Smt. M. Anjani Priya Darshini, B.A., L.L.M

C.C.278 of 2016 Page 1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAYYAPETA

PRESENT:­Smt M.Anjani Priyadarsini, B.A., LL.M.,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAYYAPETA.

 Wednesday, dated this the 21st day of February, 2018

C.C.NO. 278 of 2016 

Between: The State – Represented by Sub­Inspector of Police, Chillakallu Police Station. ..… Complainant AND Chilakala Upendra Rao, s/o Venkata Narayana, Age 30 years, R/o S.M.Pet Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal. .…. Accused

This case is coming before me for arguments on 05­02­2018 in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor representing the State/Complainant and Sri K.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for accused, Upon perusal of record and upon hearing both the Learned APP and the counsel for the accused and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub­Inspector of Police, Chillakallu Police station filed charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 178/2015 for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 353, 379 of IPC & A.P WALTA Act 2002 r/w rule 23.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

LW.1 Tellaputla Babu Rao, Village Revenue Officer, Ravikampadu

Village, S.M.pet i.e., complainant, on 09­08­2015 morning at about 07.00 hrs., on reliable information about the illegal transporting of gravel from the Patta land of L.W.2 i.e., kakanaboina Peda Lingaiah, then L.W.1 along with L.W.4 i.e., Regalla Prabhakara Rao, V.R.A, S.M Pet immediately proceeded to the said place, they found the accused transporting gravel illegally with Tractor bearing

No.AP 20 TB 7242 with truck No.AP 16 TY 6405, then L.W.1 stopped the tractor, but the accused did not stop and tried to escape, then L.W.1 informed the same to L.W.5 i.e., Kolikapogu Nagabhushanam, V.R.O, S.M pet, immediately he rushed there and asked the accused to show the weigh bill to transport the gravel, but the accused replied deliberately and stated that he has no weigh bill, then L.W.1, L.W.4 and L.W.5 instructed the accused to go to

C.C.278 of 2016 Page 2 of 7

M.R.O office with tractor, but the Accused escaped along with the Tractor by pushing them a side.

3. On 09­08­2015 at 9.00 hrs., L.W.1 presented a written report about the occurrence to L.W.8, L.W.8 i.e., S.I of Police registered the same as F.I.R in

Cr.No.176/2015 U/s.353, 379 of I.P.C & AP Walta Act 2002 r/w Rule 23 and investigated into, during the course of investigation he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and examined L.Ws.1 to 7 as witnesses and seized the tractor bearing No. AP 20 TB 7242 with truck No.AP 16 TY 6405 from the possession of accused. On 16­08­2015 L.W.8 served notices U/S.41­

A (1) Cr.p.C to the accused. Hence, the Accused A1 and A2 are liable for punishment for the offences U/S.353, 379 of I.P.C & Sec.27 of AP Walta Act 2002.

4. On receipt of the charge sheet, the cognizance for the offences punishable U/Sec. 353, 379 of I.P.C & Sec.25 of A.P.Walta Act, 2002 is taken against the Accused.

5. On appearance of Accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to the Accused U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

6. Accused was examined u/s.239 of the Cr.P.C and charges for the offences punishable U/Sec. 353, 379 of I.P.C & Sec.25 of A.P.Walta Act, 2002 have been framed against the Accused and read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence posted for trial. 

7. The prosecution opened its case and examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 are marked. L.W.4 – Regalla Prabhakara Rao is given up by the

Prosecution. Hence, the Proseuction evidence is closed. 

8. Accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating evidence on record, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. 

C.C.278 of 2016 Page 3 of 7

9. Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for accused.

10.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the P.W.1,

P.W.4 and P.W.7 supported the Prosecution version. P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and

P.W.6 are turned hostile and they did not support the Prosecution version.

11.The Counsel for the Accused contended that P.W.1 did not depose the name of place where soil is unloaded. P.W.1 did not accompany P.W.4 and

P.W.7 to show the soil. Challa Sriramulu is not examined to know whether place of offence i.e., agricultural land belongs to him or not. P.W.7 admitted that he along with V.R.O i.e., P.W.4 and L.W.4 – R.prabhakar Rao went to the scene of offence and admitted that P.W.1 did not state in Ex.P1 report and in 161 Cr.P.C statement that the accused unloaded the soil in the land of Challa

Sriramulu. He also admitted that he did not seize any sample of soil, the soil was stolen from the fields of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and he did not go to the fields of

P.W.2 and P.W.3 and did not prepare the scene observation report at the fields of P.W.2 and P.W.3. L.W.4 – Regalla Prabhakara rao, V.R.A not examined by

Prosecution who is material witness along with P.W.1 as well as P.W.7. Sec.379 of I.P.C does not attract. No criminal force or assault is used by accused to attract Sec.353 of I.P.C as per P.W.1 or any other witness did not state anything regarding criminal force or assault either in Ex.P1 or in Chief­ examination. Place of occurrence Sharemohammedpet as per F.I.R. According to P.W.1 scene of offence is Ravikampadu village. According to P.W.4 scene of offence is in R.S.No.193/2 of Sharemohammedpet village agricultural land which belongs to Challa Sriramulu. The scene of offence is where the gravel is loaded to the Tractor and again says the scene of offence is where the gravel is unloaded. According to Prosecution the gravel is shifted from field of P.W.2 by committing theft and P.W.2 turned hostile.

C.C.278 of 2016 Page 4 of 7

10. Now the point for consideration is that “Whether the

prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offences

punishable U/S.353, 379 of I.P.C & Sec.25 of AP Walta Act 2002 beyond

all reasonable doubts ?

POINT:

11.P.W.1 is the Defacto Complainant in this case, in his evidence he deposed that on 09­08­2015 at about 7.00 A.M., he received information through his phone as illegal transport of soil, then he along with L.W.4­

R.Prabhakar went to scene of offence situated at Ravikampadu village and found that the accused came along with Tractor loaded with soil and they stopped him and enquired him about the illegal transport of soil, they asked him about the way bill and the replied that he did not possess the way bill, and then they suggested him to take the way bill from M.R.O office, then, the accused replied that he did not come to M.R.O office and replied them as “what you can do”, thereafter, they informed him to come to M.R.O office and then the accused unloaded the soil there and escaped from the scene, thereafter they intimated the same to M.R.O and filed a complaint before the police,

Chillakallu P.S i.e., Ex.P1.

12.P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 are turned hostile and they did not support the version of the Prosecution.

13.P.W.4 deposed that on 09­08­2015 at Sharemohammedpet cross road in the survey No.193/2 the agricultural land which belongs to Challa

Sriramulu three units of soil is there and there are tyre marks of the tractor and there is a tower line of cell phone and the lands of Ragapuram Narasimha

Rao, More Jagan Mohan Rao, NH.9 road are surrounding the scene of offence, the scene observation report was drafted by police in his presence and he affixed his signature over it. On 16­08­2015 at about 11­00 A.M, the S.I of police, Chillakallu took them to the scene of offence situated in R.S.No.193/2, there is a person aged 30 years, on seeing S.I of police, he tried to ran away, in

C.C.278 of 2016 Page 5 of 7 his presence the S.I of police questioned with regard to his particulars for which he revealed his name as Challa Upendra and confessed that he used to take away soil from Ravikampadu village and dumping it in the

Sharemohammedpet village, on the same day the V.R.O., Ravikampadu came along with his men and caught hold the accused and questioned about the license for mining, the V.R.O., Ravikampadu intimated the same to the

Thasildar, for which he directed him to hand over the accused and tractor to the police, he drafted mediators report and he affixed signature on it.

14.P.W.7 deposed that on 09­08­2015 at about 9.00 A.M., he received a written complaint from P.W.1, basing on the contents of the complaint he registered it as case in Cr.No.176/2015 U/S.353, 379 I.P.C and U/S.27 of

WALTA Act, he submitted the Original F.I.R to the Honorable court and copies to the concerned, he visited the scene of offence situated at S.M.Pet village and prepared rough sketch of the scene, he examined the P.W.1 to P.W.3, L.W.4­

R.Prabhakar Rao and P.W.4 to P.W.6 and recorded their statements U/S.161

Cr.P.C he prepared scene observation report in the presence of mediators, on 16­08­2015 on credible information, he went to the Sharemohammedpet cross road found the accused and the accused was trying to ran away and he caught hold and examined him and recorded the confession statement in mediators report drafted by L.W.4­R.Prabhara Rao, he seized the tractor bearing No.AP 20

TB 7242 and Truck bearing No.AP 16 TY 6405 and on the same day, he served 41­A Cr.P.C notices to the Accused, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

15.From the evidence available and arguments on both sides, it is clear that P.W.1 admitted in his Cross­examination they cannot directly seize the tractors if any tractor is loaded with mining soil and the soil unloaded by the accused was not brought from the mines. He also admitted that he did not say the name of place the soil was loaded to tractor and transporting to which

C.C.278 of 2016 Page 6 of 7 place and he did not say anywhere that the accused caused any act of assault or criminal force against him. So in the absence of any overt act attributed to the Accused regarding to assault or any criminal force against the accused, mere escape of the accused from the scene of offence does not constitute any offence against the accused. Therefore, there is no prima facie case constituting the offence U/S.353 of I.P.C and no evidence regarding to proof of offence

U/S.353 of I.P.C. As such the prosecution failed to prove even the prima facie case against the accused regarding the offence under section 353 of I.P.C.

P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 are turned hostile and they did not support the version of the Prosecution. P.W.7 who is the Investigation officer admitted in his Cross­examination the scene of offence is where the gravel is loaded to the tractor and where the gravel was unloaded and he admitted that he found the heap of soil in the place of Challa Sriramulu, but as per the F.I.R the scene of offence is situated in Sharemohammedpet road, when the P.W.1 did not say from where the soil was loaded or where it was unloaded, how the P.W.7 can fix the scene of offence at the field of Challa Sreeramulu or the field of the P.W.2 and how he went to the scene of offence alleged to have situated and prepare scene observation report and found soil heap and more over the said Challa

Sreeramulu was not examined. He also admitted that he did not examine the neighbours of the scene of offence.

16.Therefore, this court holds that the Prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences leveled against the Accused U/S.353, 379 of I.P.C & Sec.25 of AP Walta Act, 2002. As such the Accused is entitled to be acquitted.

17. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/S.353, 379 of I.P.C & Sec.25 of AP Walta Act, 2002 and he is acquitted u/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment u/s. 437­A Cr.P.C.

