M. Guru Nath

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR 

Present:: Sri M. Guru Nath, B.Com., LL.M.,

V. Addl. Junior Civil Judge

On Tuesday, Twenty Fourth (24th ) day of April two thousand twelve.

C.C. No.334/2011

State:Sub- Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, Medikonduru.

...Complainant

Versus

Davalla Rama Krishna, S/o Durga Rao, aged 25 years, Caste; Waddera, R/o Siva Parvathi Colony, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru Mandal.

.... Accused

This case is coming on 23-4-12 before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant Police and Mr. M. Vijay Anand, advocate for accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day and on, hearing both sides, this court delivers the following.

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, filed charge sheet against sole accused, alleging offence punishable under

Section 338 IPC in Crime No.14/2011 on the file of his Police Station.

2. It is alleged that, on 22nd January 2011, at about 8-00 p.m., Pws.

1 and 2 were discharging their duties regulating traffic at Perecherla centre, at that time, the accused being driver of Tipper Lorry No: AP07 TU 8391 came from Guntur side, without taking proper precautions and giving turn signals suddenly turned his vehicle towards right direction to enter into

Perecherla road, in the said transaction, he dashed against Pw1 who was discharging his duty on left side margin of Guntur-Sattenapalli state highway. Due to such rash and negligent driving by the accused, Pw1 had sustained crush injury his right foot as the rear tyre of the said lorry ran 2 over the right foot of Pw1. Immediately, Pw1 raised cries, upon which

Pw2 and neighbouring witnesses came to his rescue and stopped the said lorry. Thereafter, Pw1 was shifted to Guntur in 108 ambulance service and he got admitted himself at Lalitha Super speciality hospital, Guntur, for treatment. Upon receipt of hospital intimation, Pw7 visited Lalitha Super

Specialty hospital, Kothapet, Guntur, reduced statement of Pw1 into writing and forwarded it to Medikonduru Police station on the point of jurisdiction.

Upon receipt of hospital intimation and statement of Pw1, Pw8 registered it as crime No. 14/2011 under Section 337 IPC and commenced investigation.

Immediately, he visited Lalitha Super Specialty Hospital, Guntur, secured presence of Pw1, recorded their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Thereafter, he proceeded to scene of offence, drawn rough sketch, secured presence of Pws. 2 to 4, and Shaik Mahammad Masthan (Lw5), recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. While so, on 31st January 2011, at about 10-00 a.m., the accused was produced by Pw6 owner of crime vehicle at Medikonduru Police station upon which, Pw8 caused enquiries and arrested the accused duly completing formalities of arrest as stipulated under law and enlarged him on bail as nature of offence alleged against accused was bailable in nature. Thereafter, statement of Pw6 was also recorded by Pw8 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., to that effect. Pw5 had rendered treatment for injuries sustained by Pw1, issued wound certificate opining nature of injury as grevious in nature. After completing investigation, Pw8 laid charge sheet against accused duly altering Section of law to 338 IPC.

3. On a careful perusal of charge sheet, and other relevant material placed on record, cognizance of offence punishable under Section 338 IPC., was taken against accused and ordered summons, as he got enlarged himself on bail at the time of his production before Pw8 at Medikonduru

Police Station.

3

4. Upon appearance of accused, he was furnished with copies of documents as stipulated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused is defended by his counsel Mr. M. Vijay Anand, advocate, Guntur.

5. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., about allegations levelled against him of offence punishable under section 338

IPC., he denied those allegations and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution relied upon testimonies of P.Ws.

1 to 8, supported by marking documents as Exs. P1 to P7.

7.Upon closure of prosecution's side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., about incriminating evidence appearing against him from prosecution's side witnesses and he denied same. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witness nor mark documents on his behalf.

9.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution, and Mr. M. Vijay Anand, the learned counsel for accused respectively.

9.The point for determination is:-

Whether prosecution has succeeded in proving its contention levelled against accused beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty of causing grevious hurt to Pw. 1 by his rash and negligent i.e., driving ?

10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution must establish following points in.

(a) that accused had acted as driver of Tipper Lorry No: AP07

TU 8391 at the time of alleged incident

(b) that he was guilty of causing grevious hurt to Pw1 by his rash/negligent act (driving).

4

11. Initially, Pw1 was relied upon by the prosecution a defacto complainant cum injured. The testimony of Pw1 working as Head constable at Medikonduru Police station, reveals that on 22nd January 2011, at about 8- 00 p.m., he along with Pw2 were regulating traffic at Perecherla at “T”

Junction, at that time, a Tipper Lorry No: AP07 TU 8391 from Guntur direction suddenly took right turn in rash/negligent manner to enter into

Perecherla road. While explaining the incident, Pw1 deposed that due to such rash driving by driver of said Tipper Lorry No: AP07 TU 8391 he fell down as the said vehicle had contacted with him, and in said process the right side rear tyre of said Tipper Lorry No: AP07 TU 8391 went upon his right foot as a result, he sustained crush and bleeding injury. Pw1 added that, immediately, Pw2 came to his rescue and the said Tipper Lorry No:

AP07 TU 8391 was stopped. Thereafter, he was shifted in 108 ambulance service to the hospital for treatment. Where, his statement under Ex.P1 was reduced into writing by Kothapet Police Constable. Pw1 has clearly pointed out accusation against accused to be driver of Tipper Lorry No: AP07

TU 8391 at the time of alleged incident and guilty of causing hurt to him by his rash/negligent manner in driving his vehicle at the time of alleged incident.

12. Pw2 an eye witness cum colleague to Pw1 in turn clearly corroborated the version of prosecution about alleged incident. According to Pw2, on 22nd January 2011, at about 8-00 p.m., he along with Pw1 were performing duties and regulating traffic at Perecherla centre, suddenly the

Tipper Lorry No: AP07 TU 8391 driven by the accused took extreme right turn as a result, it dashed against Pw1 and causing crush injuries to the right foot. He also added that upon arrival of 108 ambulance service, Pw1 was shifted to the hospital for treatment. Interestingly, Pw2 deposed that, soon after alleged incident, the accused had escaped from the said spot.

5

13.Pws. 3 and 4 were also relied upon by prosecution as independent eye witnesses present at the scene of offence but interestingly, they did not support the version of Pws. 1 and 2 for the reasons best known to them.

14. The prosecution in order to connect next link in the chain of evidence had relied upon testimony of Pw7 who had recorded the statement of Pw1 at Lalitha Super Specialty Hospital, Guntur, As seen from testimony of Pw7 that on 23rd January 2011, at bout 11-00 p.m., upon receipt of accident intimation under Ex.P5 from Lalitha Super speciality hospital,

Guntur, statement of Pw1 was reduced into writing and forwarded it to

Medikonduru Police station on the point of jurisdiction. As seen from contentions of Pw7, entire contents of Ex.P1 were dictated by Pw1 himself.

Therefore, the role of Pw7 in reducing statement of Pw1 under Ex.P1 into writing can not be suspected.

15.In order to prove the fact of treatment rendered to Pw1, prosecution relied upon testimony of Pw5 as medical officer working at

Lalitha Super Specialty hospital, Guntur. As seen from contentions of Pw5, that on 22nd January 2011, at about 9-00 p.m., Pw1 was admitted with injuries in their hospital upon which he found a deep lacerated wound in dorsum of right foot and Closure fracture at Clavicular bone and open fracture at 3rd meta torsel bone of the right foot of Pw1 and necessary medical treatment was rendered to Pw1 and issued wound certificate under

Ex.P4 opining the 2nd injury as grevious in nature. The learned counsel for accused by confronting Pw5 got admitted that surgery on Pw1 was not conducted by Pw5. No doubt, as per contentions of Pw5 basing upon appearance of injuries found on the right foot of Pw1, he had issued wound certificate under Ex.P4 opining the 2nd injury as grevious in nature. The said 6 contention of Pw5 remained undisturbed as no contradictory fact was elicited from the said witness, so as to suspect the role of Pw5.

16.The prosecution in order to connect the last link in the chain of evidence that accused had acted as driver of crime vehicle, and relied upon testimony of Pw6. Pw6 owner of Tipper Lorry No: AP07 TU 8391 clearly deposed that his vehicle was driven by the accused at the time of accident and that on 22nd January 2011, at about 9-00 p.m., he received a telephone call from the accused intimating about involvement of his vehicle in road traffic accident. According to Pw6, on 3rd or 4th day, upon appearance of accused before him he took him to Medikonduru Police Station, and produced as driver of crime vehicle. The said contention of Pw6 was corroborated by Pw8. However by inviting attention of Pw6 was elicited during the course of cross examination, that he had no occasion to witness the alleged incident. Even according to the case of prosecution, Pw6 had no opportunity to witness the alleged incident but on the contrary he had produced the accused in the presence of Pw8 at Medikonduru police Station for taking necessary action.

17.Pw8 the investigation officer worked as Inspector of Police,

Medikonduru Police Station, and his testimony reveals that on 23rd January 2011, at about 4-00 p.m., he received hospital intimation under Ex.P5 along with statement of Pw1 under Ex.P1 upon which, it was registered under

Ex.P6 as crime No. 14/2011, duly invoking provisions of Section 337 IPC and commenced investigation. Pw8 deposed that he visited Lalitha Super

Specialty hospital, Guntur, secured presence of Pw1 recorded statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter visited scene of offence drawn rough sketch under Ex.P7. He added that presence of Pws. 2 to 4, and

Shaik Mahammad Masthan (Lw5) was secured by him at scene of offence recorded statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the question of arresting 7 the accused, Pw8 deposed that, on 31st January 2011, while he was present at the police station, the accused was produced before him by Pw6 as driver of crime vehicle upon which he took steps in effecting arrest of accused to be guilty of causing grevious hurt to Pw1. Above said crucial contentions of

Pws. 1, 2 and 8 were tested during course of cross examination by learned counsel for accused on the premise that no identification details of accused was deposed by Pws. 1 and 2 at the time of alleged incident. Initially, the attention of Pw1 was invited on above crucial fact coupled with his statement reduced into writing under Ex.P1. As seen from recitals mentioned in the said statement, marked as Ex.P1 which was recorded by

Pw7, can clearly arrive at a conclusion that Pws. 1 and 2 were discharging their duties and regulating traffic at Perecherla centre which is a busy traffic junction. It is the specific case of Pws. 1 and 2 the incident of causing hurt to Pw1 had taken place at 'T” Junction at Perecherla centre which is situated at State Highway proceeding from Guntur- Sattenapalli. The crucial contention of Pws. 1 and 2 that at the time of alleged incident Pw1 was discharging his duties on left side margin of a road had remained unchallenged. Pws. 1 and 2 did not deviate from their consistent stand that at the time of accident the accused suddenly took right turn on the State

Highway so as to enter into Perecherla road. Sufficient facts were elicited on record that the scene of offence is busy traffic road of a width of 24 feet with 5 feet margin on both sides. Similarly, the rough sketch prepared by

Pw8 and marked as Ex.P7 clearly discloses the road leading to Perecherla village is having 12 feet width, with 5 feet margin by both sides. The learned counsel for accused had taken advantage of above sad fact and cross examined Pws. 1 and 2 suggesting that service auto rickshaw would be parked on left side margin of Perecherla road, but nothing was elicited to support the said contention. According to Pw1, at the time of alleged incident, the lorry driven by accused was in the speed range of 45 to 50 8 kilometers per hour. Pw1 even offered an explanation that apprehending the hitting by lorry driven by accused, he had suddenly took backwards and in spite of it, the rear tyre of the lorry went upon his right foot and causing crush injury. The said version of Pw1 was clearly supported by Pw2 in all material particulars. The learned counsel for accused clearly suggested

Pws. 1 and 2 that due to stopping of service auto rickshaw at Perecherla road, near 'T' Junction there is no likely hood of driving vehicle in rash /negligent manner but no useful fact was elicited from Pws. 1 and 2 to support the said suggestion.

18. The learned counsel for accused contended that no identity particulars of driver of Tipper Lorry No: AP07 TU 8391 was deposed by Pw1 either in his statement (Ex.P1) reduced into writing by Pw7 so also while giving his statement to Pw8 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The said contention of learned counsel for accused seems to hold merit as no details of identity particulars of accused were deposed by Pw1 at both stages, however, the said fact need not be a ground to suspect consistent testimonies of Pws. 1, 2 coupled with the fact of production of accused by Pw6 at Medikonduru Police

Station as driver of crime vehicle. It appears that Pw8 also simply relied upon the version of Pw6 and effected arrest of accused duly pointing out accusation that accused had acted driver of Tipper Lorry No: AP07 TU 8391 at the time of alleged incident which took place on 22nd January 2011, at about 8-00 p.m. Admittedly, the learned counsel for accused did not suggest Pws. 1 and 2 that they have every reason to speak falsehood, and to implicate the accused in above crime. Even as per facts reported on record

Pws. 1 and 2 were discharging their duties as police constables and regulating traffic at the time of alleged incident and at that point of time, the accused being driver of crime vehicle with an intention to take right turn is expected to take all reasonable precautions and obey premise Pws. 1 and 2 while forwarding his vehicle towards Perecherla road. Having failed to take 9 sufficient reasonable precautions, the accused appeared to have all together took extreme right turn without giving sufficient precautions and signals to the vehicles following his lorry, as a result, his vehicle had colluded with Pw1 and caused crush injury to his right foot. The said fact alone demonstrates rash/negligent driving by the accused while negotiating right turn at 'T'

Junction at Guntur-Sattenapalli State Highway near Perecherla road where the incident took place. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for accused that non production of documentary proof establishing that accused had acted as driver of crime vehicle bearing No: AP07 TU 8391 need not be a ground to suspect bona fide contentions of Pws. 1,2,5,6 and Pw8 coupled with documentary proof marked as Ex.P1, P4, and P5 respectively. A combined reading of oral as well as documentary proof as placed on record and discussed in detail supra, would lead to a unclinching conclusion that due to rash/negligent driving of Tipper Lorry No: AP07 TU 8391 by the accused at Perecherla 'T' Junction, a grevious hurt i.e., crush injury had sustained to Pw1 and therefore, the prosecution has clearly established its accusation levelled against accused in above crime. The ultimate conclusion that arises out of discussed made supra would point out that accused was guilty of causing grevious hurt by his rash/negligent act i.e., driving and thereby is found guilty of offence alleged against him in above proceedings. The accused was appraised with quantum of sentence imposed upon him and he has submitted as under:

That he was recently married, and his wife would be in streets if he is sent to jail. Accused submits that he is first offender, and requests to take a lenient view upon him.

V. Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Guntur.

10

19. Even as per facts of prosecution's case, accused seems to be 26 years old, having married recently and appears to be eaking out livelihood by leaving the driving profession. In view of sincere repentance by accused of his act in above proceedings, would lead to a conclusion that he appears to be first offender and his plea of mercy needs consideration.

20.In the result, accused is found guilty under section 255 (2)

Cr.P.C., of offence alleged under Section 338 IPC, convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months in crime No. 14/11 of Medikonduru Police Station.

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of April 2012.

V. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITENSSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence-- None--

Pw.1/-Shaik Ibrahim

Pw.2/- Chandanam Sambasiva Rao

Pw3/-Shaik Mahaboob Jany

Pw4/- Valiya Vuddi Jany

Pw5/-Dr. P. Gnaneswara Rao

Pw6/-V. Nehru Reddy

Pw7/-D. Venkateswara Rao

Pw8/- G. Purnachandra Rao 11

Documents Marked For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/- Statement dt. 23-1-11 Ex.P2/- 161 Statement of Pw3 Ex.P3/- 161 Statement of Pw4 Ex.P4/-Wound Certificate Ex.P5/-Hospital Intimation Ex.P6/- First Information Report Ex.P7/- Rough Sketch

For Defence: – Nil.

V. AJCJ., Guntur.

12

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, G UNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR. C.C.NO.334/2011 DATES OF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trial or order 23-1-11 23-1-11 8-4-11 31-1-11 30-9-11 23-4-12 24-4-12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay :- This case was taken on file on 5-3-11, copies furnished to accused on 8-4-11, accused was examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C on 17-5-11. On 30-9-11 Pw1 examined, Ex.P1 marked. On 3-11-11 Pw2 is examined. On 24-11-11 Pw3 examined, Ex.P2 marked. On 30-3-12 Pw4 examined, Ex.P3 marked. On 13-4-12 Pws.5 to 7 examined, Ex.P4, P5 marked. On 19-4-12 Pw8 examined, Exs.P6, P7 marked, and prosecutions' side evidence closed. On 20-4-12 Accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Heard arguments both sides on 23-4-12. On 24-4-12 Judgment

pronounced. Hence the delay.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Complainant :- Sub- Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, Medikonduru. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the accused Father’s Name Calling Religion Age Village

Davalla Rama Krishna, S/o Durga Rao, aged 25 years, Caste; Waddera, R/o Siva Parvathi Colony, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru Mandal.

Nature of Offence :- under Section 338 IPC in Crime No.14/2011

Plea of accused :- Not guilty. Finding: - Found guilty.

SENTENCE OR ODER:­ In the result, accused is found guilty under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C., of offence alleged under Section 338 IPC, convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months in crime No. 14/11 of Medikonduru Police Station.

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur.

Note:- Fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) paid by accused on 24-4-12.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR 

Present:: Sri M. Guru Nath, B.Com., LL.M.,

V. Addl. Junior Civil Judge

On Tuesday, Tenth (10th ) day of April two thousand twelve.

C.C. No.242/2011

State: Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, Medikonduru.

...Complainant

Versus

Kuncham Nageswara Rao s/o Bikshamaiah, aged 55 years, Waddera, RCM School Bazaar, Ibrahimpatnam village and Mandal, Krishna District, Driver of ready Mix lorry, bearing No. AP 16 TX 9716.

.... Accused

This case is coming on 9-4-12 before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant Police and Mr.R. Sivaji, advocate for accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day and on, hearing both sides, this court delivers the following.

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police Medikonduru Police Station, filed charge sheet against sole accused, alleging offences punishable under Sections 338, 304-A IPC in Crime No. 104/2009 on the file of his Police Station.

2. It is alleged that, on 11-6-09 at about 5-15 p.m., Pw1 accompanied by Gogula Ravi Prasad (deceased) were proceeding on motorcycle bearing No. AP 16 TX 9716 near gas go downs at Medikonduru village, at that time, the accused being driver of lorry bearing No. AP 16 TX 9716 came in opposite direction, by rash/negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle driven by Ravi Prasad as a result, they fell down and sustained grevious injures. In the said incident, Pw1 sustained fracture to his right leg and Gogula Ravi Prasad (deceased) also sustained bleeding injuries and lost conscious. Immediately, they were rescued by neighbouring 2 people, upon arrival of 108 ambulance service they were shifted to

Government General Hospital, Guntur, for treatment. Upon receipt of hospital intimation, Pw8 visited the said hospital secured presence of Pw1, reduced his statement into writing, returned to Medikonduru Police Station, registered it as crime NO. 104/09 under sections 337 and 304-A IPC, duly commenced investigation. Immediately, he visited the scene of offence situated near gas go downs at Medikonduru village, prepared rough sketch, so also observation report by securing presence of Pw4 and Pattan Hussain

Khan (Lw.10) duly attested by them. Thereafter, Pw8 secured presence of witnesses Pws. 1 to 3, Somepalli Nageswara Rao, Bobba Venkateswara Rao,

Gogula Sowramma (Lws. 2 to 4), Vemula Sambaiah and Vemula Saidamma (Lws. 6 and 7), duly recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C.

During the course of investigation, an inquest over dead body of Gogula

Ravi Prasad deceased was held by Pw8 on 12-6-09 at about 12-00 noon by securing presence of Pw4 and Pattan Hussain Khan, Salyadi Seetha

Ramaiah (Lws. 10 and 11) duly scribed an inquest report and attested by them. On same day, the dead body of deceased- Gogula Ravi Prasad was forwarded for conducting autopsy and Dr. B. Lakshmi Narayna M.D.,

Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, Guntur (Lw.14) held post mortem examination over dead body of deceased- Gogula

Ravi Prasad, and opined cause of death was due to shock, and crush injury to chest organ associated with other injuries. On 16-6-09, the accused was arrested at about 7 p.m., upon production by Pw3, having completed formalities of arrest as stipulated under law, he was produced before court on the next day seeking judicial remand. Pws 5 and 6 rendered treatment for injuries sustained by Pw1, issued wound certificate opining that nature of injuries sustained by him a grevious in nature. On the same day, a requisition was made by Pw8 to inspect crime vehicle and Pw7 conducted road test of crime vehicle bearing No. AP 16 TX 9716, issued his report 3 opining that occurrence of accident was not due to any mechanical defects of said vehicle. Subsequently, the investigation conducted by Pw8 was verified by A. Venkateswara Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Medikonduru (Lw.17) and found it on correct lines, accordingly, he completed investigation and laid charge sheet against accused rendering himself liable for punishment of alleged offences.

3. On a careful perusal of charge sheet, and other relevant material placed on record, cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 338, 304-A IPC., were taken against accused and ordered summons, as he got enlarged himself on bail at the time of his production before court under

Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.

4. On appearance of accused, he was furnished with copies of documents as stipulated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused is defended by his counsel Mr. R. Sivaji, advocate, Guntur.

5. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., about allegations levelled against him of offences punishable under sections 338, 304-A IPC., he denied those allegations and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution relied upon testimonies of Pws. 1 to 8, supported by marking documents as Exs. P1 to P9.

7. Upon closure of prosecution's side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., about incriminating evidence appearing against him from prosecution's side witnesses and he denied same. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witness nor mark documents on his behalf.

4

8.Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution, and Mr. R. Sivaji the learned counsel for accused respectively.

9.The point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its contention levelled against accused beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty of causing grevious hurt to Pw1 and caused death of death of deceased- Gogula Ravi Prasad by his rash / negligent Act (driving) ?

10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution must establish that accused had acted as driver of lorry bearing No. AP 16 X 9716, and drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner which had resulted in the alleged incident.

11.Initially, Pw1 was examined by prosecution as defacto complainant cum injured, and his testimony reveals that about 2 years ago he along with Gogula Ravi Prasad (deceased) started at Sundaraiah Nagar to go to Medikonduru on a motorcycle driven by the Gogula Ravi Prasad (deceased). While explaining the incident, Pw1 deposed that when their motorcycle reached at Medikonduru village near gas go down, at that time, a lorry came in opposite direction with rash/negligent manner and dashed their motorcycle as a result, both of them sustained injuries. Pw1 deposed that due to such hitting, he sustained injury to his right knee and whereas

Gogula Ravi Prasad (deceased) also sustained bleeding injuries. According to Pw1, soon after alleged accident, they were shifted to hospital in 108 ambulance service and his statement under Ex.P1 was reduced into writing by police authorities by visiting Government General Hospital, Guntur.

Though Pw1 has succeeded in narrating alleged incident but interestingly, expressed his inability to disclose crucial details of lorry, but identified the accused as driver of lorry to be responsible for the said alleged incident.

5

12.Pw8 the investigating officer worked as Head Constable at

Medikonduru Police Station, in turn supported contention of Pw1 that on 12-6-09 at about 7-00 a.m., upon receipt of accident intimation from

Government General Hospital, Guntur, he visited the said hospital, secured presence of Pw1, reduced his statement under Ex.P1 into writing, after returning to police station it was registered as crime No. 104/09 under Ex.P8 duly invoking provisions of Sections 337 and 338 IPC and commenced investigation. According to Pw8, immediately, he visited scene of offence situated near gas godown at Sattenapalli- Guntur highway prepared observation report under Ex.P3 so also rough sketch under Ex.P9 by securing presence of Pws. 4 and Pattan Hussaian Khan (Lw.10) duly attested by them. He added that presence of Somepalli Nageswara Rao and Bobba

Venkateswara Rao (Lws. 2 and 3), and recorded their statements under Sec.

161 Cr.P.C.

13.Pw4 one of circumstantial witnesses said to be present at the scene of offence and in turn deposed that on 11-6-09, at about 5-30 p.m., he visited the scene of offence situated near by to Medikonduru Police station, observed presence of lorry bearing No. AP 16 TX 9716 and a motorcycle bearing No. AP16 BA 9978 as a result, an observation report under Ex.P3 was scribed to that effect and he attested the same. According to Pw4, contents of Ex.P3 were scribed by a Police Constable and and that he got acquaintance with Gogula Ravi Prasad (deceased) as he belongs to his village. The said contention of Pw4 in making his presence at the time of scribing Ex.P3 was tested by learned counsel for accused. As seen from replies furnished by Pw4, the lorry was facing towards Guntur direction on left side margin. Pw4 further added that the motorcycle belonging to deceased- Gogula Ravi Prasad was facing towards Sattenapalli direction on right side and it was proceeding in wrong direction. On going through contents of observation report ( Ex.P3) coupled with rough sketch (Ex.P9) 6 drawn by Pw.8 which clearly points out location of crime vehicle on left side margin of the road, and interestingly, the motorcycle alleged to be driven by deceased was present on right side of the road in wrong direction.

14.The prosecution in order to establish its next contention that crime vehicle was driven by the accused and to prove the said fact, it relied upon the testimony of Pw3. Pw3 working as vehicle Supervisor in Sarvani

Readymix, Kolanukoda, Tadepalli Mandal, got acquaintance with the accused as a driver working with his organization. However, Pw3 simply contended that he learnt about involvement of lorry belonging to their organization at

Medikonduru Police station on 16-6-09 but clearly disputed the fact of producing accused at Police Station as driver of crime vehicle. Since Pw3 had turned hostile, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined the said witness, but could not admit from him that he had stated to Pw8 as per his 161 Cr.P.C., statement marked as Ex.P2. As Pw3 was proved to be a non supporting witness, the prosecution relied upon testimony of Pw7 to prove its contention.

15.Pw7 the Motor vehicle Inspector, Guntur, in turn deposed that on 16-6-09, at about 12-30 p.m., upon receipt of requisition from Pw8, he inspected lorry bearing No. AP 16 TX 9716 a heavy goods vehicle, noticed right side head light and right side signal light were broken and issued his report under Ex.P7 opining that occurrence of accident was not due to mechanical defects of said vehicle. The said contention of Pw7 corroborates with the oral contention of Pw4 that location of crime vehicle AP 16 TX 9716 was involved in the alleged incident. On above fact, testimony of Pw8 reveals that on 16-6-09 while he was present at Medikonduru Police Station, the accused was produced before him by Pw3 as driver of crime vehicle upon which he caused enquiries, and arrested the accused in above crime duly forwarding him before court seeking judicial remand. Admittedly, the 7 said contention of Pw8 is lacked by sufficient corroboration since Pw3 at the 1st instance did not support the said fact. On the more, Pw8 appeared to have not focussed his investigation by collecting trip sheet and driving license from the accused at the time of arrest on 16-6-09 as contended by him. Therefore, a careful scrutiny of oral testimonies of Pw.s 1, 3, 7 and

Pw8 coupled with documentary proof marked as Ex.P1, P7 would lead to a finding that, the prosecution had established its initial contention that heavy goods vehicle bearing No. AP 16 9716 had involved in hitting the motorcycle on 11-6-09 and caused hurt to Pw1. At the same time, the prosecution had also failed to establish its next crucial contention that the accused was guilty of causing hurt to Pw1 as it had failed to establish its crucial contention that the accused had acted as driver of said vehicle, since no documentary proof is placed on record to substantiate contentions of

Pws. 1 and 8 in that regard. It is also interesting to note that crucial contention of Pw1 was put to the strict test of cross examination by learned counsel for accused during the course of cross examination. As seen from replies furnished by Pw1, he is an illiterate person and he can not read

English alphabets. When the said fact is taken into consideration, the details of crime vehicle as narrated in his statement marked as Ex.P1 has to be suspected. When the learned counsel for accused had specifically confronted Pw1 to repeat the details of crime vehicle and the said witness had clearly expressed his inability to disclose the same. A clear suggestion was offered to Pw1 that due to negligent driving by the Gogula Ravi Prasad (deceased) while proceeding in wrong direction i.e., right side of the road, the incident had taken place, but Pw1 had disputed the said suggestion. It appears that, Pw1 is not speaking truth, as the position of crime vehicle under Ex.P3 clearly discloses that it was proceeding on left side of the road, and where as the motorcycle driven by the Gogula Ravi Prasad (deceased) was proceeding in right side i.e., in wrong direction as a result, alleged 8 incident said to have taken place.

16.The prosecution in order to prove next link in chain of evidence that Pw1 had sustained grevious hurt and to establish the death of Gogula

Ravi Prasad (deceased) had relied upon testimonies of Pws. 2, 5, 6, and

Pw8 respectively. The role of Pw2 wife of Gogula Ravi Prasad (deceased) reveals that upon receipt of news she had rushed to Government General

Hospital, Guntur, by that time her husband was all ready found expired.

Therefore, her role is confined to hear say evidence.

17.Pw6 the Civil Assistant Surgeon working at Government General

Hospital, in turn deposed that on 11-6-09 at about 6-00 p.m., Pw1 was treated by him for injuries sustained over left cheek, right middle finger, right index finder and right leg opining that out of four injuries as mentioned in wound certificate i.e., Ex.P6, the last injury was found to be grevious and rest of injuries are simple in nature. The said contention of Pw6 was supported by Pw8 Assistant Radiologist working at Government General

Hospital, Guntur, duly opining that X-ray film of right leg of Pw1 was found to contain fracture of both bones and a report under Ex.P5 was issued to that effect. Above said contentions of Pws. 5 and 6 had remained unchallenged as the accused did not opt to testify them.

18. The remaining contention of Pw8 reveals that on 16-6-09, an inquest over dead body of deceased- Gogula Ravi Prasad was held by him by securing presence of Pw4, Pattan Hussain Khan and Salyadi Seetha

Ramaiaha (Lws. 10 and 11) duly scribing inquest report under Ex.P4 to that effect. He also deposed that on the same day, dead body of Gogula Ravi

Prasad (deceased) was forwarded for conducting autopsy . Interestingly, the prosecution could not secure presence of Dr. B. Lakshmi Narayana, M.D

Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, Guntur (Lw.14) to prove contents of post mortem report and accordingly the said 9 fact remained unchallenged. As seen from replies furnished by Pw8, his investigation revealed that the incident had resulted due to negligent driving of Gogula Ravi Prasad (deceased) by hitting right side portion of crime vehicle, and the said fact was clearly mentioned in Ex.P9. Therefore, it can safely be held that prosecution can not seek conviction against accused to be responsible for causing grevious hurt to Pw1 and causing death of

Gogula Ravi Prasad (deceased) due to hitting by his lorry on 11-6-09 at about 2-00 p.m., near gas godowns at Medikonduru village. Though the prosecution had established its initial contention that Pw1 had sustained grevious hurt and the death of Gogula Ravi Prasad (deceased) due to hitting against the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TX 9716 on 11-6-09 at about 2-00 p.m., near gas godowns at Medikonduru, but at the same time, it had failed to establish another crucial fact that accused had acted as driver of crime vehicle at the time of alleged incident. Due to said drawback, the case of prosecution fails and accused is entitled for an acquittal.

19. In the result, accused is found not guilty under Section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C., and acquitted of offences alleged under Sections 338, 304-A IPC, in crime No. 104/2009 of Medikonduru Police station. Bail bonds executed by accused, and surety bonds executed on his behalf shall stand cancelled.

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

pronounced by me in the open court, this the day of 10th day of April, 2012.

V. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

10

WITENSSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence-- None--

Pw.1/-Gogula Narasimha Rao

Pw.2/-Gogula Jyothi

Pw.3/-Alla Siva Rama Krishna Reddy

Pw.4/- Yadagiri Kotaiah

Pw.5/- Dr. D.L. Manjula Radiologist

Pw.6/- Dr.P. Nanda Kumar

Pw.7/-N. Siva Nageswara Rao

Pw.8/- G. Lakshminarayana

Documents Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1/- Report Ex.P2/- 161 Statement of Pw3 Ex.P3/- Observation Report. Ex.P4/- Inquest Report Ex.P5/-Doctor opinion along with X-ray Ex.P6/- Wound Certificate Ex.P7/- M.V.I report Ex.P8/- First Information Report Ex.P9/- Rough sketch

For Defence: – Nil.

V. AJCJ., Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, G UNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

11

DISTRICT: GUNTUR. C.C.NO.242/2011 DATES OF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trial or order 11-6-09 12-6-09 22-10-09 17-6-09 18-8-11 9-4-12 10-4-12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay :- This case was taken on file on 22-8-09, copies furnished to accused on 22-10-09, and he was examined U/sec. 251 Cr.P.C on 5-11-09. On 18-8-11 Pw1 examined in chief , Ex.P1 marked. On 5-9-11 Pw1 cross examined. On 21-10-11 Pw2 examined. On 20-1-12 Pw3 examined, Ex.P2 marked. On 17-2-12 Pw4 examined, Exs.P3, P4 are marked. On 9-3-12 Pw5 examined, Exs.P5 and P6 marked. On 2-4-12 Pw7 examined, Ex.P7 marked. On 3-4-12 Pw8 examined. Exs.P8, P9 marked and prosecution's side evidence closed. On 9-4-12 Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and heard arguments of both sides. On 10-4-12 judgment pronounced. Hence delay. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Complainant :- State: Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, Medikonduru. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the accused Father’s Name Calling Religion Age Village

Kuncham Nageswara Rao s/o Bikshamaiah, aged 55 years, Waddera, RCM School Bazaar, Ibrahimpatnam village and Mandal, Krishna District, Driver of ready Mix lorry, bearing No. AP 16 TX 9716.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence :- under Sections 338, 304-A IPC in Crime No. 104/2009.

Plea of accused :- Not guilty. Finding: - Found Not guilty.

SENTENCE OR ODER:­ In the result, accused is found not guilty under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C., and acquitted of offences alleged under Sections 338, 304-A IPC, in crime No. 104/2009 of Medikonduru Police station. Bail bonds executed by accused, and surety bonds executed on his behalf shall stand cancelled.

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR 

Present:: Sri M. Guru Nath, B.Com., LL.M.,

V. Addl. Junior Civil Judge

On Wednesday, Eleventh (11th ) day of April two thousand twelve.

C.C. No.405/2011

State: Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, Medikonduru.

...Complainant

Versus

Tammineni Sivareddy S/o China Sundara Ramireddy, aged 21 years, Reddy, Kanumalar Chervuvu (v) , Bollapalli (M) Driver of Tata Ace Goods Vehicle A.P.7/TA/4086.

.... Accused

This case is coming on 10-4-12 before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant Police and Mr.Y. Subba Rao, advocate

for accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day and on,

hearing both sides, this court delivers the following.

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police Medikonduru Police Station, filed charge sheet against sole accused, alleging offences punishable under

Sections 337 and 304-A IPC in Crime No.31/2011 on the file of his Police

Station. The case of prosecution is narrated as briefly here under.

2. It is alleged that, on 26th February 2011, at about 5-00 p.m., one Guntupallli Veeraswamy (deceased) was travelling in auto bearing No.

AP 7/TU/9534 driven by Pw2 and when the said vehicle reached near

Venkatareddy Poultry farm at Dokiparru cross roads, the accused being driver of Tata Ace vehicle bearing No. AP7 TA 4086 came in high speed and dashed against the said auto in opposite direction as a result, causing injuries to its inmates. Due to such hitting, Guntupallli Veeraswamy (deceased), Pw4 and Pw2 had sustained severe bleeding injuries and they 2 were shifted by neighbouring people in 108 ambulance service to

Government General Hospital, Guntur, for treatment upon receipt of telephonic information, Pw1 along with his mother immediately rushed to hospital and found his father Guntupallli Veeraswamy was undergoing treatment and lost conscious. While undergoing treatment Guntupallli

Veeraswamy had expired at about 8-00 p.m., on 26-2-12. Accordingly, on the next day, Pw1 rushed to Medikonduru Police station, at about 6-00 a.m., presented a written complaint upon which crime No. 31/11 under

Sections 337 and 304-AIPC was registered by Pw5 and commenced investigation. Immediately, he visited scene of offence situated at

Dokiparru cross roads, secured presence of Dondapati Nagarjuna and

Chintha Syam Babu (Lws. 12 and 13), scribed observation report and rough sketch of scene of offence, duly attested by them. Again, Pw5 visited

Government General Hospital, Guntur, secured presence of Dondapati

Nagarjuna, Chintha Syam Babu and Govindu Satyanarayana (Lws. 12 to 14), held inquest over dead body of deceased- Guntupallli Veeraswamy and scribed inquest report duly attested by them. Thereafter, he secured presence of Pw1, Guntupalli Samabasivarao and Guntupalli Ramulamma @

Rama Tulasamma (Lws. 2 and 3) duly recorded their statements under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the same day, the dead body of deceased-

Guntupallli Veeraswamy was shifted through K. Vijaya Sekhar, Police

Constable, Medikonduru Police Station (Lw.18) for conducting autopsy. On the same day, Pw5 secured presence of Pws. 2 to 4, Chevuri Srinivasarao,

Shaik Abdul Kalam, Shaik Mazaitullah, and Poluri Srinviasarao @ Srinivas (Lws. 7 to 10) and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. On 27-2-11 a post mortem examination over dead body of deceased-

Guntupallli Veeraswamy was held by Dr.V. Prasadarao, M.D., Assistant

Professor, Forensic Medicine, Guntur (Lw.15) and issued post mortem report opining cause of death of deceased- Guntupallli Veeraswamy was 3 due to complications of multiple injuries. On 5-3-11, Tammineni Audireddy (Lw.11) produced crime vehicle Tata Ace goods vehicle bearing No. AP 7/TA/4086 in the presence of Pw5 at Medikonduru Police station, upon which he verified records of crime vehicle and also recorded statement of

Tammineni Audireddy (Lw.11) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the same day, a requisition to inspect the crime vehicle was issued by Pw5 upon which,

A. Kiran Prabhakar, Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Guntur (Lw.17) conducted Road test of crime vehicle and issued his report dated 5-8-11 opining that occurrence of accident was not due to any mechanical defects of said vehicle. On 16-3-11, at about 10-00 a.m., the accused was produced before Pw5 by Tammineni Audireddy (Lw.11) as driver of crime vehicle upon which the accused was arrested in above crime, duly forwarding him before court the seeking judicial remand. Dr. Shaik Masthan vali , Causality Medical Officer, Government General Hospital, Guntur (Lw.16) rendered treatment for injuries sustained by Pws. 4 and 5 and issued wound certificates opining nature of injuries sustained by them as simple in nature. After completing investigation, Pw5 laid charge sheet against accused rendering himself liable for punishment of alleged offences.

3. On a careful perusal of charge sheet, and other relevant material placed on record, cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 337, 304-A IPC., were taken against accused and ordered summons, as he got enlarged himself on bail at the time of his production before court under

Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.

4. On appearance of accused, he was furnished with copies of documents as stipulated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused is defended by his counsel Mr. Y. Subbarao, advocate, Guntur.

4

5. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., about allegations levelled against him of offences punishable under sections 337 and 304-A IPC., he denied those allegations and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution relied upon testimonies of Pws.

1 to 5, supported by marking documents as Exs. P1 to P10.

7. Upon closure of prosecution's side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., about incriminating evidence appearing against him from prosecution's side witnesses and he denied same. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witness nor mark documents on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and Mr. Y. Subba Rao, the learned counsel for accused respectively.

9.The point for determination is:-

Whether prosecution has succeeded in proving its contention levelled against accused beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty of causing injuries to Pws. 2 and 3 so also death of deceased- Guntupallli Veeraswamy by his rash / negligent Act (driving) ?

10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution must establish that accused had acted as driver of Tata Ace vehicle bearing No. A.P 7/TA/4086 at the time of alleged incident and due to his rash and negligent act the alleged incident had resulted. Initially, Pw1 was relied upon by prosecution as defacto complainant i.e., son of deceased- Guntupallli

Veeraswamy . According to Pw1, on 26th February 2011, at about 4-00 p.m., he received a telephonic call from Pw4 informing that his father was involved in road traffic accident on his way to their village and that he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur, for treatment. Pw1 deposed that, immediately he rushed to the said hospital, noticed his father 5

Guntupallli Veeraswamy sustained bleeding injuries and while undergoing treatment he had expired. He added that police authorities visited the said hospital, reduced his statement into writing upon which he contributed his signature on report dt. 27-2-11 marked as Ex.P1. Even according to the testimony of Pw1 he had no occasion to witness the alleged incident and the same was reiterated in his report marked as Ex.P1.

11.Pw2 was examined as driver of auto bearing No. A.P.7/TU/9534 at the time of alleged incident. According to Pw2, on 26-2-11, at about 5-00 p.m., while he was proceeding with his auto along with passengers at

Dokiparru cross roads when reached near Poultry farm at that time, a TATA

Ace vehicle coming from Narasaraopet and proceeding towards Guntur direction dashed his vehicle as a result, he along with passengers had sustained injuries. Pw2 added that, soon after the alleged incident, the said TATA Ace vehicle left the said spot and subsequently, they were shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur . Having spoken about occurrence of accident, Pw2 had clearly expressed his inability to disclose details of TATA Ace vehicle and identity of its driver to be responsible for the said incident. Since Pw2 had turned hostile by deviating from facts as reported in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he was cross examined by the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor after obtaining permission from court. Interestingly, not useful fact was elicited from Pw2 to support their case.

12.Pw4 another passenger travelled in the auto driven by Pw2 and his testimony reveals that on 26th February 2011, at about 4-30 p.m., when their auto reached Dokiparru cross roads near Poultry farm, a lorry came in opposite direction and dashed their vehicle. He added that due to such hitting he sustained injuries to his left leg and a co-passenger of their auto had expired while shifting to Government General Hospital, Guntur. Pw4 6 another injured also maintained a similar stand that soon after alleged incident the driver of said lorry had escaped from the spot. As material witnesses examined as Pws. 2 to 4 had failed to depose any incriminating facts, accordingly, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor had given up examination of other material witnesses and finally relied upon testimony of Pw5 as an investigating officer.

13.The testimony of Pw5 worked as Inspector of Police,

Medikonduru Police Station reveals that on 27th February 2011, at about 6-00 a.m., upon presentation of Ex.P1 report by Pw1, he registered it as crime No. 31/11 under Ex.P5 duly invoking provisions 334 and 304-A IPC, and commenced investigation. He deposed of visiting scene of offence, prepared observation report under Ex.P6, rough sketch under Ex.P7 duly attested by himself so also Dondapati Nagarjuna, Chintha Syam Babu (Lws. 12 and 13). Pw5 added that immediately he returned to Government

General Hospital, Guntur, held inquest over dead body of deceased-

Guntupallli Veeraswamy, scribed an inquest report under Ex.P8 duly attested by himself Dondapati Nagarjuna, Chintha Syam Babuand and

Govindu Satyanrayana (Lws. 12 to 14). Thereafter, he secured presence of Pws. 1 to 4 so also Guntupalli Sambasiva Rao, Guntupalli Ramulamma @ Rama Tulasamma, Chevurui Srinivasarao , Shaik Abdul Kalam, Shaik

Mazaitullah and Potluri Srinivasarao @ Srinviias (Lws. 2,3,7 to 10) and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the question of proving the involvement of crime vehicle in above crime, Pw5 deposed that on 5-3-11 while he was present at police station, one Tammineni Audi

Reddy (Lw.11) produced the crime vehicle TATA Ace heavy goods vehicle bearing No. A.P.7/TA/4086 upon which, he verified records of the said vehicle and recorded statement of Tammineni Audi Reddy (Lw.11) under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. Interestingly, the said contention of Pw5 is lacked by sufficient corroboration as the prosecution did not secure presence of said 7 witness and even Pw5 did not seize documents of crime vehicle to support his contention. Further, according to Pw5, on the same day, he issued a requisition for inspection of crime vehicle and that A. Kiran Prabhakar,

Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, Guntur (Lw.17) inspected the same and issued his report under Ex.P9. He further added on 16-3-11 at about 10- 00 a.m., the accused was produced before him by Tammineni Audi Reddy (Lw.11) as driver of crime vehicle upon which he caused enquiries and arrested the accused duly producing him before court seeking judicial remand. Interestingly, the said contention of Pw5 is also lacked by sufficient corroboration since presence of Tammeneni Audi Reddy (Lw.11) was not secured at the time of trial. Even otherwise, Pw5 did not focus his investigation like seizure of Trip Sheet and Driving License of accused to substantiate his contention that the accused had acted as driver of TATA

Ace heavy Goods vehicle bearing No. A.P.7TA/4086 on 26-2-11 at about 5- 00 p.m. Finally, Pw5 deposed that on 27-2-11, he received post mortem report under Ex.P10 issued by Dr. Shaik Masthanvali, Causality Medical

Officer, Government General Hospital, Guntur (Lw.16) and thereby resulted in completing investigation and laid charge sheet in above crime.

Admittedly, except the solitary testimony of Pw5 in pointing out accusation against accused and no supporting proof is placed on record by the prosecution to support its contention that accused had acted as driver of crime vehicle at the time of alleged incident which took place on 26-2-11 and caused injuries to Pws. 2 and 3, so also death of deceased-Guntupalli

Veeraswamy. It appears that, Pws. 1 to 4 appeared to have entered into compromise with the accused out of the court and for the same reason they did not choose to depose any incriminating facts against accused.

Due to failure on the part of prosecution for not establishing ingredients of offence as discussed supra, would lead to a conclusion that allegations levelled against accused in above crime are not established beyond all 8 reasonable doubt, and the case of prosecution fails for the said reason.

14. In the result, accused is found not guilty under Section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C., and acquitted of offences alleged under Sections 337 and 304-A

IPC, in crime No. 31/2011 of Medikonduru Police station. Bail bonds executed by accused, and surety bonds executed on his behalf shall stand cancelled.

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

pronounced by me in the open court, this the day of 11th day of April,

2012.

V. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITENSSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence-- None--

Pw.1/-Guntupalli Ramesh Babu

Pw.2/-Palnati John

Pw.3/-Shaik Meenu

Pw.4/- Akula Krishna Rao

Pw.5/- G. Purnachandra Rao (Inspector of Police)

Documents Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1/- Signature on report Dt. 27-2-11. Ex.P2/- 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3/- 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4/- 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P5/-First Information Report Ex.P6/- Observation Report Ex.P7/- Rough Sketch Ex.P8/- Inquest Report Ex.P9/-M.V.I Report Ex.P10/- Postmortem Report For Defence: – Nil.

V. AJCJ., Guntur.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, G UNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR. C.C.NO.405/2011 DATES OF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trial or order 26-2-11 27-2-11 21-10-11 16-3-11 10-2-12 10-4-12 11-4-12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay :- This case was taken on file on 8-8-11, copies furnished to accused on 21-10-11, and he was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C on 17-11-11. On 10-2-12 Pw1 examined, Exs.P1, P2 are marked. On 2-3-12 Pws. 2 and 3 examined, Exs.P3, P4 are marked. On 9-4-12 Pws. 4 and 5 examined, Exs.P5 to P10 are marked and Prosecution's side evidence closed. On 10-4-12, accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., and heard arguments of both sides. On 11-4-12, judgment pronounced. Hence delay. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Complainant :- State: Sub Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, Medikonduru. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the accused Father’s Name Calling Religion Age Village

Tammineni Sivareddy S/o China Sundara Ramireddy, aged 21 years, Reddy, Kanumalar Chervuvu (v) , Bollapalli (M) Driver of Tata Ace Goods Vehicle A.P.7/TA/4086.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence :- under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC in Crime No.31/2011.

Plea of accused :- Not guilty. Finding: - Found Not guilty.

SENTENCE OR ODER:­ In the result, accused is found not guilty under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C., and acquitted of offences alleged under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC, in crime No. 31/2011 of Medikonduru Police station. Bail bonds executed by accused, and surety bonds executed on his behalf shall stand cancelled.

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR 

Present:: Sri M. Guru Nath, B.Com., LL.M.,

V. Addl. Junior Civil Judge

On Friday,Thirteenth (13th) day of April two thousand twelve.

C.C. No.273/2011

State: Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station.

...Complainant

Versus

Nanda Bala Raju s/o Prakasarao, aged 30 years, C/Mala, Siripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal.

.... Accused

This case is coming on 11-4-12 before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant Police and Mr. G. Santha Kumar advocate for accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day and on, hearing both sides, this court delivers the following.

JUDGMENT

The sole accused is facing trial of offence punishable under

Section 324 IPC in crime No. 07/10 on the file of Medikonduru Police

Station.

2. It is alleged that, on 21st January 2010, at about 8-00 p.m.,

Pw1 visited the kirana shop of Pw3 to make a telephone call and by that time, he noticed the accused was using the said telephone. Pw1 was waiting for his turn, in the mean time, the accused having completed chatting over the said telephone continued to hold the handle of the said telephone in his hand. Witnessing the same, Pw1 asked the accused to allow him to make a telephone call, upon which, the accused picked up an issue. In the said transaction, the accused picked up weighing stone from the shop of Pw3 and beat on left side fore head of Pw1, thereby causing 2 bleeding injuries. The said incident was witnessed by Miriyala Narasimha

Rao (Lw.4), upon which, the accused left the said place. Immediately,

Pw2 reached to the rescue of Pw1 and took him to Government General

Hospital, Sattenapalli for treatment. On the next day, upon receipt of hospital intimation, Pw6 visited Government General Hospital, Sattenapalli, reduced the statement of Pw1 into writing, returned to Medikonduru Police

Station, registered it as crime No. 7/10 under Section 324 IPC and commenced investigation. Immediately, Pw6 proceeded to scene of offence, secured presence of Pws. 2 to 4, Miriyala Narasimha Rao , Nanda

Sundara Rao and Nandal Chennakesavulu (Lws.4, 6 and 7), duly recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. A rough sketch of scene of offence was also prepared to that effect. Pw5 rendered treatment for injuries sustained by Pw1 and issued wound certificate opining nature of injuries sustained by Pw1 as simple in nature. The investigation conducted by Pw6 was verified by A. Venkateswara Reddy (Lw.10) Sub

Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, and found it on correct lines. As apprehension of accused in above crime did not yield any result, accordingly, A. Venkateswara Reddy (Lw.10) Sub Inspector of Police,

Medikonduru Police Station, completed investigation and laid charge sheet against accused with a request to issue a non-bailable warrant.

3. On a careful perusal of the charge sheet, and other relevant material placed on record, cognizance of offence punishable under Section 324 IPC was taken against accused, ordered non-bailable warrant, and posted the matter to 28-5-10 for his appearance.

4. Upon knowledge of issuance of non-bailable warrant, the accused appeared before court on 20th May 2010, with a petition under

Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C., and he was remanded to judicial custody duly dismissing the said petition. Thereafter, the accused moved a petition for 3 relief of bail through his learned counsel Mr. G. Santha Kumar, Advocate,

Guntur, and subsequently, he was released on bail.

5. Upon appearance of accused on 7-6-10, he was furnished with copies of documents as stipulated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

6. The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., about allegations levelled against him in above crime and a charge under

Section 324 IPC was framed, read over, and explained to him in vernacular language to which he pleaded not guilty to above said charge and claimed to be tried.

7.During trial, the prosecution relied upon testimonies of Pws.

1 to 6 supported by marking documents as Exs. P1 to P6.

8. Upon closure of prosecution's side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., about incriminating evidence appearing against him from prosecution's side witnesses and he denied same. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witness nor mark documents on his behalf.

9.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution, and Mr. G. Santha Kumar, the learned counsel for accused respectively.

10.The point for determination is:-

Whether prosecution has succeeded in proving its contention levelled against accused beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty of causing hurt to Pw1 voluntarily ?

11. Initially, Pw1 was examined as defacto complainant cum injured. According to Pw1, about one year ago, at about 8-00 p.m., he visited kirana shop of Pw1 to make a telephone call and by that time, he had noticed the presence of accused and using the said telephone. While 4 explaining the incident, Pw1 contended that a quarrel had taken place between himself and accused as he was not permitted to make a telephone call, in the said transaction, the accused took up a weighing stone from the shop of Pw3 and hit with on it his left side of his fore head as a result, he sustained bleeding injury. Pw1 added that the said incident was witnessed by Pw4 and thereafter, he was shifted to Police Station, and from there he was shifted to Government General Hospital for treatment.

Finally, Pw1 contended that his statement under Ex.P1 was reduced into writing at the hospital.

12.Pw2 wife of Pw1 as relied upon by prosecution and her testimony reveals that on 21st January 2010, at about 8-00 p.m., she learnt about alleged incident which took place at the shop of Pw3, upon which she reached there and found Pw1 sustained bleeding injuries on left side of head and lost conscious. She added that with the help of neighbouring people, she took her husband (Pw.1) to Government General Hospital, at

Sattenapalli for treatment. The said contention of Pw2 even if accepted, in toto would not be of much use as she had reached the scene of offence soon after occurrence of alleged incident. Nextly, Pw3 was relied upon by prosecution as eye witness and owner of kirana shop and interestingly, he took a plea that at the time of accident he was not present at the shop.

For the reasons best known, Pw3 had turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Similarly, Pw4 another eye witness said to be present at the time of alleged incident and he also maintained a similar version is taken by Pw3. He added that he learnt about alleged incident from Pws. 1 to 3 and saying so he also turned as non supporting witnesses to the case of prosecution. Since material witnesses examined as Pws. 3 and 4 were proved to be non supporting witnesses, and that presence of other eye witnesses cited in the memorandum of evidence as Miriyala Narasimha

Rao , Nanda Sundara Rao and Nandal Chennakesavulu (Lws.4, 6 and 7) 5 was not secured accordingly, the prosecution had given up examination of above said witnesses.

13. The prosecution in order to prove the next important link i.e., rendering treatment to Pw1, had relied upon testimony of Pw5 as medical officer working at Area hospital, at Sattenapalli. Pw5 in turn deposed that on 21st January 2010 at about 10-00 p.m., he examined Pw1, noticed a lacerated injury on left temporal area aged about 2 to 6 hours prior to its examination and other injury as simple in nature might be used due to use of blunt objection as per the wound certificate issued by him in that regard marked as Ex.P4. The said contention of Pw5 remained unchallenged as no cross examination was effected towards the said witness.

14.Finally, Pw6, was examined as investigating officer who worked as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police station.

According to Pw6, on 22nd January 2010, he received a telephonic information from Government General Hospital, Sattenapalli at about 8- 00 a.m., and immediately he visited the said hospital, recorded statement of Pw1 under Ex.P1 into writing, returned to police station, registered it as crime No. 7/10 under Ex.P5 duly invoking provisions of Section 324 IPC and commenced investigation. Pw6 added that again he visited Government

General Hospital, Sattenapalli, recorded statement of Pws. 1 and 2 under

Section 161 Cr.P.C., and thereafter visited scene of offence i.e., shop of

Pw3 secured presence of witnesses i.e., Pws. 3 , 4 Nanda Sundara Rao and

Nanda Chennakesavulu (Lws. 6 and 7) duly recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C., so also drawn rough sketch under Ex.P6 to that effect. Finally, he deposed that his investigation was verified by (Lw.10) and having completed investigation the charge sheet was filed a 6 requisition to issue non bailable warrant against accused as he was found to be absconding.

15.The learned counsel for accused contended that Pw1 did not stand to his earlier version about the alleged incident and deposed a different stand that contents of Ex.P1 were not dictated by him and hence the allegation levelled against accused stands not proved. Initially, Pw1 had maintained his stand in the chief examination that he was beaten by accused by making use of weighing stone took from the kirana stone of

Pw3. Interestingly, Pw3 did not support the said fact as he maintained a hostile attitude. On the said crucial fact, the attention of Pw1 was invited during the course of cross examination and interestingly, Pw1 deposed that contents of Ex.P1 report were not dictated by him and simply he had contributed his signature over it. As seen from replies furnished by Pw1 at the time of alleged incident, four independent witnesses were present at the shop of Pw3 and as per information given by neighbouring witnesses, he had identified accused to be responsible for the alleged incident. The said contention of Pw1 assumes significance, as Pws. 1 and 2 while deposing evidence in chief examination clearly deposed soon after the alleged incident, Pw1 had lost conscious. It appears that, Pw1 had entered into a settlement with the accused and for the same reason, he had clearly deposed that as per advice of elders, a compromise was effected with the accused. Under the said situation, Pw1 appeared to have maintained a different version at the time of trial and convicting the accused believing the testimony of Pw1 appears to be not safe enoug as independent witnesses examined as Pws. 3 and 4 did not support the case of prosecution. Therefore, this court comes to a conclusion that, charge allegations levelled against accused to be guilty of causing hurt to Pw1 voluntarily on 21-1-10 at about 8-00 a.m., at the Kirana shop of Pw3 7 stands not proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, accused is entitled for an acquittal.

16. In the result, accused is found not guilty under Section 248 (1)

Cr.P.C., and acquitted of the offence charged under Section 324 IPC in crime No. 07/2010 of Medikonduru Police station. Bail bonds of accused, and surety bonds executed on his behalf shall stand cancelled.

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of April 2012.

V. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITENSSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence-- None--

Pw.1/-Rayapudi Vasantharao

Pw.2/-Rayapudi Renuka

Pw.3/- Bapanapalli Koteswara Rao

Pw.4/-Miriyala Siva Rama Krishna

Pw.5/-Dr. Manthru Naik

Pw.6/- P. Sudharsana Rao

Documents Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1/- Statement of Pw1 Ex.P2/-161 Statement of of Pw3 Ex.P3/- 161 Statement of Pw4 Ex.P4/- Wound Certificate Ex.P5/- First Information Report Ex.P6/- Rough Sketch For Defence: – -- Nil --

V.AJCJ., Guntur.

8

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, G UNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR. C.C.NO.273/2011 DATES OF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trial or order 21-1-10 22-1-10 7-6-10 14-3-11 21-7-11 11-4-12 13-4-12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay :- This case was taken on file on 7-4-10, copies furnished to accused on 7-6-10, and accused was examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., on 19-5-11. On 21-7-11 Pw1 examined, Ex. P1 marked. On 23-9-11 Pws.2 and 3 examined, Ex.P2 marked. On 6-1-12 Pw4 examined, Ex.P3 marked. On 20-1-12 Pw5 examined, Ex.P4 marked. On 9-4-12 Pw6 examined, Exs.P5, P6 marked and prosecution's side evidence is closed. On 11-4-12 Accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., and heard arguments of both sides . On 13-4-12 judgment pronounced. Hence the delay. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Complainant :- State: Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the accused Father’s Name Calling Religion Age Village

Nanda Bala Raju s/o Prakasarao, aged 30 years, C/Mala, Siripuram village, Medikonduru Mandal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence :- under Section 324 IPC in crime No. 07/10.

Plea of accused :- Not guilty. Finding: - Found Not guilty.

SENTENCE OR ODER:­ In the result, accused is found not guilty under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C., and acquitted of the offence charged under Section 324 IPC in crime No. 07/2010 of Medikonduru Police station. Bail bonds of accused, and surety bonds executed on his behalf shall stand cancelled.

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur.

1

 IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR 

Present:: Sri M. Guru Nath, B.Com., LL.M.,

V. Addl. Junior Civil Judge

On Wednesday, Fourth (4th ) day of April two thousand twelve.

C.C. No.335/2011

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, Medikonduru.

...Complainant

Versus

Bogi Masthanaiah s/o Niranjan, age 35 years, Caste: Gowda, R/o D.No: 25-22- 413, K.V.P Colony, Guntur Town, Driver of Lorry No. AP 16 V 7567.

.... Accused

This case is coming on 2-4-12 before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant Police and Mr. J. Lakshmi Kanth, advocate for accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day and on, hearing both sides, this court delivers the following.

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, filed charge sheet against sole accused, alleging offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC in

Crime No.9/2011 on file of his Police Station. Brief facts of case of prosecution are narrated as under.

2. The deceased-Kondepogu Venkata Rao used to work as Security

Guard at Kallam Agro & Oil Mill company at Dokiparru Village and used to act as Gate keeper. On 21-1-11, at about 8-00 a.m., he was discharging his duty as Gate keeper at Kallam Agro & Oil Company, at Dokiparru village, at that time, the accused having unloaded the stock in go downs of said factory premises was driving his lorry bearing No. AP 16 V 7567 and returning from go downs of the said premises. Noticing the lorry driven by the accused was to pass through the entrance gate, the deceased-Kondepogu Venkata Rao 2 opened the gate of factory premises, at that time, the accused having failed to take precautionary measures drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the gate of the said premises due to such hitting, the deceased-Kondepogu Venkata Rao who was opening the gate also sustained fatal injuries and fell down. The said incident was witnessed by Pw3, and immediately, he went in rescue of injured person and intimated the same to

Pw1 (wife of deceased Kondepogu Venkata Rao) over telephone. On the way to hospital, the (deceased) Kondepogu Venkata Rao had succumbed to his injuries. To that effect, Pw1 approached Medikonduru police station, lodged a written complaint on 21-1-11 at about 2-00 p.m., upon which it was registered as crime No. 9/11 under Section 304-A IPC by G. Purnachandra Rao (Lw.17)

Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, and commenced investigation.

Immediately, he visited scene of offence, prepared observation report and rough sketch, secured presence of Pws. 1 to 4, Kondepogu Sreenivasa Rao,

Kondepogu Sambaiah and Kondepogu Maha Lakshmaiah (Lws. 3 to 5), and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the same day, an inquest over the dead body of (deceased) Kondepogu Venkata Rao was held by

G. Purnachandra Rao (Lw.17) Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, in the presence of Payyala Aseervdam, Udatha Srenivasa Rao and Melam Mariya

Dasu (Lws. 12 to 14) got scribed inquest report duly attested by them.

Thereafter, the dead body of (deceased) Kondepogu Venkata Rao was shifted for conducting autopsy and a post mortem examination was held by Dr.

Chanra Sekhara Rao (Lw.16) Associate Professor, Government Medical College,

Guntur, and issued his post mortem report opining the cause of death of (deceased) Kondepogu Venkata Rao was due to multiple injuries. On 2-2-11, at about 10-00 a.m., the accused was produced at Medikonduru Police Station by Polavarapu Rani (Lw.11) upon which sufficient enquiries were caused by G.

Purnachandra Rao (Lw.17) Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, and arrested the accused in above crime and forwarded him before court seeking 3 judicial remand. On 26-1-11 at about 10-30 a.m., a requisition was filed by G.

Purnachandra Rao (Lw.17) Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, to inspect crime vehicle bearing No. AP 16 V 7567 at Medikonduru Police Station, upon which A. Kiran Prabhakar (Lw.15) Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Guntur visited the said police station, conducted road test of crime vehicle and issued his report opining that occurrence of accident was not due to any mechanical defects of crime vehicle. After completing investigation, G. Purnachandra Rao (Lw.17) Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, and laid charge sheet against accused duly rendering himself liable for punishment of alleged offence.

3. On a careful perusal of charge sheet, and other relevant material placed on record, cognizance of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC., was taken against accused and ordered summons, as he got enlarged himself on bail at the time of his production before court under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.

4. On appearance of accused, he was furnished with copies of documents as stipulated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused is defended by his counsel Mr. J. Lakshmi Kanth, advocate, Guntur.

5. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., about allegations levelled against him of offence punishable under section 304-A IPC., he denied those allegations and claimed to be tried.

6.Upon commencement of trial, prosecution examined Pws. 1 to 5 supported by marking documents as Exs.P1 to P5. Since no incriminating evidence was deposed against accused by above said witnesses, the Learned

Assistant Public Persecutor has given up examining remaining witnesses cited in the memorandum of evidence annexed to the charge sheet. Similarly, 313

Cr.P.C., examination of accused was also dispensed with, in view of lack of 4 incriminating material to be put against accused from testimonies of Pws. 1 to 5.

7. Heard arguments of both sides. .

8.The point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its contention levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty of causing death of (deceased) Kondepogu Venkata Rao by his rash/negligent act (driving)?

9. Initially, the prosecution relied upon testimony of Pw1 as defacto complainant. As seen from testimony of Pw1 who happened to be wife of (deceased) Kondepogu Venkata Rao about one year ago, while she was present at her residence a telephonic information was received at about 8-00 a.m., informing that her husband Kondepogu Venkata Rao had sustained bleeding injuries due to hitting by a lorry at his place of work. According to

Pw1, immediately, she rushed to the scene of offence and found her husband (deceased) Kondepogu Venkata Rao had expired with bleeding injuries. She added that police authorities visited the said place and obtained her thumb impression on scribed document and she obliged the same. Even according to the contention of Pw1, she had no occasion to witness the alleged incident and her status remained to be a hear say witness.

10. Pw2 son of (deceased) Kondepogu Venkata Rao also deposed a similar version that on the date of alleged incident he received news about occurrence of death of his father due to hitting by a lorry at his place of work.

Pw2 contended that he rushed to the scene of offence, and found his father had sustained bleeding injuries all over his body, and to that effect, he along with Pw1 approached Medikonduru Police Station, and lodged a report. Since

Pw2 also failed to disclose any incriminating facts accordingly, the prosecution had sought permission from the court and cross examined above said witness. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor could not succeed in 5 eliciting any favourable fact to support their case. Pw3 was also relied upon by the prosecution as eye witness to the alleged incident. Interestingly, he deposed that at the time of alleged incident he was not present at factory premises and on the contrary, he learnt about it by sayings from others. Pws.

4 and 5 were also relied upon by prosecution as eye witnesses to the alleged incident but they also maintained a similar stand as taken by Pw3 as discussed supra. As all five material witnesses were proved to be hostile, the prosecution had given up examining remaining witnesses cited in the memorandum of evidence annexed to the charge sheet. As no incriminating fact was deposed by Pws. 1 to 5 against the accused, accordingly, 313 Cr.P.C., examination of the accused was also dispensed with. It appears that Pws. 1 to 5 alleged to have entered into outside settlement with the accused and for the same reason they did not speak any incriminating facts against accused as per their roles cited in the charge sheet. As essential ingredients of offence to be established against accused that he had acted as driver of lorry bearing No.

AP 16 V 7567 on 231-1-11 at about 8-00 a.m., near Kallam Agro Oil Mill factory premises Dokiparru village and caused death of (deceased) Kondepogu

Venkata Rao by hitting that his lorry which remained not established by the prosecution, and same would lead to a conclusion that allegations levelled against accused in above crime are not proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the accused is entitled for an acquittal.

11. In the result, accused is found not guilty under Section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C., and acquitted of offence alleged under Section 304-A IPC, in crime

No.9/2011 of Medikonduru Police station. Bail bonds executed by accused, and surety bonds executed on his behalf shall stand cancelled.

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

pronounced by me in the open court, this the day of 4th day of April, 2012.

V. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITENSSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence-- None--

Pw.1/-Kondepogu Venkayamma

Pw.2/-Kondepogu Malleswara Rao

Pw.3/-Birla Arjuna Rao

Pw.4/- Bokka Ananda Rao

Pw.5/-Udatha Peddi Raju

Documents Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1/- 161 Statement of Pw1 Ex.P2/- 161 Statement of Pw2 Ex.P3/- 161 Statement of Pw3. Ex.P4/- 161 Statement of Pw4. Ex.P5/-161 Statement of Pw5

For Defence: – Nil.

V. AJCJ., Guntur.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, G UNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR. C.C.NO.335/2011 DATES OF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trial or order 21-01-11 21-01-11 28-7-11 02-02-11 06-01-12 02-04-12 04-04-12 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay :- This case was taken on file on 30-3-11, copies furnished to accused on 28-7-11, and he was examined U/sec. 251 Cr.P.C on 14-11-11. On 6-1-12 Pws.1 and 2 examined, Ex. P1, P2 marked. On 9-2-12 Pws. 3 to 5 examined, Exs.P3 to P5 are marked. On 2-4-12, 313 Cr.P.C., examination of accused is also dispensed with and heard arguments of both sides. On 4-4-12 judgment pronounced. Hence delay. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Complainant :- State: Sub Inspector of Police, Medikonduru Police Station, Medikonduru. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the accused Father’s Name Calling Religion Age Village

Bogi Masthanaiah s/o Niranjan, age 35 years, Caste: Gowda, R/o D.No: 25-22- 413, K.V.P Colony, Guntur Town, Driver of Lorry No. AP 16 V 7567.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence :- under Section 304-A IPC in Crime No.9/2011.

Plea of accused :- Not guilty. Finding: - Found Not guilty.

SENTENCE OR ODER:­ In the result, accused is found not guilty under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C., and acquitted of offence alleged under Section 304-A IPC, in crime No.9/2011 of Medikonduru Police station. Bail bonds executed by accused, and surety bonds executed on his behalf shall stand cancelled.

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur.