinc Gate. He prepared the rough sketch of scene of offence and examined
P.W.23, he denied the suggestion that P.W.16 did not come to police station and did not give report. This evidence of P.W.23 does not prove the case of the prosecution against A.1 to A.6. P.W.24 is a Deputy Civil Surgeon, P.H.C., East
Godavari District, who examined L.W.19 by name Bhinkanth Ojha @ Nepali
Chinna. He found some simple injuries and issued Ex.P.24. He says nothing to do with the proof of the case of the prosecution against A.1 to A.6. P.W.25 examined first deceased by name Srinivas and also second deceased by name Siva Naga
Raju and found injuries on the body of the deceased.
31.P.W.25 issued Ex.P.25 wound certificate for first deceased Srinivas and
Ex.P.26 wound certificate for second deceased Siva Naga Raju. Ex.P.27 is wound certificate of D.Venkat. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W.25 to say that the
Exs.A.1 to A.6 caused the death of the deceased and that A.6 screened offenders
A.1 to A.5. P.W.26 examined first and second deceased while they were in unconscious state and referred them to Neuro surgeon ward after registering the case in MLC.No.7695/2010 and informed the same to the concerned police.
Ex.P.30 is the attested copy of M.L.C intimation. Therefore, he examined first and second deceased while they were with injuries and that he registered medico legal case and informed the same to police.
32. P.W.27 received intimation from Gajuwaka Traffic Police Station with regard to the M.L.C., intimation from K.G.Hospital about first and second deceased and he found both the deceased in unconscious state and he did not record statements and that he did not know the duty doctor whom he met and obtained endorsement of duty doctor on some papers. Ex.P.30 is attested copy of
M.L.C., intimation and P.W.27 did not produce any such paper and that he has not spoken anything about the offence. Ex.P.28 has given an opinion with regard to the examination of the glass pieces. Ex.P.28 is the FLS Report / opinion, Ex.P.29 is the letter of advice, M.O.6 is the few broken glass pieces, M.O.7 is the broken glass. There is difference between similar and same and that he did not mention the words same in his opinion. So this evidence of P.W.28 does not prove any circumstances to say that glass pieces belong to the car of the A.1 and that the car of the A.1 is involved in the accident.
33.P.W.29 escorted the dead body of the second deceased and after postmortem examination he handed over dead body to the relatives of second deceased. P.W.30 is Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, he worked as
Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka police station, who examined scene of offence and prepared Ex.P.31 rough sketch and Ex.P.32 is scene of observation report in
Cr.No.287/2010 and that he also seized the controlled earth and blood stained earth, M.Os.8, 9 and 10 are blood stained tar pieces, controlled tar piece and red colour swift car bearing No.AP 31 AT 4193 respectively. He examined body of second deceased Siva Naga Raju and conducted inquest over him in the presence of the Panchayat Raj. He also examined P.W.2, L.W.6, P.W.5, P.W.3, A.6, Polayya and Narasimha Murthy and he sent the dead body for postmortem examination.
P.W.30 thought that glass pieces belonging to the car glass as per the statements of the neighbours of the scene. Observation of scene of offence took place twelve hours after the time of accident. P.W.30 did not post any guard at the scene of offence. Therefore investigation of P.W.30 is not trust worthy to say that the glass pieces belongs to the crime car.
34.P.W.31 worked as Inspector of police, Gajuwaka Traffic Police Station and he received Ex.P.33 original First Information Report. As per the investigation of P.W.30 he altered the First Information Report from the Sections 337, 338
I.P.C., to Section 304-A IPC., and filed original alternation memo. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the first deceased at K.G.Hospital. P.W.30 conducted inquest over the second deceased. P.W.31 recorded the statements of
A.6, P.W.10, P.W.19, P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4, L.W.5, P.W.2, L.W.6, P.W.5 and one
Santhi. Basing on their statements, he altered the section of law from 304-A
I.P.C., to 302 I.P.C., and filed Ex.P.35 alternation memo. P.W.31 also examined
P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.12, P.W.13, P.W.11. The witnesses who were examined by the
P.W.31 have not stated anything proving the offence under section 337, 338, 304-A and 302 of I.P.C., against A.1 to A.6. Even P.W.31 has not registered any altered F.I.R. No reason is offered by the P.W.31, which is substantial and reasonable, to say that there is reason for not registering altered First
Information Reports. P.W.31 sent seized objected to F.S.L., under Ex.P.36 letter of advice. He seized crime car under Ex.P.37 mediator report, dated 2.10.2010. He seized M.Os.11, 12, 13 and 14 which are R.C., Driving License of Mohan Rao,
Pollution Certificate and Insurance Policy. All these documents do not prove the case of the prosecution. These circumstances are not supprted by the eye witnesses.