C.C.278 of 2016 Page 7 of 7

The un­marked property which is in C.P.No.152/2015 is already given to the owner of the property i.e., Tractor with truck shall become absolute after the appeal time is over.

Transcribed and typed to my dictation by Stenographer­Gr.III of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of February, 2018.

Sd/­

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGGAYYAPETA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW.1 – Tellaputla Babu Rao. ­ None ­ PW.2 – Kakanaboyina Peda laingaiah. PW.3 – Kakanaboyina Narasimha Rao. PW.4 ­ Kolikapogu Nagabhushanam. PW.5 ­ Kakanaboyina Narasimha Rao. PW.6 ­ Chittiprolu Sudhakar. PW.7 ­ M.V.K.Shanmuka Sai.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1 ­ Complaint of P.W.1 Ex.P2 ­ 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P3 ­ 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P4 ­ Scene observation report. ­ Nil – Ex.P5 ­ Mediators report. Ex.P6 ­ 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 Ex.P7 ­ 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 Ex.P8 ­ F.I.R. Ex.P9 ­ Rough sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­Nil­

Sd/­

JUDCL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGGAYYAPETA.

//True Copy//

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

JAGGAYYAPETA

PRESENT:-SMT. M.ANJANI PRIYADARSINI, B.A., L.L.M.,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAYYAPETA.

FAC. ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAYYAPETA.

Thursday, dated this the 15th day of February, 2018

C.C.NO. 480 of 2017

Between:

The State – Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaggayyapeta Police station. … Complainant AND 1.Gunda Kasiviswanah @ Kasi S/o Sambasiva Rao, 32 Y, Vysya, near Old vegetable market, Jaggayyapeta. 2.Gunda Sridhar S/o Sambasiva Rao, 29 Y, Vysya, Dr.No.12-247, old vegetable market street, Jaggayyapet. 3.Gunda Sambasiva Rao @ Sambaiah S/o Sitaramaiah, 62 Y, Vysya, old vegetable market street, Jaggayyapet 4.Yerramsetty Anil Kumar S/o Narasimha Rao, 31 Y, Kapu, Nakasi bazar, Jaggayyapeta. …. Accused

This case is coming before me for arguments on 22.01.2018 in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor representing the State/Complainant and of Sri E.V.Jagannadha Rao, Advocate for Accused, Upon perusal of record and upon hearing both the counsel and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Accused are charged and tried for the offences punishable U/s.

269, 270, 271, 273 of IPC and Sec. 22 of Cigarette and other Tobacco products

Prevention of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce prohibition of supply and Distribution Act, 2003.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 27.12.2016 at 6.00 p.m. on information LW.6 S.I. of Police along with his staff and mediators LW.4 and LW.5 proceeded near old vegetable market and found A1 to A4 and got recorded their confessional statements

before mediators in which they confessed that A1 to A3 were purchasing

banned tobacco products from various places at Hyderabad and conceal the gutka bags at his shop and selling the banned tobacco products to gain more profit by distributing them through A4, LW.6 seized one pink colour plastic bag from A1 having kaleja gutka packets total 72 packets, each packet contained 80 sachets and 5 Dubai gutka packets in 72 packets, from A2 bag seized 72 kaleja gutka packets, each packet contained 80 sachets and 5 dubai gutka packets in 72 packets, from A3 bag seized 8 gutka packets and each packet containe 80 gutka sachets, from A4 bag seized 8 gutka packets, each packet contained 80 gutka sachets and 5 dubai packets total 680 sachets and packed separately, affixed labels duly signed by the mediators LW.4 and LW.5 and drafted a mediator report, basing on the mediator report, he registered a case in Cr. No. 207/2016 for the offences punishable u/s. 269, 273 r/w 34 IPC and sec. 22 of OCTPPARTC PSD Act, 2003 , prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence and also examined as many as LW.1 to LW.3 and recorded their statements, served notices u/s. 41-A Cr.P.C. to A1 to A4, after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

3.This Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable U/s. 269, 273 of IPC and Sec. 22 of OCTPPARTCPSD Act, 2003.

4. On appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to them U/Sec.

207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The Prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.3 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and also M.O.1 to M.O.3 were marked. Accused denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for Consideration is “Whether the prosecution has

proved the guilt of A1 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences

punishable U/Sec. 269, 273 of IPC and Sec. 22 of Cigarette and other

Tobacco products Prevention of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade

and Commerce prohibition of supply and Distribution Act, 2003 ?

8. PW.1 deposed that he knows A1 to A4, on 27.12.2016 at 8.00 p.m.

LW.6 received a credible information, himself along with LW.2 to LW.6 went to old vegetable market in Balusupadu center and went to a kirana shop, on seeing them one person perturbed, on questioning him he did not replied and again LW.6 questioned A1 to A4, then they revealed their names and address particulars and confessed that they were selling prohibited gutkas for earning more money, then LW.6 seized 72 khaleja gutka packets, each packet contains 80 sachets from the possession of A1, and 72 khaleja gutka packets, each packet contains 80 sachets from the possession of A2 and 110 Ambar khainey packets, each packet contains 25 sachets from the possession of A3 and 8 khaleja packets each packet contains 80 sachets from the possession of A4, the said property was seized by LW.6 in the presence of mediators and drafted the mediators report at the scene of offence.

