Sri M.Bujjappa JFCM, Proh. and Excise

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition & Excise Cases, Anantapur.

Present:- Sri. M. Bujjappa, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition and Excise cases, Ananthapuram

Wednesday, the 26 th day of April, 2017

C.C.NO.59/2016

Between:-

State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu Rural Police Station …Complainant.

AND

V. Subbarayudu, aged 25 years s/o V. Naganna, Kamireddypalli village, Dharmavaram mandal, driver of the auto bearing No.AP02-U-7791.

…Accused.

This case was come on 19-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri

B. Nagalingam and Sri M.N. Swamy, Advocates for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

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

1)The Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 166/2012 for the offences punishable Under section 337, 304-A IPC, Sec, 196 r/w 146 and sec. 134 (a)

(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act.

2)The brief contents of the charge sheet is as follows:

On 08-12-2012 morning Pw.3, Pw.4, Pw.5, Pw.8, H. Nallappa,

M. Narasimhulu and H. Narasimhulu and the deceased left their village

B. Yaleru village to Anantapuramu for attending labour work in an auto bearing No.AP02-U-7791 and on the way to Anantapur, the auto driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed near Alamuru village 2 on Anantapuramu – Tagarakunta road, Anantapruamu Rural mandal, the acused lost his control over the speed of the auto as a result of which the auto turned turtle and the deceased and Pw.3, Pw.4, Pw.5, Pw.8, H.

Nallappa, M. Narasimhulu and H. Narasimhulu fell down and sustained injuries. All the injured were shifted to Government General Hospital,

Anantapuramu where the duty doctor examined the deceased and declared dead. Basing on the complaint of Pw.1, the present case was registered in the above crime number for the above said offence. On 27-12-2012 accused was arrested and sent for judicial custody for remand. The accused did not provide medical aid to victims and fled away from the scene of offence. The accused did not possess any valid insurance to crime vehicle. The Medical

Officer who treated the Pw.3, Pw.4, Pw.5, Pw.8, H. Nallappa, M. Narasimhulu and H. Narasimhulu and deceased and issued certificates opining that they sustaiend simple injuries. The Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehcile and issued report stating that the accident not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle. The Medical Officer who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased issued Postmortem report stating that the deceased died due to traumatic transaction of the spinal cord at the leverl of C.3 and C.4. The owner of the crime vehcie was imposed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Thus, accused has committed an offence punishable Under section 337, 304-A IPC, Sec, 196 r/w 146 and sec. 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act. Hence, the charge.

3)The cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence under section 337, 304-A IPC, Sec, 196 r/w 146 and sec. 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of

M.V.Act. by the learned AJFCM, Anantapuramu and numbered as

C.C.925/2014

4)On appearance of the accused, all relevant case records were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

3

5)During the course of examination, as per the orders of the Hon'ble

District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu the case was transferred to this court and it was renumbered as CC. 59/2016.

6)The accused was examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against you for the offence Under section 337, 304-A IPC, Sec, 196 r/w 146 and sec. 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act as per the charge sheet and the same was read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

7)The prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Exs.P1 to

Ex.P9 on its behalf. On the other hand, defence never led any kind of evidence except depending upon the loopholes of the prosecution.

8)After closure of prosecution evidence, examination U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material found against him from the evidence of prosecution.

9. Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that Pw.1 and

Pw.2 though they are not the eyewitnesses to the incidenent they were examiend but they failed to state who is responsible for the incident in which the deceased Salappa died with injuries that sustained in road traffic accident nearby Alamuru village. She further argued that as Pw.1 disowned the very preference of the complaint, she examined Lw.7 as Pw.4 Lw.6 as Pw.3, Lw.10 as Pw.5 Lw.11 as

Pw.7, Lw.12 as Pw.6, Lw.9 as Pw.8 who are said to be injured and eyewitnesses to the incident who all depsoed in one voice that they never met with accident and they never seen the deceasd died in the 4 road traffic accident, as such left with no option she has given up remaining all witnesses and prays the court to pass the judgment on merits.

11). On the other hand, the defence counsel argued that Pw.1 and Pw.2 are not eyewitnesses to the incient and Pw.1 disowned the very preference of the complaint. Though the Assistant Public

Prosecutor examined Pw.3 to Pw.8 but they faield to state about the incident i.e., involvement of the accused, involvement of the crime vehicle and rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle, since the Assistant Public Prosecuotr has given up remaining all witnesses absolutely there is no evidence on the record to connect with the accused with the crime and prays the court to acquit the accused.

12).Heard arguments of both sides and perused the records.

13). Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution able to bring home the guilt of

accused for the offences punishable Under section 337, 304-A IPC,

Sec, 196 r/w 146 and sec. 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act beyond all

reasonable doubts?

POINT:

14. It is the crux of the case of the prosecuton is that Pw.3, Pw.4,

Pw.5, Pw.8, H. Nallappa, M. Narasimhulu and H. Narasimhulu and the deceased Salappa on 8-12-2012 during morning hours boarded in an auto bearing No. AP02-U-7791 driven by the accused to go to Anantapuramu for attending for labour work and accordingly they left their vilage in order to go to Anantapuramu and the said auto driven by the acucsed when it reached near Alamuru village on Anantapuramu - Thagarakunta road, the accused drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over it due to speed as a result the auto turned turtle and deceased and Pw.3, 5 Pw.4, Pw.5, Pw.8, H. Nallappa, M. Narasimhulu and H. Narasimhulu fell down and sustained injuries. On coming to know about the occurrence ,

Pw.1, Pw.2 and M. Ramanjinamma rushed to the spot and they shifted all the injured to government general hospital, Anantapuramu and the Duty doctor at Government General Hospital, Anantapuramu examined the deceased and declared the deceased brought dead. This is the case of the prosecution.

