Sri Kumar Vivek

CC 29 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

Present :: Sri Kumar Vivek, Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 2 nd day of May, 2017

C.C.No. 29 of 2015

(Cr.no.362/2014 of Ongole Taluk police station)

Between:

The State, represented by Inspector of Police,

Ongole Taluk police station... Complainant

Vs.

1. Yanamala Aruna W/o Narasimha Rao, 35 years, R/o Maruthinagar, 2nd lane, Ongole. N/o Upparapalem, Bapatla.

2. Palaparthi Anuradha W/o Brahmaiah, 36 years, R/o Indiramma colony, Ongole. N/o Nelappan center, Kakinada.

3. Bandaru Srinivasa Rao S/o Balarama Swamy, 46 years, R/o Andhra Kesari nagar, Ongole.

4. Arisala Kumar @ Venkata Ramana Kumar S/o Nageswara Rao, 46 years, Kothapeta, Vinukonda, Guntur.

... Accused

This case is coming on today for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri I.Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the accused no.1, Sri J.Raju, Advocate

for the accused no.2 and 4, and of Sri P.V.R.Raghava Rao, Advocate for the

accused no3, and upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing the arguments on 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 Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk police station, has filed charge sheet against the accused in crime no.362/2014 in respect of offences punishable under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, to punish the accused according to law with the following allegations:

2.That the accused no.1 had taken the house of one

Ramanababu situated in the 2nd lane, Maruthi nagar, Ongole on rent where she with the assistance of the accused no.2 has been running a brothel, 1 of 9

CC 29 of 2015

that on 06-07-2014 the accused no.1 and 2 have procured one Pasupuleti

Sunitha @ Sandhya and one Thotakura Srilatha for the purpose of carrying prostitution at their brothel house and the accused no.1 and 2 on the same day have invited the accused no.3 and 4 to their brothel house for the purpose of carrying prostitution with the said Pasupuleti Sunitha @

Sandhya and said Thotakura Srilatha and the accused no.1 and 2 have collected Rs.500/- each from the accused no.3 and 4 who came to the scene of crime for the purpose of carrying prostitution with said Pasupuleti

Sunitha @ Sandhya and said Thotakura Srilatha, and the accused no.1 and 2 have retained Rs.250/- each towards their share out of the earnings of the prostitution of said Pasupuleti Sunitha @ Sandhya and said Thotakura

Srilatha, and gave remaining Rs.250/- each to said Pasupuleti Sunitha @

Sandhya and said Thotakura Srilatha. PW4 has registered a case in crime no. 362/2014 under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act, 1956. On 07-07-2014 PW4 arrested the accused no.1 to 4 and sent him to the hon'ble Court for judicial custody, and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Cognizance has been taken of the charge sheet for the offences punishable under sections 3, 4, 5 and 7(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

4.After the appearance of the accused before this Court, the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, are furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal procedure

Code.

5.The accused are examined under section 239 of the Criminal

Procedure Code. Charges for the offences punishable under sections 3, 4, 5 and 7(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 are framed against the accused and charges are read over and explained to them in the 2 of 9

CC 29 of 2015

Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused has examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 through them apart from exhibiting MO1 to MO3.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused are examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by stating the incriminating circumstances found to be appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against them, to which they denied, and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Points for determination:

i) “Whether the prosecution did prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 3, 4, 5 and 7(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956”?

ii) “To what finding”?

10.Point No.1:

PW3 is the police office who is said to have assisted PW4 in raiding the scene of crime. PW3 has deposed before this Court that when they entered into the house they found that the accused no.3 was with

Thotakura Srilatha in one room and in another room one Arisala Ramana was with one Srilakshmi. PW3 has fumbled during the course of his chief examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and he had incorrectly identified the accused no.3 and 4 as he had identified the accused no.4 as the accused no.3 and the accused no.3 as the accused no.4. It is also significant to note that the name of the accused no.4 is

Arisala Kumar @ Venkata Ramana Kumar. PW3 could not even correctly speak the name of the accused no.4 nor he could not correctly identify the accused no.4 during the course of his examination in chief before this

Court. It is not the case of the prosecution that one Srilakshmi is also one 3 of 9

CC 29 of 2015

of the alleged victims of commercial sexual trafficking. The contention of the accused is that PW3 did not assist PW4 in holding the raid in the alleged brothel house run by the accused no.1 and 2. PW3 states during the course of his cross-examination that there is an entry in the General

Diary at the Ongole Taluk police station to show that he was on duty on 06- 07-2014, and he denied suggestion to the contra that he was not on duty in the night hours on 06-07-2014. The prosecution did not produce the alleged extract of the General Diary of the Ongole Taluk police station to show that PW3 was on duty on 06-07-2014. PW3 states during the course of his cross-examination that the police proceedings(Ex.P2) was scribed by

PW4 himself in his own handwriting. The evidence of the investigating officer(PW4) during the course of his cross-examination is that Ex.P2 was scribed by none other than PW3 himself, but PW3 did not subscribe his signature on Ex.P2 as its scribe. On the other hand, the evidence of PW4

before this Court that he had found the accused no.3 along with Pasupuleti

Sunitha @ Sandhya in one room, and the accused no.4 along with

Thotakura Srilatha in another room in the rented house of the accused no.1. Whereas the evidence of PW3 before this Court is that he had found the accused no.3 along with Thotakura Srilatha in one of the rooms.

Therefore, there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW3 and PW4 with respect to the identity of the alleged victim of commercial sexual trafficking with whom the accused no.3 had allegedly carried prostitution.

Accordingly, on account of said inconsistency in the evidence of PW3 with the evidence of PW4, failure on the part of PW3 to correctly speak out the name of the accused no.4 during the course of his chief examination, failure on the part of the accused no.3 to correctly identity the accused no.3 and 4 during the course of his chief examination, non-production of the General Diary extract to show that PW3 was on duty on 06-04-2014 at the Ongole Taulk police station, and further inconsistency in the evidence of PW3 and PW4 about the scribe of Ex.P2, creates considerable doubt 4 of 9

CC 29 of 2015

about PW3 assisting PW4 in raiding the scene of crime.