9. PW.2 deposed that on 27.12.2016 at 8.00 p.m. LW.6 received a credible information that in the old vegetable market, Jaggayyapet in a kirana shop, on seeing LW.6, five persons tried to run away, then LW.6 apprehended A1 to A4 and on questioning them they confessed that on selling biscuits and the money is not sufficient and they were purchasing gutka packets from Hyderabad and selling them in Jaggayyapet, then LW.6 seized a pink colour bag in their presence which contains 72 khaleja gutka packets and each packet contains 80 sachets and 5 packets of dubai gutkas, each packet contains 72 sachets, then A1 to A4 confessed about the possession of gutka packets, A4 confessed that he used to supply the gutka packets to the shops, also seized 8 packets of khaleja gutka packets, each packet contains 80 sachets and 5 packets of dubai guta packets, each packet contains 72 sachets, after seizing gutka packets

LW.6 obtained their signatures on them, then he drafted Ex.P1 mediators report and obtained the signatures of the accused.

10. PW.3 deposed that on 27.12.2016 he received a credible information and himself along with LW.2 to LW.5 went to old vegetable market in shop

No.1-12-247, on seeing them A1 to A4 tried to run away, then he apprehended them with the help of his staff, on questioning A1 confessed that himself along with A2 to A4 were selling gutkas which were brought from Hyderabad and on verifying bags they found gutkas in which 72 packets of khaleja gutkas and 5 packets of Dubai gutka and he took one packet in each bag and sealed them and obtained signatures of the mediators, A2 to A4 confessed about the offence, then he seized the gutka bags from the possession of A2 to A4 and drawn sample and sent them for chemical analysis, M.O.1 to 3 are gutka bags, then PW.2 has drafted mediators report at the scene of offence and obtained the signatures of the mediators, basing on the Ex.P1 he registered a case in

Cr.No. 207/2016 for the offences u/s. 269, 273 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.22 of

OCTPPARTCPSD Act, 2003, Ex.P2 is FIR, then he visited the scene of offence and drafted Ex.P3 rough sketch and examined LW.1 to LW.3, later he received

Ex.P4 chemical analysis report from Chemical food analyst who statedthat the samples are prohibited gutkas, after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet.

9. In the cross examination PW.1 has admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and PW.6 did not obtain his signature in Ex.P1, on the day of the incident he performed traffic duty and acted as mediator in this offence only. In the cross examination PW.2 has admitted that PW.3 did not issue any notice to him to act as a mediator and Ex.P1 does not contain the name of the scribe, he drafted Ex.P1 on being dictated by LW.6, he did not obtain the signatures of the accused in Ex.P1 and he did not mention in Ex.P1 about the counting of the gutka packets and did not mention about the boundaries of the scene of offence, he also admitted that he used to act as a mediator and he acted as a mediator at about 150 cases. In the cross examination PW.3 has admitted that he did not obtain the signatures of their staff in Ex.P1 and the scene of offence is a busy locality and he did not examine any independent witnesses and he did not mention the boundaries of the scene of offence in

Ex.P1 and denied that the mediators report was drafted in the police station and they did not visited the scene of offence and did not seize the property from the possession of the accused.

10. PW.1 and PW.3 are the Police personnel. PW.2 is the mediator in this case. PW.1 to PW.3 says on a credible information they went to old vegetable market, Jaggayyapet in shop No.1-12-247 and PW.3 caught hold the accused and seized the case property. PW.1 and PW.3 are the Police personnel belongs to the same police station. PW.2 who is the mediator has admitted in his cross examination that he was not issued any notice to act as mediator and he drafted Ex.P1 on the dictation of PW.3 and they did not mention the number of seized gutka packets in Ex.P1 and did not mention the boundaries of the scene of offence which is also admitted by PW.3 who is Investigation officer. More over in the cross examination PW.3 has admitted that he did not obtain the signatures of their staff on mediators report and the scene of offence is a busy locality and he did not examine any independent witness. There is no evidence on record to show that PW.3 has seized the gutka packets from the possession of the accused. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 does not corroborate with each other and there is no evidence of independent witnesses to the occurrence of the offence, seizure of the property and arrest of the accused which creates doubt in the prosecution version. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

11. In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 269, 273 of IPC and Sec. 22 of Cigarette and other Tobacco products

Prevention of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce prohibition of supply and Distribution Act, 2003 and he is acquitted u/s.

255(1) Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 to M.O.3 i.e. Three gutka bags shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer-Gr.III of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of February, 2018.

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JAGGAYYAPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE

PW.1 – M.Krishnaiah - None - PW.2 – Eluri Rambabu PW.3 – T.V.V.Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 - Mediator report - Nil – Ex.P2 – F.I.R. Ex.P3 – Rough sketch Ex.P4 – Analysis report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

M.O.1 to 3 – 3 gutka bags - Nil –

ADDL.JUDCL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGGAYYAPETA

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

JAGGAYYAPETA

PRESENT:-SMT. M.ANJANI PRIYADARSINI, B.A., L.L.M.,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAYYAPETA.

FAC. ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAYYAPETA.

Wednesday, dated this the 7th day of February, 2018

C.C.NO. 84 of 2016

Between:

The State – Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chillakallu Police Station. … Complainant

AND

Veeraboina Saidulu S/o Lingaiah, 26 Yrs, Yadava, Tellaballi (V), Nadigudem (M). Driver of Tractor bearing No. AP 24 H 6642. …. Accused

This case is coming before me for arguments on 29.01.2018 in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor representing the State/Complainant and of Sri J.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Accused, Upon perusal of record and upon hearing both the counsel and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Accused is charged and tried for the offence punishable U/s. 338 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 10.12.2015 at 6.00 p.m. LW.1 gave report to the police by stating that on 6.12.2015 at 12.30 p.m. while LW.5 who is his son was walking from

National Highway road No.65 towards Shermohmadpet village, the accused being the driver of tractor AP 24H6642 coming from his back side drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, immediately he was shifted to Government hospital, Kodad by 108 Ambulance, later he was shifted to Medicare hospital, Hyderabad. Basing on the report of LW.1, LW.7 registered the same as FIR in Cr.No. 265/ 2015 for the offence u/s. 337 of IPC, visited the scene of offence, prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, examined LW.1 to LW.5 and recorded their statements, served notice u/s. 41(A)

Cr.P.C. to the accused, after receiving wound certificate altered the section of law from Sec.337 IPC to Sec.338 IPC and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

3.This Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/s. 338 of

IPC against the Accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him

U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The Prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.5 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. Accused denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for Consideration is “Whether the prosecution has

proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 338 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubts ?

8. PW.1 deposed that he knows the accused, at about two years ago at 11.30 a.m. LW.5 who is his son has got down the bus at S.M.pet and while he was going in the village, the crime vehicle tractor driven by the accused dashed

LW.5 from behind due to which he sustained fracture injuries on his left leg and later he was shifted to Govt. hospital, Kodad and to Khammam hospital and to Hyderabad for better treatment and while undergoing treatment LW.5 went into Koma, he came to know about the incident through a phone informed by his factory people on being informed by his wife, later he gave report to the police Ex.P1 is the report which contains his signature.

9. PW.2 deposed that he knows the accused, on 6.12.15 at 11.30 a.m. he got down the bus at S.M.pet and while he was going to the village, the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him from behind due to which he sustained fracture injuries on his left leg, then the accused called 108 Ambulance and shifted him to Kodad Govt. hospital, later he was shifted to Khammam and Hyderabad hospitals, his parents came to know about the incident through the owner of the crime vehicle.

10. PW.3 deposed that on 11.12.15 at 11.00 p.m. the victim K.Gopinath was admitted in their hospital who was alleged to have been met with a road accident on 6.1.2015, he found the injuries i.e. swelling and deformity on left leg and abrasion on the fore head, on being taken a C.T.scan and X-ray there was a defused brain injury found and fracture of both bones on the left leg and he opined that the said injuries on the victim are grievous in nature. Ex.P2 is wound certificate.

11. PW.4 deposed that on 10.12.2015 he received a written report from

PW.1 by stating that PW.2 has met with an accident at S.M.Pet on 6.12.15 at 12.30 p.m. the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 24H 6642 was driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and dashed PW.2 from behind, due to which he sustained injuries and he went to Kodad Government hospital on receiving a phone call, later he was shifted to Suresh hospital in Kodadm, later shifted to Khammam hospital, later shifted to Hyderabad hospital, basing on the report he registered it as a case in Cr.No.265/15 for the offence u/s. 337

IPC, Ex.P3 is FIR, he visited the scene of offence and drafted Ex.P4 rough sketch, examined PW.1 and LW.2 to LW.4 and issued Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and after obtaining personal bonds he released the accused and took photographs of the scene of offence, Ex.P5 is 2 photographs along with

CD, later he examined PW.2 after his discharge from the hospital.

12. PW.5 deposed that PW.4 has registered the case against the accused and has conducted the investigation and after verification of investigation done by PW.4 he filed the charge sheet.

13. In the cross examination PW.1 has admitted that Ex.P1 was typed by

Chillakallu police and he signed on it. In the cross examination PW.2 has admitted that he did not state before the police from where and which vehicle he got down and going towards which side and from which the crime vehicle dashed him and he did not state before the police that he can identify the accused. In the cross examination PW.3 has admitted that he issued Ex.P2 on 11.12.2015 as he is the member of the management of the hospital and the victim was admitted in their hospital on 11.12.2015 and he did not intimate to the police station about the admission of the victim in their hospital. In the cross examination PW.4 was admitted that he did not received any medico legal case intimation from any of the hospitals, Ex.P3 was registered on 10.12.2015 at 6.00 p.m. and on the same day Ex.P4 was drafted and Ex.P5 photographs were taken and he did not examine the owner of the crime vehicle, he did not seize the driving license and registration papers of the crime vehicle. In the cross examination PW.5 has admitted that PW.4 did not mention the reasons for the delay in Ex.P3 and he did not receive the medico legal case intimation from any of the hospitals.

14. PW.1 who is the defacto-complainant came to know about the incident through a phone by his factory people and later he gave report to the police.