15. In order to establish the death of the deceased, injuries sustained by the Pw.3, Pw.4, Pw.5, Pw.8, H. Nallappa, M. Narasimhulu and

H. Narasimhulu, identification of the crime vehicel and identification of the acused is driver to the crime vehicle and to pove rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle, the prosecution invariably adduce clear, cogent and convincing evidence. But Pw.1 who set the criminal law into motion chosen to be examined as Pw.1. According to him, the deceased

Salappa was his father and he died in a road traffic accident that occurred nearby Alamuru village about 4 years back and at the time of incident, he was present in his village and upon knowing the incident, he rushed to the

Government General Hospital, Anantapuramu and there he saw his father with injuries who had already died. He further deposed that he did not inquire and also details of the crime vehicle, driver of the crime vehicle and at whose necligence the incident was happened and he never preferred the complaint agaisnt the incident and he was not at all examined by the police. Further he claimed signature on the complaint only by denying the contents of complaints, as such his signature alone marked as Ex.P.1. After considering the evidence of Pw.1 in chief the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor felt that Pw.1 resiled from the previous satement before the police and sought permission of the court to examine the Pw.1 by way of cross and upon permission though she tried to elicite the facts from the mouth of Pw.1 but efforts of Assistant Public Prosecutor went in vain as 6 nothing was elicited. It is very clear from the evidence of Pw.1 that he is not only ocular witness to the incident but also disowned the very preference of the complaint and evidence of Pw.1 is a big blow to the case of the prosecution at initial stage itself and it can be termed that the cae of the prosecution derailed its plot form at initial stage itself. Inthe similar lines of

Pw.1 , M. Pullakka who is the wife of the deceasd examined as Pw.2 and she deposed in the same lines of Pw.1 stating that at the time of incident she was present at her village and upon knowing only she went to Government

Genaral Hospital, there she saw the dead body of the deceased and claimed that she was not at all examined by the prosecution. She too treated by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as witness resiled from earlier statment made before the police and at request though permission was accorded to cross examine Pw.2 by the Assisant Public Prosecutr but efforts of Assistant Public Prosecutor in eliciting the facts went in vain. So the evidence of Pw.2 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution and evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 can be taken into consideration to the extent of proving the death of the deceased with such injuries that sustained in a road traffic accident near Alamur village. The prosecuiotn chosen to examine eyewitnesses Lw.6 as Pw.3 Lw.7 as Pw.4 , Lw.9 as Pw.8 Lw.10 as

Pw.5, Lw.11 as Pw.7 and Lw.12 as Pw.6 they are inmates of the auto who traveled along with the deceased on the date of incident they in one voice deposed that they do not kow the reasons for the death of deceased

Salappa and they never witnessed any incident and they never met with accident and they do not know the facts of the case and even they further deposed that they are not at all examined by the police.

16. After considering their evidence in chief at their respective examination, the learned Assistnat Public Prosecutor treated them as witness resiled from the previous statement and with the permission of the court tried to elicit the facts from their mouth but efforts of Assistant Public 7 Prosecutor went in vain. It is very clear from the evidence of Pw.3 to Pw.8 that they never spoken any incriminating word agaisnt the accused and even though never stated that they saw the incident and they sustaiend injuries in the road traffic accident. When the crucial witnesses Pw.3 to Pw.8 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor felt that it is sheer wast of time in examining remaining witnesses as such prosecution has given up remaining witneses. From the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.8 one can gather from their evidence that they can able to say about the death of the deceased with injuies that sustained in road traffic accident but they failed to state about which vehicle was involved, who is responsible for the incident and who was driver to the crime vehicel and whether there was a rash and negligent act present on the part of the driver of the crime vheicle.

17. Viewed from any angle, prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused, hence the accused certainly deserves for acquittal.

18). In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section Under section 337, 304-A IPC, Sec, 196 r/w 146 and sec. 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act. and the accused is acquitted U/S 255 (1) Cr.P.C. bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months of pronouncing this judgement as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non valuable case property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in open

court, this the 26th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- M. Bujjappa,

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anatapuramu.

8

A ppendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1 :M. Nallappa Nil PW2 : M. Pullakka. PW3 : M. Nagalakshmi Pw.4. Pothulaiah Pw.5. M. viswanath. Pw.6 M. Narasimhulu. Pw.7 Narasimhulu Pw.8 M. Kullayappa.

Exhibits marked for prosecution. Defence

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 in the complaint. Nil Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw1. Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw2. Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw3. Ex.P.5. 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw4. Ex.P.6 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw5. Ex.P.7 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw.6. Ex.P.8 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw7 Ex.P.9 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw8. Mos marked on behalf of

Prosecution Defence Nil Nil

Sd/- M. Bujjappa

SJFCM // True copy//

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Proh. & Excise cases, Anantapuram.

9

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR PROHITION AND EXCISE CASES, ANANTAPURAMU

Date of Report or Apprehensi Released Commence Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint on of on bail ment of trial Order

accused trial

08-12-201208-12-201227-12-201227-12-201206-04-201719-04-201726-04-2017

Calendar and Judgement in CC.No. 59/2016 on the file of Special Judicial

First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

Complainant : Inspector, Anantapuramu Rural P.S.,

Cr.No.166/2012 Name of the accused. V. Subbarayudu, aged 25 years s/o V. Naganna, Kamireddypalli village, Dharmavaram mandal, driver of the auto bearing No.AP02-U-7791.

Offence :-Under section 337, 304-A IPC, Sec, 196 r/w 146 and sec. 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act.

Finding :- Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:-In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section Under section 337, 304-A IPC, Sec, 196 r/w 146 and sec. 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act. and the accused is acquitted U/S 255 (1) Cr.P.C. bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months of pronouncing this judgement as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non valuable case property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

Present:- Sri. M. Bujjappa, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition and Excise cases, Ananthapuramu

Thursday, the 27 th day of April, 2017

C.C.NO.438/2016

Between:-

State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu I Town Police Station …

Complainant.

AND

K.Y. Prasad, age 34 years s/o Late K.Chinnappa, D.No. 19/826, Rani Nagar, Anantapuramu.

…Accused.

This case was come on 21-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri

J. Raja Reddy, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

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

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu I Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.279/2014 for the offences punishable Under section 353 IPC.

2)The brief contents of the charge sheet is as follows:

On 31-07-2014 Pw.1 proceeded to Rani Nagar for collectionof pending electricity bills along with Pw.2 and Pw.3, while collecting bills they reached the house of accused who has got electricity service connections bearing No. HSC No. 102761 and HSC No. 111288 and there is due amount

Rs.1146/- and Rs. 410/- respectively where they informed about the pending bills to the wife of the accused which were pending since 4 months 2 and also on their job they disconnected the electricity services of accused for non payment of bills. While proceeding to attend their work at other services, in the mean time the accused came there and picked up arguments with Pw.1 by questioning that why their services were disconnected without informing and also scolded with Pw.1 by deterring his legitimate duties of Pw.1 to Pw.3 while collecting the pending bills and abused Pw.1 to Pw.3 by using filthy language. The same was witnessed by the Shaik Mahammad Rafi and Shaik Maharaj Hussain. The present case was registered in the above crime number for the above said offence. Thus, accused has committed an offence punishable Under section 353 IPC.

Hence, the charge.

3)The cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence under section 353 IPC by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Anantapuramu and numbered as C.C.998/2014.

4)On appearance of the accused, all relevant case records were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

5)During the course of examination, as per the orders of the Hon'ble

District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu the case was transferred to this court and it was renumbered as CC. 438/2016.

6)The accused was examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against you for the offence Under section 353 IPC as per the charge sheet and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

7)The prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Exs.P1 to

Ex.P4 on its behalf. On the other hand, defence never led any kind of 3 evidence except depending upon the loopholes of the prosecution.

8)After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence available from the evidence of proseuciton witnesses for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that though Pw.1 and Pw.2 failed to identify the accused but their evidence reveals that on 31-07-2014 at 10.30 a.m when they visited the hosue of K.Y. Prasad i.e., the hosue of the accused to disconnect the service of connection on account of non payment of electricity bill and after completion of disconnection while they were moving aside the said K.Y. Prasad obstructed them while discharging the duties by questioning them and thrashed the Pw.1 and Pw.2 and thereby he obstructed the Pw.1 and Pw.2 in discharging their legitimate duties and thus evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 sufficie to hold the guilt of the acucsed. She further argued that though Pw.3, Pw.4 Pw.5 did not support the case of the prosecution, she has given up the remaining witnesses and absolutely the evidence of Pw.1 is sufficie to hold the guilt of the accused and prays the court to convict the accused.

10. On the other hand, the defence counsel argued that Pw.1 and Pw.2 is not sure about identification of the acused as K.Y. Prasad and further more there was no document furnished by the Pw.1 and pw.2 that they were on duty to claim that they are discharging the legitimate duties and viewed from any angle the evidene of Pw.1 and pw.2 not inspiring and as Pw.3 to Pw.5 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and as the Assistnt Public Prosecuotr has given up remaining witnesses absolutely there is a lack of corroboration to the 4 evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 and prays the court to acquit the accused.

11.Heard arguments of both sides and perused the records.

12). Now the point that arises for determination is:

1. Whether the Prosecution able to prove that while Pw.1 and

Pw.2 while discharging their legitimate duties, the accused

obstructed and used criminal force agaisnt Pw.1 and Pw.2?

2. Whether the prosecuiton bring home the guilt of accused

for the offence punishable Under section 353 IPC beyond all

reasonable doubts?

13. POINT No.1 and 2:

It is the crux of the case of the prosecution is that on 13-07- 2014 Pw.1 went to Rani Nagar for collection of pending electricity bills and while collecting the bills Pw.1, Pw.2 and Pw.3 reached to the hosue of acused K.Y. Prasad who has got two electricity connections bearing No.

HSC 111288 and 102761 which are having dues of Rs. 1,146/- and 410/- respectively. It is further case of the prosecution that Pw.1 to Pw.3 informed about the pending bills to the wife of acucsed stating there are pending bills since 4 months and informed that they are going to disconnect electricity service connection for non payment of bills and while they were attending their work at other services in the mean time accused came and picked up quarrel with Pw.1 by questioning him why their services were disconnected without informing and scloded Pw.1 and thereby caused hindrance to the discharge of duties of Pw.1 to Pw.3. This is the case of the prosecuiton.

14.In order to establish the case of the prosecuiton, the prosecution chosen to examine the Lw.1 who is chosen to be examined as Pw.1 and Lw.2 chosen to be examined as Pw.2. They are line man and Junior line man respectively and they in one voice deposed that on 31-07-2014 at 10.30 a.m while themselves and Pw.3 5 went to Rani Nagar, for disconnecting service connections due to non payment of electricity bills and around 10 a.m they went to the hosue of K.Y. Prasad on noticing the non payment of two electricity bills with regard to service connection of the said K.V. Prasad hosue and after disconnectin of the suppply to the said house and when they reached next hosue adjacent to the K.Y. Prasad house, in the meanwhile two persons rushed there and questioned who ordered them to disconnect service and so saying abused them in filthy language and thrashed and thereby they obstructed in performing their legitimate duties. Pw.1 further deposed subsequently he preferred complaint before one town Police station which Ex.P.1.

When the chief examiantion of Pw.1 further carefully perused in the chief itself Pw.1 and Pw.2 stated that they cannot identify the accused present in the court. After considering the evidence of Pw.1 and

Pw.2 in chief the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor felt that they are reconciling previous statements made before the police on such assumption with the persmission of the court treated the witnesses as hostile witness and tried to elicit the fact from their mouth but efforts of Assistant Public Prosecutor gone in vain as nothing was elicited contrarily. It is very clear from the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 they faied to make identification of the accused as K.Y. Prasad . More over if the evidence in chief of Pw.1 and Pw.2 keenly perused, it shows after they disconnected service connection to K.Y. Prasad, two other persons rushed and questioned and thrashed them. The involvement of the another person when stated for the first time in the chief examination then the story of the prosecution need to be scrutinised with the great care and caution. Further more during the course of cross examiantion of Pw.1 and Pw.2, they admitted that they have not filed any docuemtns in the court orelse furnished to the 6 police to show that on 31-07-2010 the Pw.1 and Pw.2 were on duty and thus it is absolutely a lacuna on the case of the prosecution.

From the oral claiming or mere claiming that they are on duty is not suffice, and they must show that being a line man they were on duty on the said date of incident but the prosecution not placed any evidence to show that Pw.1 and Pw.2 and Pw.3 on duty. More over

Lw.3 though examiend as Pw.3, he stated that at no point of time nobody obstructed himself and Pw1 from discharging their duties and he was not at all examined by the police. Hence the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 lack of coroboration. Though Pw.3 was treated by the

Assistant Pulic Prosecutor as a witness resailed from the previous statement and with the permission of the court tried to elicit the fact from the mouth of Pw.3 but efforts of Assistant Public Prosecuotr gone in vain. In a similar way of Pw.3, Pw.4 and Pw.5 deposed that they never witnessed the accused obstructing any officials of power office from discharging their legitimate duties and they do not know the facts of the case and they were not at all examiend by the police.

After considering their evidence in chief the learned Assistant Public

Prosecuotr felt that they resiled previous statements made before the police and tried to elicit the facts with the permission of the court but efforts of Assistant Public Prosecutor gone in vain as nothing was stated by Pw.4 and Pw.5 contrary to their chief examiantion.

15. Viewed from any angle the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 though reveal about the manner of incident but fails to reveal that while they were on duty the accused obstruted their legitimate duties in discharging and accused obstructed them and more over Pw.3 to Pw.5 did not support the case of the prosecution apart from that the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor after considering the Pw.1 to Pw.5 evidence given up remaining witnesses examination and it is also 7 factor in not inspiring the court confidence to hold the guilt of the accued.

16. Viewed from any angle the proseuciotn miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Viewed from any angle the prosecution miserably faied to prove the guilt of the accused, hence the accused certainly deserves for acquittal.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section Under section 353 IPC and the accused is acquitted U/S 255 (1) Cr.P.C. bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months of pronouncing this judgement as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in open

court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- M. Bujjappa,

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anatapuramu. A ppendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1 : D. Venkata Ramana Nil PW2 : Manchi Neelakanta. PW3 : A. Amarnath Pw.4. Shaik Mahaboob Rafiq Pw.5. S. Meharaj Hussain.

Exhibits marked for prosecution. Defence

Ex.P1 : Complaint. Nil Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw3. Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw4. Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw5.

Mos marked on behalf of

Prosecution Defence Nil Nil

Sd/- M. Bujjappa,

SJFCM 8 // True copy//

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Poh. & Excise cases, Anantapuramu.

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR PROHITION AND EXCISE CASES, ANANTAPURAMU

Date of Report or Apprehensi Released Commence Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint on of on bail ment of trial Order

accused trial

31-07-201431-07-201401-08-201401-08-201408-12-201613-04-201727-04-2017

Calendar and Judgement in CC.No. 438/2016 on the file of Special Judicial

First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

Complainant : Sub Inspector, Anantapuramu Anantapuramu I Town P.S.,

Cr.No. 279/2014 Name of the accused. K.Y. Prasad, age 34 years s/o Late K.Chinnappa, D.No. 19/826, Rani Nagar, Anantapuramu.

Offence :-Under section 353 IPC.

Finding :- Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:-In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section Under section 353 IPC and the accused is acquitted U/S 255 (1) Cr.P.C. bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months of pronouncing this judgement as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non valuable case property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition & Excise Cases, Anantapur.

Present:- Sri. M. Bujjappa, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition and Excise cases, Ananthapuram

Friday, the 28 th day of April, 2017

C.C.NO.179/2016

Between:-

State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station, Anantapuramu …Complainant.

AND

S. Masthan Vali, aged 34 years s/o Lalu Sab, native of Chakrayapeta village and mandal, Pulivendula taluk of Kadapa District now resident of post office line, Vempalli village and mandal of Kadapa District driver of Tipper lorry No. AP04-Y- 8759.

…Accused.

This case was come on 27-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri

B. Prakash Reddy, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

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

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station, Anantapuramu filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 85/2014 for the offences punishable Under section 304-A IPC, Sec. 134 (a), (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act.

2)The brief contents of the charge sheet is as follows:

On 05-10-2014 night at about 8.30 p.m the deceased went to collector office on his personal work and in return journey on collector office- Sangamesh circle road by two wheeler and in the meantime at 9 a.m the accused being driver of the of the Tipper Lorry No. AP04-Y-8759 came on his opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent 2 manner and dashed the two wheeler, resulting Kranthi Kumar fell down and sustained bleeding injuries and died on the spot. The present case was registered in the above crime number for the above said offence. On 08-10-2014 accused himself surendered in the police station. Later the accused was arrested and released on bail. After the accident, the accused failed to provide medical aid to the deceased when she is alive and failed to intimate the accident information to nearby police station, hence sec. 134

(a) (b) of M.V. Act was added to Sec. 304 A IPC, Sec. 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of

M.V. Act. Thus, accused has committed an offence punishable Under section 304-A IPC, Sec. 134 (a), (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act. Hence, the charge.

3)The cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence Under section 304-A IPC, Sec. 134 (a), (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act by the learned

AJFCM, Ananthapuramu and numbered as C.C.925/2014

4)On appearance of the accused, all relevant case records were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

5)During the course of examination, as per the orders of the Hon'ble

District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu the case was transferred to this court and it was renumbered as CC. 179/2016.

6)The accused was examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against you for the offence Under section 304-A IPC, Sec. 134 (a), (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act as per the charge sheet and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

7)The prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to

Ex.P4 on its behalf. On the other hand, defence never led any kind of 3 evidence except depending upon the loopholes of the prosecution.

8)After closure of prosecution evidence, examination U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material found against him from the evidence of prosecution.

9. Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

10. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that Pw.1 who set the criminal law into motion disowned the very preference of the complaint and more over he is not eyewitness to the incident and though the prosecution examiend Lw.4 and Lw.5 as Pw.3 and Pw.2 respectively who are said to be eyewitnesses to the incident. They too turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and thus there is no direct evidence available for the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime as such given up remaining witnesses and prays the court to pass the judgments on merits.

11. On the other hand, the defence counsel argued that Pw.1 is not an eyewitness tothe incident and more over he disclaimed the preference of the very complaint given to the police and while that is so though the prosecution examined Pw.2 and Pw.3 but they faield to narrate about the incident and fails to make identification of the acused and inview of the remaining witnesses given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor absolutely there is no evidence on the record to connect the accused with the crime and prays the court to acquit the accused.

12).Heard arguments of both sides and perused the records.

13). Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution able to bring home the guilt of

accused for the offences punishable Under section 304-A IPC, Sec.

134 (a), (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

4

14. POINT:

It is the crux of the case of the prosecution is that on 5-10-2014 around 8.30 p.m the deceased after taking the meal went to collector office on his personal work and after meeting some persons, he resumed his journey to return back to his home and in the mean thile near the collector office Sangameswara circle road when the deceased moving around at 9 a.m the accused S.Masthan vali

Kadapa district drove the Tipper bearing No.AP04-Y-8759 in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased as a result the deceased fell and then the said crime vehcie lorry ran over on the head of the deceased which resulted instantaneous death of the deceased Kranthi Kumar and the incident was witnessed by the Pw.4 and Pw.5. This is the case of the prosecution.

15. In order to estabish the death of the deceased, rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle involvement of the crime vehicle and involvement of the accused as a driver to the crime vehicle, the prosecution invariably adduce clear, cogent and convincing evidence but the prosecuiton though examined the mother of the deceased Jayamma who arrayed Lw.1 examiend as Pw.1. According to the Pw.1 at the time of incident she was present at her hosue and upon information given by somebody she rushed to the government general hospital, Anantapramu and found the deceased also succumbed to injuries and she did not enquir the details of the crime vehicle, driver of the crime vehicle as well as at whos negligency the incident happened. More over she never preferred complaint agaisnt the incident. The police obtained her signature on some written papers as such she does not know the contents of the complaint. Her 5 signature marked on 6-10-2014. Further she deposed that she was not at all examined by the police. After considering the evidence of

Pw.1 in chief, she resiled from the statement made to police and with the permission of the court tried to cross examine the witness to elicit the facts but efforts of Assistant Public Prosecutor gone in vain. It is very clear from the evidence of Pw.1 that she disowned the very preference of the complaint which is severe blow to the very case of the prosecution. Apart from that her evidence projects she is not an eyewitness to the incident yet her evidence can be taken into consideration to the extent of proving the death of the deceased with injuries that sustaiend in a road traffic accident sicne Pw.1 was not cross examined on the aspect of the death of the deceased.

16. When the evidence of Pw.1 stood like that the proseuciton chose to examine Lw.5 G.sekhar as Pw.2, Lw.4 P. Noorjahan as Pw.3 they are said to be eyewitnesses to the incident. They in one voice deposed that they do not know the deceased and they never witnessed the accident in which any person met with or accident. They do not know other facts of the case and they are not at all examined by the police. They too treated by the learned Assistannt Public Prosecutor, after considering their evidence in chief as witnesses resiled from the previous statements made before the police and upon permission of the court though tried to elicit the facts from their mouth in the cross examiantion by the Assistant Public Prosecutor but efforts of Assistant

Public Prosecutor completely gone in vain. It is very clear from the evidence of Pw.2 and Pw.3 that though they are arrayed as eyewitnesses to the incident but failed to state about the incident and fails to identify the accused and more over they never spoken about the involvement of the crime vehicle and manner of the incident. After considering the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.3, the learned Assistant Public 6 Prosecutor has given up remaining witnesses which move perhaps is acceptable sicne Pw.1 disonwed the very prefernce of the complaint and Pw.2 and Pw.3 failed to narate about the incident .

17. Viewed from any angle, prosecution not able to establish the involvement of the accused as driver of the crime vehicle and fails to prove rash and negligent act and involvement of the crime vehicle and thus the acused certainly deserves for acquittal.

18). In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section Under section 304-A IPC, Sec. 134

(a), (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and the accused is acquitted U/S 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months of pronouncing this judgement as per the provisions of Section 437-A

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open

court, this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- M. Bujjappa,

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anatapuramu. A ppendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1 :Jayamma Nil PW2 : G. Sekar. PW3 : P. Noorjahan

Exhibits marked for prosecution. Defence

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 in the complaint. Nil Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw1. Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw2. Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw3.

Mos marked on behalf of

Prosecution Defence Nil Nil

Sd/- M. Bujjappa,

// True copy// SJFCM

7

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class for Proh. & Excise Cases,Anantapuramu.

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR PROHITION AND EXCISE CASES, ANANTAPURAMU

Date of Report or Apprehensi Released Commence Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint on of on bail ment of trial Order

accused trial

05-10-201406-10-201408-10-201408-10-201421-04-201727-04-201728-04-2017

Calendar and Judgement in CC.No. 179/2016 on the file of Special Judicial

First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

Complainant :Sub Inspector of Police, Traffic P.S.,Anantapuramu.

Cr.No.85/2014 Name of the accused. S. Masthan Vali, aged 34 years s/o Lalu Sab, native of Chakrayapeta village and mandal, Pulivendula taluk of Kadapa District now resident of post office line, Vempalli village and mandal of Kadapa Distict driver of Tipper lorry No. AP04-Y-8759.

Offence :-Under section 304-A IPC, Sec. 134 (a), (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act

Finding :- Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section Under section 304-A IPC, Sec. 134

(a), (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and the accused is acquitted U/S 255 (1) Cr.P.C. bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months of pronouncing this judgement as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition & Excise Cases, Anantapur.

Present:- Sri. M. Bujjappa, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition and Excise cases, Ananthapuram

Friday, the 28 th day of April, 2017

C.C.NO.79/2016

Between:-

State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu Rural Police Station. …Complainant.

AND

Maddili Shivalingamaiah, age 21 years s/o Ramamurthy, Katiganikaluva village, Ajantapuramu rural mandal, driver of auto bearing No. AP02-W-3989.

…Accused.

This case was come on 27-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri

G. Sreekanth Reddy, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

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

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu Rural Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 37/2013 for the offences punishable Under section 304-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 r/w 181, Sec. 134 (a)

(b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act.

2)The brief contents of the charge sheet is as follows:

On 25-03-2013 at about 8 p.m while the deceased was crossing

Anantapuramu - Bellary road, Rachanapalli village near culvert No. 7/2 the accused being driver of auto No. AP02-W-3989 drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without taking proper precautionary measures dashed against the decesed as a result she fell down and sustaiend severe bleeding injuries on her person and died on the spot. After the accident, the driver of the crime vehicle fled away from the spot leaving the vehicle. The present case was registered in the above crime number for the above said offence. On 14-05-2013 accused was arrested and sent for remand. The Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased issued postmortem report stating that the deceased died due to cranio cerebral injury. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the crime vehicle No. Ap02-W- 3989, issued opinion that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Thus, accused has committed an offence punishable Under section 304-A IPC and

Sec. 3 & 4 r/w 181, Sec. 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act. Hence, the charge.

3)The cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence Under section 304-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 r/w 181, Sec. 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V.

Act. by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu and numbered as C.C.925/2014

4)On appearance of the accused, all relevant case records were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

5)During the course of examination, as per the orders of the Hon'ble

District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu the case was transferred to this court and it was renumbered as CC. 79/2016.

6)The accused was examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against you for the offence Under section 304-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 r/w 181, Sec. 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act as per the charge sheet and the same was read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

7)The prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Exs.P1 to

Ex.P5 on its behalf. On the other hand, defence never led any kind of evidence except depending upon the loopholes of the prosecution.

8)After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined U/sec.

313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecuiton witnesses for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

10.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that though

Pw.1 stated about his giving complaint after receipt of information from Pw.2 on 25-03-2013 disclosing the vehicle hitting the unsound mind person at Rachanapalli village cross and after that his visiting to the said place noticed the dead body of the said woman and presence of crime vehicle but he fails to make identification of the accused hence though she examined Pw.2, Pw.3, Pw.4 ,Pw.5 as eyewitness to the incident but when they turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and never made identification of the accused and never narrated about the incident hence she has given up all remaining witnesses and prays the court to pass the judgment on merits.

11. On the other hand, the defence counsel argued that though

Pw.1 claimed that he preferred a report under Ex.P.1 agaisnt the incident but he is not eyewitenss to the incident and the aleged eyewiteness i.e., Pw.2 when turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and remaining witnesses Pw.3 to Pw.5 also when turned hostile to the case of the prosecution absolutely there is no evidence on the record to establish the involvement of the accused and thus the accused certainly deserves for acquittal and prays the court to acquit the accused.

12).Heard arguments of both sides and perused the records.

13). Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution able to bring home the guilt of

accused for the offences punishable Under section 304-A IPC and

Sec. 3 & 4 r/w 181, Sec. 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act beyond all

reasonable doubts?

POINT:

14.It is the crux of the case of the prosecuton is that on 25-03- 2013 at 8 p.m while the deceased Chandramma resident of Vaddupalli village, Atmakur mandal who is mentally disordered person and also aged woman and whle she was crossing Anantapuramu Bellary road near Rachanapalli culvert , in the mean while the accused being the driver of the auto bearing No. AP02-W 3989 drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the deceased as a result the deceased fell down and sustained bleeding injuries on her person and died on the spot . This is the case of the prosecution.

15. Inorder to establish the death of the deceased, involvement of the crime vehcile, establishing rash and negligent act and establising the identity of the accused as driver to the crime vehcile, the prosecution must adduce clear, cogent and convincing evidence but the proseuciton though examined as Lw.1 who set the criminal law into motion as Pw.1 but Pw.1 evidence shows that on 25-3-2013 upon receipt of calling from Pw.2 who narrated about the unsound old aged woman met with acident near Rachanapalli cross road while she was crossing the road, immediately upon knowing the said information, he went and seen the dead body of the decesed and also noticed presence of crime vehicle but the same is not supported by

Pw.2 as Pw.2 deposed that he never witnesed any accident in which any person met with accident and does not know any facts of the case and he was not at all examined by the police. Pw.1 evidence lacks of corroboration since it is the case of the prosecution that Pw.1 knows about the incident through Pw.2 but Pw.2 disowned such passing of information to Pw.1. So there is no believability with regard to evidence of Pw.1 though he set the criminal law into motion. More over the evidence of Pw.1 reveals that on enquiry, he learned that the incident was happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle but he never stated that the accused is driver to the crime vehicle at the time of incident. In order to establish the rash and negligent act, Pw.1 evidence is not sufficient since he is not an eyewitness to the incident. Thoguh Pw.2 to Pw.5 were examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as eyewitness to the incident but they in one voice stated that they do not know anything about the case and they never witnessed the incident in which any person met with death or acident. At the time of their chief examiantion, the learned Asssistant Public Prosecutor treated the witness resiled the previous statement made before the police and with the permission of the court tried to cross examine them to elicit the facts but the efforts of Assistant Public Prosecutor completely gone in vain as Pw.2 to Pw.5 never spoken anything agaisnt their chief examiantion. After considering the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.5 the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up remaining all witnesses assuming that it is sheer waste of time in examining them and such move is absolutely acceptable. It is clear from the evidence of Pw.1 that the prosecution is able to establish the death of the deceased with injuries that sustaiend in road traffic accident near

Rachanapalli cross but fails to establish the identity of the accused rash and negligent act of the acused and more over when evidence of

Pw.1 lacks corroboration from the evidence of Pw.2 to Pw.5 and as

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up remaining all witnesses absolutely there is no evidence on the record to connect the accused with the crime, hence the accused certainly deserves for acquittal.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section Under section 304-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 r/w 181, Sec. 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act and the accused is acquitted

U/S 255 (1) Cr.P.C. bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months of pronouncing this judgement as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in open

court, this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- M. Bujjappa,

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anatapuramu. A ppendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined Prosecution Defence PW1 :B. Ramakrishna Nil PW2 : B. Ramanjineyulu. PW3 : G. Venkata Reddy Pw.4 K. Nagaraju. Pw.5: S Sreenivasulu.

Exhibits marked for prosecution. Defence

Ex.P1 : Complaint of Pw.1. Nil Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw2. Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw3. Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of pw4. Ex.P.5. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw.5.

Mos marked on behalf of

Prosecution Defence Nil Nil.

Sd/- M. Bujjappa SJFCM

// True coy//

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu. CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR PROHITION AND EXCISE CASES, ANANTAPURAMU

Date of Report or Apprehensi Released Commence Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint on of on bail ment of trial Order

accused trial

25-03-201326-3-201314-05-201314-05-201327-02-201719-04-201728-04-2017

Calendar and Judgement in CC.No. 79/2016 on the file of Special Judicial

First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

Complainant :Sub Inspector of Police, Traffic P.S.,Anantapuramu.

Cr.No.37/2013 Name of the accused. Maddili Shivalingamaiah, age 21 years s/o Ramamurthy, Katiganikaluva village, Ajantapuramu rural mandal, driver of auto bearing No. AP02-W-3989.

Offence :- Under section 304-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 r/w 181, Sec. 134 (a)

(b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act

Finding :- Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section Under section 304-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 r/w 181, Sec. 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act and the accused is acquitted U/S 255 (1) Cr.P.C. bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months of pronouncing this judgement as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

1

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition & Excise Cases, Anantapur.

Present:- Sri. M. Bujjappa, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Prohibition and Excise cases, Ananthapuram

Monday, the 1 st day of May, 2017

C.C.NO. 236/2016

Between:-

State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu II Town P.S. …Complainant.

AND

1. Adusumilli Ramanayudu, age 40 years s/o Narasimhulu, door No. 6/2/983 near Venkateswara temple,Ram nagar, Anantapuramu.

2. Gujjala Maruti @ Gaddam Naidu , age 28 years s/o Sreenivasulu, Rudrampeta, Anantapuramu.

…Accused.

This case was come on 28-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri

B. Mallikarjuna, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu II Police Station, filed charge sheet against A.1 and A.2 in Crime Number No.376/2014 for the offence U/sec. 323 r/w 34 IPC .

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 1-07-2014 at 9 p.m the complainant attended the office of the accused and informed that complainant will pay some portion of amount on 20-07-2014. For that the accused grew wild, abused the complainant, caught hold the shirt of the complainant and pushed on steps, resulted complainant suffered with 2 bleeding injuries on front and rear side of the head. The accused Gaddam

Naidu who is present at that time also slapped the complainant. Pw.1 and

Gujjala Maruthi who are owners of Eicher Van and present at the office came intervened and rescued the complainant. Basing on the complaint of Ediga

Ramanjineyulu, the present case was registered in the above crime number for the above said Offense. On 11-08-2014 accused were arrested and released on bail. The Medical Officer treated Ediga Ramanjineyulu and issued wound certificate and opined that the injuries are simple in nature.

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

3)The cognizance was taken against A.1 and A.2 for the offence Under section 323 r/w 34 IPC by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Ananthapuramu and numbered as C.C.941/2014.

4)On appearance of the accused, all relevant case records were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

5)During the course of examination, as per the orders of the Hon'ble

District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu the case was transferred to this court and it was renumbered as CC. 236/2016.

6)The accused was examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against the accused for the offence Under section 323 r/w 34 IPC as per the charge sheet and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

3

7.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution chose to examine Pws.1 to Pw.3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.7. On the other hand, defence never led any kind of evidence except depending upon the loopholes of the prosecution.

8.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined U/sec.313(1) Cr.P.C.by putting incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he reported no defence evidence.

9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that as Lw.1Ediga

Ramanjineyulu, who is set the criminal law into motion died before his adducing the evidence and as the court closed the evidence of Lw.1Ediga

Ramanjineyulu on account of his death though she examined Lw.2 Golla

Sreenivasulu as Pw.1 and Lw.6 Gonuguntla Prakash as Pw.2 but they failed to sate anything against the accused in assaulting the Lw.1Ediga

Ramanjineyulu and thus though she examined Lw.8 Ravi Shankar REddy who is investigating Officer as Pw.3 she has given up remaining all the witnesses since Pw.3 is nothing eyewitness to the incident and prays the court to pass the judgment on merits.