11.PW3 has deposed before this Court that the accused no.2 had confessed before them that the rate of the prostitution of the said

Srilakshmi and said Thotakura Srilatha was Rs.500/- per customer and they had taken Rs.250/- towards their share in the earnings of their prostitution, and that they have supplied condom packets to said Thotakura Srilatha and said Srilakshmi. The statement on oath of PW4 before this Court is that the accused no.1 had voluntarily confessed before them that she was running brothel in the said house with the assistance of the accused no.2, and on 06-07-2014 they have secured said Pasupuleti Sunitha @ Sundhya and said Thotakura Srilatha for the purpose of carrying prostitution at the brothel house of the accused no.1 and that the accused no.1 and 2 have invited the accused no.3 and 4 to the brothel house for the purpose of carrying prostitution with said Pasupuleti Sunitha @ Sundhya and said

Thotakura Srilatha, and that she had taken Rs.500/- from the accused no.3 out of which she had given Rs.250/- to said Pasupuleti Sunitha @ Sundhya towards her share in the earnings of her prostitution, and that the accused no.2 had taken Rs.500/- from the accused no.4 out of which the accused no.2 had given Rs.250/- to said Thotakura Srilatha towards her share in the earnings of her prostitution. There is no specific evidence of PW3 and PW4 that they had seen that the said Pasupuleti Sunitha @ Sundhya and said

Thotakura Srilatha participating in the sexual intercourse with the accused no.3 and 4 in the separate rooms, when they entered into the scene of crime. PW4 states during the course of his cross-examination that he did not produce said said Pasupuleti Sunitha @ Sundhya, said Thotakura

Srilatha, the accused no.3 and 4 to the hospital for holding medical examination to ascertain that they have participated in the sexual intercourse. Thus, there is no medical proof before this Court to establish that the accused no.3 and 4 have participated in sexual intercourse with said Pasupuleti Sunitha @ Sundhya and said Thotakura Srilatha at the 5 of 9

CC 29 of 2015

scene of crime house. PW4 has testified before this Court that he had seized two packets of Kamasutra condoms from the accused no.3 and one packet of Kamasutra condom from the accused no.4, and that he had also seized two wrappers of Kamasutra condoms from both the rooms. The intact condoms are marked as MO2 and wrappers of Kamasutra condoms are marked as MO3. Therefore, it can be said that PW4 did not seize any used condoms from the alleged scene of crime under Ex.P2. The cross- examination of PW1 and PW2 clearly shows that MO2 and MO3 are commonly sold in open market. When PW4 had allegedly seized MO3 from the scene of crime i.e., wrapper of Kamasutra condoms then certainly he should make efforts to trace and seize the used condoms from the scene of crime to establish participation in commercial sexual intercourse by the accused no.3 and 4 with said Pasupuleti Sunitha @ Sundhya and said

Thotakura Srilatha. The evidence of PW4 is silent about making of any efforts by him for tracing and seizing Kamasutra condoms that were packed under MO3. No reason is forthcoming from the side of the prostitution explaining whereabouts the Kamasutra condoms that were packed under MO3. Under such circumstance, mere alleged seizure of

MO2 and MO3 packed under Ex.P2 from the scene of crime by PW4 by itself will not establish the sexual intercourse between the alleged victims of commercial sexual trafficking(said Pasupuleti Sunitha @ Sundhya and said Thotakura Srilatha) and the accused no.3 and 4.

12.It is the version of PW4 before this Court that he had seized

Rs.250/- each from the accused no.1, 2, and said Pasupuleti Sunitha @

Sundhya and said Thotakura Srilatha under Ex.P2. The seized cash have been marked as MO1 by the prosecution, that according to the prosecution is the earnings of the prostitution of said Pasupuleti Sunitha @ Sundhya and said Thotakura Srilatha. There is no evidence of PW3 before this Court that as to how much cash was seized from the alleged victims of 6 of 9

CC 29 of 2015

commercial sexual trafficking(said Pasupuleti Sunitha @ Sundhya and said

Thotakura Srilatha) and the accused no.3 and 4. The evidence of the alleged victims of commercial sexual trafficking by name Pasupuleti

Sunitha @ Sundhya and Thotakura Srilatha is the best evidence to prove that they were procured by the accused no.1 and 2 for the purpose of carrying prostitution at the scene of crime, that the accused no.1 and 2 have run brothel house at the scene of crime, that the accused no.1 and 2 have invited the accused no.3 and 4 to the scene of crime for the purpose of carrying prostitution with the alleged victims of commercial sexual trafficking(said Pasupuleti Sunitha @ Sundhya and said Thotakura

Srilatha), that the accused no.3 and 4 have came to the scene of crime house for the purpose of carrying prostitution with the alleged victims of commercial sexual trafficking(said Pasupuleti Sunitha @ Sundhya and said

Thotakura Srilatha) and that the accused no.1 and 2 have knowingly lived on the earnings of their prostitution. The prosecution did not examine the said Pasupuleti Sunitha @ Sundhya and said Thotakura Srilatha before this

Court on the ground that the police could not trace their whereabouts at the given addresses and the reports of the revenue officers have been produced to that effect. The cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 indicates that the scene of crime is situated in the residential locality. PW1 and PW2 are examined by the prosecution as the neighbours residing near by the scene of crime house. PW1 and PW2 have turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. When the scene of crime is situated in the residential locality it will not be impossible for the investigating officer(PW4) to secure the local inhabitants as mediators. PW3 and PW4 have consistently testified before this Court that they have recorded the confessional statements of the accused and also seized MO1 to MO3 under

Ex.P2 as they have failed to secure the mediators. Ex.P2 do not reveal that

PW4 had recorded the alleged confessional statements of the accused and further allegedly seized MO1 to MO3 under it as they could not secure the 7 of 9

CC 29 of 2015

local inhabitants mediators. Section 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, that mandates that before making a search of the premises where the special police officers/trafficking police officers has reasonable grounds for believing commission an offence punishable under this Act he shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants(at least one of whom shall be a woman) of the locality in which premises has to be searched is situated, to attend and witness the search, and he may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. Ex.P2 also do not reveal the denomination and number of MO1. One Ramanababu, owner of the scene of crime house, is admittedly not examined by PW4 during the course of investigation. It has been brought on the record of the case during the course of cross-examination of PW4 that the door number of the scene of crime house is 5-622. PW3 states during the course of his cross-examination that PW4 did not seize the documents pertaining to the house number and electricity service connection number of the scene of crime. The prosecution did not produce any scrap of paper to link the accused no.1 with the scene of crime house as its tenant.