35.However, P.W.31 stated that he recorded the Exs.P.1, P.2, P.3, P.4, P.5,
P.6, P.7, P.8 and P.9 from the concerned witnesses. In the cross-examination, he has admitted certain critical errors which are material, he has not seized original driving license of A.1, Ex.P.22 is not in his hand writing. Even the police constable has written Ex.P.22 and his investigation of P.W.31 is erratic and he is indicating that he has not conducted investigation as stated in his chief-examination. It shows that he has approved the investigation and introduced the same as if he has done the same. So such evidence cannot be relied on to say that the investigation of P.W.31 is of any help to the prosecution to show any circumstances that establishes the offence alleged by the prosecution.
36.P.W.32 has assumed charge subsequently and filed charge sheet as investigation was already completed. So it is just a formality to conduct preliminary investigation. P.W.33 has conducted autopsy over dead body of first deceased and issued Postmortem certificate. This examination discloses some injuries and the cause of death relating to the first deceased. So also he also conducted the postmortem examination of dead body of second deceased and found injuries and cause of death. But the observation and evidence of P.W.33 do not point out anything against A.1 to A.6.
37.P.W.34 is the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who forwarded material objected like viscera to the R.F.S.L., Visakhapatnam for examination.
Ex.P.40 is the letter of advice, he forwarded material i.e., glass pieces collected from the scene of offence. Ex.P.41 is F.S.L.Report, dated 13.12.2010, Ex.P.42 is the F.S.L.Report, dated 15.12.2010. They were forwarded to the Inspector of police, Gajuwaka police station. P.W.34 is not investigating officer. So the evidence of P.W.34 is not proving any circumstances relating to the alleged offence i.e., said to have been committed at the scene of offence. There is nothing in the evidence of prosecution to say that the A.6 suppressed any material relating to the commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., and thereafter screened A.1 to A.5 from being punished. Therefore no proof is evidencing under section 201 I.P.C., against A.6. Thus prosecution has failed to establish charge under section 302 of I.P.C., r/w.34 I.P.C., against A.1 to A.5 and charge under section 201 I.P.C., against A.6. A.1 to A.6 are entitled to benefit of doubt. M.Os.1 to 9 and M.Os.11 to 15 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. M.O.10 shall be confiscated to this State.
POINT NO.2:
38. In the result, the accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty under section 302 r/w.34 of I.P.C., and accused 6 is found not guilty under section 201 of I.P.C., and A.1 to A.6 shall be acquitted u/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable u/Sections u/s.302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC. M.Os.1 to 9 and 11 to 15 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. M.O.10 shall be confiscated to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused 1 to 6 shall stand cancelled.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open Court, this the 22nd day of September, 2015.
X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
VISAKHAPATNAM AT ANAKAPALLI
(FAC) XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
No of witnesses examined
For Prosecution:
P.W.1: D.Latha P.W.2: D.Jeevitha P.W.3: D.Sumathi P.W.4: D.Sujatha P.W.5: U.Kamala P.W.6: K.Rajesh P.W.7: K.Nookesh P.W.8: M.Maheswara Rao P.W.9: V.Dinakar Raju P.W.10: B.Venkata Polayya P.W.11: S.Mohan Rao P.W.12: K.Appala Naidu P.W.13: P.Vijay Kumar P.W.14: T.Chinna Rao. P.W.15: N.Srinivasa Rao. P.W.16: A.Venkata Ramana. P.W.17: P.Appa Rao. P.W.18: G.Srinivasa Rao. P.W.19: P.V.V.V.S.A.Narasimha Murthy P.W.20: T.Krupananda Rao P.W.21: A.Srinivasa Rao P.W.22: P.V.Srinivasa Rao P.W.23: N.Nageswara Rao P.W.24: Dr. K.Rajanna P.W.25: Dr. N.Kameswara Rao P.W.26: Dr. J.B.N.Rao P.W.27: O.K.Viswanadham P.W.28: D.Venkateswarulu P.W.29: K.Ramanjaneyulu P.W.30: K.Ramachandra Rao P.W.31: R.Srinivas P.W.32: N.Kalidas P.W.33: Md. Taqidin Khan P.W.34: V.Suresh Babu
For Defence:
NONE.
No. of Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution:
Ex.P-1/04-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.5. Ex.P-2/04-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.6.
