Smt K.Madhavi Devi

CC. No.426 of 2015 1/9 21.08.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NELLORE

Present: Smt.K.Madhavi Devi IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

Wednesday, this the Twenty First (21st ) day of August, 2019

Calendar Case. No.426 of 2015

State: Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Circle, …. Complainant.

Vs.

Bavanam Pratap Reddy S/o.Balakoti Reddy, Age 43 years, Reddy by caste, D.No.1-39-2. Now at Venkateswara Theatre, Brahmamgari temple, Macherla Town, Guntur District. …. Accused

This case coming on 16.08.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri P.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for accused, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Circle, has filed the Charge Sheet against the accused in crime No.233/2015 for the offence punishable under

Sections 304-A, 338 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as 'IPC') and section 187 and Rule 21(1) of CMV Rules r/w.177 of MV Act.

The prosecution case in brief is that on LWs.1 to 7 namely Dasi Parvathi,

Komera Malleswari, Darapati Hymavathi, Annam Thirupathamma, Inakollu

Thirupathamma, Dara Suvarthamma, Mukiri Anjamma and deceased Nos.1 to 4 namelyMuktipati Varalakshmi, Togati Nagendramma, Ravulakollu Subbayamma,

Bathula Ramadevi and Gongipaka Pullaiah are coolies and temporarily migrated to Karnataka state to attend tobacco work and during that course 30.10.2015 at about 8.00 hours, LWs.1 to 7 and deceased Nos.1 to 4 boarded the lorry bearing

No.AP07 TF 0216, which was loaded with granite plates load driven by the accused and on the way, D5 boarded at Ozili and when the lorry reached

CC. No.426 of 2015 2/9 21.08.2019

Chemudugunta, the accused being the driver of the said lorry suddenly applied break to his in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the granite plates moved towards cabin and of the lorry and D1 to D4 who sat in the lorry in between the cabin and granite plates crushed to death on the spot and D5 died while undergoing treatment at government hospital, Nellore. LWs.3 to 7 who sat on the granite plates escaped luckily without injuries.

(ii) Basing on the report of Lw.1/Dasi Parvathi, Lw.28/D.Venkateswarlu, the then SI of Police, V.Satram P.s., registered a case in Cr.No.233/2013 under Section 304-A and 337 IPC and investigated. During the course of investigation,

LW.29/Y.Srinivasa Rao,, the then C.I of Police, Nellore Rural P.S., examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report in the presence of mediators, conducted inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased in the presence of mediators under the cover of mahazarnama, LW.24/Dr.Sasikanth, Civil Assistant Surgeon, conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of the deceased and issued postmortem certificates.

LW.23/Dr.Sk.Ismail examined LW.2/Komera Malleswari and issued wound certificate, LW.22/P.Ravi Kumar,, the then Asst.Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and issued a report. On 02.11.2015, LW.29 arrested the accused and released him on bail. After completion of entire investigation, LW.29 filed the charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3.After careful perusal of material on record and final report this Court took cognizance for the offence Under Sections 304-A, 338 IPC and Section 134 r/w.187 r/w.21(10) of CMV Rules r/w.177 of MV Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, relevant copiesof documents were furnished to him as contemplated Under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., and the substance of the charge Under Sections 304-A, 338 IPC and Section 134 r/w.187 r/w.21(10) of CMV

Rules r/w.177 of MV Act was explained in Telugu language to the accused, to

CC. No.426 of 2015 3/9 21.08.2019

which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P28. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 in the report, Ex.P2 is the 161

CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.1, Ex.P3 is the 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.2, Ex.P4 is the 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.3, Ex.P5 is the 161

CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.4, Ex.P6 is the 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.5, , Ex.P7 is the 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.6, , Ex.P8 is the 161

CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.7, Ex.P9 is the 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.8, Ex.P10 is the signature of Pw.9 in the Inquest report of D5/D.Pedda

Pullaiah, Ex.P11 is the report of PW.1, Ex.P12 is the First Information Report,

Ex.P13 is the scene observation report, Ex.P14 rough sketch, Ex.P15 to Ex.P19

Inquest over the dead bodies of D1 to D5, Ex.P20 to Ex.P24 are the Postmortem certificates of D1 to D5, Ex.P25 is the wound certificate of PW.5, Ex.P26 is the MVI report, Ex.P27 is the mediatornama, Ex.P28 is the photographs of the scene.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C,byexplaining the incriminating material against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the entire material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable Under Sections 304-A, 338 IPC and Section 134 r/w.187 r/w.21(10) of CMV Rules r/w.177 of MV Act beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

10.The prosecution commenced the trial by examining P.W.1/Parvathi, who is

CC. No.426 of 2015 4/9 21.08.2019

the colleague of deceased Nos.1 to 5, who set the law into motion by giving report to police did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile by deposing that about 4 years ago, on one day she received a phone call from known person that D1 to D5 are died in a road accident and shifted to government hospital, immediately she rushed to hospital, where she found the dead bodies of D1 to D5, where police obtained her signatures on white papers.

Police did not examine her. During the cross examination by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor, she denied the suggestions that she stated before the police as in Ex.P2 and that she was deposing false in order to compromise with the accused.