10. On the other hand the defence counsel argued that there is no direct evidence from the victim to state about his sustaining injuries in the hands of the accused and when the prosecution fails to adduce the evidence of Lw.1Ediga Ramanjineyulu on account of his death and though the prosecution examined Pw.1 and Pw.2 and they failed to state anything against the accused and thus the prosecution in spite of examining Pw.3 4 who registered the crime and investigated the matter but the evidence of

Pw.3 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution and as Assistant Public

Prosecutor has given up remaining all witnesses absolutely there is no evidence on the record to connect the accused with the crime and prays the court to acquittal the accused.

11. Heard on both sides and perused the record.

12.Now the point that arise for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution bring home the

guilt of A.2 and A.2 for the offence

punishable U/sec. 323 r/w 34 IPC b eyond

all reasonable doubt ?”

13.POINT:-

It is the crux of the case of the prosecution that Lw.1Ediga

Ramanjineyulu having owned the Eicher Van and linked with Sri Lakshmi

Venkateswara Lorry Transport run by the A.1 for hire basis and due to that acquaintance the complainant participated and became due Rs. 2,00,000/- to the accused No.1 and for that on 1-7-2014 at 9 p.m the complainant attended the office of A.1 and informed that he is paying portion of amount on 20-07-2014 for that the accused grew wild and abused the complainant and caught hold the shirt of the complainant and pushed on the step, the complainant suffered with bleeding injuries over the body and rear side of the head in the meanwhile A.2 who is present there slapped Lw.1Ediga

Ramanjineyulu but Lw.2 Golla Sreenivasulu who are owners of Eicher Van present there came to rescue of Lw.1Ediga Ramanjineyulu. Later on

Lw.1Ediga Ramanjineyulu preferred a complaint. This is the case of the 5 prosecution.

14. In order to establish the guilt of the accused the prosecution invariably adduce clear cogent and convincing evidence but at the inception of the case itself the prosecution case got sufferance on account of the death of Lw.1 Ediga Ramanjineyulu and on filing of death certificate of

Lw.1Ediga Ramanjineyulu this court closed the evidence of Lw.1Ediga

Ramanjineyulu on 8-2-2017. It is very clear that on account of death of the

Lw.1Ediga Ramanjineyulu, evidence of him was closed and thus there is no direct evidence from the victim to say that he was got assaulted in the hands of the accused and to say that the said incident was happened on account of his owing an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the chit transaction.

15. Though prosecution choose to examine Lw.2 G. Sreenivasulu as

Pw.1 L,w.6 G. Prakash examined as Pw.2 but they in one voice stated that they do not know the accused and they never witnessed the incident and they are not at all examined by the police. After considering their evidence in chief the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor treated that as a witnesses resiled from the previous statement made before the police with the permission of the court tried to elicit the facts but efforts of Assistant Public

Prosecutor went in vain. After considering the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 though the prosecution choose to examine Lw.8 I. Ravi Sankar Reddy as

Pw.3 who is Investigating Officer and though evidence of Pw.3 reveals that on 12-7-2014 at 11.45 a.m upon receiving the medical admit intimation and statement of Lw.1Ediga Ramanjineyulu from the hospital which reveals non cognizable Offence and later on he made request for court for permission and after obtaining permission he registered the crime as crime No.

6 376/2014 for the Offense U/sec. 323 r/w 34 IPC and subsequently investigating the crime , examined the prosecution witnesses visiting the scene of Offence and after obtaining the wound certificate and after effecting arrest of the accused his filing the charge sheet would not suffice to hold the guilt of the accused since he is not eyewitness to the incident and unless and until either Lw.1 evidence was adduced or any of the witnesses that is Pw.1 and Pw.2 spoken about the incident , his evidence will nothing aid to the case of the prosecution. Since the Assistant Public

Prosecutor has given up remaining witnesses assuming that no useful purpose will be served in examining them and thus absolutely there is no evidence on the record to connect the accused with the crime though Pw.3 states that the accused voluntarily surrendered before him and admitted the evidence then he effected, arrested them but that is not at all sufficient since such admission is not confession and confession made before the police officer is in admissible in the evidence.

16.Viewed from any angle the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused Hence the accused certainly deserves for acquittal.

17.In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 323 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/sec. 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as required under Sec. 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court, this the 1st day of May, 2017.

Sd/- M. Bujjappa,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class 7 for prohibition & Excise cases,

Anantapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence

P.W.1 G. Sreenivasulu None. P.W.2 G. Prakash. Pw.3. I. Ravi Sankar Reddy.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution

1.Ex.P.1: 161 Cr.P.c. Statement of Pw.1.

2.Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2.

3.Ex.P.3: The statement of Lw.1Ediga Ramanjineyulu.

4.Ex.P.4. Medical admit intimation.

5.Ex.P.5. FIR.

6.Ex.P.6 Rough sketch.

7.Ex.P.7 Wound Certificate of Lw.1Ediga Ramanjineyulu.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence

Nil.

Material Objects marked

-Nil.

Sd/- M. Bujjappa,

S.J.M.F.C.

// True copy//

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ANANTAPURAMU

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU. Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu.

Date of OffenceReportApprehen-Released on Commence-Close of Sentence sion of bailment of trialtrial. Accused 1-07-201423-07-1411-08-201411-08-201430-03-201712-04-201701-05-2017 8

Judgment in C.C. No. 236/2016 on the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu.

Complainant :: Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu II Town P.S. Crime No. 376/2014.

Sl.Name of the AgeSon ofCallingReli-ResidenceMandal NoAccusedgion

1. Adusumilli Ramanayudu, age 40 years s/o Narasimhulu, door No. 6/2/983 near Venkateswara temple,Ram nagar, Anantapuramu.

2. Gujjala Maruti @ Gaddam Naiduy , age 28 years s/o Sreenivasulu, Rudrampeta, Anantapuramu.

Offence:U/sec. 323 r/w 34 IPC

Finding :-Found not guilty.

Sentence :- In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 323 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as required under Sec. 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for prohibition & Excise cases,

Anantapuramu.

Submitted to the Hon’ble Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

Dis No. Dt. .

9