Ex.P-3/06-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.8. Ex.P-4/06-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.9. Ex.P-5/06-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.10. Ex.P-6/06-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.11. Ex.P-7/06-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.13. Ex.P-8/06-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.14. Ex.P-9/06-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.16. Ex.P-10/09-03-2015: Signature on scene observation report, dated 27.09.2010 at 12.30 P.M.,of P.W.17. Ex.P-11/09-03-2015: Signature on mediator's report, dated 27.09.2010 at 6.00 P.M.,of P.W.17. Ex.P-12/09-03-2015: Signature of P.W.18 on Inquest report of first deceased. Ex.P-13/09-03-2015: Signature of P.W.17 on Inquest report of second deceased. Ex.P-14/09-03-2015: Signature of P.W.18 on scene observation report, dated 27-09-2010 at 12.30 P.M. Ex.P-15/09-03-2015: Signature of P.W.18 on Mediator's report, dated 27-90-2010 at 6-00 P.M. Ex.P-16/09-03-2015: Signature of P.W.18 on Inquest report of first deceased. Ex.P-17/09-03-2015: Signature of P.W.18 on Inquest report of second deceased. Ex.P-18/09-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.19. Ex.P-19/10-03-2015: Signature on Inquest report of first deceased of P.W.20. Ex.P-20/10-03-2015: Signature on Inquest report of second deceased of P.W.20. Ex.P-21/ : Signature on mediator's report, dated 2-10-2010 at 12.00 noon. Ex.P-22/ : Signature on mediator's report, dated 2-10-2010 at 2.00 P.M. Ex.P-23/ : Signature on mediator's report, dated 2-10-2010 at 3.30 P.M. Ex.P-24/12-03-2015: Wound certificate, dated 12-01-2011. Ex.P-25 : Wound certificate of first deceased. Ex.P-26 : Wound certificate of second deceased. Ex.P-27 : Wound certificate of B.Venkat. Ex.P-28 : FSL Report/ Opinion. Ex.P-29 : Letter of advise. Ex.P-30 : Account of M.L.C.Intimation. Ex.P-31 : Rough sketch. Ex.P-32 : Scene observation report. Ex.P-33 : Original F.I.R.287/10. Ex.P-34 : Alteration memo under sections 338, 337 to 304-A I.P.C. Ex.P-35 : Alteration memo 304(A) to 302. Ex.P-36 : Letter of advice. Ex.P-37 : Mediator's report, dated 2-10-2010 at 3-30 P.M. Ex.P-38 : P.M.Report of first deceased. Ex.P-39 : P.M.Report of Second deceased. Ex.P-40 : Letter of advice. Ex.P-41 : F.S.L.Opinion, dated 13-12-2010. Ex.P-42 : F.S.L.Opinion, dated 15-12-2010. Ex.P-43 : Cheque by No.033389530233002 of centurion Bank. Ex.P-44 : Pro-note for Rs.3,50,000/-. Ex.P-45 : Sale deed document No.2208/08 executed in favour of G.Mohana Rao.
For defence : NIL
M.O.1 : Blood Stained green coloured T-Shirt of first defendant. M.O.2 : Blood Stained Cement coloured pant of first defendant. M.O.3 : Blood Stained black coloured T-Shirt of second defendant. M.O.4 : Blood Stained white coloured cut banian of second defendant. M.O.5 : Blood Stained blue coloured Shirt of second defendant. M.O.6 : One brittled glass piece. M.O.7 : Brittled glass pieces. M.O.8 : Control bitnus piece. M.O.9 : Blood Stained bitnus taru piece.
M.O.10 : Swift car bearing No.AP 31 AT 4193. M.O.11 : R.C., of AP 31 AT 4193 Swift car. M.O.12 : Driving license of G.Mohana Rao. M.O.13 : Pollution certificate. M.O.14 : Policy schedule. M.O.15 : Nokia Cell Black Colour.
X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ANAKAPALLI
(FAC) XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.
Copies to:
1. The Registrar (Judicial), Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
2. The III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka in VSP. 3.The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam.
CALENDAR & JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GAJUWAKA
Present: Sri CH. BALA GANGADHARA TILAK ROY, X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalli (FAC) XIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015
SESSIONS CASE No.85/2012
(P.R.C.No.23/2011 on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka in Cr.No.287/2010 of Gajuwaka Traffic Police station, Visakhapatnam City)
NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT:State represented by the Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Traffic Police station, Visakhapatnam City.
