Sri M. Bujjappa

In the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa

Present:-Sri M. Bujjappa, B.A.LL.B.,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of first class, Kadapa

Dated, the 25th day of March, 2014.

C.C.No. 317 of 2011

State: represented by Sub Inspector of police,

Pendlimarri police station…..Complainant

Versus

Endluru Yoha Shiva, 34 years, s/o Yohan, D.no.1/126, Vemula village and mandal, Driver of APSRTC hire bus bearing no. AP04 X 6346 ……………Accused

This case coming on 24-3-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the State and of

Smt.Y.Hymavathi, Advocate for the accused and after hearing on both sides and upon perusing the record, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Pendlimarri police station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 196/2011 for the offence punishable under sections 304(A) IPC and sec. 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are as follows;-

That on 16-10-2011 the defacto complainant and his uncle Mopuri

Krishnaiah (deceased) were went to attend work in the fields of Narreddi Bhaskar reddy and in the evening they returned to their village by walk. At 18-00 hrs while they were near Papagni river bridge situated near Kothuru village on Kadapa –

Pulivendula road one APSRTC hire bus bearing no. AP04 X 6346 came from

Vempalli side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the deceased. As a result of which the deceased received multiple injuries on his head, fractured injury on right leg, left leg and other places and fell unconscious stage While undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day at 11-05 hrs. Basing on the statement of Lw1, the case was registered and investigated into.

2

2. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under sections 304(A) IPC and sec. 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act against the accused.

3. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. and he was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/ss. 304(A) IPC and sec.

134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act are framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused examined on their behalf Pws 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. On the other hand, the defence never led any kind of evidence except depending upon the loop holes of the prosecution .

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence appearing against him. He denied the same and reported no oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

6. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the entire record.

The learned Assistant public prosecutor argued that, pw1 is the eye witness for the occurrence and according to him after they are attended field work when about to go to his village and when they crossed the papagni river, in the meantime a bus belongs to the RTC depot came with high speed from back side and dashed the deceased and the same is confirmed by the conductor who is pw6 whose evidence clearly reveals not only the date of offence but the occurrence and departure of the accused without rendering the aid. He argued that, as per the evidence of pw6 on 16-10-2011 at 5-30 pm the hire bus of

APSRTC bearing no. AP04 UU 6346 when reached in between Vempalli and

Nandimandalam and when the bus reached nearer to the Vempalli, in the meanwhile, all of a sudden the bus is halted and the passengers abruptly got down and he also got down and seen that the deceased laying with the injuries on the back side of the bus. He argued that, since pws 1 and 6 consistently 3 deposed the involvement of the vehicle and date of offence and the manner of the incident, as such the prosecution fully proves regarding the bus involvement and death of the deceased and also rash and negligent act of the driver. He further argued that, even to prove the death of the deceased pw2 who is the inquest panchayathdar coupled with the evidence of pw3 who is a investigating officer proves that, they hold inquest over the dead body of the deceased and as such they drafted the inquest report which is ex.p2. So, the death is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. However, to corroborate the same even the prosecution tendered the evidence of medical expert that is Lw9 as

Pw4 and he reveals that, on 17-10-2011 at 4-00 pm he hold a post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and that shows that, he too confirmed the death of the deceased as injury over the head and due to shock and haemmorhage which resulted into multiple injury and the deceased died.

So, the death of the deceased is clearly proved by the prosecution. He further argued that, regarding the identity of the accused, pws 3 and 6 evidence is crucial and pw3 is the investigating officer he states that, on 18-10-2011 he effected the arrest of the accused and also during the course of investigation he obtained the attested copy of SR dt. 16-10-2011 and even pw6 who is the conductor also states that, he drafted the Ex.p8 which is a SR and the said statistical report showing the name of the accused, as such identity of the accused to the crime vehicle at the time at the material point is proved and prays to convict the accused. He further argued that, even the evidence of pw6 which reveals that, the accused is the driver of the vehicle that is APSRTC hire bus vehicle driver abruptly fled away from the scene of offence that shows that, he did not render any medical aid to the deceased. Under these circumstances he prays the court to convict the accused.

7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued before the court that, the evidence of pw1 did not specify the manner of the incident and the date of offence also not at all adduced, as such the evidence of pw1 should 4 not be believable. She further contended that, pw3 who is the investigating officer evidence need tobe ignorable since he did not verify and noted the descriptive particulars of the driver of the crime vehicle, as such the prosecution fully fails to prove the guilt of the accused. She further submitted that, the death is not discarded by the defence at all but the disputing that, who is the driver to the crime vehicle at the material point of time and regarding the rash and negligent act of the driver. She further contended that, the SR which is marked as Ex.p8 is a statistical report attested by the Depot manager on 16-11-2011, as such it is imbelievable and prays the court to discard the same and acquit the accused.

She further argued that, the prosecution failed to prove the manner of the incident, as such the case against the accused is not at all proved regarding the rash and negligent driving of the accused and prays the court to acquit the accused.

8. Now the points that arises for determination are:

1. Does the prosecution proves the death of the deceased Sri

Mopuri Krishnaiah in a road traffic accident hit by the APSRTC hire bus

bearing no.AP04 X 6346?

2. Does the prosecution proes the rash or negligent driving of the crime vehicle that is APSRTC hire bus bearing no.AP04 X 6346?

3. Does the prosecution proves the identity of the accused as a driver to the crime vehicle a the material point of time?

4. Does the prosecution proves the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable u/ss 304(A) IPC and sec.134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V.

Act?

9. POINT NO.1:- It is the case of the prosecution that, on 16-10- 2011 pw1 and the deceased Sri Mopuri Krishnaiah after attending the fields work at Narreddi Bhaskar reddy fields returned to their village by walk and 18-00 hours while so they were crossed the Papagni river bridge situated at Kothuru village on Kadapa – Pulivendula main road, at that time the APSRTC hire bus bearing 5 no. AP04 X 6346 came from back side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the deceased and the deceased while taking the treatment at Rims hospital, Kadapa succumbed to the injuries.

10. To substantiate the death of the deceased what the pw1 states that, after attending field work at about one year back in the evening hours they returned from the fields to go to their village and when they reached some distance from their fields, at that time one bus driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulted into the deceased sustaining injuries all over his body and received fracture leg injuries and also sustained bleeding injuries over his head. This portion of evidence shows that, the deceased hit by the bus and sustained injuries over his legs and all over the body and over his head also.

11. The evidence of pw1 further goes to shows that, at the time of incident he was at some distance to the deceased and the bus which hit the deceased halted at some distance, after that they got shifted the deceased to the Rims hospital, Kadapa and while undergoing the treatment he succumbed to the injuries. This portion of evidence clearly shows that, the pw1 shifted the deceased to the Rims hospital, kadapa, there he succumbed to the injuries. To substantiate the death uttered by the pw1, even Lw6 is examined as pw2. He is a inquest panchayathdar according to him he came to know the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident as such he went to the hospital. Then he seen the dead body of the deceased and there police hold a inquest over the dead body of the deceased, accordingly he put his signature in the inquest report.

The entire inquest report is marked as Ex.p2. He was not at all cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused regarding the death aspect. So, whatever the evidence adduced by the pw2 in participating the inquest proceedings and as such the inquest proceedings marked through him as Ex.p2 to support the version of pw1 and thus prosecution specifically proves the death of the deceased with a multiple injuries sustained by the deceased during the road traffic accident hit by the APSRTC hire bus. Moreover pw1 also not choosen to be cross 6 examined regarding the death of the deceased, as such the death is confirmed almost.

12. When the evidence of pws 1 and 2 stood like that, even pw3 evidence goes to shows that, after the receipt of MLC intimation regarding the death of the deceased, he altered the FIR and visited the RIMS hospital, kadapa there he hold inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 2-00 pm and concluded at 4-00 pm that shows that he hold the inquest over the dead body of the deceased, as such pw2 was issued by him which marked through pw2. Even a corroboration is received from the evidence of doctor who conducted post mortem over the dead body of the deceased Lw9 is examined as pw1 and he is a tutored at RIMS and his evidence goes to shows that, on 17-10—2011 at about 4-10 pm he received requisition from the SHO RIMS to conduct the post mortem over the dead body of the deceased, as such he commenced the inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 4-15 to 5-15 pm and found external and internal injuries over the dead body and head and gave a opinion that, the deceased died due to shock and haemmorhage resulting into multiple injuries through him inquest report is marked as Ex.p9. So the death of the deceased is proved even by the pw4 and the injuries noted down in the post mortem certificate clearly supports the evidence of pws 1 to 3. Moreover issuance of requisition to the pw4 by the pw3 also brought on the record as pw3 uttered that, he also sent a requisition to the doctor to conduct post mortem examination.

Under these circumstances death is certainly proved in the road traffic accident.

13. Regarding the involvement of the crime vehicle pw1 simply state that, it is a bus. There is no cross examination on this point except suggestions.

Moreover during the course of cross examination of pw1 admits that, he did not stated before the police that, after the occurrence of the incident the APSRTC hire bus was halted. The question is specific by the defence counsel that, it is a

APSRTC bus and the same is confirmed by the pw1, as such even though pw1 did not spoken or specify the APSRTC bus name but during the course of cross 7 examination the defence itself put a question which shows that the APSRTC bus is involved. Pw3 is the investigating officer. His evidence goes to shows that, he visited the scene of offence and after drawing rough sketch which is Ex.p7 he also found the crime vehicle bearing no. AP04 X 6346 which is a APSRTC hire bus at the spot and then the same is brought to the police station and issued a requisition to the Motor vehicle inspector. So, this portion of evidence clearly shows that the APSRTC hire bus bearing no. AP04 X 6346 is involved. Moreover the conductor that is pw6 evidence also goes to shows that, he acted as a conductor to the APSRTC hire bus and the said APSRTC hire bus is AP04 UU 6346 and though APSRTC bus bearing number not fully matched as he used “U” instead of “X”. But substantially he spoken regarding the number of the crime vehicle and during the course of cross examination to the pw6 a SR is confronted and he admitted entire SR is the report of him, as such bus number is also proved by way of Ex.p6 and the said Ex.p6 coupled with the evidence of pw6 acted as a supportive piece of evidence regarding the pw3 and pw1 evidence in relation to the proving of the involvement of the APSRTC hire bus bearing no .

AP04 X 6346. Hence, this point certainly goes in favour of the prosecution and against the defence.

14. POINT NO.2:- To substantiate this point what the pw1 states that, when they reached at a some distance over the road to go to their village, all of a sudden the APSRTC hire bus gave a dash to the deceased resulting the deceased sustaining the bleeding injuries over his head and body etc. After that the bus is halted at some distance. Pw3 is the investigating officer according to him he visited the scene of offence and noted down the rough sketch of the scene which is Ex.p7. He also observed presence of APSRTC bus bearing no. Ap04 X 6346 during the course of cross examination. Quite interestingly it is brought on the record that, at or nearer to the place of incident a signal point is situated.

This is the suggestion given by the accused counsel. Though the said suggestion is denied but if really as per the defence there is a point situated the 8 bus must be in a slow mode, the pw3 during the course of cross examination, immediately as per the said suggestion admits that, the question of coming the vehicle in a slow manner does not arise since the accident occurred. Though he is not a ocular witness the manner of the incident spoken by him and the rough sketch observation is substantially spoken his evidence regarding the manner of the incident because he is is the investigating officer he can assume and imagine situation after observing the scene. He is the person not only drawn rough sketch of the scene but also noticed the presence of the vehicle that itself is more than to speak that, there occurred rash or negligent driving of the driver. Had been there is a point to be halted by the vehicles then at scene of offence any of the vehicle must be slow but pw3 says that, the vehicle is not came in a slow manner, as such the question of APSRTC bus came in a slow manner does not arise. Coupled with this evidence I gone through the record.

Pw6 evidence is a crucial to suggests the manner of the incident in a rash and negligent manner. He said that while he was taking tickets from the passengers, all of a sudden the bus is halted and the bus passengers in the bus abruptly got down and he also got down from the said bus and found that, the deceased was laying at the back side of the bus and also spokes that, the driver of the vehicle is ran away from the spot. Pw6 clearly spokes that, the bus is halted abruptly that shows that the bus is in a motion of high speed, as such pw6 feels just when it is halted abruptly. So, he feels some jolt as such he spoken that the bus is halted all of a sudden. This is more than enough to show that the bus was at a speed. Of course, speed is not criteria while the four road lines is present but it is the suggestion of the defence that, there is a halting point if so the bus must be in slow manner. Moreover the rough sketch is perused which is Ex.p7 there is a road proceeded to the BVSR side which is a point situated nearer to the accident place and the bus is came from Vempalli side to go to Kadapa. If there is a road adjacent side leading to the BVSR side the bus must be in a slow. Moreover there is a end of the divider which gives 9 way to go to BVSR road. Under these circumstances I can construed that the bus must and supposed to be slow but the evidence spoken by the pws 3 and 6 suggests that the bus is at a speed, as such it is all of a sudden stopped as such pw6 feels some jolt. So, the rash or negligent driving of the driver is proved.

Pw7 is an eye witness and he did not support the case of the prosecution. Under these circumstances I feel that rash or negligent driving of the driver is proved.

Moreover the abrupt fleeing from the place of incident by the driver is also factor to be considered that he is at fault. Hence, rash or negligent driving of the driver is proved.

15. Further more, the APSRTC bus bearing no. aP04 X 6346 was also inspected by the motor vehicle inspector as per the requisition sent by the pw3 and his evidence that is pw5 goes to shows that, on 18-10-2011 he inspected the crime vehicle bearing no. AP04 X 6346 and found breaking system and steering system is satisfactory and also noted down the defects over the bottom on the corner and opined that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defencts, as such he issued M.V.I report under Ex.p10. This Ex.p10 coupled with this evidence of pw5 contributes that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects and the occurrence is made purely on the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. If the breaking system in order as per pw5 definitely the driver of the crime vehicle must apply the break thoroughly in order to save the life but he did not do so. This suggested that, the driver is in a high sped and fails to apply the break in time and cause the death of the deceased. Hence, this point goes in favour of the prosecution and against the defence.

16. POINT NO.3:-To prove the identity of the deceased pw1 evidence though adduced he did not spoken that the accused is the driver to the crime vehicle. Likewise pw6 evidence is perused, he too stated that, he did not seen the accused, he is not sure that, the accused the driver to the crime vehicle or not, his oral testimony regarding the identification of the accused is in 10 question. Pw6 categorically declined and discarded the identity of the accused,

He is the person who best known the accused actually as a driver to the crime vehicle but disowns the same and he simply says that, he do not know the accused and under these circumstances the court after the completion of cross examination exercise his power u/sec. 165 Cr.P.C and put a suggestion that, whether statistical report which is Ex.p6 which could marked through pw3 is really drafted or written by him or not, for that he stated yes. Further more, a question is put that, do you admits all the contents is filled by him is correct or genuine for that he also stated that yes and the date of occurrence also suggested that, for that also he states that the date is 16-10-2011. This evidence definitely proves the identity of the accused. The reason is that the moment he admits that, Ex.p6 is written and the contents are true during the course of his examination by the court u/sec. 165 Cr.P.C then it is pertinent to refer the evidence of pw3. Pw3 during the course of chief examination states that, during the course of further investigation he obtained the attested copy of

SR dt. 16-10-2011 and it was attested by the manager, as such SR is marked as

Ex.p8. On careful perusal of the ex.p8whcih is a statistical report written by the pw6 which is a attested copy of Depot manager clearly goes to shows that, accused is the driver to the crime vehicle, as such the accused is the person who drove the vehicle on the alleged date of incident at the alleged time of incident, as such identity of the accused is proved by way of Ex.p8. Hence, this point also goes in favour of prosecution and against the defence.

17. POINTNO.4:- Since point no. 1 to 3 not only proves the death of the deceased rash or negligent manner of the driving but also proves the identity of the accused as a driver to the crime vehicle. Hence, the guilt of the accused u/sec. 304(A) IPC is proved.

18. The evidence of pw1 goes to shows that, after the deceased was hit by the APSRTC hire bus, the driver of the said bus was never led any medical aid as he went away. He was not at all cross examined by the learned counsel 11 for the defence. More so, pw3 is a investigating officer, according to him he seen the APSRTC hire bus only at the spot but he did not noticed the driver of the vehicle. This evidence is clearly suggests that, the driver of the vehicle is fled away from the scene of offence. Moreover pw1 clearly states that, the driver of the crime vehicle never rendered help to the deceased /injured. By the same time pw6 is a crucial witness who is a conductor who supposed to know only things prevailed at the time of incident said that, when he got down from the bus abrupty, the driver was already fled away. This is suggesting that the accused never rendered any aid to the deceased / injured and moreover he fled away from the scene, even he did not reported the matter to the police, as such guilt of the accused u/sec. 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act is also proved.

19. In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 304(A) IPC and sec. 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and accordingly he is convicted u/s 255(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court this, the 25th day of March, 2014.

Sd/- M.Bujjappa.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa. When the accused is questioned regarding the quantum of sentence, he submitted that, he is having old aged parents and he is ready to pay fine imposed by the court and prays the court to take lenient view.

Heard the counsel for the accused. She submitted that, the accused is the sole breadwinner of his family and prays the court to take lenient view in awarding the sentence.

Heard arguments on both sides.

After meticulous consideration of the record the death is occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of this driver and imposing of the sentence with fine as well as sentencing him to the jail for a considerable period is just and proper.

Hence, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and shall pay a fine of Rs.5000/- IDSI for 1½ month for the 12 offence punishable u/sec. 304(A) IPC. Further, the accused shall . pay a fine of

Rs.150/- for the offence punishable u/sec. 134(a) and further the accused shall pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence punishable u/sec. 134(b) r/w 187 of

M.V.Act. Total fine amount payable by the accused is Rs.5250/-. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. The remand period if any undergone by the accused shall beset off u/sec. 428 Cr.P.C. Accused shall furnish a bond u/sec. 437(a) of Cr.P.C. if he receives summons from the appellant court within six months from this date

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court this, the 27th day of March, 2014.

Sd/- M.Bujjappa.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

PW-1:- Sri M. Gangaraju PW-2:- Sri G. Rajaskehar reddy PW-3: SriK. Jayaramulu PW-4: Sri S.Guruvaiah PW-5: Sri M. Venu PW-6: Sri K.Mohan kumar PW-7: Sri S. Rami reddy

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: Inquest Ex.P3: MLC intimation Ex.P4: FIR Ex.P5: Death intimation Ex.P6: Altered FIR Ex.P7: Rough sketch Ex.P8:Attested copy of S.R copy Ex.P9: Post mortem certificate Ex.P10: M.V.I Report Ex.P11: Sec. 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of pw6 Ex.P12: Sec. 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of pw7

Witness examined & Exhibits Marked

behalf of the accused

--nil--

Material objects marked: - n I l –

Sd/- M.Bujjappa.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa.

13

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and judgment tried by the II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I class, Kadapa

Date of offence:16-10-2011 Date of report:17-10-2011 Date of apprehension of accused:18-10-2011 Date of release of accused:18-10-2011 Date of commencement of trial:5-2-2013 Date of close of trial:31-5-2013 Date of judgment:25-3-2014

Calendar and judgment in C.C.No. 317 of 2011 on the file of II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I class, Kadapa.

Complainant:- State: Rep. by Sub inspector of Police, Pendlimarri police station.

Name of the accused with Age calling Religion Residence Father’s name Endluru Yoha Shiva, 34 years, s/o Yohan, D.no.1/126, Vemula village and mandal, Driver of APSRTC hire bus bearing no. AP04 X 6346

Offence:- u/ss. 304(A) IPC and sec. 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act.

Finding:- Accused is found guilty

Sentence: In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 304(A) IPC and sec. 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and accordingly he is convicted u/s 255(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and shall pay a fine of Rs.5000/- IDSI for 1½ month for the offence punishable u/sec. 304(A) IPC. Further, the accused shall . pay a fine of Rs.150/- for the offence punishable u/sec. 134(a) and further the accused shall pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence punishable u/sec. 134(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act. Total fine amount payable by the accused is Rs.5250/-. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. The remand period if any undergone by the accused shall beset off u/sec. 428 Cr.P.C. Accused shall furnish a bond u/sec. 437(a) of Cr.P.C. if he receives summons from the appellant court within six months from this date .

Sd/- M.Bujjappa.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa. .

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa Dis.No……………………Dt. …………..

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS, KADAPA ,

FAC FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES , KADAPA.

Present: Sri M.Bujjappa, B.A., L.L.B.,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa,

FAC, JFCM, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st class, Prohibition and Excise offences,

Kadapa.

Thursday, this the 6th day of June, 2013.

C.C.NO.18/2012

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, C.K. Dinne Ps., . . . Complainant

Vs

Nagireddi Venkateswara Reddy, aged 42 years, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, Sugalibidiki, Balijapalli village, C.K. Dinne Mandal.… Accused.

This case was coming for final hearing on 3-6-2013 in the presence of Sri P.

Srinivasulu learned A.P.P for state and in the presence of advocate for the accused by name smt K.Chandrakanthamma and having stood over for consideration to this day, delivered following:

JUDGEMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, C.K.Dinne Ps, filed a charge sheet against the accused seeking the prosecution of the accused for the offence U/s.34-a of A.P. Excise Act.

2. The brief averments set out in the charge sheet stood as follows:- that on 30.9.2011 evening on the instruction of SDPO, Kadapa, Lw6 along with Lws1 to 4 and moving C.K.Dinne Mandal reached in front of noted accused house, Sugalibidiki,

Balijapalli village at 4:20 pm found accused with 2 card board boxes, after seeing police the accused tried to escape, then Lw6 caught hold of accused with assistance of lws1 to 4 and on interrogation the accused revealed his identity particulars and shown 2 card board boxes. Lw6 observed card board boxes which are having with 12 Mansion House Brandy -90 ml, 8 Old

Admiral Deluxe Brandy – 90ml, 10 Imperial Blue classical Grain whisky 180 ml, 20 Honey Bee regular Brandy -180 ml, 18 Old Tavern Rare Whisky – 180 ml liquor bottles with affixed company stickers and on interrogation he did not give any proper answer and also he had no license for selling bottles. Then Lw6 arrested him and seized 68 bottles from his possession under cover of Police proceedings and taken 90 and 180 ml sample bottles each company for sending the same to chemical examiner, kurnool for report and also pasted slips on sample bottles having signatures of accused and Lw6. Basing on the said police proceedings a case was registered as a Cr.No.165/2011 U/s.34-a of A.P. Excise Act in C.K. Dinne Ps and took up investigation into this case which resulted into filing of this charge sheet.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/s.34-a of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, the copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 Crpc and he was examined U/s.239 Crpc for the offence

U/s.34- A of A.P. Excise Act. Therefore A charge U/s.34- A of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 are framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution chosen to examine Lw1 by name S. Penchalaiah, P.C.No.274 of C.K. Dinne Ps as Pw1 ,

Lw6 K. Chalapathi, H.C.NO.1259 of C.K.Dinne Ps examined as Pw2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 besides marking of Mo1 to 10 on their behalf.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s,.313

Crpc for the incriminating evidence appears against him but he denied the same and reported no oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard arguments of the learned APP. The learned APP submitted that since the evidence of pw1 and 2 seems to be inconsonance with each other and the evidence of pw1 and 2 is as per Ex.P1 contents as such the prosecution fully proves the guilt of the accused for the offence charged. He further argued that

Pw1 and 2 not only reaching the alleged scene of offence situated in Sugalibidiki at the house of the accused but also seized Mo1 to 10 under cover of Police proceedings since no panchayatdars available in the said village. He further argued that whatever the infirmities or contradictions found in the evidence of

Pw1 and 2 are minor one the same shall be ignorable and prays the court to convict the accused as per law.

8.“Per cantra” the counsel for the accused argued before the court that Pw2 never spoken in the chief examination when he reached to the alleged scene of offence and in the cross examination he categorically admitted that he visited the scene of offence at 3:30 pm which is quite contradictory to the time mentioned in Ex.P2, apart from that non presence of signature of Pw1, disproves the his presence at the alleged scene of offence along with Pw2 , as such the velocity of Pw2 was shorted by the defence. He further argued that even though the scene of offence situated in the heart of the village of Sugali tanda Bidiki neither the Pw1 nor the Pw2 choose to pick up local inhabitants as a panchayatdars prior to resorting for preparation of Ex.P1 which suggests that they might not have visited the scene of offence and on that they did not seized

Mo1 to 10 as such case of prosecution totally fails and prays the court to acquit the accused under benefit of doubt.

9.Heard arguments on both sides. Now the point that arises for determination are

Whether the prosecution able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubts for the offence U/s.34-a of A.P. Excise Act, 1968?

10.Point:- To prove the case of the prosecution the evidence available on the record is Pw1 and 2 alone whose names were mentioned supra. Lw2 to 5 and

Lw7 was given up by the learned APP. Hence the evidence of Prosecution is pw1 and 2 alone besides Ex.P1 to P4 and Mo1 to 10.

11.Pw1 and 2 in one voice deposed before the court that on 30-9-2011 on the instructions of S.D.P.O. Kadapa they went to the rounds in the villages and in that process they reached Balijapalli sugalitanda in a private vehicle as part of their surveillance over the villages and when they reached to the said villages there they found this accused in front of his house. They further deposed before the court that on seeing the arrival of police party the accused tried to fled away from the said place who possessed two card board boxes. But on the instructions of Pw2, Pw1 and other constables chased the said accused and apprehended him and at last produced before the pw.2. Pw1 and 2 further deposed before the court that when Pw2 and himself interrogated the accused for his reasons for fleeing. Then the accused by showing the liquor bottles in two cardboard boxes and confessed that he is selling the said liquor bottles for excessive prices and also confessed for the reasons for selling the same. Then pw1 and 2 found in one cardboard box 12 bottles of Maison house brandy 90 ,ml bottles , 8 bottles of Old admiral brandy 90 ml, 10 bottles of imperial blue classic plain whisky 180 ml. Pw1 and 2 further deposed that in another cardboard box 20 honey bee regular brandy bottles containing 180 ml in each bottle, 18 old traverin whisky containing 180 ml, then when they questioned for the any license, the accused did not produce any valid license. Then they seized those liquor bottles under cover of police proceedings and prior to that they searched for teh mediators but none were available as such they prepared a police proceedings by seizing the liquor bottles.

12.Pw2 further categorically observed that at the time of preparation of the police proceeding he lifted the sample bottle from each brand then he effected the arrested of the accused and brought the seized property to the police station and basing on the strength of the Ex.p1 he issued a F.I.R. in

Cr.No.165/2011 U/s.34-a of A.P. Excise Act. As the police proceedings were marked through Pw2 already the F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P2 through Pw2.

13.Pw2 further deposed that on the next day when accused produced sureties he released the accused on bail and on 15-10-2011 he send the bottles lifted for chemical examination to the chemical examiner through court under letter of advice which marked as Ex.P3. He further deposed that after obtaining the chemical examiner report which marked as Ex.P4 Lw6 laid a charge sheet

before the court. Through this witness masion house brandy 90 ml is marked as

Mo1 , Old admiral deluxe brandy 90 ml is marked as Mo2, Imperial blue classic grain whisky 180 ml is marked as Mo3, Honey bee regular brandy bottle 180 ml is marked as Mo4, Old traverin rare whisky 180 ml is marked as Mo5, 11 masion house brandy bottles 90 ml is marked as Mo6, 7 bottles of old admiral deluxe brandy 90 ml marked as Mo7, 9 imperial blue classic grain whisky 180 ml marked as Mo8, 19 honey bee regular brandy 180 ml marked as Mo9 and 17 old traverin rare whisky 180 ml marked as Mo10.

14.Upon careful perusal of the Pw1 and 2 though their evidence reveals that upon the instructions of the SDPO, Kadapa while they were doing patrolling in the villages and reached the alleged scene of offence, situated in Sugali bidiki tanda where in as per their evidence accused was found with two cardboard boxes containing Mo1 to 10 then when the accused was tried to skulk away they chased him and caught hold him and on that accused confessed the offence. Then their preparation of police proceeding as none of the villagers were available in the village is not inspiring this court confidence. The reason is that upon careful perusal of the cross examination of pw1 and 2, More particularly pw2 admitted that he reached the scene of offence at 3:30 pm whereas the chief examination of Pw1 is considered he stated that the reached the scene of offence along with pw2 and other constables on 30-9-2011 at 4:30 pm. whereas the police proceedings are perused, they reached to the Balijapalli sugalitanda of c.K.dinne mandal where the scene of offence is situated is at about 4:20 pm. this is a contradiction present between the evidences of pw1, 2 and Ex.P1 which is police proceedings. So this fact suggest that Pw2, Pw1 might not have visited the alleged scene of offence in the manner as narrated in the

Ex.P1.

15.For a movement, it is taken to be true that Pw1 and 2 visited the scene of offence and effected the arrest of the accused by seizing the property, but Pw1 cross examination is considered that he himself admitted that he did not affix his signature in the police proceedings. so also Pw2 admitted in the cross examination that Pw1, Lw2 to 4 never signed in the Police proceedings i.e., in

Ex.P1. On careful perusal of Ex.p1, Except the signature of Pw2, no other signature is present including the signature or thumb impression of the accused.

This fact suggest that Police proceedings was prepared at the convenience of

Pw2. What prevented the Pw2 in obtaining the signatures of Pw1, Lw2 to 4 and accused in the Ex.p1. These facts are clearly suggests that pw1 and 2 along with Lw2 to 4 never visited the alleged scene of offence as such their presence at the alleged scene of offence is got sinked.

16.Even for a movement, consider the presence of Pw1 and 2, at the scene of offence and considered that out of ignorance , Pw2 did not obtained the signatures of Pw1, Lw2 to 4, then what prevented the Pw2 to obtain signature of the accused in police proceedings i.e., Ex.p1 but he did not do so. As such the police proceedings got not authentication. Hence Ex.p1 is not believable. As such it is not proved.

17.The another factor to be considered that as per the cross examination of

Pw2, they admitted that they did not choose to pick up any local panchayatdars since none were available. Pw2 categorically admitted in the cross examination that he visited each and every house of the Sugalibidiki tanda in order to invite the residents people to act as panchayatdars. But villagers are gone to their wage works. This fact is not believable as it is a village availability of the people is more probability. Further according to the Pw1, as per his chief examination when they reached to the scene of offence, he seen the presence of so many persons and on seeing the police party, those persons along with this accused tried to skulk away. This fact suggest that presence of so many persons in the village. So it could not be believable the evidence of Pw2 regarding the no persons were available in the village as they are left the village for the wage work. As per the ex.p1 it is not the case of prosecution that all the villagers are left the village as such Pw1 and 2 prepared the police proceedings . If the

Ex.P1 keenly scrutinized it was mentioned that since mediators are not cooperated with the police, as such they drafted the police proceedings. This fact is mentioned at the below lines of the police proceedings, as such these facts are suggest that prosecution case should not be believable. Non obtaining the signatures of the accused in the police proceedings is fatal and more over the above said infirmities in the evidence of Pw1 and 2 clearly goes to the very root of the case as such prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence accused deserves for acquittal.

18.In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.34-a of

A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.p.c. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. Mo1 to 5 which are lifted for samples shall be destroyed after appeal time is over and Mo6 to 10 shall be given to the superintendent, Prohibition and Excise Department, Kadapa for its confiscation after appeal time is over. The accused shall furnish a bond U/s.437-a Cr.p.c, for his due appearance before the appellant court, if he receives summons from the said appellate court within six months from this date.

Typed to my dictation pronounced by me in the open court, dated this the 6th day of June, 2013.

Sd/- M. Bujjappa.,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

PW-1:- Sri S. Penchalaiah PW-2:- Sri K. Chalapathi

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P1: Police proceedings Ex.P2: FIR Ex.P3: Letter of advise. Ex.P4: Chemical examiner report.

For Defence: N I l

Witness examined on behalf of the accused

--nil--

Material objects marked

Mo1: Massion house brandy 90 ml bottle. Mo2: Old Admiral Delux brandy 90 ml Mo3: Imperial blue classic green whisky 180 ml . Mo4: Honeybee regular brandy 180 ml. Mo5: Old Tavern rare whisky 180 ml Mo6: 11 Mansion house brandy 90 ml Mo7: 7 Old Admiral Delux brandy 90 ml Mo8: 9 Imperial blue classic green whisky 180 ml Mo9: 19 Honeybee regular whisky 180 ml Mo10: 17 Old Tavern rare whisky

Sd/- M.Bujjappa.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and judgment tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, for Prohibition and Excise offences , Kadapa

Date of offence:30-9-2011 Date of report:30-9-2011 Date of apprehension of accused:30-9-2011 Date of release of accused:30-9-2011 Date of commencement of trial:27-2-2013 Date of close of trial:31-5-2013 Date of judgment:6-6-2013

Calendar and judgment in C.C.No. 18 of 2012 on the file of Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, for Prohibition and Excise offences , Kadapa

Complainant:- State: Rep. by Sub inspector of Police, C.K.Dinne police station

Name of the accused with Age calling Religion Residence Father’s name Nagireddi Venkateswara Reddy, aged 42 years, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, Sugalibidiki, Balijapalli village, C.K. Dinne Mandal..

Offence:- u/sec. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act

Finding:- Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act.

Sentence: In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.34-a of A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.p.c. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. Mo1 to 5 which are lifted for samples shall be destroyed after appeal time is over and Mo6 to 10 shall be given to the superintendent, Prohibition and Excise Department, Kadapa for its confiscation after appeal time is over. The accused shall furnish a bond U/s.437-a Cr.p.c, for his due appearance before the appellant court, if he receives summons from the said appellate court within six months from this date.

Sd/- M.Bujjappa,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, FAC Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I class, for Proh.& Excise offences, Kadapa

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa Dis.No……………………Dt. …………..

In the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, for

Prohibition and Excise offences , Kadapa

Present:-Sri M.Bujjappa, B.A.B.L.,

II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of first class, Kadapa

FAC Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I class, for Proh.& Excise offences, Kadapa

Dated, the 31 st day of May, 2013

C.C. No. 31 of 2012

State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police,

I Town police station, Kadapa . ...Complainant

Versus

Daggubati Venugopal, s/o Venkata subbaiah, 34 years, d/o9/112, Nabikota, Kadapa city. ……….Accused

This case coming on 30-5-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.V.

Raghava reddy, Advocate for the accused and after hearing on both sides and upon perusing the record, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, I Town police station, Kadapa has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 31/2012 for the offence punishable under sections 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge

sheet are as follows:-

That, on 31-1-2012 at 8-30 pm, Lw5 received credible information about the selling of liquor at CP brown library cross road, Yerramukkapalli,

Kadapa and acting on the said information Lw5 secured the presence of P.dars that is Lws 1 and 2 and staff that is Lw3 and other PCs left at 8-45 pm in a police jeep and reached the above place at 9 pm and noticed the accused was selling liquor bottles to the passers by keeping them in card board box and on seeing police party, the accused tried to skulk away along with cardboard box towards western side that is C.P brown library side. Then on suspicion Lw5 got down from the jeep along with staff, chased and caught hold of the accused.

2

Then Lw5 interrogated the accused in the presence of Lws 1 and 2. On interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed that, he used to buy wine quarter bottles from various shops of Kadapa city and selling them at high price that is Rs.5/- on each bottle. Then Lw5 verified the cardboard box and found 1) Honeybee regular brandy 180 ml quarter bottles-12, 2) 8 PM regular whisky 180 ml quarter bottles-8, 3) 999 power star fine whisky 180 ml quarter bottles-10 and when Lw5 asked the accused about the license and permission to sell the above bottles for which he informed that, he is not having any valid license. Then Lw5 came to conclusion that the accused is selling the liquor bottles illegally by running a belt shop. Then Lw5 arrested the accused at 9-45 pm and seized the above liquor bottles in the presence of Lws 1 and 2. Then

Lw5 also found Rs.300/- from the possession of accused which was the sale proceeds of selling liquor bottles and seized the same. Lw5 collected samples from seized liquor bottles in order to send them to Excise laboratory, Kurnool for analysis Basing on the panchanama, the case was registered and investigated into. Hence, the charge sheet.

2. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 against the accused .

3. On appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. and he was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence alleged against him. Therefore, contents of examination of u/sec. 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 are framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused examined on their behalf Pws1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and Mos1 to 7.

3

5. . After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence appearing against him. He denied the same and reported no oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

6. Heard the arguments on both sides.

7. Now the point that arises for determination are:

Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/sec. 34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968?

8. POINT:- To substantiate thecase of the prosecution,

Lw1 by name Sri Mohan reddy is examined as pw1 and Sri L.Goal reddy examined as pw3. As per the prosecution version. As per the prosecution version, they are panchayathdars, But they in one voice deposed before the court that they do not know the accused. They never seen him. They further in one voice deposed that, they did not seen any arrest and seizure of the property and person that is this accused at any point of time. They admitted their signatures in the panchanama. As per the pw1, a police constable came to his hotel on 31-1-2012 and obtained his signature where as, as per the pw3 one vegetable vendor who regularly attending to his hotel by name Sri

Narayana reddy requesting him to put his signature on the white paper, as such he signed in the said white paper. After that, what was written in the said paper is not known to him but admits his signature, their signatures are marked as Exs.p1 and p3 in the panchanama respectively.

9. So, the evidence of pws 1 and 3 not put forth the actual case of the prosecution before the court. Their evidence suggests that, they are seems to be turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. In such situation the only evidence available on the record is Lw3 by name Sri S.Sreenivasulu as pw4.

4

10. Pws 2 and 4 in one voice deposed before the court that, on 31-1- 2012 along with their staff that is 1882, 1980, 2215 while they were moving in

Kadapa town on credible information reached to the C.P brown cross roads, there they found one person having cardboard box and on seeing the arrival of the said police party when the person fleeing from the said place, then these police persons along with the pw2 surrounded the accused and on interrogation in the presence of panchayathdars, the accused confessed that, he brought the liquor bottles from the wine shop and selling the same for excessive prices.

11. The evidence of pws 2 and 3 further reveals that, after due confession of the accused, on further interrogation on production of the cardboard box they found 12 Honeybee regular brandy bottles having 180 ml quantity and 8 PM regular whisky bottles, 10 999 power star whisky bottles 180 ml quantity were seized The evidence of pws 2 and 4 further reveals that, when the pw2 questioned about the possession of any valid license and on failure of the accused to produce any license before the pw4, then they lifted the samples from the seized property and also seized Rs.300/- from the possession of the accused under a cover of panchanama and after due preparation of panchanama which got marked as Ex.p2 dt. 31-1-2012, they reached to the police station.

12. Pw4 further deposed that, he brought the accused and seized property to the police station, there on the strength of Ex.p2 he issued FIR as

Cr.no. 31/2012 u/sec. 34(a) of AP. Excise Act which is Ex.p5 and after obtaining the sureties the accused was let off after that he sent Mos 1 to 33 to the chemical examiner through court under the letter of advise which is

Ex.p5 and after receiving the analyst report which is Ex.p6, he laid a charge sheet before the court through him the seized bottles which were sent to the court got marked as Mos 1 to 7 including the amount seized.

5

13. When the evidence of pws 1 and 2 stood like that, it is the obligation of the court to scrutiny their chief examination under the light of cross examination, they admitted in the cross examination that, at the time of patrolling they received a credible information regarding the arrest themselves shows that, there is a contradiction present in between the evidence of EXs.p2 and p4 and as per the evidence of pw4. I is the case of the prosecution that, acting upon the credible information they reached to the CP Brown area to locate the selling of the liquor bottles unauthorizedly but where as, as per the version of pw2 while they were conducting routine patrolling duty, they themselves received information, as such they acted upon the same. Though this ia minor contradiction present in between the evidence of pws1 and 2 it has its own impact in throwing the doubt over the approach of pws 1 and 4.

Apart from this, the non mentioning of the card board box descriptive particulars in the panchanama coupled with the non examination of any of the persons who purchased liquor bottles for excessive prices from the accused also factors to doubt over the veracity of pws1 and 4. Admittedly, the panchayathdars were picked up by the pws 2 and 4 are not local panchayathdars they were picked up at the nearby police station itself. Then only pws 1 and 4 reached to the C.P brown area as per their version. However, their turning hostile to the case of the prosecution also shows impact on the versions of pws 2 and 3.

14. Apart from this, it is more apt to quote a judgment reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl) 32 (AP), where in the Hon’ble High court observed that, the presence of independent witnesses of respectable locality is always desirable and presence of mediators of another locality would not only weaken the case but also sometimes destroy the prosecution case.

15. The above supra cited judgment certainly came to the rescue of this accused for the reason that, pws 2 and 4 picked up pws 1 and 3 who are 6 not at all inhabitants or the persons present at the C.P brown area. Further more, no plausible explanation given by pws 1 and 2 that, why they chosen to pick up pws 1 and 2 at a place where search and seizure not effected, why they ignored to pick up the panchayathdars at the alleged place of seizure and arrest at C.P brown library area. This are the factors throwing some doubt over the case of the prosecution. In such situation I consider that failure to follow the procedure contemplated u/sec. 100 of Cr.P.C is absolutely ruins the case of the prosecution. Even though pw4 have every power to issue a summons to the commuters or the local inhabitants in inviting them toa ct as a panchayathdars and on refusal he has every power to arrest those person as per the law but such steps are not taken by pw4. The non presence of the signatures of PC 1882 to whom a direction is given to arrest the accused is also a factor to show doubt over the case of the prosecution.

16. Further more, it is admitted by the pw4 in the cross examination that, he did not cited the scribe of Ex.p2 that is PC 245 in the list of evidence is also a factor to be considered that, they prepared Ex.p2 in the police station itself and rubbed the same on the accused. Even though the prosecution got marked Mos 1 to 7 but the manner of their seizure not inspiring my confidence, as such I considered that, they may be planted. In these circumstances, the evidence of pws 2 and 4 not supported by any independent witness and the supra discussion regarding the evidence of pws 2 and 4 shows that , much creedence cannot be given to them as they are police officials, thus I resorted to give benefit of doubt to the accused, as such accused deserves acquittal.

17. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled.

Mos 1 to 3 shall be destroyed, Mo4 cash of Rs.300/- shall be confiscated to state and Mos 5 to 7 shall be given to Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise 7

Department, Kadapa after the appeal time is over. Accused shall furnish a bond u/sec. 437(a) of Cr.P.C. if he receives summons from the appellant court within six months from this date.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court this, the 31st day of May, 2013.

Sd/- M.Bujjappa.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, FAC Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I class, for Proh.& Excise offences, Kadapa

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

PW-1:- Sri P. Ramamohan reddy PW-2: Sri K.J.V. Prasad PW-3: Sri L.Gopal reddy PW-4: Sri S.Sreenivasulu, S.I

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P-1:-Signature of pw1 in panchanama dt.31-1-2012 Ex.P-2:- Panchayathnama dt.31-1-2012 Ex.P-3: Signature of pw3 in the pnchayathnama dt.31-1-2012 at 9 pm. Ex.P-4: FIR Ex.p-5: Letter of advise Ex.P-6: Chemical examiner report.

Witness examined & Exhibits Marked

behalf of the accused

--nil--

Material objects marked

Mo1: one sample honeybee regular brandy 180 ml sample bottle Mo2: one 8 PM regular whisky 180 ml sample bottle Mo3: one 999 power sar fine whisky 180 ml sample bottle Mo4: cash of Rs.300/- Mo5: 11 Honeybee regular brandy bottles Mo6: 7-8 PM regular whisky bottles Mo7: 999 power star fine whisky 9 bottles

Sd/- M.Bujjappa.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, FAC Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I class, for Proh.& Excise offences, Kadapa.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and judgment tried by the Special Judicial Magistrate

of First Class, for Prohibition and Excise offences , Kadapa

Date of offence:31-1-2012 Date of report:31-1-2012 Date of apprehension of Juvenile:31-1-2012 Date of release of accused:31-1-2012 Date of commencement of trial:21-3-2013 Date of close of trial:30-5-2013 Date of judgment:31-5-2013

Calendar and judgment in C.C.No. 31 of 2012 on the file of Special

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, for Prohibition and Excise offences , Kadapa

Complainant:- State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, I Town police station, Kadapa.

Name of the accused with Age calling Religion Residence Father’s name Daggubati Venugopal, s/o Venkata subbaiah, 34 years, d/o9/112, Nabikota, Kadapa city.

Offence:- U/ss. 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act Finding:- Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act.

Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled. Mos 1 to 3 shall be destroyed, Mo4 cash of Rs.300/- shall be confiscated to state and Mos 5 to 7 shall be given to Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise Department, Kadapa after the appeal time is over. Accused shall furnish a bond u/sec. 437(a) of Cr.P.C. if he receives summons from the appellant court within six months from this date. .

Sd/- M.Bujjappa,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, FAC Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I class, for Proh.& Excise offences, Kadapa

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa Dis.No……………………Dt. …………..

In the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa

Present:-Sri M. Bujjappa, B.A.LL.B.,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of first class, Kadapa

Dated, the 1st day of April, 2014.

C.C.No. 127 of 2013

State: represented by Inspector of police,

Chinnachowk police station, Kadapa…..Complainant

Versus

1. Vadde vallepu Ramesh, 26 years, s/o Vallepu ramudu, Nallapureddypalle village, Pulivendula mandal, YSR district.

2. Vadde Vallepu Anjineyulu, age 35 years, s/o late Venkateswarulu, Nallapureddypalle village, Pulivendula mandal, YSR district.

…….. Accused

This case coming on 28-3-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the State and of Sri T.

Nagaraju, Advocate for A1 and Sri P.Chandraguptha, Legal aid counsel for A2 and after hearing on both sides and upon perusing the record, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Chinnachowk police station, Kadapa has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 14/2013 for the offence punishable under sections 379 or 411 of I.P.C.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are as follows;-

That on 10-1-2013 at 10-30 am at RTC bus stand, Kadapa city where in some unknown persons committed theft of one Hero Honda super splendor plus bearing no. AP04 L 0975 worth Rs.30,000/- belonging to the complainant which was parked infront of RTC bus stand gate and after completion of his work came and found vanished of his motor cycle. Basing on the complaint of Lw1, the case was registered and investigated into.

During the course of investigation on 17-1-2013 at 12-45 pm near

Dilapidated stone crush unit of Raghuram chowdary situated after passing

Itukalapalle beside NH 205 Ananthapur to Kadiri road, Anantapur town, the Inspector of police, Itukalapalle circle of Ananthapur district along with his staff in the 2 presence of mediators arrested both the accused while they were in possession of stolen hero Honda splendor motor cycle concerned in this case as well as 12 other motor cycles concerned in other police station cases of Ananthapur and Kadapa district were seized under a cover of mahazar and later sent the accused for remand to judicial custody. Hence, the charge sheet

2. Cognizance is taken on file for the offence punishable under sections 379 or 411 of I.P.C against the accused.

3. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. and they were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/s. 411 of I.P.C are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused examined on their behalf pws 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 besides marking of Mo1. On the other hand, the defence never led any kind of evidence except depending upon the loop holes of the prosecution .

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence appearing against them.

They denied the same and reported no oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

6. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the entire record.

The learned Assistant public prosecutor argued that, pw1 evidence clearly shows that, when he parked the motor cycle of pw2 at RTC bus stand area on 10- 1-2013 it was thefted by some unknown persons and accordingly he presented the case which registered by the pw5 whose evidence also goes to shows that, eh registered a case in Cr.no. 14/2013 and the evidence of pws 3 and 4 shows that, they not only arrested theaccused but recoverd the crime vehicle in the presence of pw3 at Itukaklapalli area and as such they drafted a panchayathnama which also 3 acted as a corroborative piece of evidence and prays the court to convict the accused.

7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued before the court that, there is no doubt regarding the theft of motor cycle by some unknown persons which belongs to the pw2 but prosecutionf ails to prove that, this accused alone committed the theft of Mo1. He further argued that, pw3 states that, he did not received any written summons from pw4 to act as a panchayathdar but pw5 states that, he effected the summons on thepanchayathdars and then he proceeded for the place of arrest but this inconsistency goes to the very route of thecase of the prosecution and prays the court as pw1 fails to secure the local panchayathdars for the arrest and seizure of Mo1 and other motor cycles and prays the court to acquit the accused.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is:

Does the prosecution proves the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. POINT :- To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution choose to examined Lw1 Sri Muni swamy as pw1, Lw2 Smt.B.Pavana kumari is examined as pw2, Lw4 Sri M.Goodenna as pw3, Lw6 Sri S. Mahaboob basha, Inspector of police, Itukalapalli examined as pw4 and the investigating officer in this case whose evidence shows as Lw7 examined as pw5. To prove the theft of the motor cycle or the steeling of the motor cycle , the evidence o f pws 1 and 2 is tendered whose evidence goes to shows that, the motor cycle bearing no. AP04 N 0975 belongs to the pw2 which stands on her name and it was given to the pw1 and accordingly on 10-1-2013 when he parked his motor cycle infront of bus stand at stands and after sometime when he returned to the place of stand found that, somebody thefted the motor cycle ,a s such after thorough enquiry he preferred a complaint before the police and thus the complaint is marked as Ex.p1. Neither the pw1 nor pw2 choose to cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused.

Under these circumstances whatever the utterance made bythe pws 1 and 2 that, 4 their motor cycle which is Mo1 thefted by someone where pw1 parked the said motor cycle at the APSRTC bus stand area. By the same time preference of the complaint by the pw1 also proved by the pw5 whose evidence goes to shows that, on 4-1-2013 upon the presentation of the complaint bythe pw1 and registered the crime as Cr.no. 14/2013 and investigated into not onlyexamined the witnesses but also visiting the scene by drawing rough sketch of the scene which is marked as

Ex.p4. He too did not cross examined regarding the presentation of the complaint by the pw1, except regarding the correction appeared in the Ex.p1. So, the evidence of pws 1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of pw5 projects that, Mo1 lost by the pw1 and the same is considered to be proved.

10. Now the question is who committed the heft of Mo1. To substantiate the case of the prosecution regarding proving the theft of Mo1 by the accused, the prosecution tendered theevidence of Lw4 as pw3 who is a panchayath secretary of

Athithpalle village of Ananthapur district. His evidence reveals that, on 17-1-2013 while himself and Lw5 present at tea stall around 7-30 am, then police constable approached him as C.I summoning him, accordingly he went to the police station, there C.I reveals the information that, he possessing information regarding the theft and required him to act as a mediator. His evidence further reveals that, pw3 consented for the said request and accordingly he along with C.I and their staff reached Raghava Chandra crush stone and there they noticed two persons standing on their motor cycles and on seeing the arrival of police party, those persons tried to skulk away. Police apprehended them, then C.I interrogated the accused one by one and after that they seized 14 motor cycles including this motor cycle on the spot and drafted the panchayathnama dt. 17-1-2013, as such the said panchayathnama is marked as Ex.p2 and when the evidence of pw3 stood like that the evidence of pw5 who is said to be arrested the accused and seized the motor cycle whose evidence goes to shows that, on 17-1-2013 after the receipt of credible information he secured the presence of panchayathdars through PC no. 2327 and narrated the information to the panchayathdars by effecting the summons over them to act as a 5 mediators, after that they started ina jeep around 7-50 pm and reached to the dilapidated shop situated at Raghava stone crushing machine situated at Ananthapur to Kadiri road and they seen even the accused along with the parked motor cycle, after that these two accused on seeing the arrival of the police party when they were tried to abscond from the said place he ordered the staff to chase them and produced before him, accordingly they did and then he interrogated the accused one by one which reveals not only committing of the theft in this case but also committing of the theft at various places on Kadapa and Pulivendula, then he seized the motor cycle of Lw1 and other 13 motor cycles concerned in other crimes, after identifying the property of Mo1, then he consulted the pw5 and ascertained the same. After that he pasted the slips on the seized property and slashed the radio message to all the police stations.

11.Though the evidence of pws 3 and 4 consistently present that, they both on 17-1-2013 along with the staff of pw4 reached to the Itukalapalle situated at

Ramanjaneyya stone crushing machine and there they effected the arrest of the accused and seized theMoi1 after interrogating and recording the confession of them but pw3 cross examination and pw4 cross examination is perused, there is inconsistency present regarding their meeting together prior to proceeding to the alleged scene of offence. Pw3 states that, he did not received any written summons to act as a panchayathdar where as pw1 states that, he effected the written summons on the pw3 and Lw5 to act as a mediators, after they were secured at the police station. This inconsistency goes to the very route of the case and whatever the utterance made by the pw3 is not in accordance with the pw4. This discrepancy cannot be considered as a minor discrepancy even though as per the pw4 record reflects the issuance of the summons. By the same time pw4 fails to secure any of the local panchayathdar at the place of arrest and seizure though he admitted that, the place of arrest and seizure surrounded by the university and the vehicles are passing over the road. If such is the case picking oif the local panchayathdars is always desirable and securing this pw3 and Lw5 who are not 6 present at the alleged place of arrest and who are present at somewhere certainly throws some doubt regarding the veracity of pw1. Under these circumstances I am not believing the evidence of pws 3 and 4. By the same time the contributing doubt over the veracity of pw4 is he denies the suggestion made by the accused counsel that the names and addresses in writing mentioned in the panchayathnama is different with other parts of the other panchayathnama contents. Though this suggestion is denied but the panchayathnama is perused, the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused is got confirmed as there is a clear variancy regarding the names and addresses mentioned in writing when compared with the other parts of the panchanama contents. If such is the case the evidence of pw5 will not help the case of the prosecution in any manner as such it is not relevant to discuss here. Though he filed a P.T warrant and produced the accused before the court basing on the confession of accused before pws 3 and 4 . Under these circumstances I am certainly entertaining doubt over the case of the prosecution .

Hence the accused certainly deserves acquittal.

12. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 411 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled. Mo1 shall be retained to its owner who is pw2 after the appeal time is over. The Superintendent, Central prison,

Kadapa is directed to release the A1 forthwith if he is not required in any other case.

Accused shall furnish a bond u/sec. 437(a) of Cr.P.C. if they receives summons from the appellant court within six months from this date.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court this, the 1st day of April, 2014.

Sd/- M.Bujjappa.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

PW-1:- Sri A. Munuswamy PW-2:- Smt.B.Pavana kumari PW-3: Sri M. Goodenna PW-4: Sri S.Md.Mahaboob basha PW-5: Sri P.Satya babu, C.I 7

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: C.C of panchayathnama dt. 17-1-2013 Ex.P3: FIR Ex.P4: Rough sketch

Witness examined & Exhibits Marked

behalf of the accused

--nil--

Material objects marked:

Mo1: Motor cycle

Sd/- M.Bujjappa.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and judgment tried by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate

of I class, Kadapa

Date of offence:10-1-2013 Date of report:12-1-2013 Date of apprehension of accused:17-1-2013 Date of release of accused:8-3-2013 Date of commencement of trial:02-5-2013 Date of close of trial: 7-3-2014 Date of judgment:1-4-2014

Calendar and judgment in C.C.No. 127 of 2013 on the file of II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I class, Kadapa.

Complainant:- State: Rep. by Inspector of Police, Chinnachowk police station, Kadapa.

Name of the accused with Age calling Religion Residence Father’s name

1. Vadde vallepu Ramesh, 26 years, s/o Vallepu ramudu, Nallapureddypalle village, Pulivendula mandal, YSR district.

2. Vadde Vallepu Anjineyulu, age 35 years, s/o late Venkateswarulu, Nallapureddypalle village, Pulivendula mandal, YSR district.

Offence:- u/ss. 379 or 411 of I.P.C.

Finding:- A1 and A2 are found not guilty Sentence: In the result,A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 411 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled. Mo1 shall be retained to its owner who is pw2 after the appeal time is over. The Superintendent, Central prison, Kadapa is directed to release the A1 forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Accused shall furnish a bond u/sec. 437(a) of Cr.P.C. if they receives summons from the appellant court within six months from this date. . .

Sd/- M.Bujjappa.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa. .

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa Dis.No……………………Dt. …………..

1

In the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa.

Present:- Sri M.Bujjappa, B.A., L.L.B.,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Dated, this the 28th day of March, 2014.

STC.No.66/2013

State: Rep. By Sub Inspector of Police,

Pendlimarry P.S.,... Complainant

Vs

A.Party:

1. Dumgandla Chennaiah, 45yrs, s/o. Late Pichaiah,

2. Pendlimarri Bhaskar, 35 yrs, S/o. Rama Chandraiah,

3. Mallugandla Chendrayudu, 42 yrs, s/o.Late Chennaiah,

4. Pendlimarri Chennakesavavulu, 55 yrs, S/o. Late Chennaiah @ Chinna Bodaiah,

5. Paradesigandla Baludu, 46 yrs, S/o.Late Chennaiah.

B. Party:

6. Pendlimarri Chandrayudu, 42 yrs, S/o.Lakshumaiah,

7. Pendlimarry Mahesh, 22 yrs, S/o. Chendrayudu @ Ragulodu,

8. Paradesigandla Keshava, 30 yrs, S/o. Chinna Chennaiah,

9. Kammavaripalli Bala Chandrudu, 30 yrs, S/o.Uthaiah,

10. Naddolla Subba Ramanjaneyulu, 28 yrs, S/o. Gangulaiah All are residents of Pathasangatipalli village, Harijanawada Village, Pendlimarry mandal.

... Accused.

This case coming on 27-3-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the state and of Sri Chenna

Reddy and Sunitha Raju for A Party and Sri. P. Gangi Reddy for B Party Advocate

for the accused, after hearing on both sides and upon perusing the record, this

court delivered the following:-

JUDGEMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, Pendlimarry Police station has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 10 in Cr.No.100/2013 for the offence

U/s.160 IPC.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are as follows:-

Lw.1 is working as police constable in Pendlimarri PS. On 28-7-2013 at night Lw.1 came to know that some persons committed an affray in

Pathasangatipali H.wada villge, Pendlimarri mandal. On the instructions of SI of 2

-2-

police, Pendlimarry PS, immediately Lw.1 went to the above village and found that A1 to A5 formed into one group, A6 to A10 formed into another group and committed an affray by causing annoyance to the public peace and tranquility by beat with hands and legs and exchanged wordy altercation with each other due to erection of electric line in their village. Then Lw.1 intervened and admonished them and all the accused disbursed from the scene. The offence took place at 9- 00 PM. Lw.1 returned to the PS and gave special report for taking necessary action against the accused A1 to A10 who committed an affray by causing annoyance to the public peace and tranquility. Lw.2 to 4 are witnessed the occurrence of offence

2. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section 160

IPC against A1 to A10.

3. On appearance of accused no.1 and 10, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section.207 Cr.P.C. and they were examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s.160 IPC, read over and explained acquisition to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

4. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence the accuseds are examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. read over and explained the incriminating material found on record in Telugu, for which the denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution examined Pw.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 . On the other hand the defence never lend any kind of evidence except depending upon the loop holes of the prosecution.

6. Heard arguments of the learned APP. He submitted that Pw.1 is a crucial witness, though is a constable he consistently present the case of prosecution as per special report which is Ex.P1 by narrating the facts that upon the direction of his SI of police on 28-7-2013 he went to the Pathasangatipalli,

H.Wada and there notice an affray in which A party and B party of these accused 3

-3-

fought each other for the reason of installation of electricity poles. He further submitted that after pacifying the and disbursing the accused the Pw.1 return to the police station and presented a special report on the next date of incident is a showing that the incident is happen genuinely. The non supporting of independent witnesses that is Pw.2 and 3 may not throw cloud on the evidence of

Pw.1 since Pw.1 evidence supported by the his SI of Police that is Pw.4 and whose evidence goes to shows that he passed the information of affray at H.wada in

Pathasangatipalle to the Pw.1 and SHO of Pendlimarry that is Head constable as such the evidence of Pw.4 acted as a corroboration to the evidence of Pw.1 as such prosecution fully proves the guilt of the accused and he prays the court to convict the accused.

7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the Accused in one voice argument that though neither Pw.1 nor the Head constable having a specific information about the on going affray at H.wada of Pathasangatipalli from the

Pw.4, but neither registered the crime as it is a cognizable offence nor made an entry in the general diary to show that they are swiftly acted or swings into action in proceeding to the alleged place of incidents. They further argument that Pw.1 did not explained what was the hatred words exchanged by the A party and B party and he fails to arrest at least any of the A party or B party accused. The evidence of Pw.1 is imbelievable as he do not know names of the accused initially. They further argued that Pw.1 did not supported by the independent witnesses by the and there is a failure on part of Pw.4 in explaining the delay in preferring the complaint as such accused certainly deserves acquittal and the prays court to acquit the accuseds under benefit of doubt.

Heard arguments on both sides, perused the record.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is:

Does the prosecution proves the guilt of the accused for the

offence U/s.160 IPC against accused beyond all reasonable doubts?

-4-

4

9. Point: To connect the accused with the crime the prosecution must adduce clear and cogent evidence to inspired the court confidence. To prove the case of the prosecution, Prosecution chose to examined Lw.1 who is a police constable of Pendlimarry as Pw.1,Lw.2 by name Rammohan chosen to be examined as Pw.2, Lw.3 Chennaiah chosen to be examined as Pw.4 and Lw.5 by the name K. Raja Reddy SI of Pendlimarry examined as Pw.4. Apart from these witnesses his evidence the prosecution got marked Ex.P1 to P5.

The evidence of Pw.1 goes to shows that on 28-7-2013 while himself and head constable alone present in the Pendlimarry police station as other staff and

SI of police deployed for Bandobasthu duty in second phase elections, then after receipt of a phone call from the his SI about the mob altercating at H.wada,

Pathasangatipalli, he rushed to there around 9-00 PM and reached main public rastha and there he noticed A1 to A5 on one side and A6 to A10 on the other side fight each other regarding the installation of electricity pole line and also noticed exchange of filthy language and causes much inconvenience to the public peace and tranquility. The evidence of Pw.1 further goes to shows that then he admonished A party B party and send them away and later reached to the police station and on the next day he preferred a complaint. The complaint is marked as Ex.P1. He was cross examined by the learned by the accused.

10. When the evidence of Pw.1 stood like that the prosecution chose to examined independent witnesses as Pw.2 and 3 they in one voice deposed

before the court that they do not know anything about the case and they were

not at all examined by the police as such the learned APP treated them as hostile witnesses with the permission of the court and try to elicit of the fact but his efforts gone in vain. The evidence adduced by the Pw.2 and 3 did not acted as a supportive evidence to the evidence of Pw.1 in any manner.

11. While so the prosecution at last chose to examined SI of Police as

Pw.4 whose evidence goes to shows that on 29-7-2013 he received a complaint from Pw.1 at 9-00 AM then he registered the crime and investigated into by

-5-

5 examining the Pw.1 in the station itself and visit the scene of offence and there examined the Lw.2 to 4 further also drawing the rough sketch of the scene which is Ex.P5. The evidence of Lw.4 further goes to shows that on 1-9-2013 at 1-30

PM A1 to A10 voluntarily surrendered before him as such he effected the arrest of them and observed other formalities.

12. Now the question before the court is whether the sole testimony of Pw.1 who is a police officer is enough to hold the guilt of the accused. The cross examination of Pw.1 is perused the learned counsel for the accused completely defused the evidence of Pw.1 and improbablize his evidence. More so during the chief examination itself he himself stated that he reached to the police station on 28-7-2013 itself. If so the complaint or police proceedings supposed to present on 28-7-2013 itself but he stated that on 29-7-2013 at 9-00 PM he lodged the special report which is Ex.P1. There is no clarification from the evidence of Pw.4 regarding the delay in preferring the Ex.P1 either before him or in the PS before the HC who is in charge by then. This factor throws some suspicion over the veracity of Pw.1. Further more he admits in the cross that he do not know surnames of the A1 to A10, if so how come he mentioned the surnames in the Ex.P1 is a question that need to be explainable by the Pw.1.

Further more the incident alleged to be happened during the night hours as spoken by Pw.1 himself and more over it is alleged by the prosecution that the A party B party fought for installation of electricity poles and that shows that there is no power at all at the place of incidents and further Pw.1 himself admitted that it is a dark time and darkness prevailed over there if so how come Pw.1 identified the A1 to A10 is a question and that is un answered by the prosecution. More so there is no complaint from the gatherers or the villagers about the there inconvenience towards peace and tranquility of them from these accused, if so since the alleged independent witnesses that is Pw.2 and 3 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution absolutely I can say that there is no evidence at all to show that public peace and tranquility got affected by the acts of A1 to A10. On -6- 6 that account alone the prosecution case should suffer. The non examination of

Lw.4 is also shows impact on the case of prosecution

13. Merely because Pw.4 states that A1 to A10 surrendered before him cannot be taken as a sole evidence to speak that A1 to A10 admit their guilt as no such confession of A1 to A10 recorded by him by secure panchayathidars.

Under these circumstance I am expressing my deap doubt over the Pw.1 who is un supported by the independent witnesses as such principle of benefit of doubt shall be applicable in favour of accused. Hence accused deserves acquittal.

14. In the result, A1 to A10 found not guilty for the offence U/s.160

IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over if it is non valuable property. Accused 1 to 10 (A

Party and B Party) shall furnish a bond U/s.437(a) of Cr.P.C. if they receives summons from the appellate court within six months from this date.

Typed to my dictation, pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20th day of December, 2013.

Sd/- M.Bujjappa.,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

Pw1:- Sri. G. Sudhakar Pw.2:- P. Ram Mohan Pw.3:- Chennaiah

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution

Ex.P1: Special report of Pw.1. ExP2:-161(3)Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw.2 Ex.P3:-161(3)Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw.3 Ex.P4:-FIR Ex.P5:- Rough Sketch

Witnesses examined & Exhibits marked

on behalf of the accused

-NIL-

Material Objects marked

-NIL-

Sd/- M.Bujjappa.,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and judgment tried by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I

class, Kadapa

Date of offence:28-7-2013 Date of report:29-7-2013 Date of apprehension of accused:1-8-2013 Date of release of accused:1-8-2013 Date of commencement of trial:24-1-2014 Date of close of trial:7-3-2014 Date of judgment:28-3-2014

Calendar and judgment in STC. No. 66 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I class, Kadapa.

Complainant:- State: Rep. by Sub inspector of Police, Pendlimarri police station.

Name of the accused with Age calling Religion Residence Father’s name A.Party:

1. Dumgandla Chennaiah, 45yrs, s/o. Late Pichaiah,

2. Pendlimarri Bhaskar, 35 yrs, S/o. Rama Chandraiah,

3. Mallugandla Chendrayudu, 42 yrs, s/o.Late Chennaiah,

4. Pendlimarri Chennakesavavulu, 55 yrs, S/o. Late Chennaiah @ Chinna Bodaiah,

5. Paradesigandla Baludu, 46 yrs, S/o.Late Chennaiah.

B. Party:

6. Pendlimarri Chandrayudu, 42 yrs, S/o.Lakshumaiah,

7. Pendlimarry Mahesh, 22 yrs, S/o. Chendrayudu @ Ragulodu,

8. Paradesigandla Keshava, 30 yrs, S/o. Chinna Chennaiah,

9. Kammavaripalli Bala Chandrudu, 30 yrs, S/o.Uthaiah,

10. Naddolla Subba Ramanjaneyulu, 28 yrs, S/o. Gangulaiah All are residents of Pathasangatipalli village, Harijanawada Village, Pendlimarry mandal.

Offence:- u/s. 160 IPC.

Finding:- A1 to A10 are found not guilty

Sentence:In the result, A1 to A10 found not guilty for the offence U/s.160 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over if it is non valuable property. Accused 1 to 10 (A Party and B Party) shall furnish a bond U/s.437(a) of Cr.P.C. if they receives summons from the appellate court within six months from this date. . .

Sd/- M.Bujjappa.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa. .