M.A.Khaleel

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

AT:GADWAL.

PRESENT: SRI.M.A.KHALEEL,

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

FAC JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GADWAL

THURSDAY, THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019.

C.C.No. 600 of 2017.

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana Rep. by P.S.Aize. … Complainant.

AND

A-1: Golla narsimulu S/o Edanna, age:40 Years, Caste:Golla, Occ:Tractor Driver, R/o Uttanoor Village of Aize Mandal, A-2: Chenigepally Yesopu S/o Naganna, age:54 Years, Caste:Madiga, Occ:Agril., R/o Aize Village and Mandal. … Accused No.1 and 2.

This case coming before me on 10-01-2019 for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for the complainant and of Sri.K.Krishna Mohan Reddy, the learned counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Aize has filed the charge sheet in Crime

No.04 of 2017 for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A of IPC and Section.180,181 of MV. Act against the Accused A-1 and A-2.

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 09-01-2017 at 1530 hrs the complainant Shankaramma gave police report to the police by alleging that on 09-01-2017 at 1245 hrs when her husband who went on motor cycle bearing No.TS06EL753 at about 1:10 PM when he was at Uppala X road one tractor driven by the accused bearing No.TS06EB8460 suddenly cross the road due to which her husband colluded and fell on the road and he was shifted to Area hospital, but died due to injury on the way and she approached the police for taking action against the accused. Basing on her report, 2 the police registered the case and they investigated into it and recorded the statement of witnesses and held inquest over the dead body of deceased and subsequently post-mortem was also conducted, later doctor opined that the cause of death was due to chest injury and the Motor Vehicle Inspector opined that there was no mechanical defects that crime vehicle and other injured sustained simple injuries and later the accused was charge-sheeted for committing the offence U/s.

304-A of IPC, Section.180, 181 of M.V.Act.

3.This court took cognizance for the offence U/s. 304-A of IPC, Sec.180, 181 of M.V.Act. against the accused A-1 and A-2. After appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were furnished to them as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C, when they were examined U/s. 251 of Cr.P.C, the charge sheet allegations leveled against the accused for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence U/s. 304-A of IPC, Sec.180, 181 of M.V.Act.

4.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined thirteen witnesses i.e. PWs-01 to 13 and Ex.P-1 to P-6 are marked on behalf of the prosecution.

5.After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused were examined U/s.

313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material voiced against them to which they pleaded not guilty and reported no defence.

6.Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

7.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A of IPC, Sec.180, 181 of M.V.Act against the accused A-1 and A-2?

3

8.The learned APP argued that the evidence of PWs-1 to 12 are pointing out the guilt of the accused as such they prayed the court to convict the accused.

9.The case of the accused is one of total denial. The learned defence counsel argued that no case is made-out against the accused since the evidence of PW-1 is not pointing out the guilt of the accused as such he prayed the court to acquit the

Accused.

10.I have gone through the evidence of prosecution. PW-1 (Ediga

Shankaramma) who is complainant and wife of deceased and she deposed that about more than 3-years back when her husband while travelling to Ieeja on his motor cycle at Upparadoddi X roads one tractor dashed to him and he was shifted to Gadwal Hospital and she was informed about that accident by LW-2 and she rushed to Hospital and found her husband died, then she gave report.

11.Whereas PW-2 (Dr.A.Rabindranath) the doctor who conducted PME over the dead body of deceased deposed that he found abrasion on left and right leg of deceased and blunt injury on chest and the cause of the death was due to hammarage shock due to injury on chest.

12. PW-3 (Ediga Teja Goud) who is relative of husband of deceased and he deposed that on 01-09-2017 when he travelled with his brother-in-law Narsimulu

Goud on a motor cycle he saw the deceased who was his brother also travelled on his motor cycle in front of him and at 0110 PM at Uppal doddy X Roads one tractor dashed the motor cycle of the deceased in opposite directions due to which he sustained injury on his right hand and on head and died on the way to Hospital and A-1 was the driver of the tractor.

4

13.PW-4 (Ediga Ramanjaneyulu Goud) who is elder sons of the deceased and he deposed that his father died in a accident and he was informed by LW-2, but he did not went to the scene of offence.

14.PW-5 (Ediga Narsimulu Goud) is the important eye witness and he deposed that on 09-01-2017 when he along with PW-3 were coming to Ieeja on their motor cycle and at Upala X Roads one tractor came from Ieeja side and dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased and the driver of the tractor stopped and ran away and they shifted the injured to Hospital, but he died on the way.

15.PW-6 (E.Venkatanna Goud) who is eye witness and brother of the deceased and de deposed that in the year 2017 while he was travelling on a motor cycle one tractor knocked down his brother Jammanna at one X Road and he was informed about that accident and went to the scene of offence, but the accused was not there.

16. PW-7 (Kurva Mallaiah) who is circumstantial witness and he deposed that he received the information at 0130 PM about 2-years back about the accident in which Jammanna sustained injuries and he went to the scene of offence with his auto and while shifting the injured he succumbed to injuries and he did not saw the driver of the tractor at the scene of offence.

17.PW-8 (Uppari Govindu) and PW-9 (K.Mallaiah ) are the panch for scene of offence and they stated about preparation of CDF by the police.

18.PW-10 (Golla Eshwaraiah) who is panch for inquest and he deposed about the conducting of inquest on 10-01-2017 at 1000 AM over the dead body of

Jammanna at Govt. Hospital.

19.PW-11 (Harijan Yugandhar) who is also panch for inquest and he also deposed that same facts which was spoken by PW-10.

5

20.PW-12 (D.Vemanna) is the First IO who deposed about registration of this case and recording of statement and visit to the scene of offence and holding inquest over the dead body and sending the same to the PME and he also recorded the statement of other witnesses and subsequently his SI verified his investigation and filed charge-sheet.

21.PW-13 (A.Ramesh) who is the second Investigation Officer and he deposed about verification of investigation done by PW-12 and filing of charge-sheet etc.

