K. Krishna Murthy

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS DIVISION OF GUNTUR

BEFORE THE V. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT) :

GUNTUR

PRESENT: Sri.K.Krishna Murthy, M.A., M.L.,

V. ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

THURSDAY, THE 21 st DAY OF MARCH, 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.114/12

From which Court the appeal is: II.Addl.Junior Civil Judge's Preferred Court, Sattenapalli

Number of the case in the lower court: C.C.674/08

Number of the Appeal: 114/12

Name and description of : Balusupati Raghavaiah, Appellant s/o Masthan, Hindu, aged about 43 years, r/o Koritapadu Guntur.

Section of law under which the lower Court Imposed :

In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.304-A IPC. He is convicted U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for Six months. The remand period of accused if any shall be set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C. The accused remanded on 12.11.07 and on the same day they are released on bail). No case property.

dismiss/reversed and if modified, the :Allowed modification.

DATE OF DATE OF NOTICE APPELLANT DATE OF DATE OF

PRESENTAFILINGISSUED BY ORDERED HEARINGJUDGMENT

TIONTHE COURT TO APPEAR

TO APPEAR

13-4-1213-4-1216-4-1215-5-124-3-1321-3-13

This Criminal appeal coming on before me on 4-3-2013 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.G.Ch.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the

Appellant/Accused and the State represented by Addl.Public Prosecutor and upon perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:- 2

J U D G M E N T

1.This criminal appeal is preferred U/s.374(3) Cr.P.C r/w.Sec.382 Cr.P.C against the calender & judgment in C.C.647/08, dt.28.3.12 on the file of II.Addl.Junior Civil Judge's Court, Sattenapalli.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:- The Accused is the driver of the crime vehicle i.e Esteem Car bearing registration No.MH04AP8950. On 6.11.07 at about 12:30 p.m the deceased girl Shaik Shakeela Bee came to the house and had her meals and after completion she went to answer calls of nature and while she was returning to the home at about 1:00 p.m, while she was crossing the road at that time the driver of the Esteem Car bearing registration No.MH04AP8950 in a rash and negligent manner coming from Amaravathi when he reached near BC. Colony he lost control over the car and hit the deceased girl resulting which death of deceased at the spot. On that the father of the deceased girl gave a report to police. The S.I of police, Amaravathi P.S., registered the same as a case in Cr.No.153/07 and investigated into the offence.

3.During the course of investigation the S.I of police, Amaravathi P.S., proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared observation report and inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased and he examined witnessed at the scene of incident. After obtaining post mortem certificate and Motor vehicle Inspector's report and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. 4..The learned Magistrate after examining the accused U/s.251 of Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation for the offence under Sec.304-A of IPC, for which, he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs. P1 to P8 were marked. On behalf of defense no witnesses wee examined and no documents were marked.

6.Upon considering the material placed on record and the arguments advanced on both sides, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence punishable U/s.304-A IPC. He is convicted U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for Six months.

7.Aggrieved by the said calender and judgment the Accused preferred the present appeal mainly contending that the Judgment of the trial court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that there is no material what so ever to connect the appellant/accused to convict them; that the lower court ought to have seen that there are several omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution; that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt; that the lower court failed to observe the facts and situations in which this case was brought up by the complainant and never observed the main contention of the appellant; that in any way the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned magistrate is excessive and finally appellant/accused prays the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

8.Now the point for consideration “Whether the prosecution could able to establish for an offence U/s.304-A IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt? During the course of appeal both parties did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence. Heard the arguments.

9.POINT:-As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 who is said to be eye witness to the incident the prosecution is mainly relying on the 3 evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they are eye witnesses to the incident. P.W.1 who is the father of the deceased in chief examination he deposed that the accident was occurred on 6.11.07 at about 12:30 p.m during cross examination P.W.1 stated that he came to the scene of offence at 3:00 p.m by the time all his relatives were present at the scene of offence. He saw the accident by standing from a distance of 50 yards from the scene of offence by the time he reached to the scene of offence four or five persons gathered there, he never saw the accused prior to the incident.

10.The evidence of P.W.1 shows that he reached to the scene of offence at 3:00 p.m though the offence was occurred at 12:30 p.m by the time he reached to the scene there are some people gathered there. It shows that he did not witness directly the incident and he does not know the manner of the accident.

11.P.W.2 who is said to be another eye witness accordingly to the prosecution the incident was occurred on 6.11.07 at 12:30 p.m. P.W.2 deposed in chief that the accused has piped from the window by by stopping the vehicle for a moment and went away. In his cross examination P.W.2 deposed that P.W.1 is his cousin. The accident was occurred in between 12:30 to 1:00 p.m. He used to read and participate in the prayer every day at Masjid and he used to go to Masjid 10 or 15 minutes before 1 “O' clock. It shows that P.W.2 witnessed the incident that he was at Masjid by the time of the accident. After gathering the people to the scene that he also came and witnessed that the deceased was died on motor accident.

12.P.W.1 stated that he went to police station at 3:00 p.m and lodged Ex.P1 report the police visited the scene at 4:00 p.m by the time, the dead body was shifted to Government Hospital. The Investigating Officer is examined as P.W.6 and he deposed that he visited the scene of offence and prepared observation report as in Ex.P2 and conducted inquest report of the dead body at hospital as inEx.P3. P.W.3 who is the mediator he signed on Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 inquest report one at scene of offence and another is at hospital. P.W.4 who is MV Inspector who conducted the crime vehicle on road test and found that there is no any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle and issued Ex.P4 certificate to that effect. P.W.5 who is medical officer who conducted Post mortem examination and issued Ex.P4 certificate and opined that the death is due to shock due to head injury and he issued Ex.P5. Post mortem certificate. After gathering the relevant certificates from the concerned Investigating officer filed charge sheet against the accused.

13.The Investigating Officer did not conduct test of identification parade for identification that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle as on the date of the accident, because P.Ws.1 and 2 are not direct eye witnesses and they came to know after the accident they visited the scene by the time already people were gathered there. It shows that P.Ws.1 and 2 who are no other than both are cousins and they were planted by Investigating officer as they are eye witnessed to the incident, actually on recored shows that they are not eye witness. P.Ws.3,4,5 and 6 are stated only procedural aspects and they did not witness the incident and they did not identify the accused. So their evidence are not helpful to the prosecution in whose negligence the accident was occurred. The investigating officer did not gather the crime vehicle driver and his particulars, the Investigating officer did not seize C- book or driving licence of the accused. Moreover the crime vehicle is 4 belongs to Maharastra registration and the accused belongs to Andhra man, therefore, the Investigating officer did not conduct proper investigation in this case to identify the accused.

14.Further as per the evidence of P.W.1 by the time he reached to the scene that one RMP doctor was present. The investigating officer did not examine the RMP doctor who declared the deceased was died after examination whether he was given first aid or not. Even as per the prosecution the deceased while crossing the road, the accident was occurred. No vehicle driver cannot control when suddenly the deceased crossing the road, as such the prosecution miserably failed to prove in whose negligence this accident was occurred. At the instance of police P.Ws.1 and 2 spoken the offence was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. The prosecution miserably failed to prove identification of the accused as on the date. The case was registered against the accused in order to get the insurance to the deceased, as such the above aspect the learned trial judge could not observe and simply believing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and gave conviction which is not sustainable under law, because the rash and negligence was not proved by the prosecution. Moreover the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused as he was driver at the time of the accident for the above two grounds the appeal is hereby allowed.

15.In view of the above findings, this appeal is hereby allowed, the calender and Judgment in C.C.647/08, dt.28.3.12 on the file of II.Addl.Junior Civil Judge's Court, Sattenapalli is hereby set aside. The accused is acquitted for the offence U/s.304-A IPC.

16.In the result, this appeal is allowed, the calender and Judgment in C.C.647/08, dt.28.3.12 on the file of II.Addl.Junior Civil Judge's Court, Sattenapalli is hereby set aside. The accused is acquitted for the offence U/s.304-A IPC.

Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 21 st day of March, 2013.

V.ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC) GUNTUR

Copy to :

II.Addl.Junior Civil Judge's Court, Sattenapalli.

IN THE COURT OF V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPL.

JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN, GUNTUR

Present: Sri K. Krishna Murthy, V Addl. District & Sessions Judge 28th day of March, 2013

O.S.No.49/2004

Between Janachaitanya Housing Limited rep. by its Managing. ….Plaintiff

And

Challa Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy and 4 others.

.....Defendant

J U D G M E N T

In the result the suit is decreed without costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendants for specific performance of the suit contract of sale dated 25.3.98 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. The defendants are directed to executed regular sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property as per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale transferring all sorts of the rights, claims, title and absolute ownership possession with valid permission in favour of the plaintiff or its nominees at the costs of the plaintiff. For granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, followers associates, assignees, agents successors, claimants, confederates, and all other persons claiming rights through the defendants in any way interfering without causing obstruction to the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property or through entering and entertaining any transaction or document in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of anybody committing breach of any one of the terms and conditions in the suit contract of sale dated 25.3.98 on endorsements dated 28.8.98.c. In case of the defendants failed to execute regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or kits nominees at the costs of the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of judgment the plaintiff is at liberty tog et the regular sale deed on due to process of law.

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPL.

JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN, GUNTUR

Present: Sri K. Krishna Murthy, V Addl. District & Sessions Judge 22nd day of March, 2013

Original Suit No.327/2011

Between Yadagiri Uma Maheswara Rao ….Plaintiff

And

Pasupuleti Satyanarayana

.....Defendant

J U D G M E N T

Memo filed by the plaintiff not pressing to relief against defendant. The same is recorded and dismissed as not pressed without costs.

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPL.

JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN, GUNTUR

Present: Sri K. Krishna Murthy, V Addl. District & Sessions Judge 28th day of March, 2013

O.S.No.198/2007

Between Challa Dinesh Reddy and another. ….Plaintiff

And

Challa Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy and 4 others.

.....Defendant

J U D G M E N T

In the result the suit is dismissed without costs.

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR

Present: Sri N.Soloman Raju, V Addl. District & Sessions Judge

AS.No.414/2010, dated 20-03-2013

Between:

Bainaboina Sambaiah ………….Petitioner

And

Salute Travels Pvt., Ltd., …….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Notice give both sides. Judgment pronounced VSJ In the result this appeal is dismissed with out costs confirming the decree and judgment in

O.S.2458-04 on the file of II A.J.C.J court Guntur.

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

V Addl. District Judge, Guntur.