11. P.W.2/M.Venkateswarlu, who is the brother of D1 also did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile by deposing that about four years ago, on one day he received a phone call from known person that D1 to D5 are died in a road accident including his brother, rushed to government hospital and found the dead bodies of D1 to D5. Police did not examine him. During the cross examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestions that he stated before the police as in Ex.P3 and that he was deposing false in order to compromise with the accused.

12. P.W.3/T.Ramakoteswara Rao, who is the son of D2 also did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile by deposing that about four years ago, on one day he received a phone call from known person that D1 to D5 are died in a road accident including his father, rushed to government hospital and found the dead bodies of D1 to D5. Police did not examine him. During the cross examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestions that he stated before the police as in Ex.P4 and that he was deposing false in order to compromise with the accused.

13. P.W.4/B.Rambabu, who is the mother of D4 also did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile by deposing that about four years ago, on

CC. No.426 of 2015 5/9 21.08.2019

one day he received a phone call from known person that D1 to D5 are died in a road accident including his mother, rushed to government hospital and found the dead bodies of D1 to D5. Police did not examine him. During the cross examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestions that he stated before the police as in Ex.P5 and that he was deposing false in order to compromise with the accused.

14. P.W.5/ K.Malleswari, Pw.6/ V.Suvarthamma, PW.7/ M.Anjamma, Pw.8/

G.Govardhan, who are the direct witnesses of the incident cum colleages of the

D1 to D5 also did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile by deposing that they do not know anything about the case facts. Police did not examine them. During the cross examination by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, they denied the suggestions that they stated before the police as in

Ex.P6 to Ex.P9 and that they were deposing false in order to compromise with the accused.

15. PW.9/K.Guravaiah, who is the mediator for Inquest report. He deposed that in the year 2015, when he went to government hospital to see his relatives, as per the request of the police he acted as mediator for the inquest over the dead body of D5. He also deposed that in his presence, police conducted inquest report over D5 and prepared Inquest report under Ex.P10 and then he signed on the

Inquest report as mediator.

16. The remaining evidence available is only Investigating Officer, who was examined as Pw.10. He deposed that on 30.10.2015, he received report from

Pw.1 under Ex.P11 and on that he registered a case in Cr.No.233/2015 under

Section 304-A, 337 IPC and investigated. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report, rough sketch under, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, conducted inquest over the dead bodies of D1 to D5 and prepared inquest reports under Ex.P15 to

Ex.P19 and then he shifted the dead bodies to the government hospital, where

Doctor held postmortem examinations and issued postmortem certificates under

CC. No.426 of 2015 6/9 21.08.2019

Ex.P20 to ex.P24 and then MVI conducted inspection on the crime vehicle and issued MVI report under Ex.P26. After arrest of the accused, he released the accused after obtaining sufficient sureties. After receipt of MVI report, postmortem certificates and on completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

17.To prove the offences under Section 304-A, 338 IPC and Section 134 r/w.187 r/w.21(10) of CMV Rules r/w.177 of MV Act, the prosecution has establish the following ingredients:

1. Whether the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of accident?

2. Whether the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the Accused without following the guidelines of the MV Act?

3. Whether the accused caused death of deceased Nos.1 to 5?

4. Whether the accused caused grievous injuries on Pw.2?

18. It is settled law that in criminal cases, initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt but not on preponderance of probabilities. With regard to the identity of the accused, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the same though they examined Pws.1, to 9, who are defacto complainant, relatives of the deceases, direct eye witnesses and Inquest mediators respectively since Pws.1 to 9 did not support the case of the prosecution except the reason for death of deceased persons i.e., met with an accident. However, the learned assistant public prosecutor cross-examined Pws.1 to 9 with the permission of the Court, she did not elicit anything in favour of the prosecution.

19. It is to be observed that though the reason for death of deceased, which was stated by Pws.1 to 7 itself speaks about the accident occurred but no evidence on record regarding the negligent driving of the accused of the crime vehicle, yet no evidence is collected to show that accused is driver of the crime vehicle by the time of accident. As rightly contended by the learned defence

CC. No.426 of 2015 7/9 21.08.2019

counsel is that the prosecution failed to produce any documents to link the accused to the crime vehicle, creates a doubt about the accused being the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of accident. With regard to the death of deceased Nos.1 to 5 caused by accused, though the prosecution cited Pws.5 to 8 as the direct eye witness, they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, in the absence of any independent eye witness did not corroborate the evidence of PW.10, this court is not believe that the accused was caused the death of the deceased Nos.1 to 5 and thus the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 304-A IPC against the accused.

20. With regard to the rash or negligent act of the accused and violating the rules of MV Act, nothing was elicited by the prosecution including defacto complainant as PW.1. Moreover, though Investigating officer stated in his chief examination that he collected crime vehicle records, he did not produce the same

before the court as well as the accused, who is the driver of the crime vehicle as

on the date of incidents, which is certainly fatal to their case.

21.In 2009(3) ALT Crl.20 AP G.Kumar Vs the State of AP it was clearly held that:

When the witness not stated that the offending vehicle was in a rash and negligent manner no conviction can be placed on some assumptions and presumptions. There must be legal evidence to convict the accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the degree of criminal negligence.

22. Therefore, this Court is inclined to hold that the prosecution failed to produce any clinching or legally acceptable evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused.

23. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence with which he is charged.

CC. No.426 of 2015 8/9 21.08.2019

24. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 304-A, 338 IPC and Section 134 r/w.187 r/w.21(10) of CMV Rules r/w.177 of MV Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time. No order needs to be passed as to the property since no property is deposited in this case.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 21st day of August, 2019.

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: -- FOR DEFENCE: -- NONE. PW.1: D.Parvathi PW.2: M.Venkateswarlu PW.3: T.Ramakoteswara Rao PW.4: B.Rambabu PW.5: K.Malleswari PW.6: V.Suvarthamma PW.7: M.Anjamma PW.8: G.Govardhan PW.9: K.Guravaiah PW.10:D.Venkateswara Rao, the then S.I of Police,V.Satram P.S.,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-- Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 in the report,

Ex.P2: 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.1,

Ex.P3: 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.2,

Ex.P4: 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.3,

Ex.P5: 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.4,

Ex.P6: 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.5,

Ex.P7: 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.6,

Ex.P8: 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.7,

Ex.P9: 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.8,

CC. No.426 of 2015 9/9 21.08.2019

Ex.P10: Signature of Pw.9 in the Inquest report of D5/D.Pedda Pullaiah,

Ex.P11: Report of PW.1,

Ex.P12: First Information Report,

Ex.P13: Scene observation report,

Ex.P14: Rough sketch,

Ex.P15 to Ex.P19: Inquest over the dead bodies of D1 to D5,

Ex.P20 to Ex.P24: Postmortem certificates of D1 to D5,

Ex.P25: Wound certificate of PW.5,

Ex.P26: MVI report,

Ex.P27: Mediatornama,

Ex.P28: Photographs of the scene.

FOR DEFENCE: - N I L.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

..NIL…

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nellore.

CC. No.274 of 2017 1/7 16.08.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NELLORE

Present: Smt.K.Madhavi Devi IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

Friday, this the Sixteenth (16th ) day of August, 2019

Calendar Case. No.274 of 2014

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station, …. Complainant.

Vs.

Basam Pullaiah S/o.Bapaiah, Age 58 years, Kamma by caste, Karatampadu Village, Atmakur Mandl. …. Accused

This case coming on 16.08.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri N.Venkaiah, Advocate for accused, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station, has filed the

Charge Sheet against the accused in crime No.61/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as 'IPC') and 3 r/w.181 of MV Act.

The prosecution case in brief is that on the night of 27.02.2014 at about 11.30 a.m., the deceased/Vuluva Rama Naidu and LW.3/Sk.Basha left their rice mill on their respective motorcycles to go to Podalakur for collection of rice marketing amount. The deceased rid the motorcycle bearing No.AP26 P 8812 belongs to rice mill and they reached Donthali cross road, one bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 0842, which was parked on the Northern part of the road and hence the decesed and LW.3 were going on the southern part of the road, in the meanwhile, the accused being the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 21 Z 0386 suddenly overtook the stationed bus without verifying the road and hit against the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell down and sustained

CC. No.274 of 2017 2/7 16.08.2019

severe head injuries and died on the spot.

(ii) Basing on the report of Lw.1/Vulava Lakshmaiah Naidu, Lw.12/G.Venu, the then SI of Police, Nellore Rural P.s., registered a case in Cr.No.61/2014 under

Section 304-A IPC of Nellore Rural P.S., and investigated. During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report in the presence of mediators, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators under the cover of mahazarnama, LW.10/Dr.K.Suseela, Civil

Assistant Surgeon, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate, LW.11/V.Jaya Prakash, the then Motor Vehicle

Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and issued a report. On 28.02.2014, LW.12 arrested the accused and released him on bail. The accused is having driving licence upto 31.01.2014 and when LW.12 asked about the driving licence, he sent the same for renewal. Hence, as on the date of the offence, the accused is not having driving licence. After completion of entire investigation, LW.12 filed the charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3.After careful perusal of material on record and final report this Court took cognizance for the offence Under Sections 304-A IPC and Section 3 r/w.181 of

M.V Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, relevant copiesof documents were furnished to him as contemplated Under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., and the substance of the charge under Sections 304-A IPC and Section 3 r/w.181 of M.V Act were explained in Telugu language to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P11. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 in the report, Ex.P2 is the 161

CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.1, Ex.P3 is the 161 CR.P.C., statement of report

CC. No.274 of 2017 3/7 16.08.2019

of PW.2, Ex.P4 is the 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.3, Ex.P5 is the

Inquest report, Ex.P6 is the report of Pw.1, Ex.P7 is the First Information Report,

Ex.P8 is the rough sketch, Ex.P9 is the Scene observation report, Ex.P10 is the postmortem report, Ex.P11 is the MVI Report

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C,byexplaining the incriminating material against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the entire material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable Under Sections 304-A IPC and Section 3 r/w.181 of M.V Act beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

10.The prosecution commenced the trial by examining P.W.1/B.Lakshmaiah

Naidu, who is the brother of the deceased/B.Rama Naidu, who set the law into motion by giving report to police did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile by deposing that in the year 2014 on one day, some unknown person informed him that his brother met with an accident, immediately, he went to hospital, where police obtained his signatures on some papers without knowing the contents. Police did not examine him. During the cross examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestions that he stated

before the police as in Ex.P2 and that he was deposing false in order to

compromise with the accused.

11. P.W.2/Rathan Kumari, who is the wife and PW.3/V.Anjenyulu, who is the another brother of the deceased/B.Rama Naidu respectively, also did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile by deposing that in the year 2014

CC. No.274 of 2017 4/7 16.08.2019

the deceased died due to accident but they do not know about the details of the accident. Police did not examine them. During the cross examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, they denied the suggestions that they stated

before the police as in Ex.P3 and Ex.p4 and that they were deposing false in order

to compromise with the accused.

12. PW.4/V.Suresh and PW.6/V.Harikrishna, who are the mediators for Inquest report. They deposed that in the year 2014, as per the request of the police they acted as mediators for the inquest over the dead body. They also depsoed that in their presence, police conducted inquest report ove the deceased by name

V.Rama Niadu and prepared Inquest report under Ex.P5 and then they signed on the Inquest report as mediators.

13. The remaining evidence available is only Investigating Officer, who was examined as Pw.5. He deposed that on 27.02.2014 at about 1.15 p.m., he received report from Pw.1 under Ex.P6 and on that he registered a case in

Cr.No.61/2014 under Section 304-A IPC and investigated. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report under Ex.P9, rough sketch under Ex.P8, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report under Ex.P5 and then he shifted the dead body to the government hospital, where Doctor held postmortem examination and issued postmortem certificate under Ex.P10 and then MVI conducted inspection on the crime vehicle and issued MVI report under Ex.P11. On 28.02.2014, he served

Section 41 (a) Cr.P.c., notice to the accused. As on the date of offence, the accused is not having driving licence as licence period is over but the same was sent for renewal. After receipt of MVI report, postmortem certificate and on completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

14.To prove the offence under Section 304-A IPC and Section 3 r/w.181 of MV

Act, the prosecution has establish the following ingredients:

1. Whether the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle on the

CC. No.274 of 2017 5/7 16.08.2019

date of accident without driving licence?

2. Whether the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the accused?

3. Whether the accused caused death of deceased/V.Rama Naidu?

15. It is settled law that in criminal cases, initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt but not on preponderance of probabilities. With regard to the identity of the accused, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the same though they examined Pws.1 to 3, 4 and 6, who are defacto complainant, wife, brother and independent mediators for inquest report respectively since they did not support the case of the prosecution except the reason for death of deceased i.e., met with an accident. However, the learned assistant public prosecutor cross-examined Pws.1 to 3, 4 and 6 with the permission of the Court, she did not elicit anything in favour of the prosecution.

16. It is to be observed that though the reason for death of deceased, which was stated by Pws.1 to 3 itself speaks about the accident occurred but no evidence on record regarding the negligent driving of the accused of the crime vehicle, yet no evidence is collected to show that accused is driver of the crime vehicle by the time of accident. As rightly contended by the learned defence counsel is that the prosecution failed to produce any documents to link the accused to the crime vehicle and about his driving licence, creates a doubt about the accused being the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of accident. With regard to the death of deceased/V.Rama Naidu caused by accused, though the prosecution cited Lw.3/Shaik Basha as the direct eye witness, the learned prosecution failed to examine him and given up his evidence as material witnesses turned hostile. Hence, without evidence of direct eye witnesses, this court is not believed that the accused was caused the death of the deceased/V.Rama Naidu and thus the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 304-A IPC against the accused.

CC. No.274 of 2017 6/7 16.08.2019

17. With regard to the rash or negligent act of the accused without having driving licence, nothing was elicited by the prosecution including defacto complainant as PW.1. Moreover as per the prosecution case, one bus was already parked on the road side, and hence there is no possibility to drive the crime vehicle with a high speed. Further, the accused is being the driver of the APSRTC bus, there is no chance that he is not having valid licence. In this regard, the

Investigating Officer stated that the accused sent his driving licence for renewal but to prove the same, the investigating agency did not collect and produce any records from the APSRTC authorities. Moreover, the Pw.5 failed to collect any records from APSRTC authorities that as on the date of offene, the accused is on duty and he is the driver of the crime vehicle, which is certainly fatal to their case.

18.In 2009(3) ALT Crl.20 AP G.Kumar Vs the State of AP it was clearly held that:

When the witness not stated that the offending vehicle was in a rash and negligent manner no conviction can be placed on some assumptions and presumptions. There must be legal evidence to convict the accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the degree of criminal negligence.

19. Therefore, this Court is inclined to hold that the prosecution failed to produce any clinching or legally acceptable evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused.

20. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence with which he is charged.

21. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 304-A IPC and Section 3 r/w.181 of M.V Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time. No order needs to be passed as to the property since no property is deposited in this case.

CC. No.274 of 2017 7/7 16.08.2019

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 16th day of August, 2019.

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: -- FOR DEFENCE: -- NONE. PW.1: B.Lakshmaiah Naidu PW.2: V.Rathnakumari PW.3: V.Anjaneyulu PW.4: V.Suresh PW.5: G.Venu, the then S.I of Police,Nellore Rural P.S., PW.6: V.Harikrishna

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-- Ex.P1:signature of PW.1 in the report,

Ex.P2:161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.1,

Ex.P3:161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.2,

Ex.P4:161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.3,

Ex.P5:Inquest report,

Ex.P6:Report of Pw.1,

Ex.P7:First Information Report,

Ex.P8:Rough sketch,

Ex.P9:Scene observation report,

Ex.P10: Postmortem report,

Ex.P11: MVI Report

FOR DEFENCE: - N I L.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

..NIL…

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nellore.

CC. No.362 of 2013 1/7 16.08.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NELLORE

Present: Smt.K.Madhavi Devi IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

Friday, this the Sixteenth (16th ) day of August, 2019

Calendar Case. No.362 of 2013

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, V.Satram Police Station, …. Complainant.

Vs.

Sreeram Gangaiah S/o.late Subbaramaiah, Age 45 years, Mutharasi by caste, Kalavalapudi Villlage, Venkatagiri Mandal, …. Accused

This case coming on 16.08.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri N.Venkaiah, Advocate for accused, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, V.Satram Police Station, has filed the Charge

Sheet against the accused in crime No.225/2013 for the offence punishable under

Sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as 'IPC').

The prosecution case in brief is that on 29.09.2013 , the decased/ China

Venkataiah boarded a TATA MAXI Cab auto bearing No.AP 26 UFTR 6533 of he accused, along with his family members and proceeded to Kasumuru Village and when the said TATA Maxi auto passing near Appayya gate bridge of V.Satram

Mandal, the accused over take a head going unknown lorry negligently, without observing that the deceased sat on the left side door by the right portion on the window door, due to which the back of the body was crashed the right portion of the lorry body, as a result, the deceased sustained injuries on his back of the the body, immediately, his family members shifted him to government hospital,

Nellore for treatment and while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to his injuries on 29.09.2013 at about 18.10 hours.

CC. No.362 of 2013 2/7 16.08.2019

(ii) Basing on the report of Lw.1/Kasthuri Somaiah, Lw.12/Y.V.Somaiah, the then SI of Police, V.Satram P.s., registered a case in Cr.No.225/2013 under Section 304-A IPC and investigated. During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report in the presence of mediators, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators under the cover of mahazarnama, LW.11/Dr.Z.Sasikanth, Civil Assistant Surgeon, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate,

LW.10/B.Anil Kumar, the then Asst.Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and issued a report. On 03.10.2013, LW.12 arrested the accused and released him on bail. After completion of entire investigation, LW.12 filed the charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3.After careful perusal of material on record and final report this Court took cognizance for the offence Under Sections 304-A IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, relevant copiesof documents were furnished to him as contemplated Under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., and the substance of the charge under Sections 304-A IPC was explained in Telugu language to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P12. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 in the report, Ex.P2 is the 161

CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.1, Ex.P3 is the 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.2, Ex.P4 is the 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.3, Ex.P5 is the 161

CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.4, Ex.P6 is the 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.5,Ex.P7 is the Inquest report, Ex.P8 is the report of Pw.1, Ex.P9 is the First

Information Report, Ex.P10 is the rough sketch, Ex.P11 is the MVI Report and

Ex.P12 is the postmortem report,

CC. No.362 of 2013 3/7 16.08.2019

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C,byexplaining the incriminating material against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the entire material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable Under Sections 304-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

10.The prosecution commenced the trial by examining P.W.1/K.Somaiah, who is the son-in-law of the deceased/Gonugodugu Chinna Venkataiah, who set the law into motion by giving report to police did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile by deposing that on 29.09.2013, he along with his family members including the deceased proceeded in Tata Maxi auot to go to

Kasumuru Dharga and in the meanwhile one lorry proceeded in front of their auto and suddenly, he heard a big sound and on that he fell unconscious and regained conscious at hospital. Police obtained his signatures on some papers wihout knowing the contents there in at hospital. Police did not examined him. During the cross examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestions that he stated before the police as in Ex.P2 and that he was deposing false in order to compromise with the accused.

11. P.W.2/G.VEnkatesh, who is the son of deceased also did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile by deposing that in the year we boarded in Tata Maxi auto to go to Kasumuru Dharga along with his family members and in the meanwhile, their auto met with an accident, except that he do not know anything about the case facts. Police did not examine him. During the cross examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, he denied the

CC. No.362 of 2013 4/7 16.08.2019

suggestions that he stated before the police as in Ex.P3 and that he was deposing false in order to compromise with the accused.

12. P.W.3/Sk.Rafi, PW.4/K.Sravani Pw.5/Sk.Arifa, who are the direct witnesses of the incident cum relatives of the deceased also did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile by deposing that they do not know anything about the case facts. Police did not examine them. During the cross examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, they denied the suggestions that they stated

before the police as in Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 and that they were deposing false in order

to compromise with the accused.

13. PW.6/G.Penchalaiah, who is the mediator for Inquest report. He deposed that in the year 2013, when he went to government hospital to see his relatives, as per the request of the police he acted as mediator for the inquest over the dead body of the deceased/G.China Venkataiah. He also deposed that in his presence, police conducted inquest report over the deceased and prepared

Inquest report under Ex.P7 and then he signed on the Inquest report as mediator.

14. The remaining evidence available is only Investigating Officer, who was examined as Pw.7. He deposed that on 29.09.2013, he received report from Pw.1 under Ex.P8 and on that he registered a case in Cr.No.225/2013 under Section 304-A IPC and investigated. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report, rough sketch under Ex.P9, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report under Ex.P7 and then he shifted the dead body to the government hospital, where Doctor held postmortem examination and issued postmortem certificate under Ex.P12 and then MVI conducted inspection on the crime vehicle and issued MVI report under

Ex.P11. On 03.10.2013, he served Section 41 (a) Cr.P.c., notice to the accused.

After receipt of MVI report, postmortem certificate and on completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

CC. No.362 of 2013 5/7 16.08.2019

15.To prove the offence under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution has establish the following ingredients:

1. Whether the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of accident?

2. Whether the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the accused?

3. Whether the accused caused death of deceased/G.Chinna Venkataiah?

16. It is settled law that in criminal cases, initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt but not on preponderance of probabilities. With regard to the identity of the accused, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the same though they examined Pws.1 to 6, who are defacto complainant, direct witnesses-cum-relatives of the deceased and independent mediators for inquest report respectively since Pws.1 to 5 did not support the case of the prosecution except the reason for death of deceased i.e., met with an accident. However, the learned assistant public prosecutor cross-examined Pws.1 to 5 with the permission of the Court, she did not elicit anything in favour of the prosecution.

17. It is to be observed that though the reason for death of deceased, which was stated by Pws.1 to 5 itself speaks about the accident occurred but no evidence on record regarding the negligent driving of the accused of the crime vehicle, yet no evidence is collected to show that accused is driver of the crime vehicle by the time of accident. As rightly contended by the learned defence counsel is that the prosecution failed to produce any documents to link the accused to the crime vehicle, creates a doubt about the accused being the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of accident. With regard to the death of deceased/G.Chinna Venkataiah caused by accused, though the prosecution cited

Pws.2 to 5 as the direct eye witness, they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, in the absence of any independent eye witness did not corroborate the evidence of PW.7, this court is not believe that the accused was caused the death of the deceased/G.Chinna Venkataiah and thus the

CC. No.362 of 2013 6/7 16.08.2019

prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 304-A IPC against the accused.

18. With regard to the rash or negligent act of the accused, nothing was elicited by the prosecution including defacto complainant as PW.1. Moreover, the investigating agency did not collect and produce any records of the crime vehicle as well as the accused, who is the driver of the crime vehicle as on the date of incidents, which is certainly fatal to their case.

19.In 2009(3) ALT Crl.20 AP G.Kumar Vs the State of AP it was clearly held that:

When the witness not stated that the offending vehicle was in a rash and negligent manner no conviction can be placed on some assumptions and presumptions. There must be legal evidence to convict the accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the degree of criminal negligence.

20. Therefore, this Court is inclined to hold that the prosecution failed to produce any clinching or legally acceptable evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused.

21. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence with which he is charged.

22. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 304-A IPC and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under

Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time. No order needs to be passed as to the property since no property is deposited in this case.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 16th day of August, 2019.

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

CC. No.362 of 2013 7/7 16.08.2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: -- FOR DEFENCE: -- NONE. PW.1: K.Somaiah PW.2: G.Venkatesh PW.3: Sk.Rafi PW.4: K.Sravani PW.5: Sk.Arifa PW.6: G.Penchalaiah PW.7: Y.V.Somaiah, the then S.I of Police,V.Satram P.S.,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-- Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 in the report,

Ex.P2: 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.1,

Ex.P3: 161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.2,

Ex.P4:161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.3,

Ex.P5:161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.4,

Ex.P6:161 CR.P.C., statement of report of PW.5,

Ex.P7: Inquest report,

Ex.P8: Report of Pw.1,

Ex.P9: First Information Report,

Ex.P10: Rough sketch,

Ex.P11: MVI Report and

Ex.P12: Postmortem report,

FOR DEFENCE: - N I L.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

..NIL…

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nellore.

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NELLORE

Present: Smt K.Madhavi Devi, IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

Tuesday, this the Thirteenth (13th ) day of August 2019

CC No.1547 of 2019

Between:

State Rep: by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Indukurpet Police Station.....Complainant.

And:

1.Dodla Santhosh S/o.Venkta Subbaiah, Age 38 years SC Mala by caste, Mudivarthipalem village, Harijanawada, Indukurpet Mandal

2.Dodla Sandeep S/o.Santhosh, Aged about 19 years, Caste by SC Mala, Mudivarthipalem Village,

Indukurpet Mandal. .... Accused No. 1 and 2

This case coming on 08-08-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Ch.Prathap Kumar, Advocate for the Accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Indukurpet Police Station laid charge sheet against the above named accused No. 1 and 2 in Crime No.127/2018 of

Indukurpet Police Station for the offences punishable U/Secs.379 or 411 of

Indian Penal Code (IPC in brevity).

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on the night of 07.11.2018 at about 14.00 hours, at Narasauram village of Indukurpet, some unknown offenders had committed theft of auto bearing No.AP 26 TE 4112 belongs to

LW.1/Boligarla Penchalaiah, while he was parked the same in front of his house and decamped with the stolen property, worth of Rs.60,000/-. Basing on the report of LW.1/ Boligarla Penchalaiah, LW.7/J.Balarami Reddy, the then

S.I of police registered a case in Cr.No.127/2018 under Section 379 IPC and 2 investigated into.

The further case of the prosecution is that on 01.06.2019 at 10.00 hours, when LW.8/G.L.Srinivasa Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Nellore rural

P.s., arrested the accused and recovered stolen auto bearing NO.AP 26 TE 4112 from the possession of the accused in the presence of mediators under cover of mediatornma and sent them to court for judicial remand. After completion of entire investigation, LW.9/L.Indra Sena Reddy, the then S.I of police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken on to file U/Sec.411of IPC by my learned predecessor. On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.The accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. by learned predecessor. Charge U/Section 379 or 411 of IPC is framed against

Accused Nos. 1 and 2. The said charge was read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses out of 8 witnesses listed in the charge sheet and marked Exs P.1 to

P.7 and Mo.1.

6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is explained to the accused. The accused denied the same and did not urge any defence evidence.

3

7.Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the evidence on record.

8. Now the Point for determination of this Court is:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt

of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under

Section 379 or 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?

9.To prove the offence punishable under Section 379 or 411 of IPC, the essential ingredients to prove an offence U/Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC are;

1.the accused committed theft of auto bearing No.AP 26 TE 4112 belongs to Pw.1 form his lawful possession

2. the property should be in possession of the accused

Nos.1 and 2.

3. Such property should be ‘stolen property’ i.e., it should have been transferred by theft, extortion or robbery, or which has been criminally misappropriated.

4. The accused Nos.1 and 2 received the same knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.

10.The charges leveled against the accused is theft and alternatively dishonestly receiving stolen property. P.W.1 deposed that on 06.11.2018, when he parked his auto in front of his house, some unknown persons committed theft the same and hence he gave Ex.P1 report. According to the evidence of PW.1, he has not seen the person who committed theft. Though prosecution examined PW.2, who is grandmother of PW.1, she deposed only about missing of the auto of PW.1 but not stated anything against the accused, who commit the theft of auto of Pw.1. Hence, there is no other eye witness to the incident. Except the committing theft of Mo.1, he did not depose anything about the accused who committed the theft of the auto of PW.1 infront of his house. PW.6 deposed that he observed the scene of offence 4 and prepared Ex.P7 rough sketch. PW.5 deposed that in the presence of Pws.3 and 4, he seized Mo.1 from the possession of accused. The evidence of Pws.1 and 5 only proves that Mo.1 is the stolen property in this case.

11. In order to prove the ingredients for the offence under Section 411 of

IPC, the prosecution relied on the evidence of Pws.3 to 6, who are recovery mediators and Investigating Officers respectively. But Pws.3 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile they do not know anything about this case and about six months back, when they went to police station on their personal work, police obtained their signatures under Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3 respectively. As PWs 3 and 4 resailed from their statements before the police, the learned APP requested the Court to treat them as hostile and cross- examined them with the permission of the Court. During the cross-examination,

Pws.3 and 4 denied the suggestion that police arrest and seized the stolen property and prepared seizure mahazarnama under Ex.P5.

12.From the above evidence of Pws.3 and 4, it is clear that in the presence of PWs.3 and 4, police did not arrest the accused and seize the stolen property from the possession of the accused.

13. Though PW.1 examined by the prosecution. The evidence of PW.1 is on 06.11.2018, when he parked his auto, some unknown offenders committed theft of the same and decamped with the booty. The evidence of PW.1 revealed about the commission of theft auto of PW.1 but he did not speak anything about the accused, who committed theft of the same. Hence his evidence is no way help to the case of the prosecution that accused committed theft of auto belongs to PW.1.

5

14. The remaining evidence is only Investigating Officers, who examined as PW.5 and PW.6. He deposed that basing on the report of Pw.1, PW.6 registered this crime and investigated. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 01.06.2019, PW.5 arrested the accused and recovered the stolen property in this crime in the presence of Pws.3 and 4 and but where as Pws.3 and 4 are not corroborated the evidence of PW.5.

15.Under all these circumstances and in the absence of any mediators for arrest, recovery of the stolen property from the possession of accused, it is not safe to believe the version of sole testimony of PW.5, who is interested witness with regard to the genuineness of search and seizure of stolen property alleged to be conducted by P.W.5, the accused are entitled to acquit the case.

The prosecution failed to produce any reliable evidence to prove that accused

Nos.1 and 2 are committed theft under Section 379 IPC or even for the possession of stolen property by the accused soon after the theft as required

U/Sec.411 of IPC. As such, the accused are entitled for acquittal. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the accused NOs.1 and 2 and against the prosecution.

16.In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 379 or 411 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offences U/secs. 379 or 411 of IPC. The accused are set at liberty. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are released forth with, if they are not required in any other case. Mo.1 ie. auto bearing No.AP 26 TE 4112 was already handed over to the defacto complainant shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer -Gr.II, transcribed by him and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of August 2019.

6

IV Addl.,Judl.Magistrate, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

P.W.1/Boligarla Penchalaiah

PW.2/Koppolu Venkata Subbamma

PW.3/Vavileti Lakshminarayana

PW.4/Syed Sardar

PW.5/G.L.Srinivasa Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural P.s.,

PW.6/J.Balarami Reddy, the then S.I of Police, Indukurpet P.S.,

NO. of EXHIBITS MARKED.

Prosecution : Defence: Nil

Ex.P1/Report given by PW.1

Ex-P.2/Signature of the PW.3 on mahazarnama dt.01.06.2019

Ex-P.3/Signature of PW.3 on mahazarnama dt.01.06.2019

Ex-P4/seizure mahazarnama dt.01.06.2019

Ex-P5/Confession mahazarnama dt.01.06.2019

Ex-P.6/Original FIR

Ex-P.7/Rough Sketch of scene of offence

NO. of MATERAIL OBJECTS MARKED.:

Mo.1: Auto bearing No.AP 26 TE 4112

IV Addl.,Judl.Magistrate, Nellore.