22. To prove the charge U/s. 304-A of IPC the prosecution must prove

1) Death of a person,

2) The death is due to rash or negligent act of the accused.

3) It does not amount to culpable homicide.

23.Keeping the ingredients in back ground let discuss the evidence of record.

24. It is contended by learned APP that the evidence of these witnesses is proving the above said charge in a fair manner but on perusal of the case records the evidence of these witnesses is not in tune with each other. First of all the complainant is a here-say witness and she did not mentioned any number of the tractor and trolley in her report which was prepared by the police and she never saw the accused at the scene of offence and she also did not saw the crime vehicle and the evidence of eye witnesses PW-3 (Ediga Teja Goud) and PW-5 (Narsimulu

G0ud) and PW-6 (Venkatanna Goud) is to be seen in this case.

25.According to the evidence of PW-3 on that day he was travelling on a motor cycle behind the deceased person and the evidence of these three persons is not corroborating with each other. If we believe their evidence, then PW-3 and PW-5 are travelling on the same motor cycle. So, if these two persons saw the accident at same time then there must be some corroboration between their evidence and if we 6 keenly observe the evidence of PW-3 he admitted that they started from the village at 0100 PM and the scene of offence is at a distance of 6 Kms from his village and it is to be noted that the accident occurred at 0110 PM.

26. So, the presence of these witnesses at the scene of offence which is situated 6 Kms from their village is doubtful and to strengthen it he admitted that he cannot say the number of motor cycle of the deceased and he do not remember the number of that tractor and he did not stated to the police that he shifted the injured in a private vehicle and he cannot say the exact time of giving report by PW-1 to whom he has informed about the accident and according to the evidence of this witness the accident occurred at the middle of the road and the tractor and the motor cycle fell on the left side of the road while going from Ieeja to Kurnool and he also admitted that he saw only a bleeding head injury on the deceased and there were no injuries on his face and he do not remember the dress of the accused and he cannot say exactly the damages of the tractor and he cannot say in which direction the accused was looking soon before the accident. If we compare with his evidence with the evidence of PW-5 who stated that except the motor cycle of the deceased and the tractor no other vehicles were there and he was at a distance of 30 years from the motor cycle of the deceased.

27 So, there is variation between the evidence of these two important witnesses even though they were travelling on the same vehicle. But, they were not in a position to say exact injuries sustained by the injured. More particularly, they are not sure about the exact identity of the accused and the PW-5 also admitted that he saw some skid marks on the road and who has applied sudden brakes soon before the accident is unknown to these two witnesses. So, prosecution is not in a position to say exact what was happened soon before the accident and which of the driver failed to take any precaution to avoid accident is not properly proved by the 7 prosecution. Surprisingly, the first investigating officer admitted in his Cross examination that during his investigation he concluded that the deceased was travelling on the wrong side of the road and even through there is negligence on the part of the deceased since the tractor has dashed to the motor cycle as such he has shown the accused of the accused of the bigger vehicle which shows that even though contributory negligence is not defence is these type of offences but the negligent driving of the deceased person soon before the accident is to be seen and no allegations can be hurled on the accused for not taking any precaution to avoid that accident.

28. Moreover, the son of the deceased PW-4 (Ramanjaneyulu Goud) also admitted that his father was not having any driving license is also supporting the defence of the accused not the case of prosecution and to prove the charge U/s.

304-A of IPC not only the prosecution must prove the presence of accused as the driver of that vehicle they must independently prove the rash or negligent act of the accused, but on perusal of evidence of all the above said witnesses none of them has stated anything about the rash or negligent act of the accused. So, simply saying that the accused was the driver of that tractor is not sufficient to convict him on the above said charge.

29.Apart from it event he evidence of PW-6 (Venkatanna Goud), he went to the scene of offence within 15-minutes of accident and by that time the accused was not there. And he also admitted that the road was single road and the motor cycle of the deceased fell on the left side of the road and similarly the evidence of Pw-7 also shows that the injured was having injuries on his left leg and he did not saw any injuries on his chest and he also did not saw the driver of the tractor at the scene of offence even though he went there immediately to shift he injured to hospital and he also admitted that he cannot say the number of the tractor and the 8 motor cycle and he did not saw any damages on the tractor which raises doubt about his shifting the injured to hospital in his auto and surprisingly PW-4, the son of deceased, admitted that before giving report to the police they took the dead body for cremation which raises doubt about conducting inquest over the dead body by the police also and the evidence of I.O. who admitted that immediately after the accident he went to the scene of offence and by that time the scene was not disturbed and according to his opinion and observation there is no negligence on the part of the accused as the driver and even through his presence as driver is also not explained by prosecution in proper way.

30. Even the evidence of PW-8 and 9 is doubtful for the reason that they have simply signed on the scene of offence panchanam and they are not in a position to say that which driver is negligent for causing that accident and they both admitted that they do not remember the numbers of that vehicles. So, their visit to the scene is also doubtful and surprisingly PW-10 also admitted that he never went to the scene of offence and his presence at the time of inquest is also doubtful.

31.Where as the evidence of PW-11 also shows that he did not expressed any opinion as mentioned in Co.No.15 of the inquest report which shows that there is no involvement of the accused in this case.

32.So, in view of the scant evidence of all these witnesses, since there is no corroboration between heir evidence and it can be safely said that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the rash or negligence act of the accused and the charge U/s.304-A of IPC is not proved by them beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused A-1 is entitled for the benefit of the doubt.

33.The allegations leveled against the accused A-2 is only U/s. 180 and 181 of

MV Act, but unfortunately during the investigation nod documents were produced 9 or seized by the police from A-2 to connect him for the above said charges and none of the circumstantial witnesses also supported the charge of A-2. So, the charge U/s. 181 and 180 of M.V. Act are no where proved by the prosecution.

34.In the result, the accused A-1 is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 304-A of IPC, and the accused A-2 is not found guilty for the offence under Section.180, 181 of M.V.Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/s. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused cancelled forthwith and the un-marked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of January, 2019.

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

FAC JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

GADWAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1: Ediga Shankaramma,- Nil -

PW-2: Dr.A.Rabindranath,

PW-3: Ediga Teja Goud,

PW-4: Ediga Ramanjaneyulu Goud,

PW-5: Ediga Narsimulu Goud,

PW-6: E.Venkatanna Goud,

PW-7: Kurva Mallaiah,

PW-8: Uppari Govindu,

PW-9: K.Mallaiah,

PW-10: Golla Eshwaraiah,

PW-11: Harijan Yugandhar,

PW-12: D.Vemanna,

PW-13: A.Ramesh.

10

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P-1: Complaint, - Nil - Ex.P-2: PME report. Ex.P-3: Crime Details Form, Ex.P-4: Inquest report, Ex.P-5: FIR, Ex.P-6: MVI report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

–NIL- -NIL-

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

FAC JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

GADWAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

AT:GADWAL.

PRESENT: SRI.M.A.KHALEEL,

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

FAC JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GADWAL

MONDAY, THIS THE 7 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019.

C.C.No. 208 of 2017.

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana Rep. by P.S.Aize. … Complainant.

AND

Harijan Narsimhulu S/o Chandranna, Occ:Tractor Driver, R/o Medikonda Village of Aize Mandal. … Accused.

This case coming before me on 07-01-2019 for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for the complainant and of Sri.S.Srikanth, the learned counsel

for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this

court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Aize has filed the charge sheet in Crime

No.113 of 2014 for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A, 337 of IPC.

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 15-09-2014 at 0800 hrs the complainant Boya Bhimesh gave police report by alleging that on 14-09-2014 when he along with the deceased proceeded to Aize Village on the motor cycle bearing No.AP22R9658 and at about 07:30 PM when they were at S.C colony, one tractor came in opposite direction with high speed and without any indication suddenly turned towards right side and gave dash to their motor cycle, due to which Boya Laxmanna sustained injury and they were shifted to Govt. Hospital, Gadwal but on the way the said Laxmanna died and after knowing the name of driver and he gave report to the police. Basing on his report, 2 the police registered the case and they investigated into it and recorded the statement of witnesses and held inquest over the dead body of deceased and subsequently post-mortem was also conducted, later doctor opined that the cause of death was due to head injury of head injury and polygram of RTA and the Motor

Vehicle Inspector opined that there was no mechanical defects that crime vehicle and other injured sustained simple injuries and later the accused was charge- sheeted for committing the offence U/s. 304-A, 337 of IPC.

3.This court took cognizance for the offence U/s. 304-A, 337 of IPC against the accused. After appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were furnished to him as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C, when he was examined U/s. 251 of

Cr.P.C, the charge sheet allegations leveled against the accused for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence U/s. 304-A, 337 of IPC.

4.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined eleven witnesses i.e. PWs-01 to 11 and Ex.P-1 to P-12 are marked on behalf of the prosecution got marked Ex.D-1 and D-2.

5.After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused was examined U/s.

313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material voiced against him to which he pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence but marked Ex.D1 and D2.

6.Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

7.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A, 337 of IPC against the accused?

3

8.The learned APP argued that the evidence of PWs-1 to 3,5,10 & 11 are pointing out the guilt of the accused as such they prayed the court to convict the accused.

9.The case of the accused is one of total denial. The learned defence counsel argued that no case is made-out against the accused since the evidence of PW-1 is not pointing out the guilt of the accused as such he prayed the court to acquit the

Accused.

10.I have gone through the evidence of prosecution. PW-1 (Boya Bheemesh) is the de-facto complainant and he deposed that about 4 years back when he along with the deceased person went to Pulikal Village for coolie works at 04:40 PM they returned from their vehicle of the deceased when reached near Medikonda bypass road the Accused drove one tractor with high speed and dash to them in opposite direction and he sustained injury on his jaw and also right hand and the deceased sustained head injury and they were shifted in one ambulance and on the way the deceased died and the said accident occurred in the evening and in the next morning he gave report to the police.

11.Whereas PW-2 (Smt.Boya Jayamma) who is witness and wife of the deceased she deposed that about 4 years back in the night she was informed by

PW-1 that her husband met with an accident with one tractor at Medikonda bypass road and died due to injuries. And she went to hospital and she was examined by the police on the next day.

12. PW-3 (Boya Raghu) who is witness and brother of the deceased and he deposed that about 4 years back in the night he was informed about the accident in which his brother died on the way to the hospital since he was knocked down by one tractor at Medikonda bypass road.

4

13.PW-4 (Mohd. Babar) who is the important eye witness and he turned hostile.

14.PW-5 (Boya Thirumalesh) he deposed that about 4 years back when Pw-1 was returning to Pulikal village on the motor cycle of the deceased one tractor suddenly crossed the road due to which the accident occurred and he was inform by PW-1 about that accident and then he went to hospital.

15.PW-6 (Gudem Srinivasulu) and PW-7 (Boya Laxmanna) are the panch witness for inquest and they turned hostile.

16.PW-8 ( Boya Ramudu) and PW-9 (Tharaka Ramanjaneyulu) are the panch with for scene of offence they also turned hostile.

17.PW-10 ( Dr.A.Rabindranath Shastri) who is Doctor who conducted postmortem over the dead body of deceased Laxamanna deposed that on 15-09- 2014 he conducted postmortem and the approximate time of death of the deceased persons might be between 1600 to 2000 hours prior to conducting of postmortem.

18.PW-11 (Siddi Ramulu) who is Investigation Officer and about registration of the case and he visit to the scene and conducting inquest and later on filing of charge sheet by his SI basing on the PME report and MVI report etc.

19. To prove the charge U/s. 304-A of IPC the prosecution must prove

1) Death of a person,

2) The death is due to rash or negligent act of the accused.

3) It does not amount to culpable homicide.

20.Keeping the ingredients in back ground let discuss the evidence of record.

21.PW-1 Boya Bheemesh is the important witness and according to him the accident occurred in the dark night near Medikonda bypass road and he stated that 5 the accused drove that Tractor with high speed but according to the case records the accident occurred when the tractor driver suddenly cross the road and he clearly stated that he did not saw the accused while driving that tractor at the time of accident and he do not know the name of the accused till filing of his report and the police themselves mentioned the number of the motor cycle and the number of the tractor in the report and he do not know the number of those vehicles. Which clearly shows that the presence of the accused as the driver of the tractor is not proved by the evidence of PW-1 and even PW-2 who is the wife of PW-1 and

PW-5 who is the brother of the deceased, they also admitted that they never went to the scene of offence and they never saw the accused as the driver of the tractor

22.And to prove the above ingredient of Sec. 304-A of IPC the prosecution not only to prove the presence of the accused as the driver but they must independently prove the rash or negligent act of the accused, that was not spoken by any of the witnesses and more over the important eye witnesses PW-4 and 5 they turned hostile. And even the other panch witnesses also turned hostile. And the evidence of the Doctor and the Investigation Officer is of no use to the case of the prosecution since the death was not disputed by both sides and even the circumstances of the case are not proved due to hostile behavior of PW-8 and 9. As such the evidence of PW-1 is unsafe to rely on and it can be said that the ingredients of Sec.304-A of IPC are not proved by the prosecution and even it was admitted by PW-1 that he did not gave report in time and he gave the report on the next morning. And the delay is also unexplained and the contents of report are also not proved by PW-1. As such the case against the accused for the charge U/s.304-A

IPC is not proved by them.

23.With regard to the charge U/s.337 IPC since the presence of the accused as the driver of the tractor is not proved then the evidence of PW-1 is also not 6 connecting the accused directly and even the doctor he treated the injured is not examined by the prosecution he inspite of giving so many adjournment to them. So the charge U/s.337 IPC is also not proved by the prosecution. Even after arrest of the accused no Test Identification Parade of the accused was conducted by the police. So the scant evidence of P-1 is unsafe to rely on and due to not proving of ingredient of Sec.304-A, 337 IPC and the accused is entitled for benefit of the doubt.

24.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 304-A, 337 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused cancelled forthwith and the un-marked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of January, 2019.

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

FAC JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

GADWAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1: Boya Bheemesh, - Nil -

PW-2: Smt.Boya Jayamma,

PW-3: Boya Raghu,

PW-4: Mohd. Babar,

PW-5: Boya Thirumalesh,

PW-6: Gudem Srinivasulu,

PW-7: Boya Laxmanna,

PW-8: Boya Ramudu,

PW-9: Tharaka Ramanjaneyulu,

PW-10: Dr.A.Rabindranath Shastri

PW-11: Siddi Ramulu.

7

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P-1: Report,Ex.D1:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1, Ex.P-2: 161-statement of PW-1. Ex.D2: Portion of 161 Cr.P.C Ex.P-3: Signature of PW-6 on inquest form, statement of PW-5, Ex.P-4: Signature of PW-7 on inquest form. Ex.P-5: Signature of PW-8 on CDF, Ex.P-6: Signature of PW-9 on CDF, Ex.P-7: PME report, Ex.P-8: FIR, Ex.P-9: Crime Details Form, Ex.P-10: Inquest report, Ex.P-11: Medical Certificate of injured, Ex.P-12: MVI report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

–NIL- -NIL-

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

FAC JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

GADWAL.

8

CALANDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

GADWAL.

C.C.NO. 300 OF 2012

1. Complainant: State, SI of Police P.S. Gadwal Town.

2. Cr.No. & Nature of Offence: Cr.No.97 of 2012, U/s. 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC and Sec. 181 and 196 of M.V. Act

3. Name of the accused : Kuntala Ramakrishna S/o. K.Narsimulu, Age: 20 Yrs, Caste: Kurva, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. Balgera Village, Gattu Mandal.

D A T E S

4. OFFENCE : U/s. 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC and Sec. 181 and 196 of M.V. Act

5.COMPLAINT : 14-08-2012

6.APPREHSNION OF ACCUSED: 22-08-2012

7.COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL: 03-08-2017

8.CLOSE OF TRIAL: 24-08-2017

9.JUDGMENT: 08-09-2017

10.PLEA OF THE ACCUSED: Not guilty

11.SENTENCE OR ORDER: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC and Sec. 181 and 196 of M.V. Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused cancelled forthwith and the un- marked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

12 QUANTUM OF SENTENCE: -

13.REMARKS : The bail bonds of the accused cancelled forthwith and the un-marked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

14.EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY : The case was taken on file 05-12-2012. Accused are examined U/s 251 Cr.P.C on 06-02-2016 and prosecution evidence commenced on 03-08- 2017 and closed on 24-08-2017. On 08-09-2017 Judgment was pronounced.

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

GADWAL.

Submitted to:

The Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

AT:GADWAL.

PRESENT: SRI.M.A.KHALEEL,

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GADWAL.

FAC: PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GADWAL.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019.

C.C.No. 119 of 2017

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana rep. by P.S. Aize … Complainant.

AND

Vadde Ramanjaneyulu S/o Narasimhulu, age:28 Years, Caste:Vaddera, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Lingapuram Village of Gattu Mandal. … Accused.

This case coming before me on 11-01-2019 for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for the complainant and of Sri G.Ravi Shankar, the learned counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S Aize has filed the charge sheet in Crime

No.23/2013 for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A of IPC.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 04-03-2013 at 0700 hours the complainant Shamshad Begam gave police report by alleging that on 03-03-2013 when the complaiant and her husband by name Haneef (Deceased) along with their relatives travelled in a auto from Aize to

Rajapuram Village and when the auto bearing No.AP21X1041 was near RDS kart bridge the Accused drove his motor cycle bearing No.AP22C3723 dash to that auto in opposite direction with high speed due to which her husband fractured his right 2 thigh and she informed to her relatives who shifted her husband to Sravanthi hospital and there from while shifting him to Gadwal hospital on the way at

Peddapally village he died and she approached the police and gave report against the Accused. Basing on her report of this complainant the police registered the case and examined the witnesses and went to the hospital and held inquest over the dead body of deceased and post mortem was also conducted and the doctor opined that the cause of the death was due to poly trauma of RTA and the accused was arrested and M.V. inspected the crime vehicle and found no break failure and issued Motor

Vehicle Inspection report and the accused was charge-sheeted for committing the offence U/s.304-A IPC.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence U/s. 304-Aof IPC against the accused. After appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were furnished to him as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C, when he was examined U/s. 251 of

Cr.P.C, the charge sheet allegations leveled against the accused for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence U/s. 304-A of

IPC.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined ten witnesses i.e. PWs-1 to 10 and Ex.P-1 to P-9 are marked on behalf of the prosecution.

5. After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused was examined U/s.

313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material voiced against him to which he pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

7. Now the point for determination is:- 3

Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A of IPC against the accused?

8. The learned defense counsel argued that no case is made out against the accused due to the hostile behavior of the PWs-2,4,5 and 9 as such they prayed the court to acquit the accused.

9. In this case, the prosecution got examined PW-1 (Shamshad Begam) who was the wife of the deceased and complainant and she stated that about 5 years back when she along with her husband and five other relatives were returning in a auto near Medikonda the Accused dashed to that auto with his motor cycle in opposite direction due to which her husband who was sitting on the right side of the auto on the back seat sustained injuries on his legs and they took him to private hospital and there from while shifting to Gadwal hospital her husband died and she gave report to the police.

10. PW-2 (Hazeera Bagam) who is eye witness, and sister of the deceased person she turned hostile.

11. PW-3 (Saleem) who is the son of the deceased and here say witness deposed that on 03-03-2013 he was inform by PW-1 that while travelling in a auto his father sustained injuries since one motor cycle dash to their auto and while shifting to Gadwal hospital his father died on the way.

12. PW-4 (Venkanna Naidu) and PW-5 (Anjaneyulu) who are panch for inquest and also scene of offence, they turned hostile.

13. PW-6 (M.S.Ismail) who is witness and he deposed that on 03-03-2013 when they were travelling on a motor cycle and his family members were travelling in a auto at 0600 PM he was inform by some persons that his brother and family 4 members met with an accident with a motor cycle, then he went there and saw his brother with injuries and while shifting the injured to the Gadwal he died on the way.

14. PW-7 (Moinuddin) who is witness and he deposed that on 03-03-2013 when they were travelling on a motor cycle and his family members were travelling in a auto at 0600 PM he was inform by some persons that his brother and family members met with an accident with a motor cycle, then he went there and saw his brother with injuries and while shifting the injured to the Gadwal he died on the way.

15. PW-8 (Dr.A.Ravindranath Shasthri) who is Doctor and he deposed about conducting of postmortem examination above over the dead body of deceased

Haneef on 04-03-2013 at 1200 PM and according to his evidence the cause of death might be due to hammaragenic shock of fracture of femer.

16. PW-9 (Jangam Veeresh) and PW-10 (Raju) who are eye witnesses, they turned hostile.

17. To prove the charge U/s. 304-A of IPC the prosecution must prove

1) Death of a person,

2) The death is due to rash or negligent act of the accused.

3) It does not amount to culpable homicide.

18. Keeping the ingredients in back ground let discuss the evidence of record.

19. In this case the family members of the deceased i.e., PW-2 Hazeera Begam who was travelling along with the deceased and she turned hostile and independence witness Jangam Veeresh PW-9 also turned hostile. The other 5 witnesses are the son of the deceased and PW-6 the brother of the deceased and

PW-7 another brother of the deceased. These three witnesses are circumstantial witnesses and they went to the scene of offence after the accident. As such there evidence is not much of importance. The only evidence of eye witness the evidence of PW-1, her evidence is not convincing for the reason that she in her cross examination admitted that the police themselves scribed the report and she do not know the number of the motor cycle and she do not know the number of the auto. And the accident occurred in dark night and there was no street lights and about 15 persons travelled in that auto and her husband sustained injuries since he kept his legs outside the auto, except her husband no other persons sustained any injuries. Even though the auto is small auto but so many persons travelled in it.

And she did not saw the accused after the accident and the accident occurred in the middle of the road. and even the two persons who were sitting beside the driver of the auto also not sustained any injuries. This piece of evidence of PW-1 is clearly showing that there is no negligent on the part of the accused and the entire negligence is on the part of the auto driver who was not examined and the deceased person who was sitting negligently by keeping his legs outside the auto. Even though contributory negligence is not a ground of defence but the injured must take precaution to safe guard himself and even after taking precautions also if there is a rash or negligence on part of the accused, then he will be convicted U/s.304-A of

IPC.

20. But according to the evidence of PW-1 she admitted that she did not saw the accused after the accident. And neither the driver of that auto nor the accused had blown the horn before the accident. Which to place on the wide road. So the 6 identity of the accused is not properly proved as the driver of that motor cycle and the evidence of PW-1 is no where showing his negligence.

21. If we believe the evidence of PW-1 and 3 the accused was also shifted to the hospital then while the police have not placed any documents to show that the accused was the driver of the motor cycle and no such evidence was collected by the I.O during the investigation of the case. Even no test identification parade of the accused was conducted by them.

22. If we leave apart the evidence of PW-1 then remains the evidence of hearsay and circumstantial witnesses and even according to the evidence of PW-6 he went to the scene of offence after 30 minute of the accident so he cannot say the how the accident occurred, similarly PW-7 also admitted that he went there after 30 minutes of the accident. So they are unable to say to whose negligence the accident occurred. As such even though the death of the deceased Haneef was proved by the prosecution by examining the Doctor PW-8 who conducted autopsy but the evidence of other witness is not where proving any rash or negligence of the accused. As such the above ingredients of Sec.304-A of IPC are not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. Since it is the duty of the prosecution not only to prove the presence of the accused at the scene of offence but they must prove the rash or negligence of the accused in committing the offencc which laws not done in this case.

23. Even though circumstantial witnesses i.e., PW-4 and 5 turned hostile and eye witness PW-10 also turned hostile. And even the sister of the deceased PW-2 also turned hostile. And the police measurable failed to placed before the court that the accused was the driver of the motor cycle which dash to the auto and 7 surprisingly they did not place the auto before the M.V inspector for examination.

So non seizure of auto and non examination of the auto by M.V inspector is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.

24. In view of the above said circumstances when there be a legible doubt in the mind of the Judge the benefit of it shall be given to the accused. Accordingly in this case also the accused is entitled for the benefit of the doubt.

25. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 304-Aof

IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be cancelled and the un-marked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of January, 2019.

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

FAC:JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GADWAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1: Shamshad Begam, - Nil -

PW-2: Hazeera Bagam,

PW-3: Saleem,

PW-4: Venkanna Naidu,

PW-5: Anjaneyulu,

PW-6: M.S.Ismail,

PW-7: Moinuddin,

PW-8: Dr.A.Ravindranath Shasthri,

PW-9: Jangam Veeresh,

PW-10: Raju.

8

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P-1: Report, -NIL-

Ex.P-2: 161-statement of PW-2

Ex.P-3: Signature of PW-4 on CDF,

Ex.P-4: Signature of PW-4 on inquest form,

Ex.P-5: Signature of PW-5 on CDF,

Ex.P-6: Signature of PW-5 on inquest form,

Ex.P-7: PME report,

Ex.P-8: 161-Statement of PW-9,

Ex.P-9: 161-Statement of PW-10.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

–NIL- -NIL-

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

FAC:JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GADWAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

AT:GADWAL.

PRESENT: SRI.M.A.KHALEEL,

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GADWAL.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019.

C.C.No. 49 of 2015

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana Rep. by P.S. Dharoor. … Complainant.

AND 1.Chakali Sreenivasulu S/o. late Chakali Savaranna, Age: 36 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture, 2.C.Buchamma W/o. late Girni Savaranna, Age: 60yrs, Caste: Chakali, Occ: House Wife, 3.Sujatha W/o. Chakali Srinivasulu, Age: 28 Yrs, Caste: Chakali, Occ: Coolie,

All R/o. Dharoor. … Accused.

This case coming before me on 27-02-2019 for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for the complainant and of Sri S.Srikanth, the learned counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Dharoor has filed the charge sheet in

Crime No.140/2014 for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A, 494 of IPC.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

That 28-11-2014 at 1800 hrs the SHO, Dharoor received a SDPO Endorse

Report of Chakali Sarojamma in which she alleged that about 12 years back she married A-1 and blessed with one son and daughter and at the time of her marriage her parents gave 2-tulas gold and 3-tulas silver as dowry and they paid 20 thousand in cash as additional dowry but the accused demanded more additional dowry and 2 since she did not fulfill his demand he married another women A-3 and he also sold her properties, as such she approached the police and gave report against the accused and basing on her report the police register this case and during the investigation the witnesses were examined and the accused were arrested and were charge-sheeted for committing the offence U/s. 498-A, 494 of IPC.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence U/s. 498-A, 494 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as required U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to them and when they were examined U/s. 239 of

Cr.P.C, the charge sheet allegations leveled against the accused for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence U/s.498-A, 494 r/w 34 of IPC.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined five witnesses i.e. PWs-1 to 5 and Ex.P-1 to P-5 are marked.

6. After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused were examined

U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material voiced against them to which they pleaded not guilty and reported no defence.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now point for determination is “Whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond all the reasonable doubts for the offence U/s. 498-A, 494 r/w 34 of

IPC” against accused?

9. The APP argued that the evidence of PW-1 and 2 is clearly proving t he harassment of the accused towards PW-1, as such he prayed the court to convict the accused.

3

10. The case of the accused is one of the total denials. The learned defence counsel argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is mainly based on improvements and serious types of omissions are in the evidence of their evidence which amounts to contradictions which was not clarified by them and the specific instances of alleged harassment of the accused is not spoken by any of the witnesses as such the accused may be acquitted by giving the benefit of the doubt.

11. For that I have gone through the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution.

PW-1 (Chakali Sarojamma) deposed that her marriage with A-1 was performed by her parents by giving two tulas gold 6-tulas silver about 16 years back and she blessed with two children and at the time of her second pregnancy the accused started her by demanding additional dowry of 2 lakhs for un-known reason and her parents gave it and 20 thousand on another occasion and a pachayat was held in which the accused promised that he will treat with her with love and affection and again the accused demanded additional and tortured her and when she came to her mother’s house the accused A-1 secretly married A-3 on that she gave report to the police.

12. PW-2 (Chakali Venkatesh) deposed that about 20-years back they performed the marriage ofPW-1 with A-1 by giving 3-tulas gold and 2-lakh cash and she blessed with one daughter and son and later his sister PW-1 was sent back by the accused and subsequently he was treated as hostile by prosecution since he did not corroborated with his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement.

13. PW-3 (Boya Venkatesh) and PW-4 (Chakali Karrenna) and PW-5 (Vadla

Neelachary) who are the independent eye witnesses in this case, they turned hostile.

4

14. The learned APP argued that the evidence of all these witnesses prima-facie proves the accusation against the accused for committing the offence U/s. 498-A, 494 of IPC. On the other hand it is the argument of learned defence counsel that the essential ingredients of Sec. 498-A, 494 of IPC are not established by any of the prosecution witnesses. In view of the arguments of both sides let me remind myself about essentialities of Sec.498-A of IPC which deals for the punishment of harassment and cruelty of a married woman by her husband and his relatives. The ingredients to be proved are as follows;-

(a)There must be a married women

(b)That married women should be subjected to cruelty.

(c)She must be subjected to such cruelty either by the husband or by the relatives of the husband.

Explanation also given in which the word cruelty means any willful misconduct which is likely to drive the women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, health or cruelty when it is by way of un-lawful demand for property etc.,

15. To prove the first ingredient, there must be a married women. In this case according to the evidence of prosecution witnesses PW-1 is the legally wedded wife of the accused and that was not denied by the accused. So, there need not be any discussion with regard to the fact that PW-1 is married women and the accused is her husband. The most important point to consider is whether was there any cruelty to PW-1 in the hands of accused. Let me again remind myself that cruelty should be such a nature which likely to drive the women to commit suicide.

According to the arguments of learned defence counsel, this point is clearly showing that she do not know the contents of her own report given by her to the police and she admitted that she do not know why the police has not mentioned all 5 the facts in her report even though she dictated the facts to the police and she also admitted that there is no mention of demand of 2-lakh additional dowry in her report and on perusal of 161 Cr.P.C. statement there is no mention of that fact and by surprising other side she improved her evidence and stated that there was a demand of 2 lakh rupees by the accused and she frankly admitted that her son who is studying intermediate is living with the accused and she denied about receiving any notices from the court in O.P. filed by the accused for restitution of conjugal rights and she admitted that only when A-1 married A-3 secretly she gave this report which shows that even though the alleged incidence of dowry harassment was done to her, she never approached the police in time and there is a delay in giving report which is not properly explained by her and surprisingly her own brother PW-2 admitted that he did not enquired about the alleged second marriage of A-1 and A-3 and actually he do not know the name of A-3, for that reason the learned PP declared him as hostile.

16. So, the evidence of brother and sister is not corroborating and all the other eye witnesses turned hostile. So, the scant evidence of these two witnesses is clearly not proving the above said ingredient of Sec.498-A IPC and in fact PW-1 never stated that she was continuously harassed by the accused due to which she lost her interest in life, that type of evidence is not adduced and the specific instances of the dowry demand as alleged byPW-1 are also not spoken by her while giving evidence in the court. So, this court has no hesitation to say that the charge U/s. 498-A of IPC is not proved by prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.

6

17. The next charge leveled against the accused is U/s. 494 of IPC and to prove the charge U/s.494 of IPC the prosecution must prove the following ingredients:-

(i) There must be in existence, a valid first marriage between the spouses.

(ii) Then one of the spouses must marry another person, which is second marriage.

(iii) The second marriage should be performed by the spouse, even though the spouse of first marriage is still alive, without getting the divorce.

(iv) The second marriage must be void because of subsistence of first marriage.

(v) Then the second marriage become an offence which is known as bi-gamy.

18. It is the contention of learned APP that all the above ingredients are rightly spoken by Pw-1 and 2 as such the accused may be convicted. But, on the other hand, it is contended by learned defence counsel that there is no proof of marriage between PW-1 and A-1 and also for the marriage of A-1 with A-3 as such no averments are appearing to connect the accused for the offence U/s. 494 of IPC.

Surprisingly PW-1 also admitted that she do not know where the marriage of A-1 and A-3 was performed and even her brother admitted that he do not know the name of A-3 and even he do not know about the report of PW-1 and to strengthen their evidence all the other eye witnesses turned hostile.

19. Even the alleged second marriage was not proved since even during the investigation also police could not secure any evidence to show that who has performed that second marriage and whether that second marriage was also performed as equal to the first marriage and the second marriage is valid as per law. All these facts were kept blank even during the investigation of the case and 7 during the trial no supportive evidence is adduced as such it can be said that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge U/s. 494 of IPC also.

20. To clarify all these ambiguous circumstances in spite of giving so many adjournments even the IO did not turned up to the court to give evidence and this is a fit case to give benefit of the doubt to the accused.

21. In the result, the accused A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offence

U/s.498-A, 494 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be cancelled and the un-marked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Field Assistant Mohd. Irshad Ahmed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of February, 2019.

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GADWAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1 Chakali Sarojamma -NIL- PW-2 Venkatesh PW-3 Boya Venkatesh PW-4 Chakali Karrenna PW-5 Vadla Neelachary.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P-1: Report of PW-1, Ex.P-2: 161-Statement by PW-2 -NIL- Ex.P-3: 161-Statement by PW-3 Ex.P-4: 161-Statement by PW-4 Ex.P-5: 161-Statement by PW-5

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

–NIL- -NIL-

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GADWAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

AT:GADWAL.

PRESENT: SRI.M.A.KHALEEL,

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

FAC JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GADWAL.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019.

S.T.C.No. 57 of 2017.

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana, Rep. by P.S. Aize. … Complainant.

AND

Sandyapogu Youhan S/o Nagulanna, age:32 Years, Caste:Madiga, Occ:Agril., R/o Jadadoddi Village of Aize Mandal. … Accused

This case coming before me on 10-01-2019 for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for the complainant and of Sri.S.Suresh, the learned counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Aize has filed the charge sheet in Crime

No.198 /2016 for the offence punishable U/s. 447, 427 IPC.

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

That on 29-10-2016 at 1400 hours the complainant Gangadar Reddy gave report against the Accused by alleging that on 24-10-2016 at 1330 hours the accused destroyed 22 plastic pipes belongs to the complainant and ion knowing that the complainant went there and saw the damage pipes and later he approached the police for taking action against the accused. Basing on his report, the police registered the case and examined the witnesses and went to the scene of offence 2 and served U/s. 41-A of Cr.P.C to the accused the charge-sheet was filed against them for committing the offence U/s. 447, 427 of IPC

3.This court took cognizance for the offence U/s. 447, 427 IPC against the

Accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as required U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to him and when he was examined U/s. 251 of Cr.P.C.

the charge sheet allegations leveled against the accused for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence U/s.447, 427 IPC.

5.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined eight witnesses i.e. PWs-01 to 08 and Ex.P-01 to P-03 are marked.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused is examination U/s.

313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material voiced against him to which he pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

8.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence punishable U/s. 447, 427 of IPC and against the accused?

9.The learned APP argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses more particularly the evidence of PW-1 to 8 clearly showing the involvement of the accused in committing this offence as such they prayed the court to convict the accused.

10.The case of the accused is one of the total denial. The learned defense counsel argued that the evidence of PW-1 to 8 is based on improvements and the 3 abnormal delay in given report is unexplained by the prosecution which is fatal in this case as such the accused may be acquitted by giving benefit of the doubt.

11.In this case, the prosecution got examined PW-1 (Gangadhar Reddy) who is complainant and he deposed that on 29-10-2016 the accused damage 60 water pipes belongs to him and four others, even though they have laid down those pipes with the consent of the father of the accused and when they asked the accused about the destruction of the pipes on that he threatened him with dire consequences.

12.PW-2 (N.Chandra Shekar Reddy) is brother of compliant who deposed that on 24-10-2016 the accused damage 60 water pipes and when they asked the reasons for destroying those pipes he threatened PW-1.

13.PW-3 (N.Srinivas Reddy) who is brother of complainant who deposed that on 24-10-2016 the accused cut down 60 pipes belongs to four persons and threatened them.

14. PW-4 (Kapu Jaya Reddy) who deposed that about 2 years back the accused damaged 60 pipes belongs to complainant and others due to which they sustained loss.

15.PW-5 (Poojari Thimmappa) who deposed that about more than two years back on one day he was inform by PW-1 that the accused has damage his pipe lines but he never went to that place and did saw the damage.

16.PW-6 (Harijan Jayaraju) who deposed that about more than two years back on one day he saw the accused cut down pipelines of PW-1 which were laid down through the lands of the accused. But he did not inform the same to PW-1.

4

17.PW-7 (Boya Maldakal) who is panch for scene of offence, he deposed that about two years back at 1000 AM he went to the scene of offence and signed on the panchanama for the scene.

18.PW-8 (Anna Ramesh) who is Investigation Officer, he deposed that on 29-10-2016 he registered this case and examined the complainant and went to the scene of offence and examined other witnesses and later filed charge sheet against the accused.

19. To prove the charge U/s. 447 of IPC the prosecution must prove that there must be a criminal trespass into the property of complainant and in this case neither the complainant nor the witnesses placed any proof before the court to show that the land of the complainant was encroached by the accused and in fact it was admitted by all the witnesses that the accused has cut down the pipes which were laid down in his own land, so criminal tress passed into other lands by the accused is no where proved by the prosecution.

20.With regard to the charge U/s.427 IPC the evidence of PW-1 to 4 shows that the accused has cut down 60 pipes belongs to four other persons. But no such other persons has gave any report against the accused except PW-1, why those other persons did not approached the police against the accused is un explained by the prosecution. More over the cross examination of these four witnesses defers from each other. PW-1 admitted in his cross, that he gave report after four days of the incident why that delay occurred is un explained by him. And he also admitted that he did not approached the police immediately, since the accused has cut down those pipes which were in his lands, which shows that no offence has been committed by the accused even U/s.427 IPC. And it is to be noted that all these 5 witnesses are the accused person in atrocity case filed by this accused. So they were having enmity with the accused.

21. Moreover PW-2 in his cross examination admitted that he did not saw the accused while cutting down those pipes, and PW-1 also did not saw the accused and PW-2 admitted that he was examined by the police after three days of the incident, by that time no complaint was given by PW-1.

22. Similarly in cross examination of PW-3 who also admitted that he did not saw the accused while cutting those pipes and he went to the place after one day.

After receiving the information from PW-1 and the accused was not there when he went to that place.

23. The cross examination of PW-4 also shows that he did not saw the accused why committing this offence.

24. So all these witnesses are not the eye witnesses to the incident and they were inform by some body on that they went there. So the evidence of these witnesses is silent about the involvement of the Accused.

25. Even the evidence of PW-5 he stated that the complainant inform him about this offence but he never went to the scene of offence and he was not inform by

PW-1 who had seen the accused why cutting those pipes.

26. Surprisingly PW-6 stated that he saw the accused when he was cutting the pipes but he did not inform the same to PW-1, then how PW-1 has got knowledge about this offence is not explained by the prosecution.

27. Moreover even the evidenced of PW-7 the scene panch is not supporting the case since in his cross examination he admitted that he do not know the contents of 6 the panchanama on which he signed so the circumstances of the case are also not proved.

28. The Investigation Officer also admitted that he did not seized any damaged pipes and no photographs of the pipes were placed before the court. So there is no evidence to prove the charge U/s.427 IPC also and since the witnesses are the ac caused persons in a atrocity case filed by the accused and keeping that in view the un corroborated testimony of these witnesses is unsafe to rely on and the abnormal delay of four days in giving report which was un explained is fatal in this case and it can be safe that the FIR is brought into existence after due deliberation and this is a fit case to give benefit of doubt to the Accused.

29.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.447, 427 of

IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be cancelled and the un-marked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of January, 2019.

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

FAC JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GADWAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1: Gangadhar Reddy,- Nil -

PW-2: N.Chandra Shekar Reddy,

PW-3: N.Srinivas Reddy,

PW-4: Kapu Jaya Reddy,

PW-5: Poojari Thimmappa, 7

PW-6: Harijan Jayaraju,

PW-7: Boya Maldakal,

PW-8: Anna Ramesh.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P-1: Report, -NIL- Ex.P-2: Crime Details Form by PW-7, Ex.P-3: FIR.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

–NIL- -NIL-

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

FAC JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GADWAL.