Sri K. Venkatesh

1 CC.No.655 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD: AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI K. VENKATESH,

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Friday, this the 08 th day of March, 2019

CALENDER CASE NO.655 OF 2016

Between: The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Raidurgam.

... Complainant

AND

1. Md.Kharmuddin, S/o. MD.Shareefuddin, Age: 60 years, Occ: Kirana Store, R/o: H.No.1-61/5, Rahman Gulshan Colony, Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District.

2. Mohd. Mohmuslihuddin, S/o. Mohd.Muzafaruddin, Age: 65 years, Occ: Senior Citizen, R/o: H.No.2-64/102, Rahmath Gulshan Colony, Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District.

... Accused Nos. 1 and 2

This case is coming up for fnal hearing before me on 05.03.2019 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri A.Ravikanth Reddy, Learned Counsel for Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Raidurgam Police Station had fled charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.320/2016 for an ofence punishable under Section 52 r/w 49(1)(b)(c) of Hyderabad Metro Water

Supply and Sewerage Board Act (for short ‘HMWSSB’), 1989, Section 430 of

IPC and Section 3(2)(a) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

2. The case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet in brief as follows:

That, on 18.06.2016 at 18.00 hours, received a complaint from the complainant/Sri Madali Prabhakar, Manager (HMWSS Madhapur), in which he stated that, on reliable information to the efect that water is being drawn 2 CC.No.655 of 2016 from the pipeline of HMWSSB, illegally without obtaining any permission from the Board as required under Section 23 of HMWSSB Act, in the locality of

Rahmath Gulshan Nagar and Gulshan Nagar conducted personal inspection of the locality along with the concerned feld staf of the area on 13.10.2016.

During the inspection in the premises bearing No. 264/102 of Rahmath

Gulshan Nagar and H.No. 161/5 of Gulshan Nagar locality, Hyderabad it is noticed that the owners of Gulshan Nagar Mohd. Mohmuslihuddin (A2) and

Mohd.Khamruddin (A1) were found drawing the water from the water supply pipelines laid by the HMWSSB. On demand to produce the permission, if any to draw the water taken from the HMWSSB as required under Section 23 of

HMWSSB Act, 1989. They failed to produce any permission and that on verifcation of the water supply connection record maintained in the HMWSSB office, it is found that no permission was granted to the accused Nos. 1 and

2. Thus, it has been established that the occupants of the above mentioned premises has mischievously meddled and damaged the Boards pipeline and created illegal connection at his own and drawing water for the last one month, causing diminution of supply of water and thereby committed the criminal ofences.

3.Basing on the contents of the above report, LW5/Sri G.Rajashekar, Sub-

Inspector of Police, PS Raidurgam has registered a case in Crime

No.320/2016 for an ofence punishable under Section 52 r/w 49(1)(b)(c) of

Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1989, Section 430 of IPC and Section 3(2)(a) of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW5 has examined and recorded the statements of LW1 and LW2/Sri Shaik Yousuf at PS. Later, he visited the scene of ofence situated at Rahmath Gulshan Colony Houses and conducted the scene of ofence panchanama in the presence of 3 CC.No.655 of 2016 mediators i.e. LW3/Sri Imroz Khan and LW4/Sri Md.Khaleemuddin and also drew the rough sketch. While the investigation is in progress, on 19.10.2016

LW5 issued notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused Nos. 1 and 2 with an instructions to comply the provisions. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for an ofence punishable under Section 52 r/w 49(1)(b)(c) of Hyderabad Metro

Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1989, Section 430 of IPC and Section 3(2)(a) of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

4.This court took cognizance for an ofence punishable under Section 52 r/w 49(1)(b)(c) of Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1989, Section 430 of IPC and Section 3(2)(a) of Prevention of Damage to

Public Property Act, 1984. On appearance of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, copies of documents were supplied to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

Charges have been framed against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for an ofence punishable under Section 52 r/w 49(1)(b)(c) of Hyderabad Metro Water

Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1989, Section 430 of IPC and Section 3(2)(a) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, the same were read over and explained to the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Telugu, to which, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, on behalf of prosecution, PWs’1 to 5 are examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are got marked.

PW1/Sri M.Prabhakar is the complainant, PW2/Sri Shaik Yousuf is one of the circumstantial witness to the incident, PW3/Sri Imroz Khan is one of the mediator for scene of ofence panchanama, PW4/Sri Mohd. Khallamuddin is another mediator for scene of ofence panchanama and PW5/Sri 4 CC.No.655 of 2016

G.Rajashekar is the Investigation Officer. Ex.P1 is the Report, Ex.P2 is the signature of PW3 on the scene of ofence panchanama, Ex.P3 is the signature of PW4 on the scene of ofence panchanama, Ex.P4 is the FIR and Ex.P5 is the scene of ofence panchanama. Through PW1, Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 are got marked. Ex.D1 is the Processing Fee Receipt, dated 31.01.2017, Ex.D2 is the

Water Connection Fee, dated 22.08.2007, Ex.D3 is the Water Connection

Charges Receipt and Ex.D4 is the intimation of sanction of water connection.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same were read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which, the accused Nos.