C.C.NO.209 OF 2015 1 27.08.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

NELLORE

Present: Smt.K.Madhavi Devi IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

Tuesday, this the Twenty Seventh (27th ) day of August, 2019

Calendar Case. No.209 of 2015

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nellore Rural Police Station, ..Complainant

Vs

1. Schodam Narasaiah S/o.Buddaiah, Age 54 years, SC Mala by caste,

2. Akula Suguna W/o.Nagaraju, a Age 28 years, SC Mala by caste

3. Thandri @ Schodam Lakshmamma W/o.Narasaiah, Age 45 years, Sc mala by caste,

A1 to A3 are the residents of Nagamma Colony, Buja Buja Nellore,SPSR Nellore District.

4. Gandikota Rajeswari W/o.Venkateswarlu, Age 22 years, Vaddera by caste, Gajuvaka C Block, Chandrababu Nagar,

Kothuru of Nellore Mandal, .. Accused

This case coming on 22-08-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Legal aid counsel for the accused upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station, had filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.198/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 448,290,355,323,324 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as 'I.P.C')

2.The facts of the prosecution case as mentioned in the charge sheet in nutshell are as follows:

C.C.NO.209 OF 2015 2 27.08.2019

(i) On 10.05.2015 at about 9.00 hours, A3 has telephoned LW.1/Gundala

Varalakshmi and scolded her in filthy language by stating that as to why she reveals the father of A4 that she could allow them to walk through her house at her colony but Lw.1 did not reveal the same to anybody. But the father of

A4 instigated A1 to A3 and back biting against LW.1 that she reveal him that she could allow them to walk in her colony and through her house path way.

On the same day at about 11.30 a.m., when LW.1 returned to her house, A1 to

A3 came to the house of LW.1 and criminally trespassed into her house, A1 joisted LW.1, A3 caught hold her tuft hairs and slapped her on her left cheek and A2 scolded her in filthy language and insulted her modesty, when LW.2 tried to pacify the matter, A4 beat LW.2 with a brick stone on her upper portion of right eye and caused bleeding injury. Further LW.1 and her family members assaulted the accused, which is subject matter a counter case vide

Cr.No.199/2015 under Sections 355,323, 324 r/w.34 IPC.

(ii) Basing on the report of LW.1/ Gundala Varalakshmi,

LW.7/G.Dasaradha Ramarao, the then S.I of Police, Nellore Rural P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.198/2015 under Sections 448,290,355,323, 324 r/w.34 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 25.06.2016, he served Section 41-A Cr.P.C., notices to the accused. After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 448,290,355,323, 324 IPC against the accused.

4.Copies of the documents were furnished to the accused under section 207 Cr.P.C. on their appearance.

C.C.NO.209 OF 2015 3 27.08.2019

5.When examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the offence. A charge under Sections 448,290,355,323, 324 r/w.34 IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution in support of its case, examined PW.1 and PW.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1. Ex.P2 is the 161

Cr.P.C Statement of P.W1 and Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2.

7.The examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with, as there are no incriminating material circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

8.Heard both sides.

9.The Point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 448,290,355,323, 324 r/w.34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10.To prove the offence under Sections 352,324 and 323r/w.34 IPC, the prosecution has established the following ingredients that:

(i) that the accused trespassed into the house of PW.1

(ii) that the accused created public nuisance

(iii) that the accused assaulted PW.1 and PW.2, caused voluntarily hurt to PWs.1 and 2 with dangerous weapon with common intention;

11.To substantiate the above points, PW1/Gundala VAralakshmi is the defacto complainant and injured, who set the law into motion by giving

Ex.P1 statement, she did not support her own case. She deposed that in the year 2015, there was a galata in front of her house and on hearing the same,

C.C.NO.209 OF 2015 4 27.08.2019 when she went outside and found there was a mob and in the said mob, some unknown persons beat her with a stick from her back side and sustained injury and in this connection, village elders obtained her signatures on some papers without disclosing anything to her. Police did not examine her. PW.2 is another injured, she is also not supported the case of the prosecution by stating that she do not know anything about the case facts. Police did not examine her.

12.PWs.1 and 2 were declared as hostile to the prosecution by the

Assistant Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court. During the cross examination by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, they denied the suggestions that they stated before the police as in Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and that they are deposing false in order to help the accused.

13.In view of the hostile evidence of defacto complainant cum injured as PW.1 and another injured as PW.2 and in view of the counter cases field by PW.1 and accused with each other, they compromised and settle the matter from the outside and hence the remaining prosecution witnesses were given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor including official witnesses, as no useful purpose will be served by examining them. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no iota of evidence made out against the accused by the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence leveled against the accused and so the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. Hence, the accused are entitled to acquittal.

14. In the result, accused Nos. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 448,290,355,323, 324 r/w.34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences under Sections 448,290,355,323, 324 r/w.34 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after the expiry of appeal time. No order needs to be passed as to the property since no property is deposited in this case.

C.C.NO.209 OF 2015 5 27.08.2019

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 27th day of August 2019.

IVADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

NELLORE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: G.Varalakshmi - None –

PW.2: A.Hyma

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on report.

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W1.

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil –

IV A.J.M.F.C

NELLORE.