K.P.Sairam

Additional Junior Civil Judge

Addl Dist Court Complex Gudur · Nellore · Andhra Pradesh

K.P.Sairam, Additional Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Addl Dist Court Complex Gudur, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. 944 court orders on record since 2014. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, MC, DVC cases.

944

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/55/2004 Convicted

sub Indpector of police P.S. Manubolu vs P. Raja

24 Apr 2017

1/13C.C.No.55 of 2004

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

GUDUR.

Present:-Sri K.P. Sai Ram,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gudur.

Wednesday, the 24th (Twenty-Fourth) day of April, 2017.

C.C. No.55 of 2004

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Manubolu Police Station. … Complainant

P.Raja s/o Palani Appan, aged 32 yrs Ganapathi Nagar, Trichy, Tamilnadu

Driver of trailer KA-01-D-2076... Accused

M.Abuthahhir @ Howwdagir .... Deceased

This case is coming on 12/0/4/2017 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the entire material available on record and upon hearing the arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and of Sri.P.Venkata Subbaiah,

Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Manubolu Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.106 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-

(a)The accused is the resident of Ganapathi nagar, Trichy of Tamil

Nadu state and was the driver of trailer bearing registration No. KA 01 D 2076 (hereinafter will be referred as 'the Crime Vehicle'). On 24/25-10- 2003, LW.1 Bynaboina Narayana loaded the tiles into the lorry bearing registration No. AP 26 U 6649 at Yanam and while proceeding towards

Chennai, he stopped the said lorry on the eastern side road margin near 147/4 KM stone and went along with his cleaner to answer calls of nature. At

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 2/13C.C.No.55 of 2004 about 05.00 am the accused being the driver of crime vehicle while proceeding from Nellore to Chennai side along with a load of steel plates, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, went to the extreme left side of the road, lost control over it and dashed against the lorry on its rear side, due to which the cleaner of crime vehicle sustained multiple injuries, fell on the road and died at the spot. On the report of LW.1

Bynaboina Narayana, the above case was registered and investigated into.

(b)PW.5 the investigating officer visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of PW.1, LWs.1, 2, 4 and 5 Bynaboina Narayana,

Kanchi Ravi, Chillakur Sridhar Reddy, Vunnam Chinnaiah, examined them and recorded their statements. On the same day at about 07.00 am PW.5 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased M. Abuthahir in the presence of PW.2, LWs.10 and 11 Challa Srinivasulu and Cherukur

Srinivasulu, prepared inquest report and thereafter he forwarded the dead body of the deceased M. Abuthahir to the medical officer for the purpose of autopsy. As the accused was also sustained injuries in the said accident,

PW.5 forwarded the accused to the Government Area Hospital, Gudur for treatment through PC 2260. On 27/10/2003 PW.5 sent requisition to Motor

Vehicle Inspector to inspect the crime vehicle. After discharge from the hospital, PW.5 arrested the accused on 29/10/2003 at 11.00 am and forwarded to the court for remand. After completion of investigation and after receipt of postmortem certificate and MVI report, the above charge- sheet was filed. Hence the charge.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence under Sec.304-A

IPC and issued summons to the accused.

4.On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished and when he was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C about the substance of allegations leveled in

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 3/13C.C.No.55 of 2004 the charge-sheet, the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of prosecution, Pws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and further stated that he did not commit any offence and he was implicated in a false case. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor marked any documents.

7.Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

8.Now the points that arose for determination are as follows:-

(a)

Whether an accident occurred on 25/10/2003 at about 05.00

am near Konduru Satram opposite to IBP Petrol Bunk on NH-5?

(b)

Whether the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the

time of accident and if so, whether he drove the same in a rash and

negligent manner resulting in the death of the deceased M.

Abuthahir?

(c)

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of accused

beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec.304-A IPC?

9.POINTS 1 and 2: The gravamen of the allegations against the accused is that on 25/10/2003 at about 05.00 am the accused being the driver of crime vehicle while proceeding from Nellore to Chennai side along with the load of steel plates, drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over it and dashed against the stationed lorry bearing registration No. AP 26 U 6649 which was parked on extreme left side of the road as a result, the cleaner of the crime vehicle viz. deceased

M.Abuthahir sustained multiple cut injuries and died at the spot and on the report of LW.1 Bynaboina Narayana, the above case was registered and investigated into.

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 4/13C.C.No.55 of 2004

10. In this case, the prosecution could not examine the person who set the criminal law into motion viz., Bynoboina Narayana and LW.2 Kanchi

Ravi, as LW.1 died on 04/11/2014 while the whereabouts of LW.2 is not known for the past ten years. The only eyewitness to the accident was testified as PW.1 but he failed to support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. According to PW.1, about more than 11 years back on one day in the morning while he was present on the back side of the petrol bunk near

Konduru satram, he came to know that an accident took place near IBP

Petrol bunk and in the said accident one person sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. PW.1 claimed that he rushed to the scene of offence and saw one lorry went into the fields and another lorry was on the road side margin. According to PW.1, at the scene of offence, he found the dead body of a person who sustained severe bleeding injuries. PW.1 claimed that he did not witness the accident and he does not know how and in what manner the accident took place. PW.1 categorically deposed that he cannot say at whose negligence the accident took place.

11. The panch witness for observing the scene of offence and holding inquest over the dead body of the deceased M. Abuthahir was examined as PW.2 and he deposed that in the year 2003 on one day at about 09.00 am while he was proceeding from Gudur to Nellore on a motorcycle,

Manubolu police stopped him at IBP petrol bunk and in his presence they observed the scene of offence, prepared scene observation mahazar and obtained his signature. According to PW.2, he was also present when

Manubolu police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased M.

Abuthahir and at the time of inquest, they opined that the deceased M.

Abuthahir might have been died due to injuries in an accident being caused by a lorry and that he along with LWs.10 and 11 Challa Srinivasulu and

Cherukur Srinivasulu put their signatures on the inquest report.

12. The photographer who took Ex.P4 photographs of the scene of offence was examined as PW.3 and he deposed that on 25/10/2003 the Sub

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 5/13C.C.No.55 of 2004

Inspector of police, Manubolu took him to Konduru satram in connection with an accident and at the request of police, he took photographs of the scene of offence and handed over Ex.P4 photographs along with negatives to the police.

13. The medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased M. Abuthahir was examined as PW.4 and he deposed that on 25/10/2003 at about 04.45 pm he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased M. Abuthahir and found a big laceration over the left side of the face irregular in shape, a crush injury over chest, exposing deep muscles and fracture of ribs, sternum is broken, liver is lacerated, heart is lacerated. Multiple fractures on left thigh, crush injury over left leg with a fracture of femur. According to PW.4 he conducted internal examination and he issued Ex.P5 postmortem certificate opining that the deceased M. Abuthahir would appear to have been died due to shock and trauma to the vital organs of the body and due to the hemorrhage.

14. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW.5 and he deposed that on 25/10/2003 at about 06.00 am LW.1 Bynaboina Narayana came and lodged Ex.P6 report, basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No. 106 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A IPC and issued Ex.P6 FIR and that he examined LW.1 Narayana in the police station, recorded his statement and immediately he went to the scene of offence situate at

Konduru Satram near IBP petrol bunk, observed the scene in the presence of

PW.2 and LW.10 Challa Srinivasulu, prepared Ex.P8 scene observation mahazar, drawn Ex.P9 rough sketch of the scene of offence. PW.5 claimed that at the scene of offence, he secured the presence of PW.1 and three others, examined them and recorded their statements and later he took photographs of the scene through PW.3 and then he secured the presence of

PW.2, LW.10 and 11 Challa Srinivasulu and Cherukur Srinivasulu and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased M. Abuthahir, prepared Ex.P10 inquest report and obtained the signatures of inquest

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 6/13C.C.No.55 of 2004 mediators and thereafter he forwarded the dead body of the deceased M.

Abuthahir to the medical officer for the purpose of autopsy. According to

PW.5, at the scene of offence, he found the accused with injuries being sustained in the said accident and therefore, he forwarded the accused to the medical officer, Government Area Hospital, Gudur for treatment. PW.5 further deposed that on 29/10/2003 at about 11.00 am, the accused was discharged from the hospital and on the same day, he arrested the accused upon his voluntary surrender and forwarded to the court for remand. PW.5 further deposed that he sent requisition to Motor Vehicle Inspector to inspect the crime vehicle and after completion of investigation and after receipt of

MVI report, postmortem certificate and wound certificate of accused, the above charge sheet was filed.

15. The then Sub Inspector of Police, Mabubolu PS was examined as

PW.6 and he claimed to have filed charge sheet after receipt of PM

Certificate, wound certificate of accused and MVI report.

16. The medical officer who treated the accused was examined as

PW.7 and he deposed that on 25/10/2003 at about 4.10 PM he examined the accused upon being produced by PC 2260, and found an abrasion over right wrist, an abrasion on upper lip and an abrasion over left lower eyelid and another abrasion on left eyebrow. PW.7 claimed that he issued Ex.P12 wound certificate opining that the injuries 1 to 5 are simple in nature.

17. The then Motor Vehicle Inspector, Gudur was examined as PW.8 and he deposed that on 27/10/2003 at about 04.00 pm he inspected the crime vehicle at the scene of offence viz., Konduru satram and found front portion of cabin badly damaged, front axil dislocated from the chases, front leaf spring broken, steering linkage disconnected and front bumper and radiator grill damaged. PW.8 claimed that he could not take the vehicle for road test but inspected the brake system and issued MVI report opining that the accident did not take place due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 7/13C.C.No.55 of 2004

18. This is a case of homicidal death of deceased M. Abuthahir caused due to rash and negligent act. A careful perusal of oral testimonies of

Pws.1 to 5 coupled with Exs.P4 to P6, P8, P10 to P12, it is vividly clear that on 25/10/2003 at about 05.00 am an accident occurred near Konduru

Satram opposite to IBP Petrol Bunk on NH-5 and in the said accident, the deceased M. Abuthahir succumbed to the injuries and died at the spot.

Though PWs.1 to 5 categorically deposed about the accident and the death of deceased M. Abuthahir in the said accident, they were not subjected to cross- examination disputing the said facts. Therefore, the above referred oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution to the extent of occurrence of accident, death of the deceased and injuries to the accused in the said accident, remained unchallenged.

19. Coming to the important aspect of identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident, the prosecution is mainly relying upon the evidence of Pws.1 and 5 and Exs.P4, P8, P10 and P12. In this case, right from the stage of setting the criminal law into motion, the name of the accused was mentioned as driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. To put it in other way, in Ex.P6 report so also at column No.7 of Ex.P7 FIR, the name of accused was mentioned as ‘Raja’. At column no.12 of Ex.P7 and the contents of Ex.P6 clearly indicates that in the said accident, the accused also sustained injuries. Therefore, though PW.1 did not state anything about the registration number of the vehicle that caused the accident and its driver, the prosecution got examined PW.7 and got marked Ex.P12 to show that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident as he was also injured in the said accident and further the accused was treated by PW.7 who issued Ex.P12 wound certificate. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.7 failed to identify the accused in the witness box and therefore, it cannot be said that the accused has taken treatment from PW.7 on the relevant date. He argued that when the medical officer failed to identify the injured in the court, the wound certificates ought not to have

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 8/13C.C.No.55 of 2004 been marked. In this regard he relied upon a decision between Siddapuram

Siva Reddy Alias…. Vs State of A.P. 1 wherein our Hon'ble High Court while dealing with a criminal appeal arising out of a case under Sec.302 IPC observed in para no.10 as follows:

Charge No. 5 relates to causing of injuries to Venkataswamy Reddy by A-1. This Venkataswamy Reddy who, according to the prosecution, accompanied the deceased to the house of the accused and was beaten by A-1, died

before the case came up for trial. Ex. P-7 is the wound certificate in respect

of Venkataswamy Reddy, in our considered opinion, is not admissible in evidence. As Venkataswamy Reddy died long before the trial commenced, it was not open to the prosecution to bring on record Ex. P-7 said to be the wound certificate in respect of Venkataswamy Reddy. Unless the injured person in present in the court and identified by the doctor no document even the one said to be a wound certificate relating to the injuries found on that person when examined by the doctor could be brought on record. In the absence of the injured person figuring as a witness, it is impermissible to record conviction. We, therefore, acquit A-1 in respect of charge No. 5 framed under section 324, I.P.C. for causing injuries to Venkataswamy Reddy.

I have gone through the above judgment and with due respects to the learned counsel, the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand because, in the present case, the wound certificate of accused was marked in his presence. It is not as if the accused is no more and his wound certificate is marked through PW.7. In the cross-examination,

PW.7 categorically stated that he inquired the accused about the injuries and mentioned the same in Ex.P12 as sustained in a Road Traffic Accident.

According to PW.7, there is no need to take the thumb impression of the injured in any register at the time of giving treatment. The learned counsel

for the accused specifically questioned PW.7 to identify the injured, for which

he replied that it is impossible for a medical officer to identify each and every injured more particularly after long lapse of ten or thirteen years. He further clarified that basing on the moles mentioned in the wound certificates, the injured could be identified. Coming to Ex.P12, it contains the following moles of the accused.

(a)A black mole on the right neck; and

(b)A black mole on the left abdomen.

11995(1) ALT (Criminal) page 71

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 9/13C.C.No.55 of 2004

When the court questioned the counsel for the accused that if really the accused is not person who obtained treatment on the relevant, he can cross- verify with the moles but he represented that he does not want to check the moles. Be that as it may, merely because the medical officer failed to identify the accused by his physical appearance, Ex.P12 cannot be viewed suspiciously. There is no need for a medical officer to give a false certificate against any innocent person. Similarly the evidence of PW.7 is quiet corroborating with the evidence of PW.5 who claimed that in the said accident, the accused being the driver of crime vehicle also sustained injuries and that he forwarded the accused to the Hospital through PC 2260 and only after discharge from the hospital, he arrested the accused on 29/10/2003 and forwarded to the court for remand. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the evidence of PWs.5 and 7 coupled with Exs.P6, P7 and P12 it canbe safely said that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident.

20. Coming to the ancillary factors of rash and negligent act in causing the accident, 'rashness' conveys the idea of recklessness or doing of an act without due consideration and 'negligence' connotes want of proper care. A rash act implies an act done by a person with recklessness or indifference as to its consequences. A negligent act refers to an act done by a person without taking sufficient precautions or reasonable precautions to avoid its probable mischievous or illegal consequences. In order to prove the rash and negligent act of the accused in causing the accident, we are having the evidence of PW.1 alone who failed to support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. According to PW.1, after the accident, he rushed to the scene of offence and saw the dead body of the deceased M. Abuthahir and also saw the crime vehicle in damaged condition which gone into the fields and another lorry was stopped on the left side of the road. Though the learned

APP put questions in the nature of cross-examination however with permission of the court, nothing could be elicited to show that PW.1 is

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 10/13C.C.No.55 of 2004 deposing false to help the accused. Other than the evidence of PW.1, we are having documentary evidence of Exs.P.4, P8, Ex.P9 and Ex.P11. A careful perusal of Ex.P4 it clearly go to show that the crime vehicle went into the extreme left side of the road and further entered into the fields. As per Ex.P4 and P11, the left cabin of the crime vehicle is totally damaged. It is not as if the crime vehicle dashed against an opposite coming vehicle. As per Ex.P8, the lorry bearing registration No. AP 26 U 6649 was stopped on the eastern side of the road ie., on the extreme left side of the road. Ex.P9 also indicates that the lorry bearing registration No. AP 26 U 6649 was parked on the left side road margin and the crime vehicle while proceeding from Nellore to

Chennai side, dashed against the lorry from its back and further went into the left side fields. In Ex.P8 scene observation mahazar, it is mentioned that the lorry was found on the left side of the road facing towards south and after the accident, it was dragged to a distance of 20 feet and very adjacent to the stationed lorry which was parked on the road side. Ex.P8 further clarifies that the front side of the trailer viz., cabin on its right side got damaged. PW.5 the investigating officer found skid marks at the scene of offence to a distance of about 20 feet. Added to it, the Motor Vehicle

Inspector Pw.8 inspected the crime vehicle at the scene of offence and he deposed that front portion of the cabin got badly damaged, front axil dislocated from the chasis, front leaf spring broken, steering linkage disconnected and front bumper radiator got damaged. If really the crime vehicle was proceeding in normal speed, damages as noticed by PW.8 under

Ex.P11 wound not have been caused. In all probabilities the accused might have driven the crime vehicle with high speed and in rash and negligent manner and might have caused the accident. Had the accused been really cautioous and diligent while driving on a high way, a ghastly accident of this nature would not have taken place. Ex.P4 photographs and MVI report speaks volumes about the rash and negligent driving of the accused in causing the accident. If the crime vehicle is really been driven in normal

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 11/13C.C.No.55 of 2004 speed, the damages as noticed by PW.8 wound not have caused. It is not as if the deceased M. Abuthahir was traveling in the opposite vehicle. The deceased M. Abuthahir himself was the cleaner of crime vehicle and he was sitting on the left side of the cabin and due to the impact given to the stationed lorry, the deceased M. Abuthahir sustained multiple injuries and died at the spot. The left side of the body got damaged to a maximum extent and that might have caused the death of deceased M. Abuthahir. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that because of rash and negligent driving of the accused, the accident took place. For the foregoing discussions, this court holds that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec.304-A IPC and hence the accused is liable for conviction.

21. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under

Sec.304-A IPC and hence he is convicted of the same under Sec.255(2)

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to personal assistant, transcribed, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-K.P.SAIRAM

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

GUDUR.

When the accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him, he submitted that he is having aged parents, wife and children who are all depending upon him and further submitted that at present he is working as watchman. The accused prayed to view the sentence leniently.

Taking into consideration the submissions made by the accused and the nature of offence he has committed wherein due to the rash and negligent act of the accused, an young man aged about 30 years viz.,M. Abuthahir @ Howdagir succumbed to the injuries at the spot and therefore, this court do not find any mitigating circumstances either to view the sentence leniently or to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Further in a decision between Thakur Singh

Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2003)9 SCC page 208, the Honourable Supreme

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 12/13C.C.No.55 of 2004

Court while refuting the plea of the accused who is the driver of a bus that there is no rash and negligent act on his part in causing the accident, held as follows:

“In view of the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences thereof on the victims and their families the accused/appellant are not entitled to have the benefits of benevolent provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

It also stressed the need to impose deterrent punishment on the negligent and callous drivers of automobiles to make them careful drivers and thereby to bring down the high rate of motor accident.”

In view of the principles laid down in the above decision, this court is of the view that it is not a fit case to view the sentence leniently.

Accordingly, the accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Sec.304-A IPC. The remand period of accused if any shall be set off against the sentence of imprisonment as per Sec.428 Cr.P.C. The accused is appraised of his right of appeal against the judgment of this court. Total fine is Rs.10,000/-.

Dictated to personal assistant, transcribed, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-K.P.SAIRAM

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

GUDUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESES EXAMINED

Prosecution:Defence: None. P.W.1 : N.Munasamysetty PW.2 : K.Srinivasulu PW.3 : C.Dayakar PW.4 : Dr.N.Brahmaiah PW.5 : Sd.Khader Basha PW.6 : D.Srinivasulu PW.7 : Dr.R.Anand Babu PW.8 : B.Satyanarayan Prasad

EXHIBITS MARKED:

Prosecution: Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P2: Signature of PW.2 on the scene observation mahazar Ex.P3: Signature of PW.2 on the inquest report Ex.P4: Four photographs with negatives Ex.P5: Postmortem certificate Ex.P6: Report of PW.1 Ex.P7: Original FIR Ex.P8: Scene observation mahazar Ex.P9: Rough sketch Ex.P10: Inquest report

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 13/13C.C.No.55 of 2004

Ex.P11: MVI report Ex.P12: Wound certificate

Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--nill--

Sd/-K.P.SAIRAM

A.J.M.F.C.,GDR.

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur

CC/200/2010 Acquitted

SHO,Chillakuru P.s vs Selvaraj Suresh Kumar

21 Apr 2017

1/13C.C.No.200 of 2010

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

GUDUR.

Present:-Sri K.P. Sai Ram,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gudur.

Friday, the 21st (Twenty First) day of April, 2017.

C.C. No. 200 of 2010

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chillakur Police Station. … Complainant

Selvaraj Suresh Kumar s/o Selvaraj, aged 26 yrs Keerambur post, Trichy District, Tamilnadu State, driver of tailor lorry no.HR 55 H 7929

... Accused

Ganghadharan Jayaraman .... Deceased

This case is coming on 12/04/2017 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the entire material available on record and upon hearing the arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and of Sri.S.Venkateswarlu Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chillakur Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.67 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Secs.304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-

(a)The accused is the resident of Keerambur post, Thrichy District,

Tamilnadu State and was the driver of trailer lorry bearing registration No.

HR 55 H 7929 (hereinafter will be referred as 'the Crime Vehicle'). The

Green Sole Power System Private Limited, Chennai is carrying constructions works of Boilers and Turbine etc., in Madhucon Power Plant (Simhapuri

Energies(Private) Limited, Varagali. The deceased Gangadharam Jayaraman is working as Manager-cum-Engineer in Green Sole Power System Private

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 2/13C.C.No.200 of 2010

Limited. On 22/05/2010 in the evening at about 04.30 pm the accused being the driver of crime vehicle was carrying a big condenser from Chennai

Harbour to Varagali power plant and when the crime vehicle reached

Varagali, he made a phone call to the deceased that the crime vehicle reached Varagali. On that Pws.1, 2 and the deceased Gangadharn Jayaraman reached Varagali, boarded the crime vehicle in order to go to the power plant. While the crime vehicle was proceeding on the metal road from

Varagali to Pallevani Dibba, though PWs.1 and 2 and the deceased

Gangadharam Jayaraman gave cautions, the accused drove the crime vehicle negligently without observing the live electrical wires running across the road and the crime vehicle touched the 11 KV live electric wires. When the deceased Gangadharam Jayaram who was sitting in the cabin tried to get down from the crime vehicle with bare legs, he sustained heavy electric shock and fell on the ground and later PWs.1 and 2 jumped from the trailer and got shifted the deceased Jayaraman to Government Area Hospital, Gudur where the doctors declared him to have brought dead. On the report of

PW.1, the above case was registered and investigated into.

(b)PW.8 the investigating officer visited the scene of offence, observed the scene in the presence of PW.5 and LW.10 Nadipina Venkata

Rao, prepared scene observation mahazar and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. On the same day, PW.8 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.5, LWs.9 and 10 Kuricherla

Venkateswara Rao and Nadipina Venkata Rao and prepared inquest report.

Thereafter PW.8 forwarded the dead body of the deceased Ganghadharam

Jayaraman to the medical officer for the purpose of autopsy. On the same day PW.8 secured the presence of PWs.1 to 4, 7 and three others, examined them and recorded their statements. On 25/05/2010 at about 10.30 am

PW.8 arrested the accused upon his voluntary surrender and forwarded to the court for remand. After completion of investigation and after receipt of

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 3/13C.C.No.200 of 2010 postmortem certificate and MVI report, the above charge sheet was filed.

Hence the charge.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offences under Sec.304-

A IPC and issued summons to the accused.

4.On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished and when he was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C about the substance of allegations leveled in the charge-sheet, the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of prosecution, Pws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and further stated that he did not commit any offence and he was implicated in a false case. The bail bonds of accused obtained in compliance of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C was ordered to be in force for a period of six months.

The accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor marked any documents.

7.Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

8.Now the points that arose for determination are as follows:-

(a)

Whether an accident took place on 22/05/2010 at about

04.30 pm on the road leading from Varagli to Pallevani Dibba?

(b)

Whether the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the

time of accident and if so, whether he drove the same in a rash and

negligent manner resulting in the death of the deceased

Ganghadharam Jayaraman?

(c)

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of accused

beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec.304-A IPC?

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 4/13C.C.No.200 of 2010

9.POINTS 1 and 2: The gravamen of the allegations against the accused is that on 22/05/2010 the accused being the driver of crime vehicle was transporting a big condenser from Chennai port to Madhucon Power

Plant, Varagali and at about 04.30 pm while the accused was proceeding on the metal road leading from Varagali to Pallevani dibba, the condenser came in contact with 11 KV electric wires which were running across the road and at that time, the deceased Ganghadaram Jayaraman who was sitting inside the cabin tried to get down from the crime vehicle by holding metal handle and immediately he sustained heavy electric shock and fell on the ground and later the doctors declared the deceased to have been died.

10. The prosecution in order to prove its' case got examined the de facto complainant who is a Turbine Engineer at Green Sole Power System

Private Limited as PW.1. According to PW.1, on 22/05/2010 some condenser material came from China to Chennai harbor and from Chennai harbor, the said condenser was transporting to Madhucon Power Plant, Varagali by road.

According to PW.1, he along with the deceased Gangadharam Jayaraman and

PW.2 followed the said condenser from Chennai to Madhucon Power Plant by traveling in a SUMO in order to see that the said condenser should not touch the live electric wires. According to PW.1, when the crime vehicle was proceeding on the metal road, he along with PW.2 and the deceased

Gangadharam Jayaraman alighted from SUMO, walked to some distance to check whether there was any live electric wires lying on low level or not and after passing to some distance, they boarded the crime vehicle as the SUMO was on back. According to PW.1 while the crime vehicle was passing to some distance, they found a live electric line lying on low level and therefore, while the deceased Gangadharam Jayaraman tried to get down from the crime vehicle by holding iron handle, he sustained heavy electric shock as already live electric wire came in contact with the condenser. According to PW.1, on noticing the same, he kicked the deceased Ganghadaran Jayaraman with leather shoes and they jumped from the crime vehicle and later they shifted

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 5/13C.C.No.200 of 2010 the deceased Gangadharam Jayaraman to Government Area Hospital, Gudur in TATA SUMO where the doctors declared the deceased to have been brought dead. PW.1 claimed that he went to the police station and lodged

Ex.P1 report.

11. Another independent eyewitness to the accident who is working as Assistant Manager in Green Sole Power System Private Limited, Chennai as PW.2. According to PW.2, about 6½ to 7 years back on one day a container came to Chennai harbor and on that day, he along with PW.1 and the deceased Gangadharam Jayaraman were transporting the said condenser to Madhucon Power Plant, Varagali on road. PW.2 claimed that the accused being the driver of crime vehicle has been transporting the condenser from

Chennai Harbor to Varagali and at about 04.30 or 05.00 pm while the trailer lorry was entering into the metal road, a live electric wires touched the lorry and on seeing the same, they cautioned the accused to stop the lorry and that the accused stopped the lorry after passing three or four feet. According to PW.2, they saw the live electric wires at a distance of 1 or 1½ feet from top and in the meantime, the deceased Ganghadaram Jayaraman who was sitting in the cabin tried to get down from the vehicle by holding the handle but he sustained heavy electric shock and on seeing the same, they kicked

Jayaraman with non-metallic instrument (leather shoes) and jumped from the trailer. According to PW.2, immediately they shifted the deceased

Jayaraman to Government Area Hospital, Gudur where the doctors declared the deceased to have been brought dead. PW.2 claimed that due to electrocution, the tyres of trailer lorry burnt away. PW.2 categorically stated that the accident took place due to the negligence of accused as he did not stop the vehicle soon after receiving information from them.

12. The independent eyewitnesses to the accident were examined as Pws.3, 4 and 7. PWs.3 and 4 failed to support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. According to PWs.3 and 4, about seven years back on one day in the evening at about 05.00 pm while they were playing cricket, they came

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 6/13C.C.No.200 of 2010 to know that an accident took place near Varagali and immediately they rushed to the scene of offence, saw a container wheels in flames and later they came to know that one person sustained heavy electric shock and he was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Gudur. PWs.3 and 4 claimed that they do not know the registration number of the lorry that caused the accident or its driver. In view of the above evidence of PWs.3 and 4, the learned APP declared them as hostile and put questions in nature of cross- examination, however with permission of the court but except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P2 and P3, nothing could be elicited to show that they are deposing false.

13. Coming to the evidence of PW.7, he deposed that about six or seven years back on one day in the afternoon while he was answering the calls of nature near Molakamanu, he found a container lorry which was proceeding from Varagali to Madhucon Power Plant, came in contact with live electric wires and due to the said accident, one person sustained heavy electric shock and fell on the ground and later he succumbed to the injuries.

PW.7 claimed that he does not know the registration number of the lorry that caused the accident or its driver.

14. The panch witness for observation of the scene of offence and holding inquest over the dead body of the deceased was examined as PW.5 and he deposed that on 23/05/2010 at about 07.30 am he along with LW.10

Nadipina Venkata Rao were present at the scene of offence viz., road leading from Varagali to Pallevani Dibba where an accident took place due to electrocution and at that time, Chillakur police came and observed the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and obtained their signatures. PW.5 claimed that at the scene of offence, they found a trailer lorry which came in contact with live electric wire and the tyres of the said lorry were burnt away.

PW.5 further deposed that on the same day, he along with LWs.9 and 10

Kuricherla Venkateswara Rao and Nadipina Venkata Rao were present at

Government Area Hospital, Gudur when Chillakur police came and conducted

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 7/13C.C.No.200 of 2010 inquest over the dead body of the deceased and at the time of inquest, they opined that the deceased Gangadharam Jayaraman might have been died due to burn injuries and that they signed on the inquest report prepared by the police.

15. The medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Jayaraman was examined as PW.6 and she deposed that on 23/05/2010 at about 12.05 pm she conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found Charred split injury with irregular edges on the sole of the left foot at the base of big toe and base of 2nd, 3rd and 4th toes, ecchymosis found extensively over the chest, ecchymossis over the right palm, superficial abrasion injury over the occipital region of scalp and irregular charred burn marks on the left upper back and after internal examination, she issued Ex.P6 postmortem certificate opining that the deceased would appear to have been died due to cardio respiratory arrest due to high voltage electric injuries.

16. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW.8 and he deposed that on 22/05/2010 at about 07.30 pm PW.1 came and lodged Ex.P1 report, basing on which he registered a case in Cr. No.67 of 2010 under Sec.304-A

IPC and issued Ex.P7 FIR and that he examined PW.1 in the police station, recorded his statement and on the next day morning he went to the scene of offence situated near Varagali to Pallevani Dibba road, observed the scene in the presence of PW.5 and LW.10 Nadipina Venkata Rao, prepared Ex.P8 scene observation mahzar and drawn Ex.P9 rough sketch of the scene of offence. According to PW.8, at the scene of offence, he found the crime vehicle touching the live electric wire. PW.8 further deposed that he again went to Government Area Hospital, Gudur, secured the presence of PW.2 and three others, examined them and recorded their statements and then he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of

PW.5, LWs.9 and 10 Kuricherla Venkateswara Rao and Nadipina Venkata

Rao, prepared Ex.P10 inquest report and thereafter, he forwarded the dead

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 8/13C.C.No.200 of 2010 body of the deceased to the medical officer for the purpose of autopsy.

According to PW.8, again he visited the scene of offence where he secured the presence of PWs.3, 4 and 7, examined them and recorded their statements and on the same day, he sent requisition to Motor Vehicle

Inspector to inspect the crime vehicle. According to PW.8, on 25/5/2010 at about 09.45 am he arrested the accused upon his voluntary surrender and forwarded to the court for remand.

17. This is a case of homicidal death of the deceased Gangadharam

Jayaraman caused due to rash and negligent act. A careful perusal of oral testimonies of Pws.1, 2, 6 and 7 coupled with Exs.P1, P6, P8 and P10, it is vividly clear that an accident occurred on 22/05/2010 at about 04.30 pm on the metal road leading from Varagali to Pallevani Dibba and in the said accident, the deceased Gangadharam Jayaraman sustained heavy electric shock and succumbed to the injuries. Though PWs.1, 2 and 7 categorically deposed about the accident and the death of the deceased Gangadharam

Jayaraman in the said accident, they were not subjected to cross- examination disputing the said facts. Thereforem the above referred oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution to the extent of occurrence and the death of the deceased Gangadharam Jayaraman in the said accident, remained unchallenged.

18. Coming to the important aspect of identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident, neither in Ex.P1 report nor in their statements before the police, the prosecution witnesses referred the name of the accused as driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. Even otherwise, none of the prosecution witnesses gave the descriptive particulars of accused as driver of the crime vehicle. However, during the evidence,

PW.2 alone identified the accused as driver of crime vehicle. PWs.1, 3, 4 and 7 did not identify the accused as driver of the crime vehicle. The investigating officer PW.8 did not collect any documentary evidence either from Green Sole Power System (Pvt) Ltd., Chennai or from Maducon Power

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 9/13C.C.No.200 of 2010

Plant, Varagali to show that the accused being the driver of crime vehicle was transporting the big condenser from Chennai Harbor to Maducon Power Plant.

Be that as it may, let us analyze the evidence of PW.2 independently. As already referred above, PW.2 specifically deposed in the chief-examination itself that while the accused was driving the crime vehicle on the metal road, he along with PW.1 and the deceased were boarded the crime vehicle and were cautioning the accused to stop the vehicle and that after passing to a distance of 3 or 4 feet, the accused stopped the crime vehicle and therefore, the crime vehicle touched the live electric wires. PW.2 further deposed that when the deceased Gangadharam Jayaraman sustained heavy electric shock, they kicked him with non-metallic instrument and jumped from the lorry and later they shifted the deceased to Government Area Hospital, Gudur, where doctors declared the deceased to have brought dead. Though PW.2 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing could be elicited to show that the accused was not the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident.

During the cross-examination, PW.2 asserted that on the date of accident, while they were traveling in the crime vehicle, he talked with the accused and showing the road and therefore, he is identifying the accused as driver of crime vehicle. In view of the above evidence of PW.2, though the investigating officer PW.8 did not collect any documentary proof, it can be safely said that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident.

19. Coming to the ancillary factors of rash and negligent act in causing the accident, 'rashness' conveys the idea of recklessness or doing of an act without due consideration and 'negligence' connotes want of proper care. A rash act implies an act done by a person with recklessness or indifference as to its consequences. A negligent act refers to an act done by a person without taking sufficient precautions or reasonable precautions to avoid its probable mischievous or illegal consequences. In order to prove rash and negligent act in causing the accident, the prosecution is mainly relying

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 10/13C.C.No.200 of 2010 upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and 7. As already stated above, PWs.3 and 4 failed to support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Though the learned APP put questions in the nature of cross-examination, nothing could be elicited to show that they are deposing false. Now remains the evidence of

PWs.1, 2 and 7. A careful perusal of the evidence of PW.7 it clearly go to show that he was not an eyewitness to the accident and he appear to have learnt about the accident and rushed to the scene of offence. Therefore, the evidence of PW.7 being hearsay is no way helpful to the case of prosecution.

Coming to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, their evidence is not corroborating with each other. According to PW.1, while the crime vehicle was proceeding on the metal road, they noticed a live electric wire running in low level and therefore, the deceased tried to get down from the vehicle by holding the handle and then he sustained heavy electric shock. PW.1 did not state anything about giving caution to the accused while proceeding on the metal road. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that at the time of accident, the crime vehicle was proceeding with a speed of about 20 or 30 kms/hour.

He further admitted that whenever any problem arises in taking a trailer, they have to get down from the vehicle and only after giving signal, the vehicle would be allowed to move. In the present case on hand, PWs.1 and 2 and the deceased are expected to stand on the metal road and should give precautions to the accused while moving the container on the metal road but in violation of their duty conditions, PWs.1 and 2 and the deceased boarded the crime vehicle and did not give any precautions. Coming to the evidence of PW.2, he claimed that while the crime vehicle was proceeding on the metal road, they found a live electric wire touching the condenser and therefore, they said to have given cautions to the accused to stop the vehicle but the accused stopped the crime vehicle after passing to a distance of about 3 or 4 feet and therefore, the crime vehicle touched the live electric shock. The above evidence of PW.2 is conspicuously absent in his statement before the police. As per the duty conditions of Pws.1, 2 and the deceased, they are

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 11/13C.C.No.200 of 2010 expected to walk on the metal road and see whether any live electric wire is touching the condenser or not but in violation of their duty conditions, PWs.1 and 2 and the deceased Jayaraman boarded trailer lorry and thereby made the crime vehicle to touch the live electric wire. In the cross-examination,

PW.2 admitted that whenever any container reaching the power plant, the officers who are deputed to move the condenser to the Power Plant should observe whether the container is touching the live electric wire or not. But in this case, PWs.1 and 2 and the deceased being the officers who were sent to get the vehicle from Chennai to Maducon Power Plant Limited, they violated the duty conditions and boarded the lorry. When the accused is driving the crime vehicle, he cannot foresee whether the condenser is touching the live electric or not. As per Ex.P8, scene observation mahazar and Ex.P9 rough sketch of the scene of offence, the measurements of the condenser is 9.25 metres length, 4.9 metres width and 3.30 metre height. The total length of the condenser with lorry is with 4.8 metres. Ex.P9 the rough sketch clearly shows that the condenser is more than three feet in height than the crime vehicle. It is not as if the front cabin of crime vehicle came in contact with 11

KV live electric line. Ex.P9 is very clear that it is the condenser which was on the backside of crime vehicle that touched the live electric wire and not the crime vehicle and in those circumstances, no negligence can be fastened against the accused and on the other hand, the negligence can be fastened against Pws.1, 2 and the deceased Jayaraman themselves. It is not the case of prosecution that the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without observing the live electric wire. As per the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in the cross-examination, at the time of accident, the accused was driving the crime vehicle slowly with a speed of 20 or 30 kms/hour. Considering the manner in which the accident took place as explained in Exs.P8 and P9 scene observation mahazar and rough sketch, it can be safely said that there is no rashness and negligence on the part of accused in causing the accident and that the accident took place due to the negligence of Pws.1, 2 and the deceased Gangadharam Jayaramana

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 12/13C.C.No.200 of 2010 themselves. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec.304-A IPC and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

20. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.304-A IPC and hence he is acquitted of the same under

Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused obtained during examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C in compliance of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C shall be in force for a period of six months.

Dictated to personal assistant, transcribed, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 21st day of April, 2017.

Sd/-K.P.SAIRAM

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

GUDUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESES EXAMINED

Prosecution:Defence: None. P.W.1 : D.Raja P.W.2 : K.Mallikarjuna Raju P.W.3 : K.Sampath PW.4 : D.Sreenath PW.5 : S.Sreerammurthy PW.6 : Dr.Usaha S.Nair PW.7 : K.Subrahmanayam PW.8 : K.Narasimha Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED:

Prosecution: Ex.P1: Report of PW.1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 Ex.P4: Signature of PW.5 on the scene observation mahazar Ex.P5: Signature of PW.5 on the inquest report Ex.P6: Postmortem certificate of the deceased Ex.P7: Original FIR Ex.P8: Scene observation mahazar Ex.P9: Rough sketch Ex.P10: Inquest report Ex.P11: MVI report

Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--nill--

Sd/-K.P.SAIRAM

A.J.M.F.C.,GDR.

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 13/13C.C.No.200 of 2010

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur

CC/231/2006 Acquitted

sub Indpector of police P.S. Manubolu vs Karthi Rajan

21 Apr 2017

1/10C.C.No.231 of 2006

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

GUDUR.

Present:-Sri K.P. Sai Ram,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gudur.

Friday, the 21st (Twenty-First) day of April, 2017.

C.C. No. 231 of 2006

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Manubolu Police Station. … Complainant

Karthi Rajan s/o S.S.Rajan, aged 39 yrs Kamarajanagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai Tamil Nadu State, driver of Santro Hyundai car TN 10 C 2212

... Accused

Peram Ramulamma .... Deceased

This case is coming on 12/04/2017 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the entire material available on record and upon hearing the arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and of Sri.P.Venkata Subbaiah Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Manubolu Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.96 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Secs.304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-

(a)The accused is the resident of Kamaraj nagar, Chennai and was the driver of Santro Car bearing registration No. TN 10 C 2212 (hereinafter will be referred as 'the Crime Vehicle'). On 18/08/2005 in the morning PW.1 and the deceased Peram Ramulamma went to Baddevolu village to sell broom sticks and later they boarded a bus at Baddevolu and at about 07.00 pm they alighted at Baddevolu cross-road and later while they were crossing

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 2/10C.C.No.231 of 2006 the road from east to west along with broom stick bundles, the accused being the driver of crime vehicle while proceeding from Nellore to Chennai side, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the deceased Peram Ramulamma as a result, the deceased

Peram Ramulamma fell down and sustained severe head injuries.

Immediately after the accident, the accused fled away and the crime vehicle was intercepted at Budanam toll plaza. On the report of PW.1, the above case was registered and investigate into.

(b)PW.9 the investigating officer visited the scene of offence, observed the scene of offence, drawn rough sketch of the scene and examined as many as seven witnesses including Pws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements. On receipt of death intimation of the deceased Peram

Ramulamma from SVRR Hospital, Tirupathi, PW.9 altered the section of law from Sec.337 IPC to Sec.304-A IPC and issued altered FIR. On the same day,

PW.9 went to SVRR Hospital, Tirupathi and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Peram Ramulamma in the presence of PW.7, LWs.9 and 10 Peram Raghavaiah and Thirumalasetty Prabhakar, prepared inquest report and forwarded the dead body of the deceased Peram Ramulamma to the medical officer for the purpose of autopsy. On 22/08/2005 at about 09.30 pm PW.9 arrested the accused upon being surrendered by LW.5

K.R.Mohan and released him on bail after accepting sureties. After completion of investigation and after receipt of postmortem certificate and

MVI report, the above charge sheet was filed. Hence the charge.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offences under Sec.304-

A IPC and issued summons to the accused.

4.On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished and when he was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C about the substance of allegations leveled in

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 3/10C.C.No.231 of 2006 the charge-sheet, the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of prosecution, Pws.1 to 10 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P12 were marked.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and further stated that he did not commit any offence and he was implicated in a false case. The bail bonds of accused obtained in compliance of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C was ordered to be in force for a period of six months.

The accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor marked any documents.

7.Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

8.Now the points that arose for determination are as follows:-

(a)

Whether an accident took place on 18/08/2005 at about

07.00 pm near Baddevolu cross road?

(b)

Whether the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the

time of accident and if so, whether he drove the same in a rash and

negligent manner resulting in the death of the deceased Peram

Ramulamma?

(c)

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of accused

beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec.304-A IPC?

9.POINTS 1 and 2: The gravamen of the allegations against the accused is that on 18/08/2005 at about 07.00 pm while PW.1 and the deceased Peram Ramulamma were crossing the road from east to west at

Baddevolu cross road, the accused being the driver of crime vehicle while proceeding from Nellore to Chennai side, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the deceased Peram

Ramulamma as a result, the deceased Peram Ramulamma fell down along with broom stick bundle and later she succumbed to the injuries on 19/08/2005.

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 4/10C.C.No.231 of 2006

10. The prosecution in order to prove its' case got examined the de facto complainant as PW.1 and he deposed that in the year 2005 on one day he along with the deceased Peram Ramulamma alighted the bus at

Baddevolu along with a load of broom sticks and later he handed over the broom stick bundle to the deceased Peram Ramulamma who kept on her head and while crossing the road at Baddevolu cross road, a speedy car came from Nellore to Chennai side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his sister Ramulamma, as a result, the deceased flied in air, fell down and sustained severe bleeding injuries on her head and hands.

According to PW.1, immediately after the accident, the car sped away from the scene of offence and it was intercepted at Tollgate. PW.1 claimed that his sister Ramulamma succumbed to the injuries on the next day while undergoing treatment. According to PW.1, while he was at Government Area

Hospital, Gudur, police came and recorded his statement under Ex.P1.

According to PW.1, he does not know the registration number of the car that caused the accident or its driver but the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the said car.

11. The husband of the deceased Peram Ramulamma was examined as PW.2 and his evidence in regard to the accident is hearsay. According to

PW.2, on receipt of phone information about the accident near Baddevolu cross road, he rushed to Government Area Hospital, Gudur and saw his wife with severe bleeding injuries and on the advise of doctors, they shifted the deceased Peram Ramulamma to SVRR hospital, Tirupathi for better treatment and that on 19/08/2005 the deceased Peram Ramulamma succumbed to the injuries. PW.2 claimed that he inquired about the accident and came to know that the accident was caused by a car bearing registration

No. 2212 and it occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the said car while plying from Nellore to Chennai side.

12. The alleged independent eyewitnesses to the accident were examined as PWs.3 to 5 but they failed to support the case of prosecution

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 5/10C.C.No.231 of 2006 and turned hostile. According to PWs.3 to 5, they do not know anything about the facts of this case and they never witnessed any accident resulting in the injuries to the deceased Peram Ramulamma. PWs.3 to 5 further deposed that they cannot say how and in what manner the deceased Peram

Ramulamma died.

13. Another independent eyewitness to the accident was examined as PW.6 and he deposed that about ten years back on one day at about 06.30 or 07.00 pm he received phone information that the deceased Peram

Ramulamma met with an accident near Baddevolu cross road being caused by a Santro car and immediately he along with other relatives rushed to

Government Area Hospital, Gudur, found the deceased Peram Ramulamma with severe bleeding injuries and on the advise of doctors, they shifted the deceased Peram Ramulamma to SVRR Hospital, Tirupathi where she succumbed to the injuries. PW.6 claimed that he inquired about the accident and came to know that the accident was occurred while the deceased Peram

Ramulamma was crossing the road by keeping bloom sticks on her head and that it was caused by a speedy car while flying from Nellore to Chennai side.

14. The panch witness for holding inquest over the dead body of the deceased Peram Ramulamma was examined as PW.7 and he deposed that about more than ten years back on one day in the evening he along with

LWs.9 and 10 Peram Raghavaiah and Thirumalasetty Prabhakar present at

SVRR hospital, when Manubolu police came and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Peram Ramulamma and at the time of inquest, they opined that the deceased Peram Ramulamma might have been died due to injuries in an accident being caused by a car and that they signed on the inquest report prepared by the police.

15. The medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Peram Ramulamma was examined as PW.8 and she deposed that on 19/08/2005 at about 02.45 pm she conducted postmortem

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 6/10C.C.No.231 of 2006 examination over the dead body of the deceased Peram Ramulamma and found as many as eight abrasions and one laceration over the right temporal area and after internal examination she issued Ex.P6 postmortem certificate opining that the deceased Peram Ramulamma appear to have been died due to injury in a road traffic accident.

16. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW.9 and that he deposed that on 18/08/2005 at about 07.30 pm PW.1 came and gave Ex.P1 statement, basing on which he registered a case in Cr. No.96 of 2005 under

Sec.338 IPC and issued Ex.P7 FIR and that he along with PW.1 went to the scene of offence situate at Baddevolu - Venkannapalem cross road, found the deceased Peram Ramulamma with severe bleeding injuries and got shifted the deceased Peram Ramulamma to Government Area Hospital, Gudur through a constable and thereafter he went to Government Area Hospital,

Gudur secured the presence of PWs.1 to 4, examined them and recorded their statements. PW.9 further deposed that he again went to the scene of offence, observed the scene, drawn Ex.P8 rough sketch of the scene of offence and searched for the crime vehicle and later he came to know that the crime vehicle was intercepted at Budanam Toll Plaza. PW.9 claimed that he went to Budanam Toll Plaza, secured the presence of PW.5 and LW.5 K.R.

Mohan, examined them and recorded their statements. According to PW.9, on the next day in the early hours, he received death intimation of the deceased Peram Ramulamma from SVRR Hospital, Tirupathi and immediately he altered the section of law from Sec.338 IPC to Sec.304-A IPC and issued

Ex.P10 altered FIR. According to PW.9, he went to SVRR Hospital, Tirupathi and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Peram

Ramulamma in the presence of PW.7, LWs.9 and 10 Peram Raghavaiah and

Thirumalasetty Prabhakar, prepared Ex.P11 inquest report and thereafter, he examined PW.6 in the said hospital and recorded his statement. According to

PW.9 after completion of inquest, he forwarded the dead body of the deceased Peram Ramulammato the medical officer for the purpose of

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 7/10C.C.No.231 of 2006 autopsy and on the same day he sent requisition to Motor Vehicle Inspector to inspect the crime vehicle. According to PW.9, on 22/08/2005 he arrested the accused upon his voluntary surrender and forwarded to the court for remand.

17. The then Motor Vehicle Inspector, Gudur was examined as

PW.10 and he deposed that on 22/08/2005 at about 10.00 am he inspected the crime vehicle at the premises of Manubolu police station and found the wind glasses cracked on the left side, front left mudguard dented above the tyre and that he took the vehicle for road test, inspected the brake system and issued Ex.P12 MVI report opining that the accident did not take place due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.

18. This is a case of homicidal death of the deceased Peram

Ramulamma caused due to rash and negligent act. A careful perusal of oral testimonies of Pws.1, 2, 6 to 8 coupled Exs.P1, P6, P9 and 11, it manifests that on 18/08/2005 at about 07.00 pm an accident occurred near Baddevolu cross-road being caused by the crime vehicle and in the said accident, the deceased Peram Ramulamma sustained severe bleeding injuries on her head and hands and she succumbed to the injuries on the next day at SVRR hospital, Tirupathi while undergoing treatment. Though PWs.1, 2, 6 to 8 categorically deposed about the accident, the death of the deceased Peram

Ramulamma in the said accident, they were not subjected to cross- examination disputing the said facts. Therefore, the above oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution to the extent of occurrence of accident and the death of the deceased Ramulamma in the said accident, remained unchallenged.

19. Coming to the important aspect of identity of accused at the time of accident, the prosecution is mainly relying upon the evidence of

PWs.3 to 5 and 9 and LW.5 K.R. Mohan. In this case, the prosecution failed to examine LW.5 K.R. Mohan as his whereabouts are not known. The police

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 8/10C.C.No.231 of 2006 concerned filed a special report stating that his whereabouts are not known. . Now remains the evidence of PWs.3 to 5 and 9. As already referred above, PWs.3 to 5 failed to support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Though the learned APP put questions in the nature of cross- examination, nothing could be elicited to show that they are deposing false to help the accused. Coming to the evidence of PW.9, he claimed that he arrested the accused on 22/08/2005 upon his voluntary surrender and forwarded to the court for remand. The above evidence of PW.9 remained uncorroborated. For the reasons best know to prosecution, PW.9 the investigating officer did not collect any positive evidence to show that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. In this case non-examination of LW.5 K.R.Mohan who is the owner of crime vehicle is fatal to the case of prosecution. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the sole interested testimony of PW.9 who is the police officer cannot be made basis to fix the accused as driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. For the foregoing discussion, this court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. When once the prosecution failed in establishing the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident, the ancillary factors of rash and negligent act in causing the accident pales into insignificance and looses importance. Even otherwise, the alleged independent eyewitnesses who were testified as Pws.3 to 5 did not depose anything about the rash or negligent act of driver of the crime vehicle in causing the accident. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that the driver of crime vehicle has driven the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed. For the foregoing discussions, this court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec.304-A IPC and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 9/10C.C.No.231 of 2006

20. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.304-A IPC and hence he is acquitted of the same under

Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused obtained during examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C in compliance of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C shall be in force for a period of six months.

Dictated to personal assistant, transcribed, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 21st day of April, 2017.

Sd/-K.P.SAIRAM

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

GUDUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESES EXAMINED

Prosecution:Defence: None. P.W.1 : D.Seshaiah P.W.2 : P.Polaiah P.W.3 : B.Radhaiah PW.4 : Y.Mani PW.5 : V.Babu PW.6 : N.Subrahmanyam PW.7 : N.Prabhakar PW.8 : Dr.K.Mamatha PW.9 : G.Srinivasulu PW.10 : B.Satyanarana Prasad

EXHIBITS MARKED:

Prosecution: Ex.P1: Statement of PW.1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 Ex.P5: Signature of PW.7 on the inquest report Ex.P6: Postmortem certificate Ex.P7: Original FIR Ex.P8: Rough sketch Ex.P9: Death intimation Ex.P10: Altered FIR Ex.P11: Inquest report Ex.P12: MVI report

Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--nill--

Sd/-K.P.SAIRAM

A.J.M.F.C.,GDR.

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur 10/10C.C.No.231 of 2006

Addl. J.M.F.C., Gudur

CC/142/2014 Acquitted

sub Indpector of police P.S. Gudur vs Ganjgipaka Jayamma

24 Apr 2017

1/9C.C.No.142 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

GUDUR.

Present:-Sri K.P.Sai Ram,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gudur.

Monday, the 24th (Twenty-Fourth) day of April, 2017.

C.C. No. 142 of 2014

State:Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Gudur … Complainant

Gangipaka Jayamma w/o Kanthaiah, r/o Mahalakshmamma Temple street, Arundhatiwada, Gudur town…. Accused

This case is coming on 17/04/2017 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the entire material available on record and upon hearing the arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and of Sri.S.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Gudur filed charge sheet against the accused in P.R No. 167 of 2011-12 for the offences punishable under Sec.20(b)(iii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'N.D.P.S Act').

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-

(a)The accused is the resident of Gudur Arundatiyawada. On 06/11/2011 as per the directions of Prohibition and Excise Superintendent,

Gudur PW.2 along with her staff Pws.3 ,4 and two mediators went in a

Government hired jeep bearing registration No. AP 26 TA 2831 for patrolling duty and at about , while they were proceeding near Pottisriramulu park street, Gudur, they found a lady standing along a polythene cover in her right hand and on observing the excise officials, she thrown away the 2/9C.C.No.142 of 2014 polythene bag and escaped in the narrow streets. Though PW.2 tried to apprehend the said lady, she successfully escaped from the scene of offence and thereafter, they came to the scene of offence, verified the polythene bag in the presence of mediators viz., PW.1 and LW.1 Munagapati Rajaiah and found dried ganja with leaves, seeds and flowers. PW.2 inquired the said mediators about the details of escaped woman and she was informed that the escaped lady is the accused and further stated that the escaped lady used to purchase ganja at Warangal and used to sell the same in and around

Gudur for her livelihood. Thereafter, PW.2 weighed the ganja in the nearby bunk and found it is weighing about 520 grams. PW.2 lifted 50 grams of ganja as sample for the purpose of analysis into a brown cover and kept the remaining contraband in the same black cover polythene cover, tied the same, affixed paper slips to the sample cover so also to the polythene bag after obtaining the signatures of mediators. Thereafter, PW.2 prepared a panchanama for the above proceedings, obtained the signatures of mediators and handed over the same to PW.5 for taking further action. Basing upon

Ex.P2 panchanama, PW.5 registered a case in P.R. No.167 of 2011-2012 under Sec. 20(b)(iii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and issued FIR. PW.5 sent the sample to the Government laboratory for analysis. During investigation, PW.6 came to know that the accused herein was arrested in connection with Cr. No.66 of 2013 of Gudur I town police station and she was remanded to judicial custody. On knowing about the said fact, PW.6 made an application before this court for issuance of P.T warrant and got produced the accused before this court on execution of P.T warrant.

After completion of investigation, the above charge sheet was filed. Hence the charge.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence under Sec. 20(b)

(iii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and issued summons to accused.

3/9C.C.No.142 of 2014

4.On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished and when she was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C about the substance of allegations leveled in the charge-sheet, she denied the same and hence a charge under Sec.20(b)

(iii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of prosecution, Pws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1 were got marked.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which she denied and further stated that she did not commit any offence and she was implicated in a false case for statistical purpose. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor marked any documents.

7.Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

Whether prosecution brought home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Secs.20(b)(iii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985?

9.POINT: The gravamen of the allegations against the accused is that on 06/11/2011 while PW.2 was conducting patrolling duty along with her staff, she found the accused in possession of a black polythene bag at 08.30 am near PSR park street, Gudur and on seeing the excise officials, the accused thrown away the black polythene bag and escaped from the scene of offence and later PW.2 enquired about the escaped lady from PW.1 and LW.1

Munagapati Rajaiah and came to know that it is the accused who escaped 4/9C.C.No.142 of 2014 from the scene of offence and later she verified the contents of black polythene bag and found that the said bag contains 520 bags of ganja and that PW.2 lifted 50 grams of ganja as sample for the purpose of analysis and seized the remaining contraband under the cover of panchanama, sealed and affixed the label and basing upon the said panchanama (Ex.P2) PW.2 registered the above case.

10. The prosecution in order to prove its' case got examined one of the panch witness for lifting the sample and seizure of remaining contraband as PW.1 but he failed to support the case of prosecution and turned hostile.

According to PW.1, he never acted as panch witness for seizure of any ganja and for lifting of any sample and that about two years back on one day he was called to Gudur Excise police station and that his signatures were obtained by the excise officials on some written documents. PW.1 claimed that he does not know the contents of the said document but admitted his signature on it which was marked as Ex.P1.

11. The investigating officer was examined as PW.2 and she deposed that on 06/11/2011 as per the instructions of excise superintendent, she along with her staff and mediators viz., PW.1 and LW.1 Munagapati

Rajaiah proceeded in Government hired jeep to detect excise offences in and around Gudur town and on that day at about 08.30 am while she was proceeding near PSR park street, Gudur, they found a lady standing along with a black polythene cover in her right hand and on seeing the excise staff, the said lady thrown away the polythene cover and escaped from the scene of offence. According to PW.2, though they tried to apprehend the said lady but she successfully escaped from the scene of offence. According to PW.2, they returned to the scene of offence and observed the black polythene cover and found it contains dried leaves, flowers, seeds and came to know that it is a dry granja. According to PW.2, she weighed the contraband in a small petty bunk and found it is weighing about 520 grams. According to PW.2, she 5/9C.C.No.142 of 2014 enquired the mediators about the escaped person and came to know that it is the accused who used to purchase ganja at Warangal and used the sell the same at Gudur at higher rates. PW.2 claimed that she took 50 grams of ganja in a brown cover for the purpose of analysis and seized the remaining contraband under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators, sealed and affixed labels to the sample as well as the polythene bag.

According to PW.2, she returned to Gudur Excise station and handed over the panchanama along with case property to the Station sentry with instructions to take further action.

12. The excise Head constables who said to have accompanied PW.2 at the time of conducting patrolling duty was examined as PWs.3 and 4 and their evidence is by large on similar lines as deposed by Pw.2. According to

PWs.3 and 4, on 06/11/2011 at about 08.30 am they accompanied PW.2 for conducting patrolling duty and on that day while they were proceeding near

PSR Park street, Gudur they found a lady in possession of a black polythene cover and on seeing the excise officials, the said lady thrown away the polythene cover and escaped from the scene of offence. PWs.3 and 4 claimed that though they tried to apprehend the said lady, it proved futile and later

PW.2 verified the contents of polythene cover and found it contains dry leafs, seeds and flowers of ganja. According PWs.3 and 4 their Inspector weighed the ganja in a provision store sitaute at the scene of offence and found it is weighing about 520 grams. PWs.3 and 4 further deposed that their inspector lifted 50 grams of ganja towards sample for the purpose of analysis, sealed and affixed the label and also seized the remaining contraband under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. According to PWs.3 and 4, their Inspector inquired the mediators about the particulars of escaped lady and came to know that it is the accused who escaped from the scene of offence and she used to bring ganja from Warangal and used to sell the same in and around Gudur. According PWs.3 and 4, their Inspector brought the 6/9C.C.No.142 of 2014 panchanama along with sample and seized contraband to Gudur Excise station and handed over the same to the said centry for taking further action.

13. The then prohibition and excise Sub Inspector, Gudur was examined as PW.5 and he deposed that on 06/11/2011 at about 09.00 pm when he returned to excise station after conducting patrolling duty, his

Station Sentry informed him that PW.2 came and handed over a panchanama along with case property and samples with instructions to take further action and on the basis of Ex.P2 panchanama, he registered a case in P.R.

No.167/2011-12 under sec.20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) of NDPS Act, and issued Ex.P3 FIR.

14. The then prohibition and excise inspector, Gudur was examined as PW.6 and he deposed that he took investigation from PW.5, verified the investigation and found it on correct lines and later he came to know that the accused herein was apprehended by Gudur I town police station in connection with Cr.No.166 of 2013 under sec. 20(b)(iii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and immediately he made an application before this court and got produced the accused on 31/05/2013 on execution of PT warrant. PW.6 claimed that after receipt of Ex.P6 chemical examiner report, he filed charge-sheet against the accused.

15. The predecessor of PW.6 was examined as PW.7 and he claimed that on 19/12/2011 he sent the sample of ganja to the chemical examiner,

Gudur through this court and on 12/01/2012 he received chemical examiner’s report.

16. A careful perusal of the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 coupled with

Ex.P2 panchanama, it clearly go to show that the offence was detected by

PW.2 on 06/11/2011 at about 08.30 am near PSR Park street, Gudur. As per

Ex.P2 and the evidence of PWs.2 to 4, at the time of detecting the offence, they could not apprehend the accused. According to PWs.2 to 4, on seeing the excise officials, the lady who was in possession of black plastic bag 7/9C.C.No.142 of 2014 escaped from the scene of offence by throwing away the said bag. PWs.2 to 4 further claimed that though they tried to apprehend the said lady, it proved futile and later Pw.2 enquired about the escaped lady through mediators viz.,

PW.1 and LW.1 Munagapati Raja and came to know that it is the accused who escaped from the scene of offence and used to sell ganja by bringing the same from Warangal. As already referred above, the only panch witness who was testified before this court as PW.1 failed to support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Though the learned APP put questions in the nature of cross examination, however with permission of the court by invoking the provisions of Sec.154 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, nothing could be elicited to show that he is deposing false to help the accused. It is the specific evidence of PW.1 that he does not know the accused and he never acted as panch witness for lifting the sample of ganja or seizure of any ganja at any place more particularly at PSR Park street, Gudur. The other panch witness viz., LW.1 Munagapati Raja was not examined before the court as he is no more. Therefore, the main source from which PW.2 got information about the accused, remained unproved. Further in this case though the offence is alleged to have detected on 06/11/2011, PW.2 could not apprehend the accused for nearly two years. As per the evidence of

PW.6, he produced the accused before this court on execution of NBW on 31/05/2013. What are the steps taken by PW2 or PWs.5 and 6 in apprehending the accused, remained unexplained. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the accused that in order to put an end to the investigation in P.R. No.167 of 2011-2012, the accused was implicated in a false case by taking advantage that she was apprehended by Gudur I town police in connection with Cr.No.66 of 2013. When the evidence of PW.1 itself became useless to the case of prosecution, the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 which is dependant upon the evidence of PW.1 and LW.1 Munagapati Rajaiah pales into insignificance and looses importance. Neither PW.2 nor PWs.5 and 6 8/9C.C.No.142 of 2014 explained the steps taken by them in apprehending the accused. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec. 20(b)(iii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and hence she is entitled for acquittal.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sec. 20(b)(iii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and hence she is acquitted of the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused obtained during examination 313 Cr.P.C in compliance of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C shall be in force for a period of six months. MO.1 sample of ganja and unmarked ganja which is the safe custody of Excise

Station shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to personal assistant, transcribed, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-K.P.SAIRAM

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

GUDUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESES EXAMINED

Prosecution:Defence: None. P.W.1 : G.Sivakumar PW.2 : Sk.Kareena Beguma PW.3 : B.Sankaraiah PW.4 : M.S.Ravindra Rao PW.5 : Sk.Esdani Basha PW.6 : A.Rathnam PW.7 : Sk.Ansar Basha

EXHIBITS MARKED:

Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on the document Ex.P2: Panchanama Ex.P3: Original FIR Ex.P4: Chemical examiner's report

Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1 : Sample ganja

Sd/-K.P.SAIRAM

A.J.M.F.C.,GDR.

9/9C.C.No.142 of 2014

CC/4/2013 Acquitted

Proh and excise Inspector Rapur vs Nagaluri Rasamma

24 Apr 2017

1/6C.C.No.4 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

GUDUR.

Present:-Sri K.P.Sai Ram,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gudur.

Monday, the 24th (Twenty Fourth) day of April, 2017.

C.C. No. 4 of 2013

State: Sub -Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur … Complainant

Nagaluri Rosamma w/o Late Ramanaiah, aged 40 yrs Mamuduru of Chejerla Mandal … Accused

This case is coming on 13/04/2017 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the entire material available on record and upon hearing the arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and of Sri.K.Rajanikanth Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector of Police, Rapur filed charge sheet against the accused in P.R.No.148 of 2011-12 for the offence punishable under Sec.7A read with 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1968.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-

(a)The accused is the resident of Mamuduruvillage of Chejeral

Mandal. On 15/01/2012 the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur D.N.M.

Nandeeswara Rao collected his staff including PWs.1 and 2 and proceeded to

Surayapalem village to detect excise offences and at about 01.00 pm while the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur was proceeding towards

Surayapalem village, he found the accused coming in opposite direction with two plastic cans in her hands and on seeing the excise officials, when she tried to skulk away, the Prohibition and Excise Inspector apprehended the accused with the assistance of his staff and on interrogation, she confessed 2/6C.C.No.4 of 2013 to have been in possession of ID liquor. Immediately the Prohibition and

Excise Inspector, Rapur sent PW.1 to Yerraballi village secure independent mediators and after some time PW.1 returned to the scene of offence and informed that nobody came forward to act as mediators and the revenue officials viz., VRO and Talari are not available in the village. Then the

Prohibition and Excise Inspector opened the plastic cans and found ten litres of ID liquor in each can and that when the accused did not produce proper license or permit to possess ID liquor, he lifted 150 ml of ID liquor from each plastic can into two 180 ml quarter bottles for the purpose of analysis, sealed and affixed identity slips on both the sample bottles and the plastic cans and then he arrested the accused and seized the contraband under the cover of special report and thereafter the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur brought the accused along with case property to the excise station and basing on the special report, the above case was registered and investigated into. On the same day, the accused was forwarded to the court for remand.

The sample bottles were sent to chemical examiner for analysis and after completion of investigation and after receipt of chemical examiner's report, the above charge sheet was filed. Hence the charge.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence under Sec.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and issued summons to the accused.

4.On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished and when she was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C about the substance of allegations leveled in the charge-sheet, the accused denied the same and hence a charge under

Sec.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act was framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of prosecution, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and

Exs.P1 and P2 were got marked.

3/6C.C.No.4 of 2013

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which she denied and further stated that she did not commit any offence and she was implicated in a false case due to statistical purpose. The bail bonds of accused obtained in compliance of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C was ordered to be in force for a period of six months. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor marked any documents.

7.Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act?

9.POINT: The gravamen of the allegations against the accused is that on 15/01/2012 at about 01.00 pm while the prohibition and excise inspector, Rapur was conducting raids to detect excise offences, he found the accused at Surayapalem coming in opposite direction along with two plastic cans of 10 litres capacity each and that when the accused tried to skulk away on seeing the excise officials, he apprehended her and on interrogation, she confessed that she is in possession of ID liquor and immediately she sent

PW.1 to Yerraballi village to secure independent mediators and when nobody came forwarded to act as mediators, the prohibition and excise inspector observed the contents of plastic cans and found 10 litres of ID liquor in each plastic can without any valid license or permit and therefore, the prohibition and excise inspector arrested the accused and seized the excise contraband under the cover of special report after drawing 150 ml of ID liquor from each can into 180 ml quarter bottles for the purpose of analysis.

10. The prosecution in order to prove its' case got examined the excise constables who said to have accompanied the prohibition and excise inspector, Rapur to detect the excise offences as PWs.1 and 2. The evidence 4/6C.C.No.4 of 2013 of PWs.1 and 2 is by and large is on similar lines. According to PWs.1 and 2, on 15/01/2012 they accompanied the prohibition and excise inspector, Rapur to conduct raids in and around Podalakur area and that at about 01.00 pm while they were proceeding near Yerraballi cross road, they found the accused coming in opposite direction along with two plastic cans and on seeing the excise officials, when she tried to skulk away they apprehended the accused and produced before their inspector and on interrogation, the accused confessed that she is in possession of ID liquor. According to PW.1, his inspector deputed him to go to Yerraballi village with instructions to secure independent mediators and that he went to the said village and tried to secure independent mediators but nobody came forwarded to act as mediators and also noticed that the VAO or Talari of the said village are not available and immediately he returned to the scene of offence and informed about his inability to secure independent mediators and then their inspector observed the contents of plastic cans and found 10 litres of ID liquor in each plastic can. According to PWs.1 and 2 their inspector lifted 180 ml ID liquor from each plastic can towards sample for analysis, sealed and labeled it and then their inspector arrested the accused and seized the remaining contraband under the cover of special report. PW.2 claimed that he himself prepared the special report on the instructions given by his inspector.

11. This is a case of illegal possession of ID liquor. In this case, the prosecution could not examine the investigating officer viz., the then prohibition and excise inspector, Rapur as he is no more. The death certificate of D.N.M. Nandeeswara Rao was filed. The prosecution also could not examine the then prohibition and excise Sub Inspector, Rapur as he also died on 13/08/2015. Now we are having the evidence of PW.1 and 2 alone.

As already stated above, the offence was detected by LW.6 D.N.M.

Nandeeswara Rao on 15/01/2015 at about 01.00 pm near Yerraballi cross road. The entire proceedings were conducted without the presence of independent mediators. In the cross-examination PWs.1 and 2 categorically 5/6C.C.No.4 of 2013 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy road having frequent vehicular movement.

12. PW.1 who was sent to Yerraballi village to secure the independent mediators, did not explain the efforts taken by him in securing the independent mediators. The evidence of PW.1 in regard to his efforts to secure independent mediators is as routine as it could be. In most of excise offences, the excise officers claim that though they tried to secure the independent mediators, nobody came to act as mediator. The above reasoning without explaining the actual steps taken in securing the mediators, is not a satisfactory explanation. If really the prohibition and excise inspector intends to secure independent mediators he can as well secure the jeep driver who is a private person and in his presence, the prohibition and excise inspector could have lifted the same and could have arrested the accused under the cover of panchanama. It is admitted by

PWs.1 and 2 in the cross-examination that the jeep in which they conducted raids as a rented jeep and the driver of the said jeep is a private driver.

Therefore, it can be safely said that the prohibition and excise inspector did not follow the statutory provisions of Sec.100 Cr.P.C before effecting search and seizure. Further the prohibition and excise inspector Rapur did not try to examine any respectable inhabitants of the locality to show that on that day they have apprehended the accused while she was in possession of ID liquor without any valid license or permit. Further it is highly unbelievable to note that a lady (the accused) who is aged nearly 40 years is capable of lifting 20 litres of ID liquor in two plastic cans independently. Keeping the ID liquor at a particular place without any valid license, is a different aspect but a lady coming in opposite direction with 20 litres of ID liquor is highly unbelievable.

In the absence of any corroboration to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, their sole interested testimony cannot be made basis to record conviction of the accused and therefore, this court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under 6/6C.C.No.4 of 2013

Sec.7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and for an acquittal.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and hence she is acquitted of the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused obtained during examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C in compliance of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked two sample bottles in CPR.No.12 of 2012 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to personal assistant, transcribed, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-K.P.SAIRAM

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

GUDUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESES EXAMINED

Prosecution:Defence: None. P.W.1 : Y.Chenchaiah PW.2 : J.Koteswara Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED:

Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on special report Ex.P2: Signature of PW.2 on special report

Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

---nill---

Sd/-K.P.SAIRAM

A.J.M.F.C.,GDR.

Order Record 899 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/4/2013	Proh and excise Inspector Rapur vs Nagaluri Rasamma	24 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/55/2004	sub Indpector of police P.S. Manubolu vs P. Raja	24 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	Convicted
CC/142/2014	sub Indpector of police P.S. Gudur vs Ganjgipaka Jayamma	24 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/200/2010	SHO,Chillakuru P.s vs Selvaraj Suresh Kumar	21 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/231/2006	sub Indpector of police P.S. Manubolu vs Karthi Rajan	21 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/26/2009	sub Indpector of police P.S. Gudur vs Vsvangapuri Ramesh	20 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
DVC/1/2015	Bandi Anusha vs Bandi Krishnaiah	20 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
PRC/80/2008	Mythari Sreenu vs Kuppuswamy Mani	20 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/197/2010	sub Indpector of police P.S. Chillakur vs Syad Khader Hussain	19 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/406/2016	SHO,Chillakuru P.S vs Kothipaka Bhaskar	19 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/268/2011	sub Indpector of police P.S. Chillakur vs Neerupaka Narasaiah	18 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/123/2012	SHO, Gudur Rural P.S. vs Ramireddy Mallikarjuna Reddy	12 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/140/2012	Sub Inspector of Police Chillakur P.S. vs Burri Uma Maheswara Rao	12 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/247/2016	SHO Sydapuram P.S vs Valluru Navaneethamma	12 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/271/2012	Sub Inspector of police, Manubolu P.S. vs Karnatakam Varaprasad	12 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/480/2013	SHO,Chillakuru P.S vs Duvvuru Munisundar Reddy	12 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/494/2012	Sub Inspector of Police, Gudur Rura P.S. vs Vsbalipaka venkataiah	10 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/187/2013	Sub Inspector of Police Chillakur P.S. vs Komma Narayana	07 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/71/2009	sub Indpector of police P.S. Manubolu vs Pasuparthi Srinivasa Rao	03 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/212/2007	sub Indpector of police P.S. Manubolu vs Thatapa Reddy Ramana Reddy	03 Apr 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/278/2007	sub Indpector of police P.S. Gudur vs Lakshman Singh Penchal Singh	31 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/226/2011	Sub Inspector of Police, Chillakur P.S. vs Bynagari Gnanananda Nirikshana Rao	30 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/231/2012	SHO Manubolu P.S vs Kanala Dasthagiri	30 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/10/2005	sub Indpector of police P.S. Manubolu vs R. Murugesan	27 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/111/2015	SHO Gudur I Town P.S. vs Kommala Suresh	27 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/203/1997	SHO Manubolu P.S vs Shaik Haneef	27 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/99/2011	Sub Inspector of Police, SydapuramP.S. vs Thota Vijayakumaar	23 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/466/2012	Sub Inspector of Police,Manubolu P.S. vs Kudumula Venu	22 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/42/2010	Sub Inspector of police, Gudur I town P.S. vs Kollapudi Venkaiah alias Battodu	20 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
MC/14/2015	Simakota Santhi vs Simakota Subrahmanyam	17 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
MC/24/2014	Chandiboina Shravani vs Chandiboina Lakshmi Venkata Lohith	16 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/527/2014	SHO Sydapuram P.S vs Ravala Mahesh	15 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/380/2014	The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by7 the Food Inspe vs Shaik China Mastan	13 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/381/2014	The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by The Food Safety Officer, vs Pamuri Gopi	13 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/382/2014	state Rep. by the Food Inspector Nellore vs Mummala prasad	13 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/286/2011	sub Indpector of police P.S. Gudur vs Nalajalam Venkateswarlu	10 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/353/2010	SHO Manubolu P.S vs Arisetty Sreenivasulu	10 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/135/2012	Sub Inspector of Police Gudur I Town P.S. vs Mathangi Penchalaiah	06 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/373/2012	Sub Inspector of police, Chillakur P.S. vs Pasala Murali	02 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/8/2011	Sub Inspector of Police ,Gudur Rural P.S. vs Mavillapalli Srinivasulu Naidu	01 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/113/2012	Sub Inspector of Police Gudur II Town P.S. vs Rapuru Eswaraiah	01 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/91/2014	SHO Gudur I Town P.S. vs Parimala Sudhakar	27 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/589/2015	SHO,Gudur II town P.S, vs Papareddy Ananda Mohan	27 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/280/2008	sub Indpector of police P.S. Manubolu vs Addula Narayana Reddy	23 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/286/2014	SHO Sydapuram P.S vs Kanderi Chandra Sekhar	22 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/346/2014	SHO Sydapuram P.S vs Kapa Sreenivasulu	22 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/427/2012	Sub Inspector of Police Chillakur P.S. vs Dasari Kantha Rao	22 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/355/2012	sub Indpector of police P.S. Chillakur vs Rokkam Sivaiah	21 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/299/2012	Sub Inspector of police, Manubolu P.S. vs Navuru Ramaiah	20 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/39/2010	Sub Inspector of police, Gudur I P.S. vs Eragaboyina Nagaraju	14 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
DVC/7/2014	Ingileli Swarnalatha vs Ingileli Chandu amruth Kumar	13 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
MC/12/2015	Ingelala Swarna Latha vs Ingilala Chandu Amruth Kumar	13 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/1/2001	SHO,Chillakuru P.S vs M.Sakthivel	11 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/136/2004	SHO,Gudur Rural P.S vs Danam Leela Mohan	11 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/248/2014	sub Indpector of police P.S. Gudur vs Sivudu Subramanyam	11 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/304/2013	SHO Sydapuram P.S vs Penamala Venkata Ramanaiah	11 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/497/2001	SHO,Chillakuru P.S vs Thota Malakondaiah	11 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/18/2013	Sub Inspector of Police, Gudur Rural P.S. vs Ganga Nageswara Rao	10 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/237/2010	SHO,Chillakur P.S. vs Nakkalakona Venkateswarlu	09 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/412/2012	SHO Sydapuram P. vs Atchi Venkateswarlu	09 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/21/2016	SHO,Sydapuram P.s. vs Nariboina Subrahmanyam	08 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/281/2013	Sub Inspector of police, Gudur Rural P.S. vs Mavillapalli Srinivasulu Naidu	08 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/235/2005	SHO,Gudur Rural P.S vs Indukuru Suryanarayana Raju	06 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/452/2012	SHO, Chillakur PS vs Bellamkonda Venaiah	03 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/398/2011	SHO Gudur I Town P.S. vs Soga Pedda Narayana	02 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
MC/13/2016	Bellamkonda Sreelatha vs Bellamkonda Rajendra	02 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/93/2012	Sub Inspector of Police, Manubolu P.S. vs Thallapaka Yedukondalu	01 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/13/2013	SHO,Gudur Rural P.S vs Kothipaka Masthan	31 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/14/2013	SHO,Gudur Rural P.S vs Madala Venkateswarlu	31 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/31/2012	Sub Inspector of police, Gudur Rural P.S. vs Perikala Sai Kumar	31 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/236/2015	state Rep. by the Proh and Excise Inspector, Gudur vs Thalla Bujjaiah	31 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/110/2015	Proh and Excise Inspector, Gudur vs Nandipaka Venkata Ramanaiah	30 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/434/2014	Proh and excise Inspector Venkatagiri vs SK.Kalesha	30 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/261/2016	Andhra Pradesh State Rep.by the Inspector of Facto vs B.P.Singh	27 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/431/2010	SHO,Gudur Rural P.S vs Dhanapal Murali	27 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/496/2012	Sub Inspector of Police, Gudur Rural P.S. vs Parimala Penchalamma	27 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/42/2012	S.H.O.,Sydapuram P.S. vs Batta Venkatasubbaiah	25 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/353/2011	sub Indpector of police P.S. Gudur vs Mora Ramanaiah	25 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
PRC/57/1997	sub Indpector of police P.S. Manubolu vs Karriyavula Domodara Naidu	25 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/214/2011	Sub Inspector of police, Chillakur P.S. vs Parvathala Sai Kumaar	24 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/73/2011	Sub Inspector of police, Chillakur P.S. vs P.Samynathan	23 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/134/2012	Sub Inspector of Police, Gudur I Town P.S. vs Turaka Penchalaiah	23 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/258/2010	Kurapati Subba Reddy vs Battepati Ravindra Reddy	23 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/449/2012	Sub Inspector of police, Sydapuram P.S. vs Bandi Brahmaiah	20 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/17/2013	SHO,Gudur Rural P.S vs Atmakur Balaiah	18 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/194/2013	Sub Inspector of Police Chillakur P.S. vs Damavarapu Mandalaiah alias kora Srinu	18 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
MC/16/2013	Chengi Muni Sarada alias Sarada vs Chenji Uma Sankar	17 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/439/2012	Sub Inspector of police, Gudur Rural P.S. vs Bellamkonda Bhaskar	11 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/360/2012	Sub Inspector of Police,Chillakur P.S. vs Pigilam Chenchaiah	10 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/500/2012	Sub Inspector of Police Chillakur P.S. vs Tatiparthi Sreenivasulu Reddy	10 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
MC/5/2015	Gunti Lakshmamma vs Gunti China Masthanaiah	06 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/56/2012	Sub Inspector of police, Chillakur P.S. vs Eragaraju Siddaiah	04 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/278/2012	SHO, Chillakuru P.S vs Neerupaka Venkata Ramanaiah	04 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/354/2004	sub Indpector of police P.S. Gudur vs Mangala puri Thirumaleswara Rao	04 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/510/2008	SHO,Gudur Rural P.S vs Kasthuri Rathnaiah	03 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/181/2011	Sub Inspector of Police, Manubolu P.S. vs Natari Kishore	02 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/378/2012	SHO,Gudur Rural P.S vs Bandla Hari @ Sreehari	02 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/96/2015	SHO Manubolu P.S vs Tatiparthi Seenaiah alias Srinivasulu	30 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/61/2012	Sub Inspector of Police Chillakur P.S. vs Navuru Subbaiah	29 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/469/2012	sub Indpector of police P.S. Sydapuram vs Bommisetty siva sankar	29 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—

Showing 100 of 899 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2017		20
Mar 2017		21
Feb 2017		26
Jan 2017		32
Dec 2016		37
Nov 2016		32
Oct 2016		32
Sep 2016		39
Aug 2016		26
Jul 2016		32
Jun 2016		48
May 2016		30

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has K.P.Sairam handled?

K.P.Sairam has handled 944 court orders since 2014 at Addl Dist Court Complex Gudur. The average disposal rate is 26 orders per month.

What types of cases does K.P.Sairam hear?

Based on available records, K.P.Sairam primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at Addl Dist Court Complex Gudur.

Where is K.P.Sairam currently posted?

K.P.Sairam is posted as Additional Junior Civil Judge at Addl Dist Court Complex Gudur, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by K.P.Sairam available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by K.P.Sairam are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does K.P.Sairam dispose cases?

K.P.Sairam disposes approximately 26 cases per month, based on 944 orders handled over their tenure at Addl Dist Court Complex Gudur.

Since when is K.P.Sairam serving?

K.P.Sairam has been serving at Addl Dist Court Complex Gudur since 2014.

Case Types

CC 95%

MC 3%

DVC 1%

PRC 1%

STC 0%

CRL 0%

Posting History

May 2014 — May 2017

Additional Junior Civil Judge · 944 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Convicted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Sri B. Rajesh

Senior Civil Judge

143 orders

Sri K.Venkata Naga Pavan

VII Addl. District Judge

268 orders

Sri Ch. Madhubabu

Prl.Junior Civil Judge

0 orders

← View all judges at Addl Dist Court Complex Gudur