NAME OF THE ACCUSED:1. Gulla Mohan Rao @ Chicken Srinu @ Chepala Srinu, S/o. Late Veera Swamy, 36 years, Vadabalija,R/o.D.No.65-1-171/1,Veera VaralaxmiNilayam,SrinivasaNagar, Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam, Ph:9948598290.
2. Adala Paparao, S/o. Tatarao, 39 years, Vadabalija, R/o.D.No. 65-1-194/G, Srinivasa Nagar,Coromonadalgate,Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam, ph.92982 51200.
3. Narsipuram Ramprasad, S/o. Late Bhujunga Rao, 40 years, Patnaik, D.No.24-9-7/1, Kanithi Road,Guntinivanipalem,Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, ph:5030902258.
4. Chodpalli Jagadeswara Rao, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, 45 years, Vadabalija, D.No.21- 42-39, opposite to AVN College, Visakhapatnam, Ph:9550427699.
5. Sunkara Surya Prakash @ Chilaka @ Bujji, S/o. Late Satyanarayana, 38 years, Telaga, Sujatha Nagar, Near Ratnagiri Nagar, Swatvik Residency, 2nd floor, Visakhapatnam, Ph: 9298007347.
6. Chintala Srinivas, S/o. Late Venkatayya, R/o.D.No.26-23-2, Chaitanya Nagar, China Gantyada, Visakhapatnam.
Date of Complaint/Report::18-05-2011
Date of apprehension:14-06-2011
Date of commencement of :02/03/15 trial:
Date of closing of Trial:12/06/15
Date of Judgment:22-09-2015
Whether the accused is/are in : Accused 1 to 6 are on bail bail or in Jail
Explanation for delay in :Vide Docket Extract committal Court
Explanation for delay in trial Vide docket extract Court:
This case is filed by the Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Traffic Police station,
Visakhapatnam City. He has filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 6 in
Cr.No.287/2010 of Gajuwaka Traffic Police station, Visakhapatnam City, for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC and it was taken on file as
P.R.C.No.23/2011 on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC and committed to Metropolitan
Sessions Judge's Court, Visakhapatam, as the offence under sec.302 of IPC is exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions. After receiving the record, it was numbered as
S.C.85/12 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law. Case is posted from time to time and on 23.10.2013 a charge under sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC was framed against the accused 1 to 5 and a charge under section 201 of IPC was framed against A.6, read over and explainedto them in their vernacular language and they pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. Case is posted from time to time for fixing of trial schedule.
On 28.01.2015 trial schedule was fixed by this Court. On 02.03.2015 prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 in chief-examination and got marked M.Os.1 to 5. On 04-03-2015 P.Ws.4 to 7 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. On 05-03-2015
P.Ws.8 to 16 were examined and got marked Exs.P.3 to P.9. On 09-03-2015 PWs.17 to 19 were examined and Exs.P.10 to P.18 got marked. On 10-03-2015 Exs.P.19 and P.20 got marked. On 11-03-2015 P.W.21 and P.W.22 were examined and Ex.P-21 to Ex.P-23 got marked. On 12-03-2015 P.W.23 to P.W.25 were examined and Ex.P-24 to P-27 got marked. On 13-03-2015 P.W.26 and P.W.27 were examined in chief-examination, on 16-03-2015 P.Ws.26 to P.30 were examined and M.Os.6 and 7 were marked. On 17-03-2015 P.Ws.26 to 29 were cross-examined, P.Ws.30 to 33 were examined and
Exs.P.31 to 39 and M.Os.8 to 14 were marked. On 13-04-2015 P.W.34 was examined and
Exs.40 to 43 were marked. On 12-06-2015 P.W.35 was examined and Exs.44 and 45 and
M.O.15 were marked and prosecution side evidence is closed. After closure of the prosecution evidence, on 26.06.2015 the accused 1 to 6 were examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced against them by the prosecution witnesses and they denied the truth in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported that they have no defence witnesses to be examined on their behalf. On 18.09.2015 arguments were heard on both sides and matter is posted for Judgment on 22-09-2015. On 22-09-2015 Judgment pronounced (Vide separate Judgment).
Hence, accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty under section 302 r/w.34 of
I.P.C., and accused 6 is found not guilty under section 201 of I.P.C., and A.1 to A.6 shall be acquitted u/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable u/Sections u/s.302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC. M.Os.1 to 9 and 11 to 15 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.
M.O.10 shall be confiscated to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused 1 to 6 shall stand cancelled.
X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ANAKAPALLI
(FAC) XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.
Copies to:
1. The Registrar (Judicial), Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
2. The III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka in VSP.
3. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam.