Smt. M Kalyani

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

PRESENT:-Smt.M.Kalyani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

Tuesday, the 21st day of January, 2025.

C.C.No.2137/2019

State: Represented by Circle Inspector of Police, Kodumur Circle. … Complainant -Versus-

Boya Venkatramudu, age 49 years, S/o. Late Boya Ranga Swamy of H.No.3-321, C. Belagal Village & Mandal, Driver of Tractor Engine No. AP-21-TB-4160 & Trailor No.AP21 TZ-7118.… Accused

This case came before me on 20-01-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri.K.Sreedhar, Advocate

for the accused and after having stood over for consideration, till today, this

Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Circle Inspector of Police, Kodumur Circle filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.03/2019 for the offence U/s.304-A IPC and U/s.181 r/w 3 of MV Act.

2.The brief facts of the case are that:

i. On 13.01.2019 morning deceased-Boya Govindu went to the labor work along with PWs.4 & 5-B.Chinna Venkatesh and B.Pedda Venkatesh to the

Tractor bearing No.AP-21-TB-4160 with Trolley No. AP-21-TZ-7118 of

Sreeramulu (dealer) of their village for Mudumala road work. The deceased brother B. Venkatramudu is working as a driver to the said Tractor. After completion of the roadwork in the evening, the deceased and other coolies

PWs.4 & 5 boarded in the Trolley to come to C.Belagal village. The tractor reached in between Bricks Factory and Kasturba School on Kurnool - 2

Yemmiganur road after passing Yenagandia crossroad, meanwhile the accused drove the Tractor in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and due to up and downs on the road, the right side wheel of the Trolley was removed. As a result, the deceased was fell down on the road from Trolley and sustained bleeding injury over right side of his head and blood was oozing from the ears.

The time of occurrence is about 19-00 hrs. PW-4 informed the same to PW-1 over Mycure Hospital, Kurnool and further shifted to OMNI Hospital for better phone. Then PWs.1 & 2 rushed to the place of accident and shifted the deceased to treatment. On 14.01.2019 when police came to the hospital, since the deceased had to attend for surgery, they could not give the complaint. After surgery the deceased went in coma. While undergoing treatment the deceased

Boya Govindu succumbed to the injuries on 26.01.2019 at 07-29 hours.

i. Basing on the strength of the report of the complainant, Hc.2386 (LW-12) initially registered a case in Cr.No.03/2019 U/S 337 I.P.C of C.Belagal P.S and submitted copies of FIRS to all concerned officers and took up investigation.

Basing on the death intimation of the deceased, HC.2386 (LW-13) re-registered this case by altering section of law from 337 IPC to 304-A IPC on 26.01.2019 at 14-45 hours. During the course of investigation the I.O, LW-13 conducted Inquest

Idead body of the deceased in the presence of the panchayathdars LWs.7 to 9 and the blood relatives of the deceased LWs.1 to 4, on 27-01-2019 and also examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 6.

ii. LW-13 issued U/S 41(A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused as per the latest

Amendment of Cr.P.CAct 2008 & 2010. Accordingly the accused comply the notice on 08-02-2019 and LW-13 perused the R.C, Insurance of Crime vehicle and found that it was registered in the name of Boya Sreeramulu S/o B.Nallanna of C.Belagal village and insurance is valid up to 12-06-2019 midnight. LW-13 verified the driving license of the accused and found that his license is valid up to 31-05-2018. As the accused is not having valid driving license, LW-13 added the section 3 r/w 181 of MV act 1988 to the existing sections.

iii. LW-10 is Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine, KMC, Kurnool who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued P.M.

Certificates and opined that the deceased died due to "INTRACRANIAL 3

BLEEDING RESULTING FROM HEAD INJURY". LW-11 is the Asst. Motor

Vehicle Inspector, RTA office, Kurnool who inspected the crime vehicles, issued accidental report opining that the "the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the Vehicle".

3. The offence was taken cognizance U/s.304-A IPC and U/s.181 r/w 3 of MV

Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/s.304-

A IPC and U/s.181 r/w 3 of MV Act putting forth the substance of the accusations made against him for which he denied the commission of offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 6 and got Exs.P1 to P9 marked. In view of the evidence of PWs-1 to 6, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses.

7. Accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. putting forth the incriminating material that appears against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which the accused denied the guilt. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused.

8.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt”?

4

POINT:

10. It is the case of prosecution that on 13-01-2019 at 19-00 hours, on Kurnool - Yemmiganur road in between Ramesh Bricks Factory and Kasturba School after passing Yenagandia crossroad, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of

Tractor bearing No. AP-21-TB-4160 & Trailor No.AP21 TZ-7118, suddenly the trailer right wheel loosened. As a result the deceased-Boya Govindu fell down and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment.

11. The learned APP submitted his arguments stating that the case may be decided on merits.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused would contend that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of accused and hence the question of negligent act of accused does not arise. Further, the material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. The evidence of PW-6-Investigating Officer, is only routine course of investigation. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

13. PW1 is the defacto complainant and the deceased Govindu is his father. He deposed that on 13-01-2019 at 7.00 pm, LW5-B.Chinna Venkatesh made a phone call to him and informed him about the tractor accident when the tractor was running the right side of the trolly tire got detached, accident was occurred at

Kasturiba Girls School, C.Belagal and his father was shifted to hospital and his father was bleeding from the left ear and was shifted to Medicover Hospital,

Kurnool for better treatment and on 26-01-2019 while undergoing treatment, his father succumbed to injuries.

On perusal of evidence of PW1 in his cross examination he came to know the information about the accident through LW5. He denied that he do not know the driver of the crime vehicle. After completion of the operation to the deceased then after he went to coma and he was succumbed to injuries.

5

14.The evidence of PW2 is that on 13-01-2019 at 7.00 pm, PW1 and LW2 made a phone call to him and informed him about the tractor accident.

Immediately, he rushed to the Omni Hospital, Kurnool. On 26-01-2019 while undergoing treatment his junior paternal uncle was succumbed to injuries and he cannot say tractor bearing number, at the time of accident driver of the crime vehicle is his senior paternal uncle/accused, the accident was occurred due to trolly right tire got detached.

On perusal of evidence of PW2 in his cross examination he stated that he came to know the information about the accident through LW5. He denied that he do not know the driver of the crime vehicle. After completion of the operation to the deceased then after he went to coma and he was succumbed to injuries.

15.The evidence of PW3 is that on 13-01-2019 at 7.00 pm, PW1 and LW2 made a phone call to him and informed him about the tractor accident.

Immediately, he rushed to the Omni Hospital, Kurnool. On 26-01-2019 while undergoing treatment his uncle was succumbed to injuries and he cannot say tractor bearing number, at the time of accident driver of the crime vehicle is his uncle/accused, the accident was occurred due to trolly right tire got detached.

On perusal of evidence of PW3 in his cross examination he stated that he came to know the information about the accident through LW5. He denied that he do not know the driver of the crime vehicle. After completion of the operation to the deceased then after he went to coma and he was succumbed to injuries.

16.The evidence of PW4 is that about seven years ago after attending coolie works at about 7.00 pm, they were boarded in a tractor three members were present in the tractor and the accused was the driver of the tractor, suddenly one of the tyre got detached from the tractor and Govindu who was boarded in the tractor was fell down and he sustained injuries and immediately informed the same to PW1 and he shifted the deceased Govindu to Gudur Hospital after 15 days of the incident he came to know that Govindu was succumbed to injuries.

On perusal of evidence of PW4 in his cross examination he admitted that crime vehicle was going in a normal speed. The accident was occurred due to 6 tyre got detached from the crime vehicle. The deceased was died due to operation got failed and there is no fault in driving of accused.

17. The evidence of PW5 is that about four years ago after attending coolie works at about 7.00 pm, they were boarded in a tractor he along with PW4, you and deceased were present in the tractor and the accused was the driver of the tractor, the deceased was talking on the phone and the road was not in a good condition and damaged, suddenly one of the tyre got detached from the tractor and Govindu who was boarded in the tractor was fell down and he sustained injuries and immediately informed the same to PW1 and he shifted the deceased

Govindu to Gudur Hospital after 15 days of the incident he came to know that

Govindu was succumbed to injuries.

On perusal of evidence of PW5 in his cross examination he stated that the crime vehicle was going in a normal speed. The accident was occurred due to tyre got detached from the crime vehicle. The deceased was died due to operation got failed and there is no fault in driving of accused.

18.The evidence of PW6 is that on 25-01-2019 at about 16.30 hours, when he was present at C.Belagal PS, PW-1 came to police station and presented written report. Ex.P-2 is the written report. Basing on Ex.P-2, he registered a case in

Cr.No.3/2019 U/s.337 IPC and forwarded original FIR to the Hon’ble court and copies to all concerned officers. Ex.P-3 is the FIR. Again on 26-01-2019, PW-1 came to the police station and informed that his father was died due to injuries and submitted that written report. Ex.P-4 is the death intimation report. Basing on the Ex.P-4, he altered the section of Law from 337 IPC to 304 (A) IPC. He forwarded the original FIR to the Hon’ble Court and copies to all concerned officers. Ex.P-5 is the altered FIR. The dead body of the deceased was shifted to

GGH, Kurnool from Omni Hospital, Kurnool. Immediately he went to the GGH,

Kurnool and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Boya

Govindu in the presence of LWs-7 to 9 and prepared inquest report and obtained signatures of LWs-7 to 9 and blood relatives of deceased. Ex.P-6 is the inquest report. He forwarded the dead body of the deceased to LW-10 who is the doctor 7 of GGH, Kurnool for the purpose of PME. After completion of PME, he handed over the dead body of the deceased to his blood relatives. He secured the presence of PWs-1 to 3, LWs.2 examined them and recorded their 161 (3) Cr.PC statements. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence situated at

Yanagandla cross Road, Near bricks factory situated in between Kurnool-

Yemmiganur road and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P-7 is the rough sketch of scene of offence and secured presence of PWs-4 & 5 and recorded their 161 (3) Cr.PC statements. At the scene of offence he found crime vehicle and shifted the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 21TB-4160 and tralley bearing No.AP21 TZ 7118 to the police station. On the same day, he forwarded letter to LW-11 who is Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kurnool to inspect the crime vehicle. Accordingly, she came to police station and inspect the crime vehicle.

Later, he forwarded the case file to LW-13 Circle Inspector, Kodumur Circle PS.

LW-13 verified his investigation and found it correct lines. During the course of investigation, while LW-13 present in the police station accused voluntarily came to police station and surrendered before LW-13. After verification of identity particulars of accused, he served 41 (A) Cr.PC notice to the accused and released accused after securing proper surety bonds, LW-13 received PME report from LW-10. Ex.P-8 is the PME report and also received MVI report from

LW-10. Ex.P-9 is the MVI report. After completion of investigation, LW-13 filed charge sheet against accused.

PW6 in his cross-examination denied that he never visited the scene of offence and conducted table investigation at police station and he foisted false case against accused and that to help the victim and to get the insurance he foisted false case against the accused and that accused is no way concerned with this case.

Appreciation of Evidence:

19.Therefore, from the evidence of above prosecution witnesses it is clear that the deceased Boya Govindu died due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident that took place on 13-01-2019 at about 19.00 hours, on Kurnool -

Yemmiganur road in between Ramesh Bricks Factory and Kasturba School after 8 passing Yenagandia crossroad. There is no objection with regard to factum of accident and death of the deceased Govindu in the incident that occurred on 13- 01-2019 at about 19.00 hours. The counsel for accused did not make any objections regarding the death of the deceased on the given date in the above said place. Prosecution failed to prove the involvement of crime vehicle bearing

AP-21-TB-4160 & Trailor No.AP21 TZ-7118 in the incident which had taken place on Kurnool - Yemmiganur road in between Ramesh Bricks Factory and Kasturba

School. Further it is not a dispute that the incident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle as per Assistant motor vehicle Inspector

LW-11.

20.PWs.1 to 3 in their cross-examination that they came to know the information about the accident through LW5-B.Chinna Venkatesh and denied that they do not know the driver of crime vehicle. They admitted that after completion of operation to the deceased then after he went to coma and he was succumbed to injuries. PWs.4 and 5 admitted in their cross-examination that the crime vehicle was going in a normal speed. The accident was occurred due to tyre got detached from the crime vehicle. The deceased was died due to operation got failed and there is no fault in driving of accused.

21.Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove involvement of crime vehicle AP- 21-TB-4160 & Trailor No.AP21 TZ-7118 in the said incident and the death of deceased Govindu in the incident it is not a dispute that the incident occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle as per the report of Assistant motor vehicle inspector. Prosecution has successfully established that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him in the incident that took place on 13-01-2019.

22.Now it is to be seen, whether it is the accused who drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of incident. In order to prove that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident, the prosecution relied upon the evidences of PWs.1 to 3 where as PWs.1 to 3 are not direct 9 witnesses they deposed on the same lines that they came to know that the deceased Govindu met with an accident on Kurnool - Yemmiganur road in between Ramesh Bricks Factory and Kasturba School. They came to know about the accident through LW5.

23.There is discrepancy in the evidence of PW4 and PW5 about the year of offence. Except that they stated on same lines as they were boarded in a tractor three members were present in the tractor and the accused was the driver of the tractor, suddenly one of the tyre got detached from the tractor and Govindu who was boarded in the tractor was fell down and he sustained injuries and immediately informed the same to PW1 and he shifted the deceased Govindu to

Gudur Hospital after 15 days of the incident he came to know that Govindu was succumbed to injuries.

On perusal of evidence of PWs.4 and 5 in their cross examination they admitted that crime vehicle was going in a normal speed. The accident was occurred due to tyre got detached from the crime vehicle. The deceased was died due to operation got failed and there is no fault in driving of accused.

24.Coming to the rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle by the accused at the time of incident, none of the prosecution witnesses stated that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the incident. Absolutely, there is no evidence available on record to prove that, the crime vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused at the time of incident and thereby caused the death of the deceased Govindu. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the rash and negligent act of the accused and that he is responsible for the alleged accident.

25.Though, the evidence of Investigating Officer supported the prosecution witnesses, their evidence is not at all sufficient to prove the offence under Section

U/s.304-A IPC and U/s.181 r/w 3 of MV Act. As seen from the entire evidence available on record, there is no material to connect the accused with the alleged incident and also to the death of the deceased. Without proving the identity of the accused and his rash and negligent driving beyond all reasonable doubt, the 10 accused cannot be liable for the offence punishable under Section U/s.304-A IPC and U/s.181 r/w 3 of MV Act. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

26.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.304-A IPC and U/s.181 r/w 3 of MV Act and he is acquitted of the same U/s.255 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21 st day of January, 2025.

Sd/- M.Kalyani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution: For Defence: PW1: Boya Sreenu-None- PW2: Boya Govardhan PW3: Chinna Musali Ramesh PW4: B.Chinna Venkatesh PW5: B.Pedda Venkatesh PW6: K.Srinivasa Reddy Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the Report-None- Ex.P2: Written Report Ex.P3: FIR Ex.P4: Death Intimation Report Ex.P5: Altered FIR Ex.P6: Inquest Report Ex.P7: Rough Sketch Ex.P8: PME Report Ex.P9: MVI Report

Sd/- M.Kalyani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

11

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(Special Mobile Court), KURNOOL.

C.C.No.2137/2019

1. Date of Offence: 13-01-2019

2. Date of Complaint or report: 25-01-2019

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : --

4. Date of release of the accused : --

5. Date of commencement of trial: 18-07-2024

6. Date of close of trial: 17-01-2025

7. Date of Sentence or Order: 21-01-2025

8. Explanation of delay if any: --

ComplainantThe Circle Inspector of Police, Kodumur Circle, in Crime No.03/2019. Boya Venkatramudu, age.49 years, Accused S/o. Late Boya Ranga Swamy of H.No.3-321, C. Belagal Village & Mandal, Driver of Tractor Engine No. AP-21-TB-4160 & Trailor No.AP21 TZ-7118.

Offence : Causing death by negligence.

Section of Law: U/s.304-A IPC and U/s.181 r/w 3 of MV Act

Finding of Court: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence/Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/s.304-A IPC and U/s.181 r/w 3 of MV Act and he is acquitted of the same

U/s.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- M.Kalyani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

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

Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

PRESENT:-Smt.M.Kalyani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

Monday, the 20th day of January, 2025.

C.C.No.490/2018

State: Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Kurnool Taluk P.S. … Complainant -Versus- 1.Golla Sai Krishna, S/o Late G.Hanumanthu, Aged 65 years, H.No.3-101,

2. Boya Ramanjineyulu, S/o B.Thimmaiah, Aged 27 years, H.No.2-6,

3. Muchu Venkata Reddy @ Thummalapalli Venkata Reddy, Aged 50 years, S/o Late T.Gidda Reddy, near Sivalayam temple,

4. Boya Venkateswarlu, aged 34 years, S/o B.Sivanna, All are residents of R.Konthalapadu village, Kurnool Mandal. … Accused

This case came before me on 07-01-2025 for hearing in the presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri.S.Govardhana Reddy,

Advocate for the accused and after having stood over for consideration, till today, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluk P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.295/2017 for the offences U/s.341, 427, 324 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are that:

i. On 27-11-2017 in view of attending Praja Sankalpa Yatra at Varkur village of Kodumur Mandal by YSRCP President Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, the Kodumur assembly constituency YSRCP incharge Sri P.Murali Krishna had 2 sent two Toofan Jeeps to R.Konthalapadu village about 09.00 hours for the supporters of YSRCP to participate in said Sankalpa Yathra. Accordingly, the defacto complainant Boya Yellappa (LW.1) and their party supporters Boya

Papanna (LW.2), Boya Vasnathu (LW.3), R.Prakash (LW.4), Repalle Maddilety (LW.5), Boya Raju (LW.7), Boya Edanna (LW.8), Boya Rangadu (LW.9),

Telugu Maddilety (LW.10) and Rapalle Masoom (LW.11) and some others boarded the said jeeps AP 21 W 1452 and AP 31 Y 6143 driven by their drivers

Shaik Abdul Nabi Rasool (LW.7) and Narasimhulu (LW.12) respectively and proceeded to Varkur village Sunkesula road in their village. Meanwhile, the accused A1 Sarpanch Sai Krishna, A2 Boya Ramanjienyulu, A3 Boya Muchu

Venkata Reddy and A4 Boya Venkateswarlu came across to their vehicle armed stones in their hands at 09.30 hours while they were proceeding near the house of Eswara Reddy and obstructed their jeeps by abusing in filthy language why they are supporting YSRCP and so saying they have broken the mirrors of vehicles. Due to fear, the jeeps drivers LWs.7 & 12 get down from jeeps and the accused beat them also with stones and sticks and caused bleeding and dumb injuries, besides the inmates of the jeeps also received minor injuries.

ii. On 27-11-2017 at 2300 hours, basing on the written complaint of the defacto complainant (LW.1), the S.I of Police (LW.13) registered a case in

Crime No.295/2017 U/s.341, 427, 324 r/w 34 IPC of Kurnool Taluka PS and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW.13 examined the witnesses and the scene of offence and the investigated proved the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. During further investigation, LW.13 arrested the accused A1 to A4 on 29-11-2017 and released on bail on producing the sufficient sureties. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. The offence was taken cognizance on file against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences U/s.341, 427, 324 r/w 34 IPC.

4.On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 4, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

3

5.Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and charge have been framed for the offences punishable U/s.341, 427, 324 r/w 34 IPC, putting forth the substance of the accusations made against them for which they denied the commission of offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

PWs-1 to 8 and got Exs.P1 to P6 marked. In view of the evidence of PWs-1 to 8, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses.

7. Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. putting forth the incriminating material that appears against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which the accused Nos.1 to 4 denied the guilt. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused

Nos.1 to 4.

8.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused

Nos.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/s.341, 427, 324 r/w 34 IPC”?

POINT:

10.It is the case of prosecution that on 27-11-2017 at 9.30 hours, wherein the accused Nos.1 to 4 obstructed the defacto complainant Boya Yellappa and some others of YSRCP followers, who are incharge of Kodumur YSRCP called for Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy padayatra at Varkur Village, Kodumur Mandal. A1 to A4 obstructed their vehicles and damaged the vehicle glasses with stones and also beat the vehicle drivers with stones. Due to fear, the jeeps drivers went away from the place. While seeing arrival of their villagers the accused went away from that place. This is due to political ill feelings between them.

4

11.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted his arguments contending that the evidence of prosecution witnesses manifestly proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused are liable to be convicted.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused argued that the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 8 suffered with material contradictions and omissions hence, learned counsel for accused sought for acquittal of accused as learned APP failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A4 beyond reasonable doubt.

13. The evidence of PW-1 is that about 6 years back YSRCP incharge

P.Murali Krishna had sent two Jeeps for the supporters of YSRCP party to the

R.Konthalapadu village for attending Padha Yatra of Y.Jagan Mohan Reddy (YSRCP party president) from Konthalapadu to Kodumur village. Total 24 members boarded in two jeeps, while they are proceeding to Kodumur village,

A1 to A4 (who are the supporters of TDP party) obstructed their vehicle and questioned where are going and started abusing in filthy language and pelted stones on their two jeeps and broken mirrors of their two vehicles, drivers of the said two jeeps were ran away from the scene of offence, they got down from the jeeps and they left the vehicles there itself and they went for attending padha yatra by taking other autos, the above said incident was occurred at 9

AM and on the same day after completing their padha yatra at night time they went to the police station and lodged a complaint against A1 to A4. He identified his thumb impression on the report. Ex.P.1 is the thumb impression on the report. Police examined him.

14.The evidence of PW-2 is that he is a resident of R.Konthalapadu. He do not know PW-1, LWs-3 to 5. He know A1 to A4 and he did not witnessed any incident on the date of offence and that he do not know any other facts of case and turned hostile.

5

15.The evidence of PW-3 is that on 27-11-2017 in view of praja-sankalpa yatra at Varkur village, Kodumur Mandal by YSRCP party, in view to attend

Former MLA by name P.Murali Krishna belongs to YSRCP party incharge sent two toofan vehicles so they have proceeded from R. Kontalapadu village to

Varkur village at 9.10 AM total 15 members were boarded in two toofan vehicles, he was sit in the second vehicle by that time they reached the house of Eswar Reddy at 9.30 A.M. A1 to A4 were attacked on them, who are supporters of TD Party obstructed their vehicle and pelted stones on their two toofan vehicles and started abusing him in filthy language and two vehicles mirrors were damaged and A1 to A4 stopped the vehicles and beat the drivers of the two toofan vehicles with stones and the said drivers got down from the vehicles and ran away from the scene of offence and on seeing the mob gathered at the scene of offence, A1 to A4 ran away from the scene of offence, they got down the two toofan vehicles due to damage of it and they caught the autos and attended the yatra and on the same day night they went to the police station PW.1 lodged a complaint against A1 to A4.

16. The evidence of PW-4 is that on 27-11-2017 in view of attending praja- sankalpa yatra at Varkur village, Kodumur Mandal by YSRCP party, Former

MLA by name P.Murali Krishna who belongs to YSRCP party sent two toofan vehicles so they have proceeded from R. Kontalapadu village to Varkur village at 9.10 AM total 20 members were boarded in two toofan vehicles, he was sit in the second vehicle by that time they reached the house of Eswar Reddy at 9.30

A.M. A1 to A4 were attacked on them, who are supporters of TD Party obstructed their vehicle and pelted stones on their two toofan vehicles and started abusing him in filthy language and two vehicles mirrors were damaged and A1 to A4 stopped the vehicles and beat the drivers of the two toofan vehicles with stones and the said drivers got down from the vehicles and ran away from the scene of offence and on seeing the mob gathered at the scene of offence, A1 to A4 ran away from the scene of offence, they got down the two toofan vehicles due to damage of it and they caught the autos and attended the 6 yatra and on the same day evening hours, they went to the police station PW.1 lodged a complaint against A1 to A4.

17. The evidence of PW-5 is that he is a resident of R.Konthalapadu. He know PW-1 to PW4 and LWs-6 to 11. He know A1 to A4 and he did not witnessed any incident on the date of offence and that he do not know any other facts of case and turned hostile.

18. The evidence of PW-6 is that at about 7 years ago on one day at about 9.00 a.m., for the purpose of YSRCP padayatra two jeeps were allotted for their

Village for attending padayatra, 10-12 members were boarded in two jeeps, while they are proceeding from Sunkesula Road to Kodumur for attending padayatra, by the time they are about to cross their Village in the meantime, A- 1 to A-4 came there and pelted stones on their vehicles to obstruct their programme and also damaged glasses of their jeeps and also assaulted the driver of the jeep, then, he left the scene of offence and proceeded to

Sunkusula road from there he boarded into another vehicle to attend the programme.

19. The evidence of PW-7 is that at about 7 years ago on one day at about 9.00 a.m., for the purpose of YSRCP padayatra two Toofan vehicles were allotted for their Village for attending padayatra programme, about 20 members were boarded in two toofan vehicles, while they are proceeding from Sunkesula

Road to Kodumur for attending padayatra, while they reached Eswar Reddy’s house in their Village, in the meantime, A-1 to A-4 came there and pelted stones on their vehicles to obstruct their programme and also damaged glasses of their toofan vehicles also assaulted the driver of the toofan vehicle, then, he left the scene of offence with fear, some of the Village people came to the scene of offence by seeing them A-1 to A-4 ran away from the scene of offence from there he boarded into another vehicle to attend the programme.

7

20. The evidence of PW-8 is that on 27-11-2017 at about 23.00 hours when he was present in Kurnool Taluk PS, PW-1 came to the police station and gave a written complaint. Basing on it, he registered a case in Crime No.295/2017

U/s.341, 427, 324 r/w 34 IPC of Kurnool Taluk PS. Ex.P-4 is the written complaint. Ex.P-5 is the FIR and submitted to the original FIR to the Hon’ble

Court and copies to all concerned officers. He visited the accused’s house in

Kunthalapadu Village, and he found them in their house. Then, he explained them the grounds of arrest and issued 41 A Cr.P.C notice to the A-1 to A-4 and he directed them to surrender before him in the police station but they did not comply he same. Then, on the next day he arrested A-1 to A-4 and after securing bail bonds from them he released them on station bail. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused.

21.On perusal of evidence of PWs.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 in cross-examination stated in the same lines that their village is a factionist village. There are two political parties in their village and one political party is TDP and another one is

YSRCP party. A1 contested as a Sarpanch in their village and another person who belongs to Boya caste person also contested as Sarpanch in their village and Sai Krishna won the election and elected as Sarpanch in their village and he belongs to TDP party. At about 6 years back the offence took place. They cannot say the exact date and month when the offence took place. They asked

P. Murali Krishna for sending them two jeeps to their village for attending padha yatra. A1 to A4 attacked on their jeep and mirror glasses of two jeeps were broken and PW1 and Vasantha, Edanna sustained simple injuries on their bodies. They did not inform about the said incident immediately to the police but they went to the police station on the same day at evening 9 PM. They denied that they filed false case against the accused for rivalry among TDP and

YSRCP parties.

22.On perusal of evidence of PW8 in cross-examination stated that PW-1 did not state in Ex.P-1 report that PW-4 and LW-8 were injured in the said incident. PW-3, 4, PW-6 and 7 did not state in his 161 Cr.PC statement that he made a phone call to YSRCP party leaders to arrange two jeeps for attend 8 padayatra and also not stated PW-1 and himself were injured in the said incident and that PW-3 did not made a phone call to Taluk PS and informed the said incident immediately and the same thing is not stated in his 161 Cr.P.C statement and on the same day, he was examined by the police, he accompanied with PW-1 towards Kurnool taluk PS and not examined and recorded their statement. He denied that PW-3 did not state in his 161 Cr.PC statement that he was proceedings from R.Kontalapadu bus stand to Varkur

Village. He admitted that PWs-4, 6 and 7 did not state in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that he was sat beside the driver of the jeep and A-1 pelted stones on the drivers of the vehicles and that he have not examined PWs-3 to 5 on 27- 11-2017 and the scene of offence is a busy locality and did not secure any independent witnesses at the scene of offence. He denied that he never arrested A-1 to A-4 and they have surrendered before me and that he filed false case against A-1 to A-4 due to political pressure and he conducted table investigation at police station and that he conducted bios investigation and not fair investigation. He admitted that he did not examine said Muralikrishna.

Appreciation of evidence:

23.Coming to the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW7 statements are completely contradictory statements to each other with regard to state exactly how many members were boarded in two jeeps on the date of incident for attending padayathra. PW1 in his chief examination deposed that 24 members were boarded in two jeeps and PW3 stated that 15 members were boarded in two jeeps, PW4 stated that 20 members were boarded in two jeeps,

PW6 stated that 10-12 members were boarded in two jeeps, PW7 stated that 20 members were boarded in two toofan vehicles for attending padayathra and

PW1, PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW7 in their cross-examination admitted that they cannot say the jeep numbers in which they were boarded for attending padayathra and further admitted that even they cannot say the jeep drivers names also. Therefore, in view of contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW7 their evidence is not trustworthy to hold conviction against the accused U/s.341, 427, 324 r/w 34 IPC.

9

Accordingly this point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

24.On perusal of evidence of PWs.2 and 5 who are the eye witnesses to the present case and also the persons who were boarded in two jeeps along with

PW1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 witnessed the incident on the date of offence turned hostile they did not support the case of prosecution on any material particulars.

Moreover they stated that they have not witnessed any incident on the date of offence though the learned Assistant Public prosecutor cross-examined PWs.2 and 5 with the permission of the Court, nothing has been elicited to prove that the accused Nos.1 to 4 has committed the offence. No purpose have been served by the prosecution except marking of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of

PWs.2 to 5 as Exs.P2 and P3 are marked.

25.As LW6 and LW12 who are the material witnesses to the present case are not examined by the APP and also who are the drivers of the two jeep vehicles and who are the injured witnesses in the present case and received damages to their vehicles were not examined by the learned APP, learned APP has given up the evidence of LW12. Learned APP filed special report of LW6 stating about his whereabouts in special report. Hence, APP has not examined

LW6. As injured witnesses in the present case i.e., LW6, LW12 were not examined by the prosecution, the question of proving the charge U/s.324 IPC does not arise. Hence, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

26.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences

U/s.341, 427, 324 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted of the same U/s.248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20 th day of January, 2025.

Sd/- M.Kalyani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

10

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution: For Defence:

PW1: Boya Yellappa-None-

PW2: Boya Papanna

PW3: Boya Vasanth

PW4: Repalle Prakash

PW5: Repalle Maddilety

PW6: Telugu Maddilety

PW7: Repalle Masoom

PW8: N.Giri Babu

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Thumb impression of of PW-1 on report-None-

Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2

Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-5

Ex.P4: Written complaint

Ex.P5: FIR

Ex.P6: Rough sketch

Sd/- M.Kalyani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

11

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(Special Mobile Court), KURNOOL.

C.C.No.490/2018

1. Date of Offence: 27-11-2017

2. Date of Complaint or report: 27-11-2017

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 29-11-2017

4. Date of release of the accused : 29-11-2017

5. Date of commencement of trial: 04-10-2023

6. Date of close of trial: 29-11-2024

7. Date of Sentence or Order: 20-01-2025

8. Explanation of delay if any: --

ComplainantThe Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluk P.S in Crime No.295/2017. 1.Golla Sai Krishna, S/o Late G.Hanumanthu, Accused Aged 65 years, H.No.3-101,

2. Boya Ramanjineyulu, S/o B.Thimmaiah, Aged 27 years, H.No.2-6,

3. Muchu Venkata Reddy @ Thummalapalli Venkata Reddy, Aged 50 years, S/o Late T.Gidda Reddy, near Sivalayam temple,

4. Boya Venkateswarlu, aged 34 years, S/o B.Sivanna, All are residents of R.Konthalapadu village, Kurnool Mandal.

Offence : Wrongful restraining any person; Mischief and thereby causing damage to the amount of 50 rupees or upwards; Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Section of Law: U/s.341, 427, 324 r/w 34 IPC

Finding of Court: A1 to A4 are found not guilty Sentence/Order: In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences U/s.341, 427, 324 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted of the same U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- M.Kalyani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court)Kurnool.

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

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(Special Mobile Court), KURNOOL.

PRESENT:-Smt.M.Kalyani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

Tuesday, the 21st day of January, 2025.

C.C.No.587/2016

Between: State: Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Kurnool Taluk (U) Police Station. … Complainant -And-

Mallepogu Vinod Kumar, age 22 years, S/o.M. Rogenna, Caste: SC-Madiga, Occu: Student-cum-Auto driver, House No. 3-68, Gudipadu Village, Gudur Mandal.… Accused

This case came before me for hearing in the presence of Assistant

Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri.K.Raja Mohan Reddy, Advocate

for the accused and having stood over for consideration, till today, this Court

delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluk (U) P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.133/2015 for the offence U/s.498 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are that:

i. The marriage of PW1’s daughter S.Kavitha was performed with PW4-

S.Charles about 5 years ago. LW-4 goes for coolie work at the Tractors at their village to load sand in the Tractors. LW-6 used to accompany her parents LW- 1 and LW-2 for coolie work for the works done by her father (LW-1) and return to Panchalingala Village in the evening. LW-6 has one son, now aged about 3 years. She also gave birth to male child in her 2nd delivery but he died after two days of his birth. Now she is carrying 7th month pregnancy. The accused used to bring required coolies in his Auto for the works done by LW-1 in Kurnool. In that process, the accused became familiar to LW-6 and they used to move 2 closely with each other. On coming to know about the same, LW-1, LW-2 &

LW-3 used to reprimand LW-6. The accused with his deceitful words that he likes her and he would look after her well enticed LW-6 and proposed to go both of them to somewhere for living. Believing his words, on 19.05.2015 LW-6 did not go for coolie work to their parents (LW-1 and LW-2) in Kurnool and stayed at the house itself. At about 3 PM she contacted the accused over phone and asked him to come with the Auto and both of them would go away.

Hearing her words, LW3 who was in the house reprimanded her. At about 4

PM, the accused came along with his Auto to Panchalingala Village and took away LW-4 in his Auto. Neighbour LW-5 is well aware of the offence. The next day the accused took LW-6 to Hyderabad. He made her to sit in

Secunderabad Railway Station and by informing that he has relatives in the city and he would talk to them and take her to their house went away and did not return to her. Though LW-6 tried to contact him over mobile, he did not lift his phone and switched off. Then she realized that the accused cheated her and out of fear, she wandered here and there. After due searches, LW-1 came to the P.S. on 28.05.2015 and preferred the complaint. On coming to know that her parents (LW-1 and LW-2) and husband (LW-4) searched for her and then LW-1 lodged a complaint in the P.S., LW-6 returned to her parents (LW-1 and LW-2) in Mamidalapadu Village on 28.05.2015 midnight. There was no copulation between the accused and LW-6. LW-1 and LW-2 brought their daughter LW-6 to the P.S. on 29.05.2015 and LW-6 narrated about the incident.

ii. LW-7 (SI) registered this case and investigated into. He examined

LW-1 to LW-6 and recorded their statements. He observed the scene of offence and prepared its rough sketch. He arrested the accused on 30.05.2015 and released him on bail with two sureties. On completion of the investigation, LW-7 filed charge sheet.

3. The offence was taken cognizance on file against the accused U/s.498 IPC.

3

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C., for which, he denied commission of the offence. Charge under Section 498 IPC against the accused has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. putting forth the incriminating material that appears against him from the evidence of prosecution. The accused denied his guilt.

No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the defence.

6. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

7.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.498 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

8.It is the case of prosecution that on 19-05-2015 at 16.00 hours, at

Panchalingala Village, Kurnool Mandal, wherein the accused use the guilty words and taking advantage of innocence of the married women by name

S.Madiga Kavitha took her with an intention to gratification with her. The accused was having friendship with the Kavitha moved with her closely. The same was reported by Madiga Daveedu who is father of the women.

9.In order to prove that accused has committed the offence under section 498 the prosecution is required to prove that,

Enticing concealing or Taking away or detaining of married women with the intent of having illicit intercourse with her.

4

If the prosecution is able to prove the above ingredients, then accused are liable to be convicted.

10.Before proceeding further it would be relevant to extract the provision’s under Section 498 IPC.

Sec. 498 IPC:- “Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such ....”

11.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted his arguments contending that the evidence of PW-1 to PW-6 manifestly proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be convicted.

12.The learned counsel for accused submitted that prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and prays to acquit the accused.

13.In support of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs-1 to 6.

14.It is the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 that on 19-05-2015 on Tuesday,

LW3 made a phone call to them that the accused has taken away their daughter from Panchalingala Village. They tried to search their daughter and accused but they were not found. After 15 days of the incident, they went to police station and he (PW1) filed complaint because his daughter was taken away by the accused. Ex.P.1 is his report.

15. It is the evidence of PW-3 that about 11 years ago, in the morning hours, she heard that LW6 was on a phone call with the accused that she 5 stated him to bring an auto to their house to elope. She admonished LW6 and not to do certain kind of acts again. At the time of incident, she was only present in her house and her son LW4 went out side for his work. On the same day evening house, LW6 eloped with accused without informing her.

16.It is the evidence of PW-4 that since the accused and his wife had acquaintance since 11 years and his wife makes frequent phone calls to the accused from his mobile. He gave several warnings to his wife not to make any phone call to the accused and inspite of giving several warnings to his wife she did not change her attitude and continued to make phone calls to the accused. PW3 made a phone call to him and stated that LW6 was eloped with the accused in the auto of the accused.

17. It is the evidence of PW-5 that on 19-05-2015 at 10.30 A.M., the accused came to her and stated that PW-1 was left for work and PW1 instructed him to drop her/PW5 in another place and forcibly taken in his auto towards work place, in the meantime the friend of accused boarded into the auto at children park. After that accused gave one water bottle after drinking the water from that bottle she fell unconscious. After three hours, she came into consciousness and she do not know the Village name where she was taken. At that time accused was also present and she requested him to give mobile phone for making phone call to PW-1, but he denied. They went to petrol bunk which is situated near by Hyderabad from there she escaped from the hands of accused and made a phone call to her father/PW-1 by taking mobile phone from stranger and informed the address to her father. She hidden herself some where else from where she made a phone to her father/PW-1 and PW-1 informed her whereabouts to sister of PW-2 and she came there at about 11.00 p.m., and took her to her house situated at

Hyderabad. On the next day, she along with PW1-M.Daveedu and PW2-

M.Ayyamma came to Kurnool and filed a case against accused.

6

18.On perusal of evidence of PW6/Investigating Officer in the present case in his cross-examination admitted that there is no physical contact and relationship between PW5 and accused and the same is also mentioned in the charge sheet and in the case of

Singana Naga Nooka Chakrarao vs State Of A.P, 04-04-2007

Equivalent citations: 2007 CRILJ 3466

The Hon’ble High Court of AP in Para No.4 held that, “In order to bring home guilt of a person under Section 498 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that a married woman was enticed or taken away who was and whom he knew or had reason to believe that she was the wife of another man with an intention that she might have illicit intercourse with any person. So enticing or taking away somebody's wife knowing that she was somebody's wife is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498

IPC. The woman should be enticed or taken away for the purpose of making her have illicit intercourse with another person”.

19.It is the evidence of PW6 that on 28-05-2015 at about 4.00 p.m., while he was present in Kurnool Taluk police station PW-1 came to police station and presented Ex.P-1 report. Basing on the report, he registered a case in

Cr.No.133/2015 U/s.498 IPC and forwarded original FIR to the Hon’ble court and copies to all concerned officers. Ex.P-2 is the FIR. On the same day, he examined PWs-1 and 2 and recorded their 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements. Again on the same day, he went to the scene of offence situated at Panchalingala

Village, there he secured the presence of PW-3 and 4 and LW-5 and recorded their 161 (3) Cr.PC statements. He prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P-3 is the rough sketch of scene of offence. During the course of investigation, on 29-05-2015 while he was present in the police station, PW-5 along with PW-1 and PW-2 came to police station and then recorded PW-5 statement U/s.161 (3) statement. On 30-05-2015 while he was present in police station the accused voluntarily came to police station and surrendered himself before him after verification of his identity particulars he released him 7 on station bail and secured surety bond. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

20.PW1 deposed in his evidence that about 10 years ago, his daughter/LW6 was married to LW.4, they used to reside at Panchalingala village and they blessed with baby boy aged about 4 years as on the date of offence, LW.6 is 7th month pregnant as on date of offence, the accused used to bring required coolies in his auto for works done by him, he is a Mastry

Mason, his daughter also used to come with him to mason works, there his daughter had acquaintance with accused. On 19-05-2015 on Tuesday, PW.3 made a phone call to him that the accused had taken away his daughter from

Panchalingala village. During his cross-examination he stated that he is residing at Mamidalapadu and his daughter resides at panchalingala village.

He do not have any personal knowledge about the accused taking away his daughter he came to know the information only through the PW.3. Police did not examined him about the incident. He admitted that in his Ex.P.1 he have stated that accused has taken away his daughter in the absence of his daughter-in-laws and husband. He admitted that he have not mentioned in his

Ex.P1 that his daughter is residing with them from the date on which she comes back to his house from the date of incident. He denied that prior to this complaint, his daughter went with other persons for two to three times and that the accused is no way connected with this case and foisted false case against the accused as he has not brought masons in his auto.

21.It is the contention of the counsel for the accused that there are discrepancies in the evidence of PW1. On perusal of evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in cross-examination stated that they do not have any personal knowledge about the accused taking away their daughter, they came to know the information only through LW3.

22. On perusal of evidence of PW3 in cross-examination stated that she has not witnessed while LW6 was eloping with the accused. Herself and her 8 son did not gave any complaint against the accused about the said incident in the police station. Prior to filing of this complaint also twice PW6 eloped with the accused.

23.On perusal of evidence of PW4 in cross-examination stated that he is not eye witness when the accused and LW6 was eloped, on 20-05-2015 police examined him and recorded his statement. He did not state before the police that LW6 and accused had acquaintance since 11 years. Accused and his wife frequently talked to each other on that he gave warning to her several times.

They did not made complaint against the accused about the acquaintance with the LW6 but he and his mother gave warnings to LW6.

24.On perusal of evidence of PW5 in cross-examination stated that police examined her on the date she filed case against the accused and on the next day of incident, she gave complaint against the accused. She did not state

before the police as what she stated in her chief examination.

25.On perusal of evidence of PW6 in cross-examination stated that

Sec.498 IPC is non cognizable offence. As per Sec.155 (2) of Cr.P.C police have no power to investigate and registered the case to the offence U/s.498

IPC. As per PW-5 161 (3) Cr.PC statement she admitted that there is no physical contacts and relationship between PW-5 and accused and the same accordingly as per charge sheet. Prior to filing of this complaint, he have no knowledge about this offence. PW-3 did not stated before him that PW-5 made a phone call to an accused at morning hours on the date of incident. PW-5 did not stated before him as per chief examination of deposition. Connected to this case and filed false case against the accused due to influence of PW-1 and never visited the scene of offence and conducted table investigation and

PW-5 did not given any complaint against the accused.

Appreciation of evidence:

26.On perusal of evidence of PW1, who is the defacto complainant in the present case and PW2 admitted in their cross-examination that they do not 9 have any personal knowledge about the accused taking away their daughter and they further stated that they came to know the information only through the PW.3. PW3 in her cross-examination admitted that she had witnessed

PW5 while she was eloping with the accused and further admitted that she and her son/PW4 did’t give any complaint against the accused.

27.PW5 who is the victim and sole eye witness to the present case in her cross-examination she deposed that she did not state before the police as what she had stated in her chief examination as per which there is contradiction between her Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement and chief examination, as she had stated that she had voluntarily eloped with the accused (in her

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement) whereas in her chief examination she stated that the accused forcibly eloped her with deceive means.

28.Therefore, in view of contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of

PW5 her evidence is not trustworthy to hold conviction against the accused.

Moreover, there are no direct eye witnesses to the present case, other than

PW5 who had witnessed the accused while he was taking away PW5 in his auto on the date of incident. Hence, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of accused under Sec.498 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

29.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 498 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same under Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21 st day of January, 2025.

Sd/- M.Kalyani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

10

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution: For Defence:

PW1: Madiga Daveedu-None- PW2: Madiga Ayyamma PW3: S.Prameelamma PW4: S.Charles PW5: S.Kavitha PW6: S.Ali Hussain PW7: M.Annamma

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Report -None- Ex.P2: FIR Ex.P3: Rough sketch Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7

Sd/- M.Kalyani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (SPECIAL

MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

C.C.No.587/2016

1Date of offence19.05.2015 2Date of report or complaint28.05.2015 3Date of apprehension of accused30.05.2015 4Date of release on bail of accused30.05.2015 5Date of commencement of trial02.02.2024 6Date of close of trial17.01.2025 7Date of sentence of order21.01.2025 8Explanation of delay and remarks--

ComplainantState: Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluka U.P.S. Name of the Mallepogu Vinod Kumar, age 22 years, AccusedS/o.M. Rogenna, Caste: SC-Madiga, Occu: Student-cum-Auto driver, House No. 3-68, Gudipadu Village, Gudur Mandal.

Section of Under Section 498 IPC. Law Finding of Accused is found not guilty the court Sentence In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 498 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.

Sd/- M.Kalyani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-Cum-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

//True Copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

1 CC No.1536/2022 dt:30.05.2025

APKU020027712022

Presented on : 16-07-2022 Registered on : 16-07-2022 Decided on : 30-05-2025 Duration : 2 years, 10 months, 14 days

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM (SPECIAL MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

Present:-Smt.S.ANUSHA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class Cum (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

Friday, this the 30th day of May, 2025.

C.C.No.1536/2022

Between:

State: Represented by Sub Inspector of Police Ulindakonda P.S. …Complainant

-And-

Avula Parthu Kumar, S/o. A.Chinna Venkateswarlu, aged 30 years, R/o H.No.3-60D, Sudepalli village, Veldurthi mandal Rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP 21 CA 0141 …Accused

This case came before me on 29-05-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri

M.Y.Ramaiah, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Inspector of Police, UlindakondaP.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.76/2019 for the offence punishable under Section.

304(A) of Indian Penal Code (herein referred as IPC) and under Sec.181, 196 of Motor Vehicle Act.

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

i. On 21.05.2019 at about 5.00 P.M, near Hundri neeva canal situated in between Ulindakonda-Chinnatekuru Villages, outskirts of Chinnatekuru 2 CC No.1536/2022 dt:30.05.2025

Village, the relatives of the deceased-1 and 2 (L.Ws. 2 to 9) came over to

Sri Lord Yallamma temple to Vankayapalli village to gave their offer. After completion of the function in the temple, the accused along with the deceased-1 left the temple on his motor cycle bearing No. AP.21.CA. 0141 to their village, Later L.Ws. 2 to 9 and relatives were also left the temple and proceeding to their village on cars and on lorry behind the motor cycle of the accused, when the vehicles were passing near Hundri-Neeva bridge near

Chinnatekuru village, at about 19.00 hours, the motor cycle of the accused was fell down on the right side of the road, there, the accused and the deceased-1 and 2 were fell down on the ground and deceased-1 sustained bleeding injures on his person, the accused also sustained injuries over his right thigh and fracture injury to right leg, bleeding injuries over his right eye brows and right foot and contusion injuries on his left knee and on his left ribs and the deceased-2 sustained swelling injury on her left elbow, injury on stomach and bleeding injury over the upper portion of right thigh. On enquiry, L.W.2 learnt from the complainant (L.W.1) that he is a resident of

Kurnool town, he came over to Ulindakonda village on his motor cycle at 17.00 hours, there, after completion of his work in Ulindakonda village, the complainant (L.W.1) left the village at 18.45 hours on his motor cycle bearing

No.AP.21 Q 5096, by that time the bolero-207 also left the village on his back, later the bolero vehicle Driver (LW.10) crossed the motor cycle of the complainant (L.W.1) at Ullindakodna railway track and when it was passing on Hundri-Neeva canal bridge, on the left side of the road by that time, the accused who was driving the motor cycle came in opposite direction from

Kurnool side, drove his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, lost control over the motor cycle and dashed on the left side of the Bolero-207 vehicle, due to which, the accused and the deceased-1 and 2 were fell down from the motor cycle. On seeing it, the complainant (L.W.1) and Bolero driver Nagarjuna/L.W.10 went there and noticed the deceased-1 and the accused were unable to speak but the girl deceased-2 was speaking. Later on the arrival of 108-ambulance, after lapse of some time,

L.W.2 with the assistance of her relatives, she the deceased-1 and 2 and the accused went to GGH, Kurnool, there on due examination, the doctor declared that the deceased-1 was died at 20.00 hours, doctors were providing treatment to accused and the deceased-2, later, the father of 3 CC No.1536/2022 dt:30.05.2025

Kavyasree/deceased-2 shifted her to Hyderabad for better treatment, later

L.W.2 learnt that on 22.05.2019 at about 07.15 hours, deceased-2 was also died while undergoing treatment.

ii. Basing on the report of complainant of L.W.1, S.I, Ulindakonda PS (LW16) registered a case in Crime No.76/2019 U/S.337, 304(A) of I.P.C and took up investigation in this case.

iii. During the course of investigation the then S.I of police/LW16 conducted inquest over the bodies of deceased 1 and 2 in the presence of panchayatdars LWs 11 to 13 and sent the bodies of the deceased 1 and 2 for the statements of LWs 1 to 10, they all stated and corroborated with the version of FIR.

iv.During the course of investigation S.I of police/LW17 served 41(a) Cr.P.C notice against the accused on 20.12.2019 and instructed him to attend the Hon’ble Court of JFCM, Kurnool on receipt of summons from the court and released him on bail.

v. LW10 Asst Professor, Dept. of Forensic medicine, Kurnool medical college, Kurnool, LW14 who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of the deceased 1 and 2 and opined that the deceased 1 and 2 were died due to “Hemorragic shock due to blunt injury of chest and abdomen.” vi. LW15 MVI who inspected the crime vehicle, issued accident report and opined that “the accident occur not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle.”

3.This Court took cognizance on file against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304(A) of IPC and under Section.181 and 196 of M.V.Act.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5.On 10.11.2023. The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/s.304(A) IPC and under Section.181 and 196 of M.V.Act, putting forth the substance of the accusation made against him for which he denied the commission of offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got Exs.P1 to P8 marked. In view of the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, the learned 4 CC No.1536/2022 dt:30.05.2025

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the LW2/Chikkudu

Maheswari, LW5/Konda Venkatesh, LW7/Avula Radhamma, LW9/Belaganti

Harivardhan, LW10/G.Nagarjuna, LW12/Laddagiri Sreenivasulu, LW13/

MankeKrishnamurthy,LW14/Dr.Y.K.C.Rangaiah,LW15/K.Rani,

LW16/K.Gopal Reddy, LW17/P.Sankaraiah.

7.The examination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., has been dispensed with as there is no incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused.

8.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has able to prove the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

10. It is the case of prosecution thaton 21.05.2019 at about 5.00 P.M, near Hundri neeva canal situated in between Ulindakonda-Chinnatekuru

Villages, outskirts of Chinnatekuru Village, the relatives of the deceased-1 and 2 (L.Ws. 2 to 9) came over to Sri Lord Yallamma temple to Vankayapalli village to gave their offer. After completion of the function in the temple, the accused along with the deceased-1 left the temple on his motor cycle bearing No. AP.21.CA. 0141 to their village, Later L.Ws. 2 to 9 and relatives were also left the temple and proceeding to their village on cars and on lorry behind the motor cycle of the accused, when the vehicles were passing near

Hundri-Neeva bridge near Chinnatekuru village, at about 19.00 hours, the motor cycle of the accused was fell down on the right side of the road, there, the accused and the deceased-1 and 2 were fell down on the ground and deceased-1 sustained bleeding injures on his person, the accused also sustained injuries over his right thigh and fracture injury to right leg, bleeding injuries over his right eye brows and right foot and contusion injuries on his left knee and on his left ribs and the deceased-2 sustained swelling injury on her left elbow, injury on stomach and bleeding injury over the upper portion 5 CC No.1536/2022 dt:30.05.2025 of right thigh. On enquiry, L.W.2 learnt from the complainant (L.W.1) that he is a resident of Kurnool town, he came over to Ulindakonda village on his motor cycle at 17.00 hours, there, after completion of his work in

Ulindakonda village, the complainant (L.W.1) left the village at 18.45 hours on his motor cycle bearing No.AP.21 Q 5096, by that time the bolero-207 also left the village on his back, later the bolero vehicle Driver (LW.10) crossed the motor cycle of the complainant (L.W.1) at Ullindakodna railway track and when it was passing on Hundri-Neeva canal bridge, on the left side of the road by that time, the accused who was driving the motor cycle came in opposite direction from Kurnool side, drove his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, lost control over the motor cycle and dashed on the left side of the Bolero-207 vehicle, due to which, the accused and the deceased-1 and 2 were fell down from the motor cycle. On seeing it, the complainant (L.W.1) and Bolero driver Nagarjuna/L.W.10 went there and noticed the deceased-1 and the accused were unable to speak but the girl deceased-2 was speaking. Later on the arrival of 108-ambulance, after lapse of some time, L.W.2 with the assistance of her relatives, she the deceased-1 and 2 and the accused went to GGH, Kurnool, there on due examination, the doctor declared that the deceased-1 was died at 20.00 hours, doctors were providing treatment to accused and the deceased-2, later, the father of

Kavyasree/deceased-2 shifted her to Hyderabad for better treatment, later

L.W.2 learnt that on 22.05.2019 at about 07.15 hours, deceased-2 was also died while undergoing treatment.

11.The learned APP submitted his arguments stating that the case may be decided on merits.

12. The learned counsel for the accused contend that the prosecution failed to establish the involvement and identity of accused from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Further, PWs-1 to 6 who are blood relatives and eye witnesses were turned hostile for the reason best known to them. The evidence of PW-4 and 5 inquest panchayatdars, is only routine course of investigation. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

6 CC No.1536/2022 dt:30.05.2025

Prosecution Witnesses:

13. The evidence of PW1 is that in the year 2019, on one day he went to

GGH, Kurnool to see his relatives at that time, the police of Ulindakonda

PS has requested him to sign on complaint and accordingly he put his signature on complaint and stated that police never examined him and recorded his statement.

14.Coming to the evidence of PW2 he deposed that at about six years ago, D1 and D2 went to Venkayapalli Yellamma temple and while they are returning they met with an accident and they were shifted to GGH,

Kurnool. He came to know the above said accident through one of the surrounding people near by the scene of offence. Immediately he rushed to GGH, Kurnool and found that D1 was died and D2 was in observation room and on the same day night D-2 succumbed to injuries. He further deposed that he do not know manner of the accident and who caused to the accident. Further stated that police never examined him and recorded his statement at any point of time.

15.The evidence of PW3 to PW5 is that at about six years ago, D1 and

D2 went to Venkayapalli Yellamma temple and while they are returning they met with an accident and they were shifted to GGH, Kurnool. They came to know the above said accident through one of the surrounding people near by the scene of offence. Immediately they rushed to GGH,

Kurnool and found that D1 was died and D2 was in observation room and on the same day night D2 succumbed to injuries. They do not know manner of the accident and who caused to the accident. Further stated that police never examined them and recorded their statement at any point of time.

16.The evidence of PW6 is that on 22.05.2019 Ulindakonda police requested him to act as panchayatdar in the inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased male and female persons and conducted inquest separately and prepared inquest report in her presence and she put her signature on it.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS:

17.PWs 1 to 6 deposed their evidence in the same voice and turned hostile for the reasons best known to them and do not help to the 7 CC No.1536/2022 dt:30.05.2025 prosecution case. None of them said that on the day of incident accused was the driver. Further all the witnesses PWs 1 to 6 did not speak about the manner of the accident and who is responsible for it and also stated that they do not know anything about this case and turned hostile and did not identify the accused and stated that police never examined them at any point of time and turned hostile then learned APP declared them as hostile and cross-examined them but nothing was elicited in the cross-examination.

Hence their evidence is not believable and not helpful to the prosecution case.

18. PWs-1 to 6 did not support the case of prosecution on any material particulars as to the manner of the incident and also, failed to identity the accused as driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. Though the learned Assistant Public prosecutor cross-examined PWs-1 to 6 with the permission of the Court as they resiled from their earlier statements nothing has been elicited to prove that, the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident and they witnessed the alleged incident. No purpose have been served by the prosecution except marking of Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statements of PWs-1 to 6 as Ex.P2 to P8.

At this stage this Court would like to refer the judgment of Hon’ble (Apex court) in Crl.Appeal No.3189-3190 of 2023 dated 09.05.2025 in

“Renuka Prasad (Vs) The State represented by Assistant

Superintendent of Police” held that :

“The only view that comes forth is that the prosecution completely failed to prove the allegations raised and charged against each of the accused, more by reason of all the witnesses paraded before Court, at the trial, having turned hostile for the reasons unknown. Whatever be the reason behind such hostility, it cannot result in a conviction, based on the testimony of the Investigating Officer which is founded only on Section 161 statements and voluntary statements of accused.” 8 CC No.1536/2022 dt:30.05.2025

Further in “R.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala”. It was held that statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C can be used only for the purpose of contradiction and statement under further 164 Cr.P.C can be used for both for corroboration and contradiction (six para-25).

19.Therefore, the identity of accused as the driver of crime vehicle as on the date of incident is not established by the prosecution from any of the prosecution witnesses. In absence of specific identification of accused as the driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident, this Court cannot come to conclusion that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident and caused the death of deceased no.1/Sambasivudu and deceased no.2/Kavyasree. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident.

20. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussions, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/s.304(A) IPC and Sec.181 and 196 MV Act. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

21.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 304-A of IPC and Sec.181 and 196 of M.V Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the same U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/s.437(A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30 th day of May, 2025.

Sd/-S.Anusha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution: For Defence: PW1: N.Madhu Babu-None- PW2: C.Lakshmanna PW3: C.Madhava Krishna PW4: A.Harshith Chandrudu PW5: A.Venkateswarlu 9 CC No.1536/2022 dt:30.05.2025

PW6: S.R.Dhanalakshmi Naik

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Signature on the report -Nil- Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3 Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-4 Ex.P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-5 Exs.P7 and P8: Signature on the inquest report of D1 and D2

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

10 CC No.1536/2022 dt:30.05.2025

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

C.C.No.1536/2022

1. Date of Offence: 21-05-2019

2. Date of Complaint or report: 21-05-2019

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : U/Sec.41(a) Cr.P.C notice served

4. Date of release of the accused : --

5. Date of commencement of trial: 27-05-2025

6. Date of close of trial: 28-05-2025

7. Date of Sentence or Order: 30-05-2025

8. Explanation of delay if any: --

ComplainantThe Sub-Inspector of Police, Ulindakonda P.S in Crime No.76/2019. Avula Parthu Kumar, Accused S/o. A.Chinna Venkateswarlu, aged 30 years, R/o H.No.3-60D, Sudepalli village, Veldurthi mandal Rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP 21 CA 0141

Section of Law: U/s.304(A) of IPC and Sec.181 and 196 of M.V Act

Finding of Court : Accused is found not guilty

Sentence/Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 304-A of IPC and Sec.181 and 196 of M.V Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the same U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated

U/s.437(A) Cr.P.C.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

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

11 CC No.1536/2022 dt:30.05.2025 //True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

1 CC No.205/2022 dt:29.05.2025

APKU020003882022

Presented on : 01-02-2022 Registered on : 01-02-2022 Decided on : 29-05-2025 Duration : 3 years, 3 months, 28 days

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM (SPECIAL MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

Present:-Smt.S.ANUSHA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class Cum (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

Thursday, this the 29th day of May, 2025.

C.C.No.205/2022

Between:

State: Represented by Sub Inspector of Police Ulindakonda P.S. …Complainant

-And-

C.Sudhakar, S/o. Chakali Moulali, aged 22 years, R/o H.No.2-157, Anugonda village, Kodumur mandal Rider of Royal Enfield Bullet motor cycle bearing No.AP 21 BA 2266 …Accused

This case came before me on 27-05-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri P.Harinath

Chowdary,Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Inspector of Police, UlindakondaP.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.214/2020 for the offence punishable under Section.

304(A) of Indian Penal Code (herein referred as IPC) and under Sec.181 of

Motor Vehicle Act.

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

2 CC No.205/2022 dt:29.05.2025 i. On 12.11.2020 at about 06.30 PM, on Dhone-Kurnool road near

K.V.S.R.Engineering College, Dupadu, the deceased S.Srinivasa Reddy along with college bus driver LW1/Boya Dastagiri both are going to take tea.

Accused was the rider of Royal Enfield Bullet motor cycle bearing No.AP21

BA 2266. The accused drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, without blowing horn and dashed the deceased/S.Srinivasa Reddy who was going road side. As a result the deceased/ S.Srinivasa Reddy was dragged to some distance and sustained bleeding injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Vijaya hospital, Kurnool got admitted for treatment. On 12.11.2020 at evening at about 18.30 hours the injured S.Srinivasa Reddy was died in the hospital while undergoing treatment. Accused does not having valid license.

ii. Basing on the written complaint of L.W.1, S.I, Ulindakonda PS (LW12) registered a case in Crime No.214/2020 U/S.304(A) of I.P.C and under Sec.181 of M.V.Act and took up investigation in this case.

iii. LW10 is the Asst Professor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death is due to “Blunt force injury due to trauma of abdomen.” iv. LW11 is the MVI who inspected the crime vehicle and opined that “the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle.” v. During the course of investigation the I.O has visited the scene of offence examined the LWs 1 to 4 and recorded their statements U/s.161(3)

Cr.P.C and sent a requisition to LW11 for inspection of the crime vehicle.

On 20.11.2020 he arrested the accused served the notice U/sec.41(A)

Cr.P.C with instructions to appear before Hon’ble Court whenever he received summons from the Court. After obtained Post mortem certificate and M.V report from concerned authorities he filed the charge sheet.

3.This Court took cognizance on file against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304(A) of IPC and 181 of M.V.Act.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

3 CC No.205/2022 dt:29.05.2025

5.On 02.11.2023. The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/s.304(A) IPC and 181 of M.V.Act , putting forth the substance of the accusation made against him for which he denied the commission of offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got Exs.P1 to P7 marked. In view of the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the

LW6/R.Nagendra Reddy, LW7/V.Mahendra Reddy, LW9/Mandla Suresh,

LW10/Dr V.Koteswara Rao M.D, LW11/G.Raja Gopal, LW12/B.Bhupaludu.

7.The examination of the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., has been dispensed with as there is no incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused.

8.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has able to prove the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

10. It is the case of prosecution thatOn 12.11.2020 at about 06.30 PM, on Dhone-Kurnool road near K.V.S.R.Engineering College, Dupadu, the deceased S.Srinivasa Reddy along with college bus driver LW1/Boya

Dastagiri both are going to take tea. Accused was the rider of Royal Enfield

Bullet motor cycle bearing No.AP21 BA 2266. The accused drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, without blowing horn and dashed the deceased/S.Srinivasa Reddy who was going road side. As a result the deceased/S.Srinivasa Reddy was dragged to some distance and sustained bleeding injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Vijaya hospital,

Kurnool got admitted for treatment. On 12.11.2020 at evening at about 18.30 4 CC No.205/2022 dt:29.05.2025 hours the injured S.Srinivasa Reddy was died in the hospital while undergoing treatment. Accused does not having valid license.

11.The learned APP submitted his arguments stating that the case may be decided on merits.

12. The learned counsel for the accused contend that the prosecution failed to establish the involvement and identity of accused from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Further, PWs-1 to 6 who are blood relatives and eye witnesses were turned hostile for the reason best known to them. The evidence of PW-4 and 5 inquest panchayatdars, is only routine course of investigation. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

Prosecution Witnesses:

13. The evidence of PW1 is that on 12.11.2020 at 10.00 AM he along with deceased were walking on the Dhone road to take Tea. A motor cycle came with high speed from Dhone road hit the deceased Srinivasa Reddy back side and dragged the body of the deceased for certain distance and accused stopped his crime vehicle and left his motor cycle there itself and ran away from the scene of offence. He along with LW2 went to the scene of offence and observed that deceased was sustained bleeding injuries and he was shifted to Vijaya hospital, Kurnool in an Auto. The deceased was succumbed to injuries on the same day. He cannot say the registration number of the crime vehicle and the driver name. At the scene of offence police obtained his signature on the white paper. Further deposed that he do not know contents written in the report. He stated that he do not know any other facts of the case. Police did not examine him.

14.Coming to the evidence of PW2 he deposed that at the time of accident he was present in the K.V.Subba Reddy college. He came to know the information of the accident through phone call of PW1. Immediately he rushed to the scene of offence. By the time they reached the scene of offence the deceased Srinivasa Reddy sustained bleeding injuries on his 5 CC No.205/2022 dt:29.05.2025 head and on his both legs. He has not witnessed the driver of the crime vehicle. And he cannot say the number of the crime vehicle. He and PW1 shifted deceased Srinivasa Reddy to Vijaya hospital, Kurnool. He did not known about the manner of accident and stated that he do not know any other facts of the case and police did not examine him.

15.The evidence of PW3 is that on 12.11.2020 after knowing the information of accident of his father, he immediately went to the Vijaya hospital, Kurnool. By the time he reached the hospital his father was in unconscious stage and on the same day his father succumbed to injuries.

He did not enquired about the manner of accident from PW1 and 2. He cannot say the driver name and registration number of the crime vehicle. He stated that he do not know any other facts of the case and police did not examine him.

16.The evidence of PW4 is that on 13.11.2020 Ulindakonda police requested him to act as mediator then, he went to GGH, Kurnool and police has conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report.

In the cross examination he admitted that after reading over the contents of inquest report he signed on it but he cannot say the contents of it now. He denied the suggestion that he put his signature on the inquest report at the request of police in the police station itself and he do not know the contents of inquest report and he is deposing false. From here it in ambiguity whether the witness has actually read over the contents of inquest or not.

17.The evidence of PW5 is that on 13.11.2020 Ulindakonda police called him and informed him that there was an accident occurred in front of

K.V.Subba Reddy Engineering college accordingly he went to the scene of offence and there police prepared scene observation report and police seized bullet motor cycle in his presence and prepared seizure panchanama and he put his signature on scene observation and seizure panchanama.

In the cross examination he admitted that he has take permission from his superior officers if he has to attend any other works. He 6 CC No.205/2022 dt:29.05.2025 further deposed that he has not obtained any permission from his superior officers. He denied the suggestion that he never went to the scene of offence and no such report was prepared and he put his signature at the request of police in the police station itself.

18.The evidence of PW6 is that he do not know the deceased and he do not know anything about this case. Further stated that police never examined him and recorded his statement at any point of time.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS:

19.PWs 1 to 6 deposed their evidence in the same voice and turned hostile for the reasons best known to them and do not help to the prosecution case. None of them said that on the day of incident accused was the driver. Further all the witnesses PWs 1 to 6 did not speak about the manner of the accident and who is responsible for it and also stated that they do not know anything about this case and turned hostile and did not identify the accused and stated that police never examined them at any point of time and turned hostile then learned APP declared them as hostile and cross-examined them but nothing was elicited in the cross-examination.

Hence their evidence is not believable and not helpful to the prosecution case.

20. PWs-1 to 6 did not support the case of prosecution on any material particulars as to the manner of the incident and also, failed to identity the accused as driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. Though the learned Assistant Public prosecutor cross-examined PWs-1 to 6 with the permission of the Court as they resiled from their earlier statements nothing has been elicited to prove that, the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident and they witnessed the alleged incident. No purpose have been served by the prosecution except marking of Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statements of PWs-1 to 6 as Ex.P2 to P7.

At this stage this Court would like to refer the judgment of Hon’ble (Apex court) in Crl.Appeal No.3189-3190 of 2023 dated 09.05.2025 in

“Renuka Prasad (Vs) The State represented by Assistant

Superintendent of Police” held that :

7 CC No.205/2022 dt:29.05.2025 “The only view that comes forth is that the prosecution completely failed to prove the allegations raised and charged against each of the accused, more by reason of all the witnesses paraded before Court, at the trial, having turned hostile for the reasons unknown. Whatever be the reason behind such hostility, it cannot result in a conviction, based on the testimony of the Investigating Officer which is founded only on Section 161 statements and voluntary statements of accused.”

Further in “R.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala”. It was held that statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C can be used only for the purpose of contradiction and statement under further 164 Cr.P.C can be used for both for corroboration and contradiction (six para-25).

21.Therefore, the identity of accused as the driver of crime vehicle as on the date of incident is not established by the prosecution from any of the prosecution witnesses. In absence of specific identification of accused as the driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident, this Court cannot come to conclusion that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident and caused the death of deceased-Srinivasa Reddy. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident.

22. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussions, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/s.304(A) IPC. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

23.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 304-A of IPC and Sec.181 of M.V Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the same

U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a 8 CC No.205/2022 dt:29.05.2025 period of six months as contemplated U/s.437(A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 29 th day of May, 2025.

Sd/- S.Anusha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution: For Defence: PW1: B.Dasthagiri-None- PW2: Ragava Kasi Nath Reddy PW3: S.Narasimha Reddy PW4: P.Narasimhulu PW5: T.Vasanth Kumar PW6: G.Ravi Kumar

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Signature on the report -Nil- Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3 Ex.P5: Signature on the inquest report Ex.P6: Seizure Panchanama Ex.P7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-6

Sd/- S.Anusha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

9 CC No.205/2022 dt:29.05.2025

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

C.C.No.205/2022

1. Date of Offence: 13-11-2020

2. Date of Complaint or report: 13-11-2020

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : U/Sec.41(a) Cr.P.C notice served

4. Date of release of the accused : --

5. Date of commencement of trial: 20-11-2023

6. Date of close of trial: 26-05-2025

7. Date of Sentence or Order: 29-05-2025

8. Explanation of delay if any: Summons of LWs pending. Delay occurred.

ComplainantThe Sub-Inspector of Police, Ulindakonda P.S in Crime No.214/2020. C.Sudhakar, Accused S/o. Chakali Moulali, aged 22 years, R/o H.No.2-157, Anugonda village, Kodumur mandal Rider of Royal Enfield Bullet motor cycle bearing No.AP 21 BA 2266

Section of Law: U/s.304(A) of IPC and Sec.181 of M.V Act

Finding of Court : Accused is found not guilty

Sentence/Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 304-A of IPC and Sec.181 of M.V Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the same U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/s.437(A)

Cr.P.C.

Sd/- S.Anusha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

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

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.