1 and 2 denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the learned APP and Learned Counsel for the accused Nos. 1 and 2.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for an ofence punishable under Section 52 r/w 49(1)(b)(c) of Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and

Sewerage Board Act, 1989, Section 430 of IPC and Section 3(2)

(a) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT: The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were charged for an ofence punishable under Section 52 r/w 49(1)(b)(c) of Hyderabad Metro Water

Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1989, Section 430 of IPC and Section 3(2)(a) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

5 CC.No.655 of 2016

11.PW1/Sri M.Prabhakar is the complainant and Manager of Water Works

Department has deposed that, on 18.10.2016 while he was on inspection in

Gachibowli area, he received information over phone that some persons were illegally drawing the water from pipeline at Rahamat Gulshan Nagar without any permission. Upon which, he visited the said locality, where he noticed two illegal connections which were obtained by Kamruddin and

Mohnusliuddin. Then, he asked the A1 and A2 to furnish the documents pertaining to the above water connection. But, they did not furnish any document. Upon which, he went to police station and lodged a report. PW2/

Sri Shaik Yousuf is the Lineman in Water Works Department has deposed more or less in similar lines to that of PW1. Though, PWs’ 1 and 2 have deposed that, A1 and A2 were drawing illegally water from pipeline without any permission, but in the cross-examination of PW1, he categorically admitted that, as per the documents i.e. D1 to D4, A1 and A2 are having water connections along with sanction of water connection. So, it is clear that, A1 and A2 were drawing the water from pipeline after obtaining the permission. Further, as per the evidence of PW1, he did not verify any record to show that, whether A1 and A2 were drawing the water with or without permission. He lodged a report against A1 and A2 stating that, they did not furnish the documents at the time of inspection.

12.PW3/Sri Imroj Khan is one of the mediator for scene of ofence panchanama has deposed that, in the year 2016, the police Raidurgam called him to PS and obtained his signature and he does not know the version of the prosecution. PW4/Sri Mohd Khallamuddin is another mediator for scene of ofence panchanama has deposed in similar lines to that of PW3. As PWs’ 3 and 4 did not support to the version of prosecution, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court has declared the above 6 CC.No.655 of 2016 witnesses as hostile. The learned APP with the permission of the court has cross-examined the PWs’ 3 and 4, during cross-examination, the learned APP did not elicit anything against the accused except to put suggestions which were denied by him.

13.Then, there remains the evidence of PW5/Sri G.Rajashekar is the investigating officer, his investigation prove with regard to receiving from

PW1, registration of FIR, recording the statements of witnesses and fling of charge sheet. But, the evidence of PW5 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. Further, during cross-examination of PW5, he categorically admitted that, he did not collect any document from the accused Nos. 1 and 2 to show that, whether they are having water connection or not. As seen from the evidence of PWs’ 1 to 5, in view of Exhibits D1 to D4, it is crystal clear that, A1 and A2 were drawing the water from pipeline after obtaining permission from the concerned authority.

14.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and foregoing reasons, I am of considered view is that, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 with which they were charged. Hence, I hold that, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

15. In the result, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for an ofence punishable under Section 52 r/w 49(1)(b)(c) of Hyderabad Metro

Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1989, Section 430 of IPC and Section 3(2)(a) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and accordingly, they are acquitted the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The 7 CC.No.655 of 2016 bail bonds of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

(Partly typed on Computer and partly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 08th day of March, 2019).

-Sd/XXXXXX

XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

-NIL- PW1/Sri M.Prabhakar is the complainant. PW2/Sri Shaik Yousuf is one of the circumstantial witness to the incident. PW3/Sri Imroz Khan is one of the mediator for scene of ofence panchanama. PW4/Sri Mohd. Khallamuddin is another mediator for scene of ofence panchanamA. PW5/Sri G.Rajashekar is the Investigation Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

-NIL Ex.P1 is the Report. Ex.P2 is the signature of PW3 on the scene of ofence panchanama. Ex.P3 is the signature of PW4 on the scene of ofence panchanama. Ex.P4 is the FIR. Ex.P5 is the scene of ofence panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Ex.D1 is the Processing Fee Receipt, dated 31.01.2017. Ex.D2 is the Water Connection Fee, dated 22.08.2007. Ex.D3 is the Water Connection Charges Receipt. Ex.D4 is the intimation of sanction of water connection.

-Sd/XXXXXX

XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR

1 CC.No.186 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD: AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI K. VENKATESH,

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Thursday, this the 07 th day of March, 2019

CALENDER CASE NO.186 OF 2017

Between: The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Raidurgam.

... Complainant

AND Om Prakash, S/o. Kallu Ram, Age: 45 years, Occ: Lorry Driver, R/o: H.No. 74, Chakiya (V), Jalalpur (Tehsil), Ambedkarnagar District., Uttar Pradesh State.

... Accused

This case is coming up for fnal hearing before me on 05.03.2019 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri S.Venkat Reddy, Learned Counsel for Accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Raidurgam Police Station had fled charge sheet against the sole accused in Crime No.104/2017 for an ofence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet in brief as follows:

That, on 04.03.2017 at 07.00 hours, received a complaint from the complainant/LW1/Sri A.V.Subramanyam, in which he stated that, on 03.03.2017 at about 2330 hours, his elder son by name A.Umakanth started from his home to his night duty at Southern Lands, Lancohills on his motor cycle bearing No. TS 07 EC 6328 and while proceeding, on the way he reached near the Gachibowli Junction, a Container Lorry bearing No. TS 12 UB 0924 driver coming from Miyapur to Gachibowli drove the lorry in a rash and 2 CC.No.186 of 2017 negligent manner and hit to his son’s bike, for which his son fell down on the road and the lorry moved on his head and body and sustained injuries over his head and body and died on the spot.

3.Basing on the contents of the above report, LW11/Sri G.Rajashekar,

Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Raidurgam has registered a case in Crime

No.104/2017 for an ofence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW11 has examined and recorded the statements of LWs’ 1 to 6 namely Sri A.V.Subramanyam, Sri

AVS Revanth, Sri I.Subramanyam Shastry, Sri V.S.Laxminarasimha Shastry,

Sri A.Raghavendra and Sri Shaik Nayeem. Later, he visited the scene of ofence situated at Gachibowli Junction, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District and caused enquiries regarding the incident and conducted the SOC

Panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e. LW7/Sri K.Satya Keerthi and

LW8/Sri K.Dakoju Aditya and also drew rough sketch in crime detail form.

Thereafter, LW10/Dr.Thaqiuddin Khan, Asst. Professor of Osmania General

Hospital, Hyderabad, along with LWs’ 7 and 8 proceeded to OGH Hyderabad and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased/Sri

Aakella Umakanth in the presence of above mediators. On 10.02.2017, the accused came to PS and surrendered before LW11 and on interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed his guilt of ofence. Later, LW11 efected the arrest of accused and after submitting sufcient sureties, the accused was released on station bail. Later, LW11 verifed the crime vehicle documents and found to be proper. LW11 collected the PME in respect of the deceased from LW9/Dr.Md.Taquiuddin, Professor, Dept of Forensic Medicine, OMC,

Hyderabad and opined that the death of the deceased is due to Multiple

Injuries. LW11 received the MVI report in respect of crime vehicle i.e. Trailer 3 CC.No.186 of 2017

Lorry bearing No. TS 12 UB 0924 from LW10 and in which he opined that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defect. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused for an ofence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

4.This court took cognizance for an ofence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to him as required U/Sec. 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’).

5.The accused was examined U/Sec. 251 Cr.P.C. for an ofence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, the substance of accusation is read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which the accused was pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused, on behalf of prosecution, PWs’1 to 6 are examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are got marked. PW1/Sri A.V.Subramanyam is the complainant and father of deceased, PW2/Sri A.V.S. Revanth is one of the witness and younger brother of deceased, PW3/Sri A.Raghavender is one of the eyewitness to the incident, PW4/Sri Shaik Nayeem is another eyewitness to the incident, PW5/Sri K.Satyakeerthi is one of the mediator for scene and inquest panchanama and PW6/Sri G.Rajashekar is the

Investigation Ofcer. Ex.P1 is the Report, Ex.P2 is the scene of ofence panchanama, Ex.P3 is the inquest panchanama, Ex.P4 is the FIR, Ex.P5 is the

MVI Report and Ex.P7 is the PME report. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW3/Sri I.Subramanyam Shastry, LW4/Sri V.S.Laxminarasimha 4 CC.No.186 of 2017

Shastry, LW8/Sri K.Dakoju Aditya, LW9/Sri V.Satyanarayana, AMVI – Kondapur and LW10/Dr.Thaqiuddin Khan.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same were read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which, the accused denied the same and reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the learned APP and Learned Counsel for the accused.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for an ofence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT: The accused was charged for an ofence punishable under

Section 304-A IPC. To prove the said ofence, the prosecution must be able to prove that, the accused is the driver of crime vehicle bearing No. TS 12 UB 0924, who drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased/A.Umakanth, due to which, he received injuries and died on the spot.

11.PW1/Sri A.V.Subramanyam is the complainant and father of deceased has deposed that, on 03.03.2017 at about 11.30 P.M., while his son was going to his ofce situated at Lanco Hills, from their house situated at

Ameenpur, on the way, he reached cross-road of Gachibowli on his two 5 CC.No.186 of 2017 wheeler motorcycle bearing No. TS 10 EC 6328 and while he taking U turn, meanwhile one container vehicle bearing No. TS 12 UB 0924 came from

Miyapur towards Gachibowli and dashed and ran over the head of his son, due to which, his son received severe injuries and died on the spot. He received the above information through Police Raidurgam. Immediately, he rushed to the scene of ofence and noticed the dead body of his son.

Thereafter, he went to police station and lodged a report. PW2/Sri

A.V.S.Revanth is the brother of deceased has deposed in similar lines to that of PW1. As seen from the evidence of PWs’ 1 and 2, they are not an eyewitnesses to the incident and they came to know about the incident over phone. However, the evidence of PW1 prove that, after the incident he went to PS and lodged a report.

12.PW3/Sri A.Raghavender is one of the alleged eyewitness to the incident has deposed that, in the year 2015, while he was going to answer natural call, he heard some noise at the cross road of Gachibowli. Then, he rushed to the said place and noticed one lorry was ran over one person, due to which, he received severe injuries and died on the spot. PW4/Sri Shaik Nayeem is another alleged eyewitness to the incident has deposed in similar lines to that of PW3. Though, PWs’ 3 and 4 have deposed that, one lorry ran away over the body of the deceased, but they did not state that, the accused is the person who drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In the absence of such material, the evidence of PWs’ 3 and 4 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

13.PW5/Smt K.Satyakeerthi is one of the mediator for scene of ofence, as well as, inquest panchanama has deposed that, on 04.03.2017 at 12.20 or 6 CC.No.186 of 2017 12.30 midnight, the police Raidurgam have taken him to circle of Gachibowli, where the police have conducted scene of ofence panchanama. Thereafter, the police took her to OGH, Hyderabad, where the police have conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased/Umakanth. As seen from the evidence of PW5, it is evident that, after the death of deceased the police have conducted scene of ofence panchanama, as well as, inquest panchanama.

14.Then, there remains the evidence of PW6/Sri G.Rajashekar is the investigating ofcer, his investigation prove with regard to receiving report from PW1, registration of FIR, recording the statements of witnesses, preparation of scene of ofence panchanama, as well as, inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased and fling of charge sheet against the accused. As seen from the evidence of PWs’ 1 to 6, no witness has stated that the accused is the person, who drove the crime vehicle at the time of incident. Further, PW6 has admitted in his cross-examination that, he did not collect any document to show that, he is the owner of the crime vehicle or he is working under the owner of the crime vehicle. Without fling any document, it is not proper to come to a conclusion that, the accused is the person who drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to deceased, due to which, he died.

15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and foregoing reasons, I am of considered view is that, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused with which he was charged. Hence, I hold that, the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

7 CC.No.186 of 2017

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

Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

(Partly type on computer and dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 07th day of March, 2019).

-Sd/XXXXX

XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

-NIL- PW1/Sri A.V.Subramanyam is the complainant and father of deceased. PW2/Sri A.V.S. Revanth is one of the witness and younger brother of deceased. PW3/Sri A.Raghavender is one of the eyewitness to the incident. PW4/Sri Shaik Nayeem is another eyewitness to the incident. PW5/Sri K.Satyakeerthi is one of the mediator for scene and inquest panchanama. PW6/Sri G.Rajashekar is the Investigation Ofcer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

-NIL Ex.P1 is the Report. Ex.P2 is the scene of ofence panchanama. Ex.P3 is the inquest panchanama. Ex.P4 is the FIR. Ex.P5 is the MVI Report. Ex.P6 is the PME report. -Sd/XXXXX

XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR

1 CC.No.556 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD: AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI K. VENKATESH,

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Wednesday, this the 06 th day of March, 2019

CALENDER CASE NO.556 OF 2016

Between:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Moinabad.

... Complainant

AND

Borra Sai Baba, S/o. Borra Shankaraiah, Age: 29 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. H.No. 1-142, Aziznagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R. District.

... Accused

This case is coming up for fnal hearing before me on 05.03.2019 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri B.Kumar Yadav, Learned Counsel for Accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Moinabad Police Station had fled charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.239/2016 for an ofence punishable under Section 447, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet in brief as follows:

That, on 13.08.2016 at 19.00 hours received a complaint from

LW1/Sri Gaddam Buchaiah, in which he stated that, the complainant running a mirchi bandi at Sai Wine Shop at Aziznagar gate. On 13.08.2016 at 17.30 hours the accused Borra Sai came to his mirchi bandi and picked up quarrel with him alleging that why do you running mirchi bandi here, threatened him 2 CC.No.556 of 2016 with dire consequences, damaged the mirchi bandi glass. When the LW1 tried to stop him, but the accused took a knife from shop @ bandi, attacked him and caused blood injury on left hand. The ensuing incident was occurred due to petty issue.

3.Basing on the contents of the above report, LW7/Sri L.Ravinder Naik,

Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Moinabad has registered a case in Crime

No.239/2016 for an ofence punishable under Section 447, 324, 506 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW7 has examined and recorded the statements of LWs’1 to 3 namely Sri Gaddam

Buchaiah, Sri Borra Shankar and Sri Vemula Ramesh. Later, he visited the scene of ofence situated in front of Sai Wine Shop, Aziznagar gate and conducted the scene of ofence panchanama and drew rough sketch in the presence of LW4/Sri Kattamidi Ravinder and LW5/Sri Chakali Srisailam.

During the panchanama, the LW7 seized the broken glass from crime scene in the presence of above mediators. On 16.08.2017 the LW7 issued a notice under Section 41 Cr.P.C. to the accused with an instruction to comply the provisions of the notice. The LW6/Dr.Subramanyam, Medical Ofcer, Bhaskar

General Hospital, Moinabad Mandal, treated the LW1 and issued Medical

Certifcate and opined that the injuries received by LW1 is simple in nature.

After completion of investigation, LW7 laid charge sheet against the accused for an ofence punishable under Section 447, 324, 506 of IPC.

4.This court took cognizance for an ofence punishable under Section 447, 324, 506 of IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to him as required under Section 207 Code of Criminal

Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’).

3 CC.No.556 of 2016

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges have been framed against the accused for an ofence punishable under Section 447, 324, 506 of IPC, the same were read over and explained to him in

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

6.To prove the case of the prosecution, PWs’1 to 6 are examined and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 are got marked. PW1/Sri G.Buchaniah is the complainant and victim, PW2/Sri B.Shaker is one of the eyewitness to the incident, PW3/Sri

V.Ramesh is another eyewitness to the incident, PW4/Sri K.Ravinder is one of the mediator for scene of ofence panchanama, PW5/Sri Chakali Srisailam is another mediator for scene of ofence panchanama and PW6/Sri L.Ravinder

Naik is the Investigation Ofcer. Ex.P1 is the Report, Ex.P2 is the statement of

PW2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P3 is the statement of PW3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P4 is the signature of PW4 on the scene of ofence panchanama, Ex.P5 is the signature of PW5 on the scene of ofence panchanama, Ex.P6 is the FIR, Ex.P7 is the scene of ofence panchanama and

Ex.P8 is the injury certifcate of PW1.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same were read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which, the accused denied the same and reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

4 CC.No.556 of 2016

9. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for an ofence punishable under Section 447, 324, 506 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT: The accused was charged for an ofence punishable under

Secion 427, 324 and 506 of IPC. To prove the said ofences, the prosecution must be able to prove that, the accused is the person who threatened the defacto complainant G.Buchaiah with dire consequences and damaged the

Mirchi Cart Glass, so also, the accused caused bleeding injury towards the defacto complainant with knife.

11.PW1/Sri G.Buchaiah is the complainant and injured has deposed that, he has established Tifn Center near Cross-Road of Aziznagar about one year back. At that time, one Sai Wines was also situated adjacent to his Tifn

Center. In the year 2016 one Sai Baba came to his Tifn Center in a drunken condition and damaged his Tifn Center. Thereafter, he beat him with pipe on his back. Thereafter, he stabbed him with knife on his back. Thereafter, he stabbed him on his left hand. Due to which, he received injuries.

Meanwhile the police came. By noticing the police, the accused fed away from the scene by leaving plastic pipe and knife. Thereafter, he went to police station and lodged a report.

12.PW2/Sri B.Shekar is one of the alleged eyewitness to the incident has deposed that, he did not present at the time of incident at the scene of ofence and after completion of incident, he went to the scene. The police have asked them whether he is present. On that, he informed the police 5 CC.No.556 of 2016 that, he was present at the time of incident. PW3/Sri V.Ramesh is another alleged eyewitness to the incident has deposed in similar lines to that of

PW2. PW4/Sri K.Ravinder is one of the mediator for scene of ofence panchanama has deposed that, in the year 2016, he went to police station,

Moinabad on his personal work, where the S.I. of Police has obtained his signature on white paper and he does not know anything about this case.

PW5/Sri Chakali Srisailam is another mediator for scene of ofence panchanama has deposed in similar lines to that of PW4. As seen from the evidence of PWs’ 1 to 5, PWs’ 2 to 5 did not support to the case of the prosecution. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court has declared the PWs’ 2 to 5 as hostile. The learned APP with the permission of the court has cross-examined the PWs’ 2 to 5, during cross- examination, the learned APP did not elicit anything against the accused except to put suggestions which were denied by them. PW1 has deposed that, the accused came in drunken condition and damaged his Tifn Center

Glass. Thereafter, the accused beat him with plastic pipe, so also, stabbed him with knife on his left hand. Thereafter, the accused fed away from the scene by leaving plastic pipe and knife. But, the alleged eye witnesses did not support to the version of PW1. Even to support the version of PW1, the prosecution failed to examine the Doctor who treated PW1. As per the version of PW1, the accused fed away from the scene by leaving plastic pipe and knife. But, the investigating ofcer failed to seize the above material objects. Even PW6/Sri L.Ravinder Naik, who is the investigating ofcer, has categorically admitted in his cross examination that, he did not seize the material objects with which the accused inficted injuries to PW1. So, the evidence of PW1 is not believable and trust worthy.

6 CC.No.556 of 2016

13.PW6/Sri L.Ravinder Naik is the investigating ofcer, his evidence prove with regard to receiving report from PW1, registration of FIR, recording the statements of PWs 1 to 3, preparation of scene of ofence panchanama and fling of charge sheet. But, the evidence of PW6 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution. Further, as per the version of PW6, number of people were surrounded at the scene of ofence. But, no single witness was supported to the version of PW1. In view of hostile evidence of PWs’ 2 to 5, in view of non- seizure of material objects, it is not proper to rely on the sole evidence of

PW1 to come to a conclusion that, the accused inficted injuries to PW1. Even the prosecution failed to fle any document to show the damage which was caused by the accused.

14.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and foregoing reasons, I am of considered view is that, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused with which he was charged. Hence, I hold that, the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for an ofence punishable under Section 427, 324 and 506 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

(Partly typed on computer and partly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 06th day of March, 2019).

-Sd/XXXXXX

XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

7 CC.No.556 of 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

-NIL- PW1/Sri G.Buchaniah is the complainant and victim. PW2/Sri B.Shaker is one of the eyewitness to the incident. PW3/Sri V.Ramesh is another eyewitness to the incident. PW4/Sri K.Ravinder is one of the mediator for scene of ofence panchanama. PW5/Sri Chakali Srisailam is another mediator for scene of ofence panchanama. PW6/Sri L.Ravinder Naik is the Investigation Ofcer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

-NIL Ex.P1 is the Report. Ex.P2 is the statement of PW2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P3 is the statement of PW3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P4 is the signature of PW4 on the scene of ofence panchanama. Ex.P5 is the signature of PW5 on the scene of ofence panchanama. Ex.P6 is the FIR. Ex.P7 is the scene of ofence panchanama. Ex.P8 is the injury certifcate of PW1.

-Sd/XXXXXX

XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR

1 C.C.NO.943 OF 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Thursday, this the 7 thday of March, 2019

PRESENT: K. VENKATESH,

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar.

CALENDER CASE No.943 OF 2015

Between:

The State through the

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Moinabad ...Complainant

A N D

Md. Azam Pasha S/o. Md. Shah Pasha, Age: 30 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Road No.12, Inside camman, Syed Nagar,

Banjarahills, Hyderabad. ...Accused

This case coming up for final hearing before me on this day in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri Habeen Jaffer Bin Hasan, learned Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Moinabad police station had filed charge sheet against the sole accused in crime No.260 of 2015 for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet in brief as follows:

That on 21.07.2015 at about 15.45 hours the complainant along with his friend

Md. Hassan, proceeding to Kethireddypally village from Kethireddypally gate, on his motor cycle Br.No.AP09BU8263 when they reached near Sajjanpally gate, meanwhile one driver of Auto Br.No.AP09U9973 came in opposite direction with rash and negligent manner and dashed to complainant’s bike, resulting the complainant who is riding the bike received injuries and pillion rider received head injury and the driver of auto Md.

Azam received injuries. Mohd Yusuf Khan who is occupant of the Auto died on the spot.

Hence the complainant requested for taking necessary action.

3.Basing on the above report, LW13/Sri G. Srinivasu, Inspector of Police, PS

Moinabad, registered a case in Crime No.260/2015, under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and 2 C.C.NO.943 OF 2015 entrusted the investigation to LW14/Sri L. Ravinder Naik, SI of Police. During the course of investigation, LW14 has examined and recorded the statement of LW1 to 5 i.e. Md.

Sajeer Ahmed, Modh Imran, Mohd Hasad, Md. Hussain @ Hassan and Syub Pasha, incorporate the same in part-II CDs and visited the scene of offence situated at

Sajjanpally Gate and conducted the scene of offence panchanama, drafted the rough sketch of crime scene in presence of LW6/Sri B. Raji Reddy and LW7/Sri P. Sanjeeva

Rao and shifted the dead body of the deceased to OGH, Hyderabad, where the

LW14/Sri L. Ravinder Naik, SI of Police, has conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of LW8/Sri Mohd. Yusuf and LW9/Sri Abdul Samad.

Subsequently, the subjected the corpse for PME where the LW11/Dr. K. Parvathi,

Assistant Professor, Medical Officer, OGH, Hyderabad held autopsy over the corpse and gave her opinion stating that the deceased died due to Head injury associated with cervical spinal injury”. After completion of PME, the dead body of the deceased handed over to the blood relatives for final rituals. On 18.09.2015 the LW14 issued notice to the accused U/sec 41 Cr.P.C. to comply the provisions of the said notice. The LW12/Sri V.

Subash C. Reddy, MVI, RTA, Ranga Reddy District, inspected the crime vehicle, issued report and opined that that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. The LW10/Dr. Shajahan, Medical officer, Bhaskar General Hospital,

Moinabad, who treated the LW1 and 4 and issued Medcial Certificate stating that the injuries received by LW1 and 4 are simple in nature. After completion of investigation,

LW7 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C.

4.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A and 337

I.P.C. On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with copies of all necessary documents as required U/Sec.207 Code of Criminal Procedure(Cr.P.C.).

5.The Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable

U/s.304-A and 337 I.P.C., by explaining the charge sheet allegations to him in Hindi, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW’s 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2.

3 C.C.NO.943 OF 2015

7.Since there is no incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, hence, the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for accused.

9.Now the point for determination is: whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A and 337 of I.P.C. beyond the reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:The accused was charged for an offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A and 337 of IPC. To prove the said offence, the prosecution must be able to prove that the accused is the person, who drove the said vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and dashed to the deceased, due to which the pillion rider/deceased died and driver of the vehicle received injuries.

11.PW1/Sri Mohd Sageer, is the complainant, has stated that, in the year 2015, while he was going on his two wheeler vehicle towards Moinabad, meanwhile one

Tempo came towards his opposite direction and dashed to his vehicle. Due to which he fell on the ground and received severe injuries and became unconscious. Thereafter he shifted to Hospital for treatment. On the same day he went to police station Moinabad and lodged a report. Thereafter the police have recorded his statement.

12.PW2/Sri Mohd Imran, is the son of the deceased, has stated that, the deceased

Mohd Yousuf is his father. About two years back, while his father was coming in auto from Kethipallyreddy village towards sajjanpally gate, meanwhile, one motor cycle came towards opposite direction and dashed to the said auto, due to which his father received severe injuries and died on the spot. He received information over phone. Immediately he rushed to Osmania hospital, where he noticed the dead body of his father. But the police did not record his statement.

13.As PW’s 1 and 2 did not support to the version of the prosecution and they turned hostile. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, cross examined the above witnesses, during the cross examination, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor did not elicit anything against the accused, except to put suggestions 4 C.C.NO.943 OF 2015 which were denied by them. Further, PW’s 1 and 2 was admitted in their cross examination that they has compromised the matter outside the court. In view of compromise of both parties, the learned APP has given up the evidence of all the remaining witnesses including the Investigation Officer, even if they are examined, no purpose would be served.

14.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and this court considered view is that, the prosecution has miserable failed to bring home the guilt of the accused with which he was charged. Hence I hold that the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A and 337 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted the same U/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands discharged forthwith.

(Typed to by dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 7 th day of March, 2019) -Sd/XXXX XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Rajendra Nagar.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1/Sri Mohd Sageer ANsari @ Ahmed is the complainant -Nil- PW.1/Sri Mohd Imran is the son of the deceased.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P.1 is the report. -Nil- Ex.P2 is the statement U/sec 161 Cr.P.C. of PW1

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil – -Sd/XXXX XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Rajendra Nagar.

1 C.C.NO.442 OF 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT RAJENDRANAGAR

Wednesday, this the 6 thday of March, 2019

PRESENT: K. VENKATESH,

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar.

CALENDER CASE No.442 OF 2019

Between:

The State through the

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Narsingi ...Complainant

A N D

Samudrala Sridhar S/o. Late Ramaiah, Age:38 years, Occ: Road Cutting Work, R/o.H.No.1-95, Manikonda, Gandipet Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District ...Accused

This case coming up for final hearing before me on this day in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri K. Gnaneshwar Chary, learned Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsingi police station had filed charge sheet against the sole accused in crime No.52 of 2019 for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet in brief as follows:

That on 20.01.2019 at 1600 hours, received a complaint from Sri Rajan Mahto, in which he stated that, two months back complainant along with his brother in law/deceased Anil Kumar came from their native place to Manikonda, Hyderabad and were working as a route cutting labour under accused/Sridhar, Contractor at SV

Enterprises, Manikonda. On 20.01.2019 at about 1200 hours, while the complainant along with his brother in law were cutting the road with the machine at Plot No.119/B,

Pasha Colony, Puppalguda Village, complainant’s brother in law had made a link between the electrical wire and cutting machine with the help of hook and improperly tied the plaster from cutting BDF machine wire to the electrical wire, which in turn got loose and separated, as a result of which, the electrical wire got directly made a contact with the cutting machine which was holding by the complainant’s brother in law, which 2 C.C.NO.442 OF 2019 caused him electrical shock and fell down. Immediately he was shifted to people’s hospital where the duty doctor confirmed that he was brought dead. Hence the complainant requested to take necessary action against the negligence of work contractor Sridhar who did not provide proper wiring to the BDF machine and illegally connected the machine wire to the electrical pole wire for the power source.

3.Basing on the above report, LW7/Sri T. Sridhar, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS

Narsingi, registered a case in Crime No.52/2019, under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW7 has examined and recorded the statement of LW1 at PS. Later visited the scene of offence situated at Plot

No.119/B, Pasha Colony, Puppalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal and inspected the scene minutely, thereafter the LW7 visited the People’s Hospital at Puppalguda and found the dead body of the deceased and conducted the inquest panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e. LW4/Sri Rachamalla Prem Kumar and LW5/Sri R. Santhosh

Kumar, after completion of inquest, the dead body shifted to OGH, Hyderabad for PME.

Thereafter the LW7 visited the scene of offence secured the presence of two mediators i.e. LW2/Sri J. Maheshwar and LW3/Sri Abdul Razzaq and conducted the scene of offence panchanama, drafted the rough sketch of the scene and observation of the scene was brought on record and enquired about the incident. Later had been to the mortuary of OGH, Hyderabad, inspected the dead body of deceased. After the dead body of deceased was subjected for autopsy and a requisition has been given to

LW6/Dr. K.V. Ramanamurthi, Professor and Head of Department of Forensic Medicine,

Osmania Medical College, Koti, Hyderabad, who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the cause of death due to “ELECTROCUTION”. After the autopsy the dead body of the deceased was handed over to their blood relatives for his last rites.

While the investigation is in progress, on 23.01.2019 the accused Samudrala Sridhar, has surrendered before LW7 along with sufficient sureties, on satisfying the sureties complied, the LW7 given police station bail. After completion of investigation, LW7 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C.

4.The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec. 304-A of I.P.C. On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with copies of all necessary documents as required U/

Sec.207 Code of Criminal Procedure(Cr.P.C.).

3 C.C.NO.442 OF 2019

5.The Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.304-A I.P.C., by explaining the charge sheet allegations to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2.

7.Since there is no incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, hence, the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for accused.

9.Now the point for determination is: whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. beyond the reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:The accused was charged for an offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A of IPC.

To prove the said offence, the prosecution must be able to prove that the accused is the person, who illegally connected the machine wire to the electrical pole wire for the power source, due to which, the deceased died.

11.PW1/Sri Rajan Mahto, is the complainant and brother in law of the deceased /Anil

Kumar, has stated that, the deceased Anil Kumar is his brother in law. About one month back, in the afternoon hours he received phone call stating that his deceased brother in law got electrical shock while he was doing road cutting work at Puppalguda village.

Immediately he rushed to the place of incident by that time he was shifted to Hospital.

Then he rushed to hospital and noticed the dead body of his deceased brother in law.

Thereafter he went to police station, where the police obtained his signature on white paper.

12.As PW1 did not support to the version of the prosecution and he turned hostile.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, cross examined the above witness, during the cross examination, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor did not elicit anything against the accused, except to put suggestion which 4 C.C.NO.442 OF 2019 were denied by him. Further, PW1 has admitted in his cross examination that he has compromised the matter outside the court. In view of compromise of both parties, the learned APP has given up the evidence of all the remaining witnesses including the

Investigation Officer, even if they are examined, no purpose would be served.

13.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and this court considered view is that, the prosecution has miserable failed to bring home the guilt of the accused with which he was charged. Hence I hold that the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted the same U/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands discharged forthwith.

(Typed to by dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 6 th day of March, 2019) -Sd/XXXXX XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Rajendra Nagar.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1/Sri Rajan Mahto is the complainant. -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P.1 is the signature of PW1 on report. -Nil- Ex.P2 is the statement U/sec 161 Cr.P.C. of PW1

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil - -Sd/XXXXX XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Rajendra Nagar.