13.Accordingly, in view of foregoing discussion this Court hold that the evidence of the prosecution is suffering with several infirmities, under such circumstance, the interested testimonies of PW3 and PW4 against the accused cannot be relied upon. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

14.Point No.2:

In view of my finding in point no.1, the accused is entitled to be extended benefit of reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

15.In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offences 8 of 9

CC 29 of 2015

punishable under sections 3, 4, 5, 7(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act, 1956, as such they are acquitted under section 255(1) of the Criminal

Procedure Code. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. MO1 shall be confiscated to the State by way of depositing in the Government Treasury, after expiry of appeal period. MO2 and MO3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 2 nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- Kumar Vivek,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence: PW1 : SK.Choti Basha- Nil - PW2 : B.Narasimha Reddy PW3 : K.Suresh Babu PW4 : I.Srinivasan

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW2, dt.06-07-2014 Ex.P2 : Police proceedings, dt.06-07-2014 Ex.P3 : First Information Report, dt.06-07-2014 Ex.P4 : Rough sketch, dt.06-07-2014

For Defence:- NIL -

M.O.s Marked: MO1 : Cash of Rs.1,000/- MO2 : Condom packets of Kamasutra company(3 in number) MO3 : Wrapper of condom packets of Kamasutra company(2 in number)

Sd/- Kumar Vivek,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

// True copy //

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

9 of 9

CC 29 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO. 29 of 2015

1. Date of Offence: 06-07-2014

2. Date of report/complaint: 06-07-2014

3. Date of apprehension of appearance: 07-07-2014(A1to A4) of accused

4. Date of release of accused on bail: 11-07-2014(A1 to A4)

5. Date of commencement of trial: 15-02-2017

6. Date of close of trial: 28-04-2017

7. Date of Judgment: 02-05-2017

8. Complainant: Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk PS(Cr.No.362/2014)

9. Description of Accused:

1. Yanamala Aruna W/o Narasimha Rao, 35 years, R/o Maruthinagar, 2nd lane, Ongole. N/o Upparapalem, Bapatla.

2. Palaparthi Anuradha W/o Brahmaiah, 36 years, R/o Indiramma colony, Ongole. N/o Nelappan center, Kakinada.

3. Bandaru Srinivasa Rao S/o Balarama Swamy, 46 years, R/o Andhra Kesari nagar, Ongole.

4. Arisala Kumar @ Venkata Ramana Kumar S/o Nageswara Rao, 46 years, Kothapeta, Vinukonda, Guntur.

10.Offence: U/sec.3, 4, 5 & 7(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

11. Plea of Accused: Not guilty

12. Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

13.Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 3, 4, 5, 7(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, as such they are acquitted under section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. MO1 shall be confiscated to the State by way of depositing in the Government

Treasury, after expiry of appeal period. MO2 and MO3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

14.Fine amount: ---

15.Explanation for the delay: This case was taken on file on 07-02-2015. On 12-02-2015 copies of documents was furnished to them as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 07-07-2015 accused were examined u/s 239

Cr.P.C., and substance for the offence punishable u/s 3, 4, 5 and 7(1) of the

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 against the accused were read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied, pleaded not guilty 10 of 9

CC 29 of 2015

and claimed to be tried. At this stage the case underwent several adjournments for non-production of the witnesses, and at last from 15-02- 2017 to 27-04-2017 PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and

MO1 to MO3 were marked, and posted for Sec. 313 Cr.P.C examination. On 28-04-2017 accused were examined U/sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused and posted for arguments. 01-05-2017 arguments heard on both sides, and posted for judgment. On 02-05-2017 judgment pronounced vide separately. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Kumar Vivek,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole. Copy Submitted to: The Hon'ble I-Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Ongole. Copy to:The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

// True copy //

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

11 of 9

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

Present :: Sri Kumar Vivek, Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole.

Thursday, this the 31 st day of December, 2015.

C.C.No. 159 of 2013

( Cr.No.78/2013 of Tangutur police station ) Between: The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Tangutur Police Station.

... Complainant

Vs.

1. Gunthoti Kiran S/o Koteswara Rao, 26 years,

2. Gunthoti Rosamma W/o Koteswara Rao, 50 years,

3. Gunthoti Koteswara Rao S/o Pedda Ramaiah, 53 years, All are R/o of Velagapudi village, Tangutur

... Accused

This case is coming on 28-12-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri L.Koteswara Rao, advocate for accused, upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing the arguments on 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, Tangutur police station, has filed charge sheet against the accused in crime no. 78/2013 in respect of the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, to punish the accused according to law with the following allegations:

2.That after three years of the marriage of PW1 with the accused no.1, the accused no.1 suspected extra martial affair of PW1 with the younger brother of the accused no.1 by name Rakesh and the accused have subjected her to cruelty with an intention to discard her, and on 31-05-2013 at about 9-00AM at the house of the accused no.3, the accused no.1 has voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 on her back, waist, left ear and cheek with a stick(pappu guthi), when PW1 questioned the accused no.1 for not informing her about his alone attending the marriage function.

Basing on the statement of PW1, PW8 registered the case as in crime no. 78/2013 under sections 498-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. On 13-06-2013 at 11-30AM

PW11 arrested the accused no.1 and send to him to the hon'ble Court for judicial custody. Later after completion of investigation PW11 has filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.This Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

4.After the appearance of the accused before this Court, the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, are furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal procedure Code.

5.The accused are examined under sections 239 of the Criminal

Procedure Code. Charges for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, have been framed against the accused, which are read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused has examined PW1 to PW11 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 through them.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused are examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by stating the incriminating circumstances found to be appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against them, to which they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Point for determination:

i)“Whether the prosecution did prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code”?

ii) “To what finding”?

10.Point No.1:

According to the prosecution PW1 is said to be the victim at the hands of the accused. PW1 did not speak before this Court in order to corroborate the contents of Ex.P1 that the accused no.1 has suspected that she is having extra martial affair with his younger brother by name Rakesh and in that connection she was subjected to cruelty. It is the version of PW1 before this Court that she led happy martial life with the accused for about three years and later the accused have abused her in filthy language and also beat her stating that they do not require her anymore in their family. The cross-examination of PW11 reveals that PW1 has improved her version before this Court from her previous statement under section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code statement regarding her abusing in filthy language and beating her by the accused. PW1 did allege in Ex.P1 that all the accused have abused her in the filthy language and beat her stating that they did not require her anymore in their family. Sans any evidence of PW1 that the accused no.1 has suspected fidelity of PW1 no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW2 that the accused no.1 has suspected the fidelity of PW1.

11.PW1 has stated before this Court that on 31-05-2013 when the accused no.1 was about to attend the marriage of the brother of his sister-in-law she has asked him to take her in the said marriage along with him, and then, the accused had beaten her on her neck, ear, back and waist with a pappuguthi due to which she sustained contusion. PW7 is the medical officer who examined PW1 and noted the injuries present on her person. PW7 has deposed before this Court that she observed reddish black contusion, multiple linear on both the scapular and inter scapular region, and on both sides of lumbar spine and three contusion linear 2 X 3 inch in length near left ear, and that the said injuries are simple in nature. Even otherwise the accused do not dispute the sufferance of said injuries to PW1 as it has been suggested to PW1 during the course of her cross-examination that she sustained injuries as she accidentally fell down from the staircase. Therefore, this

Court has to adjudicate about the liability of the accused no.1 for causing the injuries to PW1. The cross-examination of PW11 indicates that PW1 did not state in her section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code statement that when the accused no.1 was about to attend the marriage of brother of his sister-in-law, then she has asked him to take her along with him in the said marriage, and that PW1 has in fact stated in Ex.P1 that the accused no.1 had attended one marriage and PW1 questioned the accused no.1 for not informing her about his attending the said marriage. Thus, there is a material improvement as well as omission in the evidence of PW1 before this Court from her previous statements under section 161(3) of the

Criminal Procedure Code and Ex.P1 about the reason for her alleged beating by the accused no.1 on 31-05-2013. The cross-examination of PW11 further reveals that

PW1 has stated different reason for her alleged beating by the accused no.1 on 31- 05-2013 before this Court as due to her questioning the accused no.1 that he waas happy with her prior to the marriage and as to why he is no happy after the marriage, but the said reason for the alleged quarrel is even not testified by PW1

before this Court and she has stated a different version about the reason of her

alleged beating by the accused no.1. PW1 states during the course of cross- examination that she was beaten by the accused no.1 with a pappuguthi on 31-05- 2013 at about 8-30AM in the house of her parents-in-laws. Ex.P9 shows that the place of occurrence of the alleged incident is in the house of one G.Srikanth, and not in the house of parents-in-laws of PW1. PW2 states during the course of his cross- examination that the incident of beating of PW1 by the accused no.1 with pappuguthi occurred at about 9-30AM in the month of January, 2013, therefore, there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 about the time as well as the month of the occurrence of the alleged incident of beating of PW1 by the accused no.1 with a pappuguthi. It has been brought on the record of the case during the course of cross-examination of PW1 that PW2 to PW6 as well as the mother of PW1 by name Dola Koteswaramma have stated in their section 161(3) Criminal Procedure

Code that the accused no.1 had beaten PW1 with a stick, and that stick and pappuguthi are different of weapon of offence. Admittedly, PW11 did not seize the alleged weapon of offence during the course of the investigation. The evidence of

PW3 that the accused no.1 had beaten PW1 with a stick on 31-05-2013 in which

PW1 sustained swelling injury is hearsay in nature. PW4 has stated during the course of his cross-examination that he do not know about the matrimonial dispute between PW1 and the accused and also about the incident in which PW1 had sustained injuries. PW5 and PW6 have deposed in one voice before this Court that they do not know anything about the facts of this case. PW9 and PW10 are the landlords of the house that was taken on rent by the accused no.1 at Hyderabad, and also spouses, and they both have turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution.

12.The learned counsel for the accused as argued that PW1 has filed a police complaint before the Tangutur police station against the accused prior to recording her statement by the outpost police at the RIMS hospital, Ongole, on 31- 05-2013, and since the contents of the said police complaint was not favourable to the case of the prosecution, as such the said police complaint has been suppressed by the prosecution. PW1 has stated during the course of her cross-examination that she along with PW4 and other members of her family went to Tangutur police station and lodged a police complaint against the accused at about 9-00AM on 31-05-2013.

PW2 has also corroborate the version of PW1 about lodging of police complaint

before the Tangutur police station against the accused before 10-00AM. But PW11

states during the course of his cross-examination that PW1 never came to the police station and lodged any police complaint before him. However, since PW1 claims that she lodged police complaint on 31-05-2013 against the accused before 10- 00AM, then, no reliance can be placed on the version of PW11 that PW1 did not lodge any such police complaint. The said police complaint of PW1 is not produced

before this Court by the prosecution leading this Court to draw an adverse inference

against the prosecution under section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act regarding not production of the said police complaint.

13.As is seen from the cross-examination of PW11 there are material improvement in the evidence of PW2 and PW4 from their previous statements under section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

14.Accordingly, in view of foregoing discussion this Court hold that the evidence of the prosecution is suffering with several infirmities, and the evidence of

PW1 and PW2 is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, therefore, this Court do not believe their evidence that PW1 was subjected to cruelty by the accused, and the accused no.1 voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 with a pappugutthi on 31-05-2013.

Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

15.Point No.2:

In view of my finding in point no.1, the accused are entitled to be extended benefit of reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

16.In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from this date as per the section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. No case property is deposited in this case as such no order is passed regarding disposal of the case property.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of this Court, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 31 st day of December, 2015.

Sd/- Kumar Vivek,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence: P.W.1 : G.Haritha - None - P.W.2 : D.Chennakeswavulu P.W.3 : D.Lakshminarayana P.W.4 : D.Praveen P.W.5 : G.Rama Rao P.W.6 : G.Sundara Rao P.W.7 : T.Vanidevi P.W.8 : Nazeer Saheb P.W.9 : Ch.Candana PW10: Ch.Prabhakara Rao PW11: Y.V.Ramanaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Statement of PW1, dt.31-05-2013 Ex.P2 : Sec. 161(3) of the Cr.P.C statement of PW4, dt. 02-06-2013 Ex.P3 : Sec. 161(3) of the Cr.P.C statement of PW6, dt. 02-06-2013 Ex.P4 : Wound certificate of PW1, dt. 19-06-2013 Ex.P5 : Hospital intimation, dt. 31-05-2013 Ex.P6 : Sec. 161(3) of the Cr.P.C statement of PW9, dt. 02-06-2013 Ex.P7 : Sec. 161(3) of the Cr.P.C statement of PW10, dt. 02-06-2013 Ex.P8 : First Information Report, dt. 01-06-2013 Ex.P9 : Rough sketch, dt. 02-06-2013

For Defence: - NIL-

M.O.s Marked:- NIL -

Sd/- Kumar Vivek,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

// True copy //

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO. 159 of 2013

1. Date of Offence: 31-05-2013

2. Date of report/complaint: 31-05-2013

3. Date of apprehension of appearance: 27-12-2013 of accused

4. Date of release of accused on bail: 19-06-2013(A1) A2 & A3 are never remanded to Judicial custody

5. Date of commencement of trial: 07-08-2014

6. Date of close of trial: 02-12-2015

7. Date of Judgment: 31-12-2015

8. Complainant: Sub- Inspector of Police, Tangutur PS (Cr.No.78/2013)

9. Description of Accused:

1. Gunthoti Kiran S/o Koteswara Rao, 26 years,

2. Gunthoti Rosamma W/o Koteswara Rao, 50 years,

3. Gunthoti Koteswara Rao S/o Pedda Ramaiah, 53 years, All are R/o of Velagapudi village, Tangutur

10. Offence: u/s 498-A and 324 of the IPC

11. Plea of Accused: Not guilty

12. Finding of the Court: Found not guilty 13.Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from this date as per the section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. No case property is deposited in this case as such no order is passed regarding disposal of the case property.

14.Fine amount: ---

15. Explanation for the delay: This case was taken on file on 19-11-2013. On 27-12-2013 copies of documents was furnished to them as required u/sec.207 of the Cr.P.C. On 11-02-2014 accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C., and charges were framed for the offence u/s 498-A and 324 of the IPC, and the contents of charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. From 07-08-2014 to 26-11-2015 PW1 to PW11 were examined and Ex.P1 to P9 were marked, and the prosecution side evidence also closed and posted for 313 of the Cr.P.C examination. On 02-12-2015 accused were examined u/sec.313 of the Cr.P.C. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused and posted for arguments. On 28-12-2015 arguments heard on both sides and posted for judgment. On 31-12-2015, judgment pronounced vide separately. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Kumar Vivek,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole. Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble I-Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Ongole. Copy to:The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

// True copy //

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

Present :: Sri Kumar Vivek, Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole.

Thursday, this the 31 st day of December, 2015

C.C.No. 200 of 2013

(Cr.No.156/2013 of Maddipadu police station)

Between: The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Maddipadu Police Station.... Complainant

Vs.

Shaik Hajarath S/o Mastan, 31 years, Gandavaram village, Kodavaluru mandal, Nellore District.

... Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri P.Srinivas, advocate

for the accused, and upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing the

arguments on 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, Maddipadu police station has filed charge sheet against the accused in crime no. 156/2013 in respect of the offences punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and section 134 (a)(b) r/w 187 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to punish the accused according to law with the following allegations:

2.That on 18-08-2013 at about 9-00PM when PW1 and the deceased were returning to Ongole on the motorcycle and reached opposite to Gayatri hotel, near

Vellampalli bridge, Vellampalli village, Maddipadu mandal, the deceased slowly slipped down on the road from their motorcycle, and he was crushed by the lorry bearing registration no. AP 26 TT 5999(herein after referred as crime vehicle for the sake of convenience) that was driven by the accused in a high speed and in a rash and in a negligent manner, and after the accident the accused fled away from the scene of accident along with the crime vehicle without providing medical aid to the deceased, and also without informing the police about the accident. Basing on the report of PW1,

PW3 registered a case as in Cr.no. 156/2013 under section 304-A of the Indian Penal

Code, and section 134 (a)(b) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

CC 200 of 2013

3. On 21-08-2013 PW3 arrested the accused on his production by PW4

before PW3, and PW3 released the accused on bail after obtaining sufficient

sureties. After completion of investigation PW3 filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.This Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

5.After the appearance of the accused before this Court the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal procedure Code.

6.The accused is examined under section 251 of the Criminal Procedure

Code. The substance of accusation for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and section 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the accused, are read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused has examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 through them.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused has been examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by stating the incriminating circumstances found to be appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against him to which he denied and reported no defence on his behalf.

9.Heard arguments on both sides.

10.Point for determination:

i)“Whether the prosecution did prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 134 (a)(b) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988”?

ii) “To what finding”?

11.Point No.1:

PW1 is said to be the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased 2 of 4

CC 200 of 2013

was proceeding as a pillion rider. It is the version of PW1 before this Court that he was riding the motorcycle and the deceased was sitting as pillion rider when they were returning from Guntur towards Ongole, enroute the deceased was slipped from the motorcycle and he was crushed by one lorry under its tyres that came from their rear, and the said lorry driver fled away from the spot along with the lorry after the accident, and he did not observe the registration number of the said lorry and its driver. PW1 has further deposed before this Court that the deceased slipped due to weakness as he did not consume food due to his engagement in a marriage fucntion and that he lodged Ex.P1 against the driver of the said lorry.

PW1 has stated the registration number of the lorry that had crushed the deceased under there tyres as that of crime vehicle in Ex.P1. PW1 states during his testification before this Court that he did not observe the registration number of the crime vehicle that crushed the deceased under its tyres. When PW1 did not even observe the registration number of the said lorry then it cannot be said that

PW1 has mentioned the registration number of the lorry as that of the crime vehicle that was involved in the accident of the deceased in Ex.P1 basing on his personal knowledge. PW2 has stated on oath before this Court that when he saw the mob in front of his road side hotel and he came to know about the occurrence of the accident, and he do not know the details of the accident. PW4 is the registered owner of the crime vehicle, and he has testified before this Court that his son looking after the affairs of the crime vehicle and he do not know who was the driver of the crime vehicle on 18-08-2013. The said son of PW4 is not examined by the prosecution before this Court to prove that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident of the deceased, and that the crime vehicle was involved in the accident of the deceased. PW4 even did not corroborate the evidence of PW3 about the production of the accused before PW3 on 21-08-2013.

12.PW1 did not observe the driver of the lorry that was crushed the deceased under its tyres. There is no ocular as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the involvement of the crime vehicle as well as of the accused as its driver in the accident of the deceased. Therefore, it is held 3 of 4

CC 200 of 2013

that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

13.Point No.2:

In view of my finding in point no.1 the accused is entitled to be extended benefit of reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and section 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as such, he is acquitted under section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. No case property is deposited in this case as such no order is passed regarding disposal of the case property.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of this Court, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 31 st day of December, 2015.

Sd/- Kumar Vivek,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence: PW1 : M.Dwarakanadh - None - PW2 : A.Venugopal PW3 : SK. Rafiuddin PW4 : B.Rosi Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Complaint of PW1, dt. 18-08-2013 Ex.P2 : Sec. 161(3) of the Cr.P.C statement of PW1, dt. 19-08-2013 Ex.P3 : Sec. 161(3) of the Cr.P.C statement of PW2, dt. 19-08-2013 Ex.P4 : First Information Report, dt. 18-08-2013 Ex.P5 : Scene observation report, dt. 19-08-2013 Ex.P6 : Rough sketch, dt. 19-08-2013 Ex.P7 : Photos (3 in number) Ex.P8 : Motor Vehicles Inspector Report, dt.26-10-2013 Ex.P9 : Autopsy report, dt. 19-08-2013 Ex.P10:Sec. 161(3) of the Cr.P.C statement of PW4, dt. 19-08-2013

For Defence:-NIL- M.O.s Marked:- NIL -

Sd/- Kumar Vivek,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

// True copy //

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

4 of 4

CC 200 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO. 200 of 2013

1. Date of Offence: 18-08-2013

2. Date of report/complaint: 18-08-2013

3. Date of apprehension of appearance: 13-01-2014 of accused

4. Date of release of accused on bail : ---

5. Date of commencement of trial: 17-12-2014

6. Date of close of trial: 29-12-2015

7. Date of Judgment: 31-12-2015

8. Complainant: Sub-Inspector of Police, Maddipadu PS (Cr.No.156/2013)

9. Description of Accused: Shaik Hajarath S/o Mastan, 31 years, Gandavaram village, Kodavaluru mandal, Nellore District.

10.Offence: u/s 304-A of the IPC and Sec. 134(a)(b) r/w 187 MV Act

11. Plea of Accused: Not guilty

12. Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and section 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as such, he is acquitted under section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. No case property is deposited in this case as such no order is passed regarding disposal of the case property.

14.Fine amount: --- 15.Explanation for the delay:This case was taken on file on 12-12-2013. On 13-01-2014 copies of documents are furnished to him as required u/sec. 207 of the Cr.P.C. On 26-09-2014 accused was examined u/s 251 of the Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation for the offence punishable U/s 304-A of the IPC, and sec. 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of the MV Act, 1988, against the accused are read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. From 17-12-2014 to 23- 12-2015 PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.P1 to P10 were marked, and the prosecution side evidence closed and posted for 313 of the Cr.P.C examination. On 29-12-2015 accused was examined u/sec. 313 of the Cr.PC. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. On 31-12-2015 arguments heard on both sides, and on the same day i.e., n 31-12-2015 judgment pronounced vide separate judgment. Hence the delay.

Sd/- Kumar Vivek,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole. Copy Submitted to: The Hon'ble I-Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Ongole. Copy to:The Superintendent of Police, Ongole. // True copy //

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

5 of 4

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

Present :: Sri Kumar Vivek, Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole.

Thursday this the 31 st day of December, 2015

C.C.No. 195 of 2014

(Cr.No.467/2012 of Ongole Taluk police station)

Between: The State, represented by Inspector of Police,

Ongole Taluk Police Station.... Complainant

Vs.

Nadaru Nagaraju S/o Jala Ramaiah, 50 years, Nehru nagar, Ongole.

... Accused

This case is coming on 30-12-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri J.Raju, advocate for the accused, and upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing the arguments on 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 Inspector of Police, Ongolel Taluk police station has filed charge sheet against the accused in crime no. 467/2012 in respect of the offences punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and section 134 (a)(b) r/w 187 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, to punish the accused according to law with the following allegations:

2.That on 07-11-2012 at about 12-30PM near Agricultural market yard,

Ongole, the accused drove the lorry bearing registration no. AP 35 U 1155(herein after referred as crime vehicle for the sake of convenience) in a rash and in a negligent manner, and dashed the deceased towards the rear of the motorcycle of the deceased bearing registration no. AP 27 H 2295 as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and later succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident while undergoing treatment, and after the accident the accused fled away from the scene of accident along with the crime vehicle without providing medical aid to the deceased, and also without informing the police about the accident. Basing on the report of PW1,

PW3 registered a case as in Cr.no. 467/2012 under section 304-A of the Indian Penal

Code.

CC 195 of 2014

3. On 12-02-2013 at about 11-00AM PW3 arrested the accused on his production by LW8/M.Gopi Chand and PW3 produced the accused before the

hon'ble Court for judicial custody, and recorded the statement of LW8/M.Gopi

Chand. After completion of investigation PW3 filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.This Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

5.After the appearance of the accused before this Court the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal procedure Code.

6.The accused is examined under section 251 of the Criminal Procedure

Code. The substance of accusation for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and section 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the accused, are read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 through them.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused has been examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by stating the incriminating circumstances found to be appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against him to which he denied and reported no defence on his behalf.

9.Heard arguments on both sides.

10.Point for determination:

i)“Whether the prosecution did prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 134 (a)(b) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988”?

ii) “To what finding”?

11.Point No.1:

The defence of the accused is that the crime vehicle was not involved 2 of 4

CC 195 of 2014

in the accident of the deceased, and that the accused is not liable for causing the death of the deceased. The accused do not controvert the death of the deceased as a result of injuries sustained by him as a result of the accident with a lorry.

PW1 is the son of the deceased, and his evidence before this Court is that he came to know about the accident of the deceased from the phone call made by an employee of 108 ambulance, and later he went to the spot where he came to know through an unknown person that the deceased was dashed by one lorry, and the accident of the deceased occurred due to negligence of the driver of the said lorry.

PW1 has also testified before this Court that he do not remember the registration number of the said lorry, and he do not know about the identity of the driver of the lorry. Ex.P1 has lodged by PW1 against the driver of the crime vehicle. PW1 has spoken the registration number of lorry that dashed the deceased, as that of the crime vehicle in Ex.P1. PW1 did not speak before this Court about the involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident of the deceased. Therefore, the contents of

Ex.P1 regarding the involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident of the deceased is not corroborated with the evidence of PW1. PW2 is said to be the eye witness to the accident of the deceased with the crime vehicle. PW2 has turned hostile and he did not support the case of the prosecution. PW3 is the investigating officer and he has deposed before this Court mainly procedural aspects during the course of investigation in the crime by him.

12.The prosecution did not adduce any ocular as well as documentary evidence to prove the complicity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle as well as of the involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident of the deceased.

Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

13.Point No.2:

In view of my finding in point no.1 the accused is entitled to be extended benefit of reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence 3 of 4

CC 195 of 2014

punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and section 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as such, he is acquitted under section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. No case property is deposited in this case as such no order is passed regarding disposal of the case property.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of this Court, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 31 st day of December, 2015.

Sd/- Kumar Vivek,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence: PW1 : M.Jagannadham - None - PW2 : Y.Appi Reddy PW3 : SK. Yasmin

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Complaint of PW1, dt. 07-11-2012 Ex.P2 : Sec. 161(3) of the Cr.P.C statement of PW2, dt. 08-11-2012 Ex.P3 : First Information Report, dt. 07-11-2012 Ex.P4 : Scene observation report, dt. 08-11-2012 Ex.P5 : Rough sketch, dt. 08-11-2012 Ex.P6 : Inquest report, dt. 08-11-2012 Ex.P7 : Motor Vehicles Inspector Report, dt.14-02-2013 Ex.P8 : Autopsy report, dt. 08-11-2012 Ex.P9: Photographs (10 in number) along with compact disc

For Defence:-NIL-

M.O.s Marked:- NIL -

Sd/- Kumar Vivek,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

// True copy //

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

4 of 4

CC 195 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO. 195 of 2014

1. Date of Offence: 07-11-2012

2. Date of report/complaint: 07-11-2012

3. Date of apprehension of appearance: 01-11-2013 of accused

4. Date of release of accused on bail : 12-02-2013

5. Date of commencement of trial: 16-06-2015

6. Date of close of trial: 16-12-2015

7. Date of Judgment: 31-12-2015

8. Complainant: Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk PS (Cr.No.467/2012)

9. Description of Accused: Nadaru Nagaraju S/o Jala Ramaiah, 50 years, Nehru nagar, Ongole.

10.Offence: u/s 304-A of the IPC and Sec. 134(a)(b) r/w 187 MV Act

11. Plea of Accused: Not guilty

12. Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and section 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as such, he is acquitted under section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. No case property is deposited in this case as such no order is passed regarding disposal of the case property.

14.Fine amount: --- 15.Explanation for the delay:This case was taken on file on 17-05-2013 on the file of III-AMM Court, Ongole, and numbered as CC 119/2013. On 01-11-2013 copies of documents are furnished to him as required u/sec. 207 of the Cr.P.C. On 11-03-2014 entire record was transferred to this Court as per the proceedings of the hon'ble Prl. District &

Sessions Judge, Ongole, in Dis.no. 7282, dt. 28-11-2013, and renumbered as

CC 195/2014. On 13-02-2014 accused was examined u/s 251 of the Cr.P.C

and the substance of accusation for the offence punishable U/s 304-A of the IPC, and sec. 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of the MV Act, 1988, against the accused are read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. From 16-06-2015 to 02-12-2015 PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.P1 to P9 were marked, and the prosecution side evidence closed and posted for 313 of the Cr.P.C examination. On 16-12- 2015 accused was examined u/sec. 313 of the Cr.PC. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. On 30-12- 2015 arguments heard on both sides. On 31-12-2015 judgment pronounced vide separate judgment. Hence the delay.

Sd/- Kumar Vivek,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole. Copy Submitted to: The Hon'ble I-Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Ongole. Copy to:The Superintendent of Police, Ongole. // True copy //

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

5 of 4

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

Present :: Sri Kumar Vivek, Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole.

Wednesday, this the 30 th day of December, 2015

C.C.No. 55 of 2013

(Cr.No. 115/2012 of Maddipadu police station)

Between: The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Maddipadu Police Station.... Complainant

Vs.

1. Ummadisetty Ranganadham S/o Chinna Vengappa, 40 years, Vellampalli village and mandal.

2. Desu Kasiviswanadham S/o Venkateswarlu, 45 years, D.no. 20-6-30, Anjaiahnagar, Ongole.

... Accused

This case is coming on 29-12-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri J.Prabhakar Reddy, advocate for the accused, and upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing the arguments on 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, Maddipadu police station has filed charge sheet against the accused in crime no. 115/2012 in respect of the offence punishable under section 304-A and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to punish the accused according to law with the following allegations:

2.That on 15-06-2012 at about 3-30PM near Sai Gobel Spinning Mill,

Vellampalli village, Maddipadu mandal, the son of PW1(deceased) fell into the drainage tank that was arranged by the accused behind the residential quarters of the mill workers without taking any precautions such as providing cap to the manhole or arranging fence around the drainage tank as a result of which, the deceased died due to drowing, and later at the instance of the accused PW1 got burred the corpse of the deceased near the bund of Gundlakamm vagu, and that the deceased died due to negligent act of the accused, and the accused have caused disappearance of the corpse of the deceased with intention to screen evidence. Basing on the report of PW1,

PW3 registered a case as in Cr.no. 115/2012 under sections 304-A and 201 r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

CC 55 of 2013

3. On 12-07-2012 at 10-00AM PW3 arrested the accused on their surrender before him, and PW3 released the accused on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties. Later after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.This Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304-A and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5.After the appearance of the accused before this Court the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal procedure Code.

6.The accused are examined under section 251 of the Criminal

Procedure Code. The substance of accusation for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, are read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 through them.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused has been examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by stating the incriminating circumstances found to be appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against them to which they denied and reported no defence on their behalf.

9.Heard arguments on both sides.

10.Point for determination:

i)“Whether the prosecution did prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code ”?

ii) “To what finding”?

11.Point No.1:

PW1 is the father of the deceased and he has deposed before this 2 of 4

CC 55 of 2013

Court that when the deceased was playing outside his house he fell down into the drainage channel of Gundlakamma project, and he came to know about the said incident from their children who were playing there. It is also testified by PW1

before this Court that he do not know who took out the deceased from the

drainage channel. PW1 has stated during the course of his cross-examination that he do not know the contents of Ex.P1. It is the version of PW2 before this Court that he is having a buddy bunk near the spinning mill, and he heard the cries of the deceased in the afternoon hours from the drainage channel, and he saw that the deceased had fallen into the drainage channel of Gundlakamma project. PW2 has further testified before this Court that he do not know anything about the facts of this case. PW3 is the investigating officer and he has deposed before this Court about the procedural aspects during the course of investigation of the crime.

12.The accused do not controvert the death of the deceased due to drowing into the drainage water tank as it is the defence of the accused that the deceased was suffering with fits and he fell into the drainage water tank when he had fits attack and later died due to drowing.

13.There is no evidence of PW1 and PW2 before this Court that the accused have only arranged drainage water tank behind the residential quarters of the mill workers without taking any precautions such as providing cap to the manhole or arranging fence around the drainage water tank and they have insisted

PW1 to cause disappearance of the corpse of the deceased by burning it to screen evidence. Under such circumstance it cannot be held that the accused is liable for causing the death of the deceased due to drowing. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

14.Point No.2:

In view of my finding in point no.1 the accused is entitled to be extended benefit of reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

3 of 4

CC 55 of 2013

15.In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, they are acquitted under section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. No case property is deposited in this case as such no order is passed regarding disposal of the case property.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of this Court, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 30 th day of December, 2015.

Sd/- Kumar Vivek,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence: PW1 : R.Venkatapathiraju- None - PW2 : G.Poornachandra Rao PW3 : P.Bhakthavasthala Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Police complaint of PW1, dt. 18-06-2012 Ex.P2 : Sec. 161(3) of the Cr.P.C statement of PW1, dt. 19-06-2012 Ex.P3 : Sec. 161(3) of the Cr.P.C statement of PW2, dt. 19-06-2012 Ex.P4 : First Information Report, dt. 18-06-2012 Ex.P5 : Scene observation report, dt. 19-06-2012 Ex.P6 : Rough sketch, dt. 19-06-2012 Ex.P7 : Inquest report, dt. 19-06-2012 Ex.P8 : RFSL, report. 20-09-2012

For Defence:-NIL-

M.O.s Marked:- NIL -

Sd/- Kumar Vivek,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

// True copy //

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

4 of 4

CC 55 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO. 55 of 2013

1. Date of Offence: 15-06-2012

2. Date of report/complaint: 18-06-2012

3. Date of apprehension of appearance: 17-07-2014 of accused

4. Date of release of accused on bail : ---

5. Date of commencement of trial: 15-09-2015

6. Date of close of trial: 21-12-2015

7. Date of Judgment: 30-12-2015

8. Complainant: Sub-Inspector of Police, Maddipadu PS (Cr.No.115/2012)

9. Description of Accused:

1. Ummadisetty Ranganadham S/o Chinna Vengappa, 40 years, Vellampalli village and mandal.

2. Desu Kasiviswanadham S/o Venkateswarlu, 45 years, D.no. 20-6-30, Anjaiahnagar, Ongole.

10.Offence:u/s 304-A and 201 r/w34 IPC

11. Plea of Accused: Not guilty

12. Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, they are acquitted under section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. No case property is deposited in this case as such no order is passed regarding disposal of the case property.

14.Fine amount: --- 15.Explanation for the delay:This case was taken on file on 20-03-2013. On 17-07-2014 copies of documents are furnished to them as required u/sec. 207 of the Cr.P.C. On 28-08-2014 accused was examined u/s 251 of the Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation for the offence punishable U/s 304-A and 201 r/w 34 of the IPC, against the accused are read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At this stage the case underwent several adjournments for non-production of the witnesses, and at last from 15-09-2015 to 21-12- 2015 PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.P1 to P8 were marked, and on the same day prosecution side evidence closed and posted for 313 of the Cr.P.C examination. On 21-12-2015 accused were examined u/sec. 313 of the Cr.PC. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, and on the same day arguments heard on both sides, and posted for judgment. On 30-12-2015 judgment pronounced vide separate judgment. Hence the delay.

Sd/- Kumar Vivek,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole. Copy Submitted to: The Hon'ble I-Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Ongole. Copy to:The Superintendent of Police, Ongole. // True copy //

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL.MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE.

5 of 4