PW.2 who is the injured person simply deposed that the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him from behind due to which he sustained fracture injuries on his left leg and the accused shifted him to Kodad Government hospital, but he did not state the registration number of the vehicle and which vehicle is the crime vehicle and more over he admitted in his cross examination that he did not state before the police that he can identify the accused. PW.3 who treated PW.2 in his cross examination admitted that he did not intimate to the police about the admission of PW.2 in their hospital which is also admitted by PW.4 and PW.5 who is the

Investigation officers that they did not receive any medico legal case intimation from any of the hospitals. PW.4 also admitted that he did not examine the owner of the crime vehicle and did not seize the driving license and registration papers of the crime vehicle. PW.4 did not deposed anything about the accused that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and because of him the offence took place. In this case the prosecution has failed to examine the other witnesses and the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor has given up the remaining witnesses by stating that no purpose will be served on examining them. In the absence of direct and circumstantial evidence, It is not safe to rely on the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

15. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 338 of IPCand he is acquitted u/s. 255(1) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer-Gr.III of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of February, 2018.

Sd/- M.A.Priyadarsini

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JAGGAYYAPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE

PW.1 – K. Srinivasa Rao - None - PW.2 – K. Gopinath PW.3 – Dr.T.Venkateswar Reddy PW.4 – D.Mangya Naik PW.5 – M.V.K.Shanmukha Sai

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 – Report of PW.1 - NIL - Ex.P2 – Wound certificate of PW.2 Ex.P3 – F.I.R. Ex.P4 – Rough sketch Ex.P5 – Two Photographs along with CD

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

- Nil –

Sd/- M.A.Priyadarsini

ADDL.JUDCL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGGAYYAPETA

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

JAGGAYYAPETA

PRESENT:- M.ANJANI PRIYADARSINI, B.A., LL.M.,

ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAYYAPETA.

Monday, dated this the 8th day of May, 2017

C.C.NO. 694 of 2014

Between:

The State – Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chillakallu Police station. … Complainant AND

Avula Brahmam S/o Konda, 30 Yrs, Yadava, Budawada village, Jaggayyapeta Mandal. Labor Contractor, Jaypee Cement factory. …. Accused

This case is coming before me for arguments on 03.05.2017 in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor representing the State/Complainant and of Sri S.Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for Accused, Upon perusal of record and upon hearing both the counsel and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chillakallu Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 216/2014 for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 332 of IPC.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

LW.1 Kopalli Pullaiah is the resident of Pedamodugupalli village and he is working as APSRTC driver. On 29.08.2014 at 8.30 a.m. while Lw.1 was going from Jaggayyapeta to Revuru village on duty in the bus bearing No. AP 11Z 4287, when he reached near Budawada village, goats were crossing the road, then he stopped his bus and after crossing the goats, he started the bus, in the meantime accused came on a bike and abused LW.1 in a filthy language un-necessary and tried to beat him as he not stopped the bus upto his motor cycle over take the bus, then LW.3 chastised the accused by pulling the stick from him. Then the accused picked up another stick and beat LW.1 on his below the left hand elbow and caused contusion injury.

3. On 29.08.2014 at 12.00 Noon basing on the report of the LW.1, LW.7

R.Nagaraju, S.I., Chillakallu P.S. registered it as a case in Cr.No. 216/2014 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324, 353 IPC and submitted the copies of FIR to all the concerned and investigated into. During the course of investigation,

LW.7 visited the scene of offence and examined the same and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence and also examined as many as LW.1 to LW.5 witnesses and recorded their statements in detail. As seen from the evidence of

LW.1 to LW.5, the section of law was altered to Sec.332 IPC. LW.7 served notice to the accused u/s. 41(A) Cr.P.C. and obtained sureties for assurance. LW.6

Medical Officer treated the LW.1 and issued wound certificate. After completion of the investigation LW.7 filed charge sheet against the accused.

4. On receipt of the charge sheet, the cognizance of the offence punishable U/Sec. 332, 324 of IPC is taken on file against the accused.

5. On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to the accused U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

6. Accused is examined u/s.239 of the Cr.P.C. and charges for the offences punishable u/s. 332, 324 IPC have been framed against the accused and read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence posted for trial.

7. The prosecution opened its case and examined Pw1 to PW.5 and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 got marked.

8. Accused is examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating evidence against him, for which accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for accused.

10. Now the point for determination is that “Whether the prosecution

has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable u/s. 332,

324 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts ?

POINT:

11. PW.1 deposed that he is a resident of Pedamodugupalli village, he is working as a driver in APSRTC Depot, JPT, nearly two years back at about 8.30 to 8.45 a.m. while he was going to Revuru from Jaggayyapeta in APSRTC bus bearing No. 4287, when the bus reached to the entrance of Budawada, one folk of sheep came across the bus, due to which he stopped the bus aside, after disperse of the sheep, the shepherd advice him to go and while he was starting the bus, in the meanwhile the accused came on a motor cycle to him by abusing in a filthy language by stating that “Lanjakodaka, you stopped the bus until the disperse of the sheep, why don’t you stop the bus until I go away” and abused him in a filthy language and took a stick from the house of the road side and beat him on his head and on his left hand, he escaped from the hands of the accused and immediately he made a phone call to the Depot Manager, at the advice of the Depot Manager, he went to the police station and gave a report to the police, Ex.P1 is the report, Police, Jaggayyapeta took him to the

Government Hospital, Jaggayyapeta and provided treatment, police examined him.

12. PW.2 deposed that he is a resident of Jaggayyapeta village, he is working as a conductor in APSRTC Depot, JPT, on 29.08.2014 while he along with PW.1 were going to Revuru from Jaggayyapeta in APSRTC bus bearing No.

4287 on service, when the bus reached to the entrance of Budawada, one folk of sheep came across the bus, due to which they stopped the bus aside, after disperse of the sheep, while PW.1 was starting the bus, in the meanwhile the accused came on a motor cycle and abused PW.1 in a filthy language by stating that “ why don’t you stop the bus until I go away” and abused him in a filthy language and beat PW.1 on his head and on his left hand, later the accused escaped from there, immediately he made a phone call to the Depot Manager, at the advice of the Depot Manager, they went to the police station and gave a report to the police, police examined him.

13. PW.3 and PW.4 are the eye witnesses to the incident. But they did not support the version of the prosecution. Hence the Learned APP sought permission from this Hon’ble Court to cross-examine the PW.3 and PW.4 and suggested that they stated before the police as per Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively and at present they are deposing false as they compromised with the accused, but PW.3 and PW.4 denied the suggestion made by the Learned

APP.

14. PW.5 is the Investigation officer in this case and he deposed that on 29.08.2014 at 12.00 Noon basing on the report of PW.1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.216/2014 for the offences u/s. 324, 353 IPC and sent original FIR to the

Court and went to scene of offence, examined PW.1 to PW.4 and LW.5

E.Venkateswara Rao and recorded their statements and he drafted rough sketch, on 30.08.2014 he served 41-A notice to the accused, after receiving wound certificate of PW.1 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Ex.P4 FIR, Ex.P5 rough sketch, Ex.P6 wound certificate.

15. PW.1 and PW.2 in their chief examination they deposed that the accused obstructed their duties and scolded in filthy language and also beat him with a stick however the PW.1 in his cross examination admitted that the accused did not came across the road and did not stop the RTC bus and also admitted that the accused did not scolded him in filthy language and further admitted that the accused did not beat him and also did not obstruct his duties whereas PW.3 who is the conductor said that he did not witness the actual occurrence of offence as the bus was crowded. PW.1 and PW.2 who are the main witnesses and who are said to be injured and victim they themselves admitted in their cross examination that the accused never beat the PW.1 and never obstruct the duties of PW.1 and PW.2. PW.3 and PW.4 who are said to be witnesses they did not support the prosecution version. The evidence of PW.5, he did not collect the duty record from PW.1 and PW.2 and also PW.1 and PW.2 themselves stated contradictorily to that of 161 Cr.P.C. statements.

16. Hence after considering the evidence of the PW.1 to PW.5 and other material available on record, this Court came to conclusion that prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences punishable u/s. 332, 324 of IPC.

17. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 332, 324 IPC and he isacquitted u/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the

Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of

Judgment u/s. 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer-Gr.III directly on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of May, 2017.

Sd/- M.A.Priyadarsini

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGGAYYAPETA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: ACCUSED:

PW.1 – Kopalli Pullaiah - None- PW.2 – Sk. Khadar Saheb PW.3 – Cherla Muthamma PW.4 – Sureshati Srinivasarao PW.5 – R.Nagaraju

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: ACCUSED:

Ex.P1 – Report of the PW.1 - Nil – Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.3 Ex.P3 – 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.4 Ex.P4 – F.I.R. Ex.P5 – Rough sketch Ex.P6 – Wound certificate

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil –

Sd/- M.A.Priyadarsini

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGGAYYAPETA

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

JAGGAYYAPETA

PRESENT:-SMT. M.ANJANI PRIYADARSINI, B.A., L.L.M.,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAYYAPETA.

FAC. ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAYYAPETA.

Wednesday, dated this the 7th day of February, 2018

C.C.NO. 9 of 2015

Between:

The State – Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaggayyapet Police Station. … Complainant

AND

Esukupalli Venkata Subrahmanyam S/o Ramasastry, 52 Yrs, Brahmin, Autonagar, Vijayawada. D.No. 15-67, Yadava bazar, Kondapalli, Driver of Bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 0470. …. Accused

This case is coming before me for arguments on 29.01.2018 in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor representing the State/Complainant and of Sri E.V.Jagannadha Rao, Advocate for Accused, Upon perusal of record and upon hearing both the counsel and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Accused is charged and tried for the offence punishable U/s.

304-A, 337 of IPC and Sec. 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 23.11.2014 at 11.30 p.m. the deceased Devisetti Ravi Kumar boarded Super Luxury bus bearing No. AP 29Z 0470 at Vijayawada autonagar depot to go to Jaggayyapeta and when the said bus reached on the Highway road opposite of Sri Venkatasai Food Plaza hotel fast food center at

Jaggayyapet at about 1.30 a.m. on 24.11.2014, the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, in view of avoiding dash against an animal on the road he dashed against the road divider, due to which the bus turned turtle and fallen in the ditch situated on the road side, the deceased died on the spot and some other passengers i.e. LW.1 to LW.3 also sustained injuries on their persons. On receipt of hospital intimation, LW.16

S.I. of Police rushed to the Government hospital, Jaggayyapeta and recorded the statement of Lw.1 and registered the same as FIR in Cr.No. 259/ 2014 for the offence u/s. 304-A, 337 of IPC , later LW.16 visited the scene of offence along with mediators LW.9 and LW.10, got drafted a scene observation report and also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, examined LW.1 to LW.8 and recorded their statements, served notice u/s. 41(A) Cr.P.C. to the accused, after receiving MVI report and Post-mortem Examination Report of the deceased and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

3.This Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A, 337 of IPC and Sec. 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act against the Accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him

U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The Prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.6 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked. Accused denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for Consideration is “Whether the prosecution has

proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A,

337 of IPC and Sec. 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act beyond all reasonable

doubts ?

8. PW.1 who is the defacto-complainant and one of the injured in this case deposed that on 23.11.2014 at zero hours he boarded APSRTC bus at

Vijayawada bus stand and after one and half hour to our journey he heard cries from the bus which was fell to one side and himself along with some other persons sustained injuries, he sustained injuries on his face and on his left shoulder, later he was shifted to Government hospital, Jaggayyapeta along with the driver of the RTC bus and the injured, one person was died in the said accident, as it was night hours he cannot identify the driver of the crime vehicle and registration number of the crime vehicle, later he was shifted to

Government hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment, he was informed by the driver of the bus that due to sudden appearance of the buffalo on the road the accident has occurred, police recorded his statement at Vijayawada hospital which contains his signature. Ex.P1 is the statement.

9. PW.2 and PW.3 are another injured persons in this case deposed that they cannot identify the driver of the crime vehicle and they cannot say the registration number of the crime vehicle and as it was night time, they cannot identify the accused and they sustained injuries in the accident.

10. PW.4 who is said to be eye witness in this case deposed that the deceased is his brother-in-law and he do not know the accused, at about two years ago when he was at Hyderabad, he came to know about the accident of the deceased and he rushed to Jaggayyapet Government hospital and found the deceased dead body, he came to know that the deceased succumbed to injuries by hitting the road divider.

11. PW.5 who is said to be eye witness in this case did not support the prosecution version and deposed that he do not know anything about this case.

As PW.5 has turned hostile, the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor in the cross examination has suggested PW.5 that he has compromised the case with the accused outside the Court in order to save the accused and he is deposing false, for which PW.5 has denied the suggestion put by the Learned Asst.

Public Prosecutor and Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5.

12. PW.6 who is Investigation officer in this case deposed that on 24.11.2014 their Head constable 1028 has recorded the statement of PW.1 who is the defacto-complainant and injured who stated that on 23.11.2014 at about 11.30 p.m. when he was coming in RTC bus bearing No. AP 29Z 0470 from

Vijayawada at about 1.30 a.m. when the bus reached Venkatasai Food plaza near Jaggayyapet, the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which the crime vehicle turned turtle and one of the passenger died and another sustained injuries, later they were shifted to Government hospital, Jaggayyapet, basing on the statement he registered a case in Cr.No.

259/2014 for the offence u/s. 337, 304-A IPC, Ex.P3 is FIR, then he visited the scene of offence, drafted Ex.P4 rough sketch, visited the Government hospital,

Jaggayyapet, examined LW.1 to LW.8, conducted inquest to the deceased dead body in the presence of the mediators, sent the crime vehicle for inspection to

Motor Vehicle Inspector, on 24.11.2014 after obtaining personal bonds he released the accused, after receiving Ex.P6 Post-mortem Examination report of the deceased, wound certificates of LW.1 to PW.3 i.e. Ex.P7 to Ex.P9 and

Ex.P10 MVI report and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet.

13. In the cross examination PW.1 has admitted that Ex.P1 was recorded by the police on his dictation but he do not know the contents of Ex.P1. In the cross examination PW.6 has admitted that as per Ex.P4 the scene of offence is a National High way consists of road divider in between and there is a road divider on the right side when the crime vehicle was going towards Hyderabad, as per Ex.P4 the crime vehicle turned turtle towards left side and denied that the accused is now way concerned with this offence.

14. PW.1 to PW.3 who are the injured persons in this case deposed that they cannot identify the driver of the crime vehicle and registration number of the crime vehicle and also failed to identify the accused. PW.4 and PW.5 who are said to be eye witnesses in this case did not support the version of the prosecution. PW.6 who is the Investigation officer did not deposed anything about the accused that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and because of him the offence took place. In this case the prosecution has failed to examine the Inquest panchayatdars and other witnesses and the Learned Asst.

Public Prosecutor has given up the remaining witnesses by stating that no purpose will be served on examining them. In the absence of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence, It is not safe to rely on the evidence of PW.1 to

PW.6. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

13. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 304-A, 337 of IPCand Sec. 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and he is acquitted u/s. 255(1) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer-Gr.III of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of February, 2018.

Sd/- M.A.Priyadarsini

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JAGGAYYAPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE PW.1 – Chejerla Sudhakar - None - PW.2 – Pendem Rohit Babu PW.3 – Yerramilli Jayalakshmi PW.4 – Pilla Sudhakar PW.5 – Pallapu Narayana PW.6 – M.V.K.Shanmukha Sai

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 – Statement of PW.1 - NIL - Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.5 Ex.P3 – F.I.R. Ex.P4 – Rough sketch Ex.P5 – Inquest report Ex.P6 – Post-mortem Examination report Ex.P7 – Wound certificate of PW.1 Ex.P8 – Wound certificate of PW.2 Ex.P9 – Wound certificate of PW.3 Ex.P10 – M.V.I. report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

- Nil –

Sd/- M.A.Priyadarsini

ADDL.JUDCL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGGAYYAPETA