Sri.M.Eswar Venkata Prasad

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 22.04.2025 Page 1 of 9 CC.No.384 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

ALLAGADDA

Calendar Case No. 384 of 2019

1.Calendar Case No.384 of 2019

2.Name of the Police Station and State Represented by Sub- Cr.No. Inspector of Police, Allagadda Town Police Station in Cr.No.135 of 2018.

3.Description of the AccusedDudekula Mulla Raghavendra, Age 24 years, S/o.Pedda Seelanna, R/o.Arjunapuram Village, Dornipadu Mandal, Driver of Tata Magic Auto bearing No.AP04TV5344.

4.Date of Occurrence29.11.2018

5.Date of Complaint30.11.2018

6.Date of apprehension15.05.2019

7.Date of release on bail15.05.2019

8.Date of Examination10.06.2024

9.Date of Commencement of Trial28.01.2025

10. Date of Closure of Trial21.04.2025

11. Date of Judgment22.04.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence : Causing death by rash or negligent act;

U/ Section : 304-A of IPC

Finding : Accused is found not guilty.

O R D E R : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Section 304-A of IPC and thereby he is acquitted for the same under

Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the Accused and of his sureties shall remain inforce for a period of six months as per the provision under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked Case Property i.e., Tata Magic auto

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 22.04.2025 Page 2 of 9 CC.No.384 of 2019

bearing No.AP04TV5344 which was given for interim custody vide orders in

Crl.M.P.No.1266 of 2019, dt.06.06.2019 shall be made absolute after expiry of

the Appeal time.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Allagadda.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 22.04.2025 Page 3 of 9 CC.No.384 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

ALLAGADDA.

Present :- M. ESWAR VENKATA PRASAD,

Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Allagadda.

Dated Tuesday, the 22nd day of April, 2025.

C.C No.384 of 2019

The State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Allagadda Town Police Station. .... Complainant

-Versus-

Dudekula Mulla Raghavendra, Age 24 years, S/o.Pedda Seelanna, R/o.Arjunapuram Village, Dornipadu Mandal, Driver of Tata Magic Auto bearing No.AP04TV5344.

... Accused

This Case is coming on this day for arguments in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri P.S.Mahaboob Basha, Learned Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Allagadda Town Police Station has filed Charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.135 of 2018, for the offence punishable U/Section 304-A of IPC.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:-

(a)This is a case of fatal road accident that occurred on 29.11.2018, at about 18.00 hours near Court complex at Nandyala road,

Allagadda town, wherein the accused drove the Tata Magic auto bearing

No.AP04TV5344 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and turned the vehicle without indicators and any precautions, while proceeding towards

Nandyala side from four road circle Allagadda. As a result, the rider of motorcycle by name P.Venkata Lakshmaiah/deceased who came back side of the auto fell down and received injuries on his both legs and hand fingers. The

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 22.04.2025 Page 4 of 9 CC.No.384 of 2019

said P.Venkata Lakshmaiah/deceased went to the house of LW.3 and taken amount of Rs.2,500/- for treatment. While LW.3/S.Siva Sankar and P.Venkata

Lakshmaiah/deceased were proceedings to the hospital Allagadda on motorcycle near four road junction, the said P.Venkata Lakshmaiah/deceased informed LW.3 about his pain in the stomach due to accident, fell down and became unconscious. Then, LW.3 shifted the deceased to Government

Hospital, Allagadda and got admitted, where the doctor gave treatment and declared the death of the said P.Venkata Lakshmaiah/deceased.

(b)Basing on the report of LW.1/P.Srinivasa Rao, LW.16/Sub-

Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.135 of 2018 U/Sec.304-A IPC and investigated into it. During the course of investigation, LW.16 examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 6 namely Pilli Srinivasa Rao, Pilli

Lakshmi Devi, Chukka Siva Sankar, Dudekula Chinna Dastagiri, Kadiyam

Jaya Simha and Midde Sreenivasulu respectively in which they all stated and corroborated with the version of First Information Report (FIR).

(c)LW.16 held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of relatives of deceased (LWs.1 to 3) and panchayatdars (LWs.7 to 9). On 30.11.2018 at about 14.00 hours, LW.16 examined the scene of offence in the presence of panchayatdars (LWs.10 and 11) under a cover of panchanama.

(d)On 15.05.2019 at 16.00 hours, the LW.16 arrested the accused in the premises of police station and recorded the confessional statement of accused in the presence of panchayatdars (LWs.12 and 13) under a cover of panchanama and released him by taking sufficient sureties.

(e)LW.14/D.T.J.Ramya, medical Officer, Govet., Hospital,

Allagadda who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Post Mortem certificate and opined that the deceased died due to heart disease which may be prorogated due to met with RTA time of death 16 – 18 hours prior to Post Mortem examination.

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 22.04.2025 Page 5 of 9 CC.No.384 of 2019

(f)LW.15/S.Siva Shankar, Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the crime vehicle opined that the accident occurred not due to

Mechanical defect of the vehicle.

After completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 304-A of IPC.

3. Cognizance of the offence U/Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code was taken against the Accused and issued Summons.

4. On appearance of the Accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to him.

5.The Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the Charge sheet was read over and explained to him in

Vernacular language, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of the trial, the Prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 7 and Exhibits P1 to P14 were marked. The evidence of LWs.7 to 15 namely Guddeti Obulareddy, Kurimigalla Brahmam, Shaik Baigadi Hussain

Basha, Ulavala Siva Sankar, Sallepalli Baleeswara Reddy, Shaik Mahammed

Vali, Dudekula Pullaiah, Dr.T.J.Ramya and D.S.Siva Shankar respectively were given up by the Learned A.P.P. Thus, the closure of prosecution evidence.

7.After closure of the Prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found in the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both the sides. Perused the material records.

9.Now, the Point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has made out the case against the accused for the offence Under Section 304(A) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 22.04.2025 Page 6 of 9 CC.No.384 of 2019

10. In this case, the P.W.1/P.Srinivasa Rao, PW.2/P.Lakshmi Devi and PW.3C.Siva Shankar, being the defacto-complainant, wife and known person of the deceased/P.Venkata Lakshmaiah respectively deposed in their respective Chief Examination that they do not know the accused; and the deceased died in road traffic accident at Allagadda while he was returning to the village at about 6 years ago and that they do not know who caused the accident and how the accident occurred and that police did not examine them and not recorded their statements; and that they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

11.PW.4/Dudekula Chinna Dastagiri, PW.5/K.Jayasimha and

PW.6/M.Srinivasulu, being the eye witnesses deposed in their respective cheif examination that they do not know the accused and do not know the facts of the case; and did not witness any accident relating to this case. Police did not examine them and not recorded their statements; and that they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

12.P.W.7/G.Priyatham Reddy, Inspector of Police, being the investigation officer in this case deposed in his chief examination that on 30.11.2018 at about 08.00 hours, he received written complaint from PW.1.

Basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.135/2018 for the offence u/s.304 -

A IPC and issued FIR/Ex.P8, visited the CHC, Allagadda, secured the presence of LWs.7 to 9 namely G.Obulareddy, K.Brahmam and S.Baigadi

Hussain Basha respectively and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased/Pilli Venkata Lakshmaiah and secured the presence of PWs.1 to 3, examined and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. Statements, then, forwarded the dead body for PME to LW.14/Dr.T.J.Ramya. Thereafter, he went to four road circle Allagadda and there he examined and recorded 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4. Thereafter, went to the scene of offence, drawn rough sketch/Ex.P10 of the scene of offence and secured the presence of PWs.5 and 6, examined and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C., statement and also secured the presence of

LWs.10 and 11 in their presence he prepared Ex.P11/scene observation

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 22.04.2025 Page 7 of 9 CC.No.384 of 2019

panchanama, dt.30.11.2018, on 09.05.2019, he received PME report/Ex.P12 from LW.14. Further deposed that on 15.05.2019, he arrested the accused on his surrender before the police station and secured the presence of LWs.12 and 13 and in their presence he recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama/Ex.P13 and seized the crime vehicle bearing No.AP04TV5344, he released the accused on self surety, later he sent a requisition to

LW.15/MVI. On the same day, LW.15 inspected the crime vehicle and issued

MVI report/Ex.P14, after completion of investigation he filed chargesheet against the accused.

13.During the course of the Cross examination by the Defence

Counsel, PW.7 denied the suggestion that he did not examine any witnesses and not recorded their statements and further denied the suggestion that he never visited the place of occurrence and not prepared the rougth sketch of the place of occurrence and that the accused not confessed before him and not seized the crime vehicle and that he prepared the record suitably in the police station and that deposing false. Further denied that the accused is no way concerned to this crime.

14.Basing on the above evidence deposed by the Prosecution

Witnesses, none of the Prosecution witnesses have deposed that the Accused was the driver of the crime vehicle which caused the accident. In this case, all the Prosecution Witnesses were turned as hostile, they did not depose any incriminating material against the Accused, who caused the accident. This is a great set back to the case of the Prosecution. Though they were cross examined by the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited from them for the case of prosecution.

15.When coming to the evidence of the PW.7, who is the investigating officer in this case and also the official witness in this case, in general, Police official’s evidence may not be considered when material

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 22.04.2025 Page 8 of 9 CC.No.384 of 2019

witnesses have been turned hostile; and that too the evidence of other

Witnesses did not corroborate with his evidence to strengthen his version.

16.After going through the entire evidence as well as Exhibits marked in this case, this Court is of the opinion that, no incriminating material is available against the Accused person, that he was responsible for the accident. Except PW.7, no other independent evidence is available to prove the guilt of accused. Even the evidence of PW.7 raises some suspicion and is not free from doubt and so his evidence is may not be considered at this juncture. The alleged rash or negligent act has not resulted in the death of the deceased person, as such this Court determined the point holding that the

Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused for the accusation levelled against him beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the Point is determined.

17. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Section 304-A of IPC and thereby he is acquitted for the same under

Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the Accused and of his sureties shall remain inforce for a period of six months as per the provision under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked Case Property i.e., Tata Magic auto bearing No.AP04TV5344 which was given for interim custody vide orders in

Crl.M.P.No.1266 of 2019, dt.06.06.2019 shall be made absolute after expiry of

the Appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, Corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 22 nd day of April, 2025.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Allagadda.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For the Prosecution For the Defence

PW1: P.Srinivasa Rao None.

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 22.04.2025 Page 9 of 9 CC.No.384 of 2019

PW2: P.Lakshmi Devi PW3: C.Siva Shankar PW4: Dudekula Chinna Dastagiri PW5: K.Jayasimha PW6: M.Srinivasulu PW7: G.Priyatham Reddy

Exhibits Marked

For the Prosecution For the Defense

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW.1 on complaint- Nil - Ex.P2 : Section 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.1 Ex.P3 : Section 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.2 Ex.P4 : Section 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.3 Ex.P5 : Section 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.4 Ex.P6 : Section 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.5 Ex.P7 : Section 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.6 Ex.P8 : First Information Report Ex.P9 : Inquest panchanama Ex.P10 : Rough sketch Ex.P11 : Scene Observation Panchanama Ex.P12 : Post Mortem Examination Report Ex.P13 : Confession cum Seizure Panchanama Ex.P14 : Motor Vehicle Inspection Report

Material Objects :- Nil.

J.M.F.C., ALG.

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 23.04.2025 Page 1 of 9 CC.No.267 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

ALLAGADDA

Calendar Case No. 267 of 2019

1.Calendar Case No.267 of 2019

2.Name of the Police Station and State Represented by Sub-Inspector Cr.No. of Police, Allagadda Town Police Station in Cr.No.22 of 2019.

3.Description of the AccusedPeyyala Anil Kumar, Aged 38 years, S/o.Chinna Guraiah, R/o.Somapuram Village, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa District. Driver of auto bearing No. AP04UB3097.

4.Date of Occurrence08.02.2019

5.Date of Complaint08.02.2019

6.Date of apprehension13.02.2019

7.Date of release on bail13.02.2019

8.Date of Examination04.06.2024

9.Date of Commencement of Trial21.10.2024

10. Date of Closure of Trial21.04.2025

11. Date of Judgment23.04.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence : Causing death by rash or negligent act;

U/ Section : 304-A of IPC

Finding : Accused is found not guilty.

O R D E R : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Section 304-A of IPC and thereby he is acquitted for the same under

Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the Accused and of his sureties shall remain inforce for a period of six months as per the provision under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked Case Property i.e., Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP04UB3097 which was given for interim custody vide orders in

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 23.04.2025 Page 2 of 9 CC.No.267 of 2019

Crl.M.P.No.475 of 2019, dt.28.02.2019 shall be made absolute after expiry of

the Appeal time.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Allagadda.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 23.04.2025 Page 3 of 9 CC.No.267 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

ALLAGADDA.

Present :- M. ESWAR VENKATA PRASAD,

Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Allagadda.

Dated Wednesday, the 22nd day of April, 2025.

C.C No.267 of 2019

The State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Allagadda Town Police Station. .... Complainant

-Versus-

Peyyala Anil Kumar, Aged 38 years, S/o.Chinna Guraiah, R/o.Somapuram Village, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa District. Driver of auto bearing No.AP04UB3097.

... Accused

This Case is coming on this day for arguments in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri C.V.Ramana Rao, Learned Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Allagadda Town Police Station has filed Charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.22 of 2019, for the offence punishable U/Section 304-A of IPC.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:-

(a)On 08.02.2019, at 03.30 AM the deceased/Dudekula

Hussanaiah @ Khilli left his house to attend nature call and at about 03.45

AM, while he was proceeding near culvert beside SPY Reddy mineral water plant one auto bearing No.AP04UB3097 came from Koilakuntla side, the accused who is the driver of auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased/Dudekula Hussanaiah @ Khilli due to which he fell down and received injuries on his back of head, bleeding from nose and

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 23.04.2025 Page 4 of 9 CC.No.267 of 2019

mouth. LW.5/Alluri Prabhakar witnessed the offence and informed the same to

LW.1/Dudekula Hussain Basha. Then, the deceased/Dudekula Hussanaiah @

Khilli was shifted to Government Hospital, Allagadda for treatment, where he was died at 04.30 hours while undergoing treatment.

(b)Basing on the report of LW.1/Dudekula Hussain Basha,

LW.16/Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.22 of 2019

U/Sec.304-A IPC of Allagadda Town P.S and investigated into it.

(c)During the course of investigation, LW.16 examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 6 namely Dudekula Hussain Basha,

Dudekula Beebee, Dudekula Dastagiramma, Dudekula Dastagiri, Alluri

Prabhakar and Konangi Jayapal respectively in which they all stated and corroborated with the version of First Information Report(FIR). Then LW.16 conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of blood relatives of the deceased i.e., LWs.1 to 4 and Panchayatdars (LWs.8 to 10 namely Kunduru Rami Reddy @ Ramudu, Injeti Siva Kumar Reddy and Midde

Hussainvali respectively)

(d)On 08.02.2019 at 12.00 hours, LW.16 recorded the scene observation panchanama in the presence of Panchayatdars (LWs.11 and 13 namely Agaveeti Ranganayakulu and Budidinne Bala Swami respectively).

(f)On 13.02.2019 the LW.16 examined the owner of the crime vehicle as LW.7/Peyyala Chinna Balaiah. Then on the same day LW.16 recorded the confession of the accused in the presence of panchayatdars (LWs.11 and 12) and arrested the accused at 12.00 hours. LW.16 verified the

Registration Certificate (RC) of the crime vehicle and found to be valid and driving license of the accused.

(g) LW.14/Dr.Anjaneyulu, Medical Officer, Govt., Hospital,

Allagadda who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 23.04.2025 Page 5 of 9 CC.No.267 of 2019

opined that the deceased died of due to head injury leading intra cranial bleeding and issued Post Mortum Certificate.

(e)LW.15/S.Siva Shankar, Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the crime vehicle opined that the accident occurred was not due to

Mechanical defect of the crime vehicle.

After completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 304-A of IPC.

3. Cognizance of the offence U/Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code was taken against the Accused and issued Summons.

4. On appearance of the Accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to him.

5.The Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the Charge sheet was read over and explained to him in

Vernacular language, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of the trial, the Prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 5 and Exhibits P1 to P11 were marked. The evidence of LWs.3, 4, 7 to 15 namely Dudekula Dastagiramma, Dudekula Dastagiri, Peyyala Chinna

Balaiah, Kunduru Rami Reddy @ Ramudu, Injeti Siva Kumar Reddy, Midde

Hussainvali, Agaveeti Ranganayakulu, Shaik Mahaboob Basha, Budidinne

Bala Swami, Dr.Anjaneyulu and S.Siva Kumar respectively were given up by the Learned A.P.P. Thus, the closure of prosecution evidence.

7.After closure of the Prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found in the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both the sides. Perused the material records.

9.Now, the Point for determination is :-

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 23.04.2025 Page 6 of 9 CC.No.267 of 2019

Whether the prosecution has made out the case against the accused for the offence Under Section 304(A) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

10. In this case, the P.W.1/Dudekula Hussain Basha and

PW.2/Dudekula Beebee, being the blood relatives of the deceased/Dudekula

Hussanaiah @ Khilli deposed in their respective Chief Examination that they do not know accused; at about 7 years ago, the deceased/Dudekula

Hussanaiah @ Khilli was died in an accident occurred at Chinthakuntla

Village; and do not know how the accident occurred and who is responsible for the accident; and do not know facts of the case. PW.1 further deposed that he did not lodge any report to the police and police obtained his signatures on some white papers. Police did not examine them and not recorded their statements; and that he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

11.PW.3/Alluri Prabhakar and PW.4/K.Jayapal, being the eye witnesses deposed in their respective cheif examination that they do not know accused and do not know the facts of the case; they did not witness any accident and do not know who is responsible for the death of the deceased/Dudekula Hussanaiah @ Khilli. Police did not examine them and not recorded their statements; and that they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

12.P.W.5-G.Priyatham Reddy, Inspector of Police, deposed that on 08.02.2019 at about 06.15 hours, he received written complaint from PW.1.

Basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.22/2019 for the offence u/s.304 -A

IPC and issued FIR/Ex.P6, on the same day he visited the CHC, Allagadda, secured the presence of LWs.8 to 10 namely Kunduru Rami Reddy @

Ramudu, Injeti Siva Kumar Reddy and Midde Hussainvali respectively and secured the presence of PWs.1, 2, LWs.3 and 4 examined and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. Statements. Thereafter, he forwarded the dead body for

PME/Ex.P7 to LW.14/Dr.Anjaneyulu. Thereafter, he went to the scene of

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 23.04.2025 Page 7 of 9 CC.No.267 of 2019

offence and drawn rough sketch/Ex.P8. He further deposed that on 13.02.2019, LW.7/T.Chinna Balaiah brought the accused and crime vehicle bearing No.AP04UB3097 and produced before him at police station, he secured the presence of LWs.11 and 12 and in their presence he recorded confession of the accused and seized the crime vehicle under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama/Ex.P9, dt.13.02.2019 and on the same day, he released the accused on self surety, examined and recorded the 161

Cr.P.C. statement of LW7. Later, he sent a requisition to LW.15/MVI. On 20.02.2019, LW.15 inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report/Ex.P10, after completion of investigation he filed chargesheet against the accused.

13.During the course of the Cross examination by the Defence

Counsel, PW.5 denied the suggestion that he did not examine any witnesses and not recorded their statements and further denied the suggestion that he never visited the place of occurrence and not prepared the rougth sketch of the place of occurrence and that the accused not confessed before him and not seized the crime vehicle and that he prepared the record suitably in the police station and that deposing false. Further denied that the accused is no way concerned to this crime.

14.Basing on the above evidence deposed by the Prosecution

Witnesses, none of the Prosecution witnesses have deposed that the Accused was the driver of the crime vehicle which caused the accident. In this case, all the Prosecution Witnesses were turned as hostile, they did not depose any incriminating material against the Accused, who caused the accident. This is a great set back to the case of the Prosecution. Though they were cross examined by the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited from them for the case of prosecution.

15.When coming to the evidence of the PW.5, who is the investigating officer in this case and also the official witness in this case, in general, Police official’s evidence may not be considered when material

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 23.04.2025 Page 8 of 9 CC.No.267 of 2019

witnesses have been turned hostile; and that too the evidence of other

Witnesses did not corroborate with his evidence to strengthen his version.

16.After going through the entire evidence as well as Exhibits marked in this case, this Court is of the opinion that, no incriminating material is available against the Accused person, that he was responsible for the accident. Except PW.5, no other independent evidence is available to prove the guilt of accused. Even the evidence of PW.5 raises some suspicion and is not free from doubt and so his evidence is may not be considered at this juncture. The alleged rash or negligent act has not resulted in the death of the deceased person, as such this Court determined the point holding that the

Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused for the accusation levelled against him beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the Point is determined.

17. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Section 304-A of IPC and thereby he is acquitted for the same under

Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the Accused and of his sureties shall remain inforce for a period of six months as per the provision under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked Case Property i.e., Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP04UB3097 which was given for interim custody vide orders in

Crl.M.P.No.475 of 2019, dt.28.02.2019 shall be made absolute after expiry of

the Appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, Corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23 rd day of April, 2025.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Allagadda.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For the Prosecution For the Defence

PW1: Dudekula Hussain BashaNone. PW2: Dudekula Beebee

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 23.04.2025 Page 9 of 9 CC.No.267 of 2019

PW3: Alluri Prabhakar PW4: K.Jayapal PW5: G.Priyatham Reddy

Exhibits Marked

For the Prosecution For the Defense

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW.1 on complaint- Nil - Ex.P2 : Section 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.1 Ex.P3 : Section 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.2 Ex.P4 : Section 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.3 Ex.P5 : Section 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.4 Ex.P6 : First Information Report Ex.P7 : Inquest panchanama Ex.P8 : Rough sketch Ex.P9 : Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P10 : Motor Vehicle Inspection Report Ex.P11 : Post Mortem Examination Report

Material Objects :- Nil.

J.M.F.C., ALG.

JCJ, Allagadda Date .01 .11.2024 Page 1 of 7O.S.No.21 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: ALLAGADDA

Present : Sri M.ESWAR VENKATA PRASAD,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Allagadda.

Friday, this the 01 st day of November, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No.21/2018

Between: Pedde Ramanaiah @ Ravanaiah, S/o Pedda Pullaiah aged about 35 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Mahadevapuram Village, Sirivel Mandal, Kurnool District. …Plaintiff

And

Pathuri Chinna Thimmaiah, S/o Bijjanna aged about 43 years, Hindu, Business R/o Mahadevapuram Village, Sirivel Mandal, Kurnool District …Defendant

This Suit is coming on this day for arguments before me in the presence of Sri S.Rami Reddy,Advocate for the Plaintiff and ofSri D.C.Vijayand Sri E.Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocates for Defendant and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. This is suit to recover a sum of Rs.1,28,950/- being the principal and interest due on four promissory note, dated 15.12.2014, for Rs.75,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, with future interest and for costs.

02. The brief averments of the Plaint are that:

The Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- on dt.15.12.2014, from the plaintiff for his necessities agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% P.A. either to the plaintiff or her order on demand, and the defendant executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. In spite of repeated personal demands made by the plaintiff and registered notice dated 29.11.2017, the defendant failed to pay the amount due. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit against the defendant.

JCJ, Allagadda Date .01 .11.2024 Page 2 of 7O.S.No.21 of 2018

03. Per contra, the defendant filed Written Statement denying the execution of pronote contending that he did not borrowed the alleged amount of Rs 75,000/- from the plaintiff. Defendant further submits plaintiff is a money lender and used to lend money at higher rate of interest to the public. Defendant also have dealings with him and used to pay the amount. He further submits that as there were some differences arose with regard to payment of interest at higher rate in previous transactions than the agreed rate of interest. Though the defendant is not due any amount to the plaintiff the plaintiff used to demand the amount. Therefore in order to get wrongful gain the defendant submits that plaintiff has created the promissory note with the forged signature of the defendant. The defendant to prove the previous transactions between himself and the plaintiff submitted old promissory notes to this court. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

04. Basing on the above pleadings, as there were no elements of settlement, the following issues were framed by my predecessor, for trial:

1) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of suit claim.?

3) To what relief?

05. During the course of the trial afforded to the parties, the Plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is a suit promissory note

date 15.12.2014, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 29.11.2017, Ex.A3 is

the online tracking receipt. To prove his case, the defendant got himself examined as DW.1 and got marked exhibits B1 and B2. Ex.B1 is the promissory note dt.

08.09.2007 for an amount of Rs.10,000/- and Ex.B2 is the promissory note dt.

01.03.2008 for an amount of Rs.22,000/-.

06. The arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant are treated as heard.

07. ISSUES No.1 & 2:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

JCJ, Allagadda Date .01 .11.2024 Page 3 of 7O.S.No.21 of 2018

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim?

08.Appreciation of evidence and reasons thereof, for Issues No. 1 & 2 are interrelated to each other and for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, the two issues are clubbed together.

09. To prove his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and his chief examination was filed by way of affidavit. PW1 has reiterated all the averments of the plaint in all material aspects in his chief examination affidavit. PW1 testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.75,000/- from him on 15-12-2014 and executed Ex.A1 in his favor agreeing to repay the same with 24% per annum either to him or on his order on demand. He admitted that the defendant is a farmer. He further deposed that he is doing a vegetable business and is getting a profit of

Rs.300/- daily. He further deposed that one week prior to execution the defendant requested him to lend amount and two days prior to execution, he drawn the amount from the bank. He further deposed that defendant himself brought empty pro note, stamp and the men. He denied that defendant did not borrow the amount from him and that Ex.A1 is forged one.

10. To prove his case, the defendant got himself examined as DW.1 and his chief examination was filed by way of affidavit. DW1 has reiterated all the averments of the Written Statement in all material aspects in his chief examination affidavit. Defendant deposed that he has money lending transactions with the plaintiff continuously He denied that he do not have any disputes with the plaintiff and further denied that he had taken the amount from the plaintiff. He denied that he signed on the pro note also.

11.Though the defendant raised a plea of forgery of Ex.A1, this court is of the view that the oral evidence of PW1 is sufficient to dispel the cloud of forgery as also the defendant has not chosen to take any steps in the present case to substantiate his plea of forgery of Ex.A1. Also nothing material has been elicited in the cross examination of the plaintiff with respect to forgery.

JCJ, Allagadda Date .01 .11.2024 Page 4 of 7O.S.No.21 of 2018

Therefore, this court is of the view that the oral testimony of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1-A3 are sufficient to hold that the defendant executed Ex.A1 in favor of the plaintiff.

12.With respect to the contention of the defendant that there were previous money lending transactions between plaintiff and the defendant and

Exhibits B1 and B2 are also marked on behalf of the defendant can only show that there is a prior money lending transaction between them, but they are not of significant help to the defendant to prove his case that he did not signed in Ex.A1 and he did not borrowed money from the plaintiff.

13.With respect to the contention of non-passing of consideration under

Ex.A1, this court deems it appropriate to refer to Section 118(a) of the Negotiable

Instruments Act that stipulates that the court shall presume that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. In such a scenario, the onus is on the defendant to show that Ex.A1 is not supported by consideration. This court is of the view that presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is neither diluted nor vanished based on the sole oral testimony of the defendant.

14.In this context, this court deems it appropriate to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao vs

Thadikonda Ramulu Firm and Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 2898, wherein it was held as follows:

“15. From the above decision of this Court, it is pellucid that if the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who would be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. It is also discernible from the above decision that if the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118(a) in his favour.”

JCJ, Allagadda Date .01 .11.2024 Page 5 of 7O.S.No.21 of 2018

This court also deems it appropriate to refer to the Judgment of the

Hon’ble Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh inPenumatcha

Achyuthramaraju and Ors. vs. Padmanabhuni Venkata Subbaiah and Ors.

reported in 2005 (3) ALD 792, wherein, in similar circumstances, it was observed as follows:

“16. When the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and stated that he lend a sum of Rs.40,000/- to defendant No.6. It was signed by 6th defendant on behalf of 1st defendant-firm, which was attested by P.W.2. Legal presumption can be drawn in view of Section 118 of N.I. Act that such promissory note was made or drawn for consideration and burden lies on defendants to prove that the said promissory note was executed without consideration, namely, the plaintiff had no capacity to lend such amount. Except ipse dixit of 2nd defendant and 6th defendant that the plaintiff had no capacity to pay the amount no other contra evidence is led to prove that the plaintiff had no capacity to lend money.

17. In view of the same, it is presumed that on lending the amount of

Rs.40,000/- 6th defendant executed a pronote under Ex.A1 and it is for the defendants to discharge the onus of plaintiffs capacity to lend the money.…”

The defendant is unable to show any reason or circumstance to disbelieve the oral testimony of PW.1, regarding the execution of the Ex.A1 by the defendant, passing of consideration under Ex.A1. It is also pertinent to note that nothing was elicited in the cross examination of PW.1, to discredit their evidence.

18.Therefore, this court is of the view that the defendant has failed to rebut the presumption under section 118 (a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, even by preponderance of probabilities. The defendant failed to prove his contentions by leading cogent evidence and he is not successful in showing the improbability of the consideration.

JCJ, Allagadda Date .01 .11.2024 Page 6 of 7O.S.No.21 of 2018

19.Therefore, this court is of the view that the defense taken by the defendant is not substantiated. Hence, this court holds that Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and Ex.A1 is not forged, as contended by the defendant.

Having regard to the above referred judgments, the material available on record and the aforesaid discussion, this court holds that the Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and Ex.A1 is not forged, as contended by the defendant.

Hence, Issues no. 1 & 2 are answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

20. ISSUE NO.3: “To what relief?”

As discussed supra in Issues no.1 & 2, Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and it is supported by consideration. Moreover, the oral evidence of

PW.1, coupled with the Exs.A1, A2 and A3, show that the defendant borrowed the money and executed the suit promissory note vide Ex.A1. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree against the defendant. Accordingly, the Issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

In view of the findings given by this court in Issues no. 1, 2 & 3, the suit is to be decreed with costs as prayed for.

21. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,28,950/- (Rupees One Lakh twenty eight

Thousand Nine Hundred and fifty only) at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five Thousand only).

Typed by me in my personal laptop, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 1 st day of November, 2024.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

ALLAGADDA.

JCJ, Allagadda Date .01 .11.2024 Page 7 of 7O.S.No.21 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT PW.1 : Pedde Ramanaiah @ RavanaiahDW.1 : Pathuri Chinna Thimmaiah

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.A1 : Suit promissory note date 15.12.2014- N I L - Ex A2 : Office copy of legal notice dated 29.11.2017 Ex A3 : Online tracking receipt.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

ALLAGADDA.

JCJ, Allagadda Date .01 .11.2024 Page 1 of 5O.S.No.4 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: ALLAGADDA

Present:- Sri M.ESWAR VENKATA PRASAD,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Allagadda.

Dated Friday, the 01st day of November, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No.4/2020

Between: Sure Subba Sreenivasulu, S/o.Pedda Venkata Subba Narayana Setty, aged about 52 years, Hindu, Business, R/o H.No 4-2-68, Police line Street, Allagadda Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.…Plaintiff

And

Minnulla Mahaboob Basha, S/o. Mahaboob Subhanu, aged about 38 years, Employee Junior Assistant Agricultural Office, MV Nagar, R/o H.no 8-7-184/1, Saddam Colony, Allagadda Village & Mandal, Kurnool district…Defendant

This Suit is coming on this day for consideration before me in the presence of Sri N.K.Venu Gopal and Sri H.C.V.Sekhar Babu, Learned Advocates for the Plaintiff and of Sri Nerella Chandra Shekar and Sri Nerella Murali Mohan, Learned Advocates for Defendant and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. This is suit to recover a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- being the principal and interest due on single promissory note, dated 28.10.2019, for Rs.1,25,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, with future interest and for costs.

02.The brief averments of the Plaint are that:

The Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 28.10.2019, from the plaintiff at Allagadda Village and mandal for his necessities agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% P.A. either to the plaintiff or his order on demand, and the defendant executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. In spite of repeated personal demands made by the plaintiff and the defendant failed to pay the amount due. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit against the defendant.

JCJ, Allagadda Date .01 .11.2024 Page 2 of 5O.S.No.4 of 2020

03. On receipt of summons, the defendant filed written statement. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows: The defendant reserved his right to file additional written statement and stated that the plaintiff is running a general store business and the defendant is also a regular customer of the plaintiffs store.

The defendant submits that he took every month ration from the shop and for security purpose took Ex.A1 with double amount. The defendant submits that he paid the entire amount of the every month ration due and cleared the same. After the defendant transferred to kurnool, he asked the plaintiff to return Ex.A1 which he executed for security purpose.

The defendant further submits that there is no consideration with respect to Ex.A1 and he executed the same due to coercion. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

04. Basing on the above pleadings, as there were no elements of settlement, the following issues were framed by my predecessor, for trial:

1) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of suit claim?

3) To what relief?

05. During the course of the trial afforded to the parties, the Plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1. On the other hand, the defendant though filed written statement did not adduce any evidence on his behalf to prove his case and no documents marked on his behalf.

06. The arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant are treated as heard.

07. Issues No.1 & 2 “Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant? “Whether the suit promissory note is forged, as contended by the defendant?”

08. Appreciation of evidence and reasons thereof, for Issues No. 1 & 2 are interrelated to each other and for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, the two issues are clubbed together.

JCJ, Allagadda Date .01 .11.2024 Page 3 of 5O.S.No.4 of 2020

09. Issues No.1 and 2:-

It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,25,000/- on 28.10.2019 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note. In spite of repeated personal demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note. Hence, the suit. The same is contested by the defendants taking plea that he executed the Ex. A1 by coercion and no consideration was passed.

10.The execution of a document is different from signing a document. The execution of document means signing a document written out read over and understood and doesn’t consist of merely signing a blank paper. The presumption under Section 118 of N.I. Act cannot be extended unless execution of instrument is either admitted or proved. Once, the execution is denied, it is for the person, who makes the claim on the instrument, to prove it. When the defendant denied the execution and passing of the consideration under the hundi, the plaintiff has to prove only the execution of the document. When once the plaintiff proves the execution, the presumption under Section 118-(a) of N.I. Act comes into operation and then the burden of proving no consideration would be shifted to the defendant and he has to prove the same.

11. PW1 in his chief examination stated that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- on 28.10.2019 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note at

Allagadda and in that token of that receipt of the said borrowing and as security for repayment of the same with interest at 24% p.a., the defendant executed the Ex. A1 in his own handwriting. The plaintiff further states that one Kasireddy sankar reddy attested the Ex.A1.

12.Since defendant failed to cross examine PW1 despite taking several adjournments and having ample amount of time, defendant side choosen not to cross examine PW1. It is pertinent to mention here that this court gave several adjournments to adduce defense evidence if any with directions also to adduce evidence on their behalf. However defendants side chosen not to adduce evidence on their behalf. Defendant side examined none of the witnesses and marked none of

JCJ, Allagadda Date .01 .11.2024 Page 4 of 5O.S.No.4 of 2020 the exhibits. However Defendant counsel reported no instructions. Hence this court treated the evidence of defendant side as nil as per instructions of his counsel.

13.In his written statement defendant stated that he repaid the entire amount on Ex.A1 which he gave as a security purpose. And also he stated that he executed the Ex.A1 by coercion. However defendant had not taken any steps to prove the same.

14.At this juncture this court feels that failure of the defendant to cross examine PW 1 despite having sufficient time raises a serious doubt with regard to the version of the defendant. This failure of cross examination by the defendant and to examine any of the witnesses on his behalf is not even explained at all by the defendant at any time even during arguments. However Defendants counsel reported no instructions making this court to presume the version of the plaintiff as true and correct.

15.In view of positive evidence let in by PW1, coupled with Ex.A1, it is sufficient to assume that Ex.A1 is executed by the defendant for consideration, therefore he is entitled to have the shelter of S.118(a) of N.I.Act. Then the onus to prove that the Ex.A1 is forged one will shift to the shoulders of the defendant.

Howeevr to disprove the plaintiffs version and to portray his version as true and correct, he did not come forward to adduce evidence on his behalf. No acceptable material is placed to rebut the presumption drawn in favor of the Plaintiff, thereby believing the version of the plaintiff as true and correct.

Hence, the issues are answered in favour of the Plaintiff, against the defendant.

16. Issue No.3 :- “To what relief?”

As discussed supra in Issues no. 1 & 2 Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and it is supported by consideration. Moreover, the oral evidence of PW.1, coupled with the Ex.A1 show that the defendant borrowed the money and executed the suit promissory note vide Ex.A1. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree against the defendant. Accordingly, the Issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

JCJ, Allagadda Date .01 .11.2024 Page 5 of 5O.S.No.4 of 2020

In view of the findings given by this court in Issues no. 1, 2 & 3 the suit is tobe decreed with costs as prayed for.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty

Thousand only) at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees

One Lakh twenty five thousand only).

Typed by me in my office computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 01 st day of November, 2024.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

ALLAGADDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT PW.1 :Sure Subba SreenivasuluNIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 : Suit promissory note dt.28.10.2019 for Rs.1,25,000/-

FOR DEFENDANT:

- NIL -

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

ALLAGADDA.

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 01.11.2024 Page 1 of 5 CC.No.246 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS ::

ALLAGADDA

Calendar Case No. 246 of 2018

1Date of offence: 28.04.2018

2.Date of report: 28.04.2018

3.Date of apprehension of the Accused: 04.05.2018

4.Date of Examination: 31.07.2024

5.Date of commencement of trial: 17.09.2024

6.Date of completion of trial: 23.10.2024

7.Date of Judgment: 01.11.2024

8.Complainant: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Allagadda Circle Police Station in Crime No.32/2018 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of the Accused : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Veeramreddy Vikrama Narasimha Reddy, S/o.Nadipi Narsireddy, Aged 35 years, R/o. D.Kothapalli Village, Chagalamarri Mandal. Driver of Tractor Bearing No. AP 21 BS 5381. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence : Causing death by rash or negligent act; U/ Section : 304-A of IPC Finding : Accused is found not guilty.

O R D E R : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Section 304-A of IPC and thereby he is acquitted for the same under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No property order is passed since no property is seized and produced.

Sd/- Sri M.Eswar Venkata Prasad

Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Allagadda. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions

Judge, Kurnool.

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 01.11.2024 Page 2 of 5 CC.No.246 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS ::

ALLAGADDA.

Present :- Sri MADHIRA ESWAR VENKATA PRASAD,

Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Allagadda.

Dated Friday, the 01st day of November, 2024.

C.C No.246 of 2018

The State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Allagadda Circle Police Station in Crime No.32/2018..... Complainant

-Versus-

Veeramreddy Vikrama Narasimha Reddy, S/o.Nadipi Narsireddy, Aged 35 years, R/o. D.Kothapalli Village, Chagalamarri Mandal.

Driver of Tractor Bearing No. AP 21 BS 5381. ... Accused

This Case is coming on this day for arguments in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K.Narasimha Reddy, Learned counsel for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Allagadda Circle Police Station has filed

Charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.32/2018, for the offence punishable

U/Section 304-A of IPC.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:-

On 28.04.2018 the deceased Ambavaram Narasimha Reddy along with LWs4 to 7 namely Lakshmi Devi, Venkata Lakshmi, Gurrappa and Ramanamma left their village in the tractor which was driven by the accused. During the journey at about 08.30 hours, after reaching near the field of Ratnamaiah on Bavi rastha drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and met with an accident, due to which the harvesting machine in the tractor fell on the deceased, as a result, the deceased received press injuries on chest, abration on left leg and bleeding from nose and died on the spot, while the LWs4 to 7 escaped with unhurt. Basing on the report of

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 01.11.2024 Page 3 of 5 CC.No.246 of 2018

LW-1, the police registered the case in Cr.No.32/2018 u/s 304(A) IPC and investigated into. After completion of investigation the charge sheet is filed against the accused for the offence under section 304-A of IPC.

3. Cognizance of the offence U/Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code was taken against the Accused and issued Summons.

4. On appearance of the Accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to him.

5.The Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the Charge sheet was read over and explained to him in Vernacular, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of the trial, the Prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW6 and Exhibits P1 to P11 were marked. The evidence of LW5/Sapparapu

Venkata Lakshmi, LW6/Duvvuru Gurrappa, LW7/Kola Ramanamma,

LW10/Mutharasu Narasimhudu, LW11/Dr.Anjaneyulu, LW12/S.Siva Sankar and

LW14/M.Srinath Reddy were given up by the Learned A.P.P. LW.8/Vennapoosa

Chennareddy was died. Thus, the closure of prosecution evidence.

7.After closure of the Prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found in the evidence of Prosecution

Witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both the sides. Perused the material records.

9.Now, the Point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has made out the case against the

accused for the offences Under Section 304(A) of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubts?

10. In this case, the PW1/A.Jaya Kumari, PW2/K.Shanthi, PW3/J.Siva

Lakshmi and PW4/Y.Lakshmi Devi deposed in their respective Chief Examinations that they know the Accused person in this case. At about 7 years back, PWs.1 to 4 along with deceased boarded into a tractor and while they were going to outskirts of their village in the meantime, the tractor met with an accident, due to which the harvesting machine which is present in the tractor fell down on the deceased. Due to

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 01.11.2024 Page 4 of 5 CC.No.246 of 2018

which the deceased died at the scene of offence. Except this they do not know anything about this case. Police did not examine them and not recorded their statement; and that they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

PW5/ S.Hari Chandra Reddy who is the pachayatdar deposed that in the year 2018, the police of Chagalamarri P.S., conducted inquest over the deceased Abbavaram Narasimha Reddy in his presence and prepared inquest report and obtained signatures. He know the contents of inquest report.

PW6/C.Sharath Kumar Reddy is the investigation officer in this case.

He deposed in Chief, in tune with the averments of the Charge sheet contents.

During the course of the Cross examination by the Defence Counsel, he denied all the formal suggestions posed by the Counsel for the Accused.

11.Basing on the above evidence deposed by the Prosecution Witnesses, none of the Prosecution witnesses have deposed that the Accused was the driver of the crime vehicle which caused the accident. In this case, all the Prosecution

Witnesses were turned as hostile, they did not depose any incriminating material against the Accused person, who caused the accident. This is a great set back to the case of the Prosecution.

12.When coming to the evidence of the PW6, who is the investigating officer in this case and also the official witness in this case. In general, Police official’s evidence may not be considered when material witnesses have been turned hostile; and that too the evidence of other Witnesses did not corroborate with his evidence to strengthen his version.

13.After going through the entire evidence as well as Exhibits marked in this case, this Court is of the opinion that, no incriminating material is available against the Accused person, that he was responsible for the accident. Except PW6, his evidence is also may give some suspicious doubt, and so, his evidence is may not be considerable at this juncture. The alleged rash or negligent act has not resulted in the death of the deceased person, as such this Court determined the

JMFC, Allagadda

dated 01.11.2024 Page 5 of 5 CC.No.246 of 2018

point holding that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused for the accusation levelled against him beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the Point is determined.

14. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Section 304-A of IPC and thereby he is acquitted for the same under Section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No property order is passed since no property is seized and produced.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, Corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 01 st day of November, 2024.

Sd/- Sri M.Eswar Venkata Prasad

Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Allagadda.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined For the Prosecution For the Defence PW1: A.Jaya Kumari None. PW2: K.Shanthi PW3: J.Siva Lakshmi PW4: Y.Lakshmi Devi PW5: S.Hari Chandra Reddy PW6: C.Sharath Kumar Reddy

Exhibits Marked

For the Prosecution For the Defense Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on the complaint.– Nil - Ex.P2 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of the PW1 Ex.P3 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of the PW2 Ex.P4 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of the PW3 Ex.P5 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of the PW4 Ex.P6 : Inquest Report Ex.P7 : First Information Report Ex.P8 : Inquest panchama Ex.P9 : Rough sketch Ex.P10 : Post Mortem Report Ex.P11 : Motor Vehicle Inspector Report

Material Objects :- Nil.

Sd/- Sri M.Eswar Venkata Prasad

J.M.F.C., ALG.