Sri.M.Leela Sai Subhash

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, PITHAPURAM.

Present Sri Modadugula Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram.

Saturday, this the 27 th day of April, 2024

CALENDER CASE No.66/2019

Between: Sub- Inspector of Police, Gollaprolu P.S. …Complainant

And

Siripurapu Chandra Sekhar, S/o.Veerayya, 40 years, C/Relli, SC Colony, Mentipeta, Rajam Village, Srikakulam District, Driver of Bolero Van Bearing No.AP 31 TK 1189. .Accused

This case is coming on 26.04.2024 before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant-State and of Sri K.Vijay Kumar, Advocate of accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gollaprolu Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.186/2018 for the offence under Sections 304-A, 429 IPC and Sec.10 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 26.09.2018 in the morning hours the deceased started from his house on his bicycle and was proceeding to the fields to attend coolie works and was crossing the NH 216 at Thatiparthi Puntha Road Junction, Gollaprolu out skirts at about 6.30

A.M., the accused who was driving Bolero Van Bearing Registration No.AP 31

TK 1189 in a rash and negligent manner while transporting the beef illegally in the van dashed the bicycle of the deceased due to which he fell on the road and sustained injuries on his head. It is also stated that PW.2 informed the same about the accident to PW.1 over phone while shifting the injured to 2 the Government General Hospital, Pithapuram and from there the injured was referred to Government General Hospital, Kakinada where he succumbed to injuries on 02.10.2018 at 12.30 A.M. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, got conducted investigation and subjected the dead body of the deceased for post mortem and after visiting the scene of offence and after obtaining the Motor Vehicle Inspector report he filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections 304-A, 429 IPC and Section 10 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under

Sections 304-A, 429 IPC and Section 10 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Act 1960.

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

5.Accused was examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. Charges framed against the accused for the offence under

Section 304-A and 429 of IPC. Charges are read over and explained to accused in Telugu. Having heard and understanding the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as PWs 1 to 12 and 14 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution as Exs. P1 to P14. The learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of L.W.8- Kanda Atcharao and LW.12 R.Venkateswarulu.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the incriminating material available against them in Telugu for which they denied 3 the same. Accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses. Some portion in 161 Cr.PC statement of PWs.1 and 2 were marked as Exs.D1 to

D3.

8. Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt or not?

10. Point :

(1) The prosecution has to prove the offence under section 304-A IPC, the death of the deceased while driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution has to proved that

the deceased died in the accident or not?

(2) To prove the said aspect the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 are very much relevant. PW.1 who lodged a complaint about the accident in his evidence deposed that 5 years back at about 6.00 A.M., while the deceased was crossing the NH 216 at Thatiparthi Punta Road Junction, Gollaprolu Village on his bicycle, a Bolero Van Bearing Registration No. AP 31 TK 1189 dashed his two wheeler due to which the deceased suffered injuries on his head and later he called his son/PW.2 who took him to the hospital where the deceased died. A complaint was lodged by PW.1 was marked as Ex.P1. PW.1 also stated that the deceased is the husband of his sister.

(b) In the cross-examination of PW.1 stated that he did not know the contents of the report and at the time of accident he was accompanying the 4 deceased. PW.1 further stated in his cross examination that he stated to the police that when he reached the scene of offence after receiving the phone from his son/PW.2 he came to know there one Surayya that his son took the deceased to hospital. PW.1 in his cross-examination categorically stated that he did not inform the police. On receiving information from his son he came to know about the accident and the said contradictory portion was marked as Ex.D1. The evidence of PW.1 in his cross-examination has at stage stated he was with the deceased at the time of accident and at another stage he stated that, he rushed to the scene of offence after receiving the phone call from PW.1 and when he reached the scene of offence he came to know one

Surayya was shifted the injured to the hospital by P.W.2.

Therefore, it could be safely held that PW.1 is not an eye witness to the accident.

(3) PW.2, is son of PW.1, in his chief testimony deposed that on 26.09.2018, at about 6.30 a.m while the deceased was crossing the road on his bicycle one Bolero Van Bearing Registration No. AP 31 TK 1189 came at high speed and dashed the deceased and, upon receiving a call from PW.2 he shifted the injured to Government General Hospital, Kakinada and while the injured was undergoing treatment he succumbed to injuries. The very chief testimony of PW.2 would indicate that upon receiving the phone call from PW.1 he rushed to the scene of offence, and even in the cross- examination PW.2 stated that he rushed the place of accident within 5 minutes after receiving a call from his Father. Thus, it indicates that PW.2 was not present at the time of accident and he did not witness the accident but his evidence would clearly indicate that the deceased died in the hospital while undergoing treatment. Hence, the evidence of PW.2 is also not helpful 5 to the case of the prosecution that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the accused.

(4) PW.3 is the medical officer who conducted post mortem over the body of the deceased in his evidence stated that he conducted post mortem and issused post mortem report under Ex.P2. The fact of death of the deceased is due to the injuries suffered by him is not in dispute. Therefore, the evidence of PW.3 would prove the fact which is not in dispute.

(5) PW.4 is the son of the deceased who in his evidence deposed that upon receiving the information about the accident he rushed to the

Government Hospital, Pithapuram from there he shifted to his injured father to Government General Hospital, Kakinada and he came to know from the persons present there that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero Van Bearing Registration No. AP 31 TK 1189 which was carrying beef. Therefore, the evidence of PW.4 is only a hearsay evidence and as such it is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

(6) PW.5 is the husband of the owner of the Bolero Vehicle who deposed that he did not know anything about the present case and as such he was declared hostile and cross examined and in fact PW.5 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution to connect the accused to the accident.

(7) PW.6 and PW.7 in their evidence deposed that after the accident the accused got down from the vehicle and ran away and at that time they have seen the accused. PW.6 and 7 further deposed that with the help of patrolling vehicle they shifted the deceased to the hospital. Even though,

PW.6 and 7 stated that they can identify the accused in this case, the accident was occurred in the year 2018 whereas they gave evidence in the year 2024. Even as per their version it is clear that after the accident the 6 accused got down and ran away after the accident and also noticed the accused running away from the place of accident. They would have made some attempt to apprehend the accused but they remained silent, inaction of Pws 6 and 7 to apprehend the accused and considering the fact that they identified the accused after 5 years of the acciden is highly unbelievable and as such, the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 that it is the accused who caused the accident cannot be taken into consideration.

(8) PW.9 is an eye witness to the accident though stated that the deceased suffered injuries in the accident he did not state that the particulars of the person who caused the accident. Therefore, the evidence of PW.9 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

(9) PW.10 is the VRO who visited the scene of offence and prepared scene observation report under Ex.P5 and also acted as mediator to the inquest under Ex.P8 has stated the accident in question is not in dispute, the death of the deceased is also not in dispute with regard due to the injuries in the accident. Therefore, the evidence of PW.10 would only prove to the undisputed facts about the place of accident and death of deceased about to the injuries suffered by him.

(10) PW.11 the Motor Vehicle Inspector deposed that he examined

Bolero Vehicle and has given report under Ex.P9 stating that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect. Hence, the evidence of

PW.11 would indicate that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect.

(11) PW.12 is the SI of police who deposed about conducting investigation with regard to the accident and subjecting the Bolero Vehicle for examination with the Motor Vehicle Inspector and got conducted 7 subjecting the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination as observed above the death of the deceased due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident as not in dispute as the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 clearly indicate that they have not witnessed the accident and this court disbelieve the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 who are alleged to be an eye witness is highly unbelievable and as such, it is held that though the deceased died due to the injuries suffered in the accident it could be proved that the accused is not responsible for the accident and that the accused drove the Bolero Vehicle in rash or negligent manner. Hence, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under section 304-A IPC.

11.(1) The other charge framed against the accused is of section 429 of

IPC a reading of section 429 of IPC, the following ingredients the prosecution has to prove that one has to commit mischief by killing or poisoning beef and to such act of the person would invite punishment which may extent to 5 years in this case, the allegations leveled against the accused was that carrying the Bolero Van with beef carrying beef does not come with an ambit of section 429 of IPC to attract the punishment under Section 429 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused has killed the buffalo.

(2) No evidence is brought on record to show that the accused has killed the buffalo, bull, cow or ox. The only evidence that could be attracted the accused is carrying the beef. Mere carrying the beef is not an offence.

Therefore, the evidence that prosecution examined the veterinary doctor as

PW.8 and what all PW.8 has stated spotting of animal parts in the Bolero

Van and the slaughtered animal parts belongs to male buffalo. Even if the evidence of PW.8 is taken as proof and even it is assumed that the accused was carrying slaughtered part of the buffalo it does not mean that the 8 accused was the one who slaughtered the cow, ox, buffalo or bull. In fact this court upon analyzing the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and other witnesses concludes that they failed to prove that the accused driving the Bolero

Vehicle and caused the accident. Therefore, it could be said that the prosecution failed to prove that it is the accused who was driving the Bolero

Van and as such it could be said that it is the accused who carrying the slaughtered parts of buffalo. It is held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under section 429 of IPC also.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A, 429 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 429

IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for period of six months and thereafter shall stand cancelled under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

The Bolero Vehicle bearing No.AP 31 TK 1189 which was given towards interim custody would became absolute after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation to the stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- M.Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: PW.1/30.01.2024: G.Veerendra.

PW2/30.01.2024: G.Raju.

P.W.3/06.02.2024: Dr.P.Phani Kiran.

P.W.4/06.02.2024: K.Saibabu.

P.W.5/06.02.2024: M.Seetharamaraju.

P.W.6/13.02.2024: K.Nagu.

P.W.7/13.02.2024: G.Kameswara rao.

P.W.8/13.02.2024: Dr.Himaja.

9

P.W.9/20.02.2024: R.Sarveswara Rao @ Sharayya.

PW.10/20.02.2024: B.Narayana Rao.

PW.11/20.02.2024: Sk.Ayesha Usmani.

PW.12/18.03.2024: Balla Siva Krishna.

For Defence:None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1:Report given by P.W.1 dated 26.09.2018

Ex.P2: Post mortem report, dated 02.10.2018

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.5 dated 14.11.2018

Ex.P4: Certificate beef /report dated 26.09.2018.

Ex.P5: Scene observation report dated 26.09.2018

Ex.P6: Mediator report dt. 26.09.2018 at 2.30 p.m

Ex.P7: Mediator report dt.26.09.2018 at 5.00 p.m

Ex.P8: Inquest report dated 02.10.2018

Ex.P9: MVI report dated 09.10.2018

Ex.P10: FIR dated 26.09.2018

Ex.P11: Rough sketch

Ex.P12: Death Intimation dated 02.10.2018.

Ex.P13: Altered FIR dated 02.10.2018.

Ex.P14: Photos (4) CD.

For Defence:

Ex.D1: Marked portion of 161 statement of PW.1.

Ex.D2: Marked portion of 161 statement of PW.2.

Ex.D3: Marked portion of 161 statement of PW.2

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil.

Sd/- M.Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram // True Copy//

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram 10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PITHAPURAM.

C.C.No.66/2019

Date of offence:26.09.2018

Date of report or complaint:26.09.2018

Date of apprehension of the accused :09.10.2018

Date of Release on bail: ----

Date of commencement of trial : 30.01.2024

Date of close of trial:: 01.04.2024

Date of sentence or order: 27.04.2024

Explanation of delay or remarks: Due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the Complainant: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Gollaprolu P.S.

Name of the accused: Siripurapu Chandra Sekhar, S/o.Veerayya, 40 years, C/Relli, SC Colony, Mentipeta, Rajam Village, Srikakulam District, Driver of Bolero Van Bearing No.AP 31 TK 1189.

Offence: under Sections 304-A, 429 IPC

Finding :Found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A, 429 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 429 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for period of six months and thereafter shall stand cancelled under section 437- A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. The Bolero Vehicle bearing No.AP 31 TK 1189 which was given towards interim custody would became absolute after appeal time is over.

// True Copy// Sd/- M.Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

A.J.F.C.M, Pithapuram. Pithapuram

Copies submitted to:

.The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, .Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, PITHAPURAM.

Present Sri Modadugula Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram.

Saturday, this the 27 th day of April, 2024.

CALENDER CASE No.537/2018

Between: Sub- Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Rural P.S. …Complainant

And

1. Yalla Bapiraju @ Bapanna Dora, S/o.Surya Rao, 63 years, Kapu, Pallapu Veedhi, Mangiturthi Village,Pithapuram Mandal.

2. Peketi Sreenu, S/o.Suryam, 58 years, Kapu, Anjaneyaswamy temple Veedhi, Mangiturthi Village, Pithapuram Mandal.

3. Malireddy Ramakrishna, S/o.Pedabulliyya, 48 years, Kapu, Pallapu Veedhi, Mangiturthi Village, Pithapuram Mandal.

4. Pulapu Apparao, S/o.Nookaraju, 48 years, Kapu, Deevan Dooddi, Mangiturthi Village,Pithapuram Mandal.

5. Peketi Babu @ Bonthala Gangadhar Rao, S/o.Sathiyya, 56 years,Kapu, Peketi Vari Veedhi, Mangithurthi Village, Pithapuram Mandal

..Accused

This case is coming on 26.04.2024 before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant-State and of Sri K.Vijay Kumar, Advocate of accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.53/2017 for the offence under

Sections 353, 109 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.The allegations against the accused are that PW.1/Patcha Krishna (de- facto complainant) lodged a complaint alleging that the accused have obstructed officials from discharging their official duties and basing on which the above said crime was registered and took up investigation, during the 2 course of investigation it was revealed that PW.1 who was working as

Assistant Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation,

Kakinada and he has undertaken the works of developing the old

Ramalayam at Mangithurthi Village with the funds provided by the

Government and a waiting hall cum reception (mandapam) was reconstructed in place of old ruined position Ramalayam and was hand over to the Temple Committee on 09.02.2016.

3.While so one Peketi Babu/A5 donated the Idols of Lord Sri Rama, Sita

Devi and a plaque that would be fixed to the wall of the temple duly indicating the late parents as donors if they have undertaken the reconstruction works of the temple even though, the same was taken by the

Government and the display of the plaque is misleading to the public and without any information to the APTDC as A5 trespassed into the temple and fixed up the Idols and plaque was displayed without consent of the APTDC and as such, the present case was registered. It is further alleged that

APTDC decided to inaugurate the dormitory of the temple by local M.L.A on 22.05.2017 and a requisition was issued to local police to provide

Bandobust. On 22.05.2017, in the morning at about 8.00 A.M., the officials of the APTDC, Kakinada came to the temple and informed that will instigate the dormitory and was trying to remove the plaque the followers of the A5 raised objection and A1 to A5 at the instigation of A5 deterred them from discharging their duties and not removing the plaque affixed by A5. Thus the complaint was lodged and investigation officer filed charge sheet after completion of investigation.

4.This case was taken on file against the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence under Sections 353, 109 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3

5.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 5, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr. P. C.

6.Accused Nos.1 to 5 were examined under section 251 of Code of

Criminal Procedure. Substance of accusation is read over and explained to accused Nos.1 to 5 in Telugu. Having heard and understanding the same, accused Nos.1 to 5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PWs 1 to 9 and 3 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution as Exs. P1 to P3. A contradictory portion in 161 Cr.PC statement of PW.6 was exhibited as Ex.D1 in his cross examination. The learned APP has given up the evidence of L.W.12-P.V.R.Murthy.

8.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 to 5 were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the incriminating material available against them in Telugu for which they denied the same. Accused Nos.1 to 5 did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no documents were marked on their behalf.

9. Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

10.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt or not?

11.PW.1 is the Asst. Executive Engineer who lodged a complaint to the police. PW.2 is the Deputy Executive Engineer who corroborated the evidence of PW.1. PW.3 deposed about the allegations leveled against the accused. PW.5 and PW.6 are an eye witness. PW.7 and PW.8 are police 4 constables who deputed Bandobust duty at the time of incident. PW.9 is the

Inspector of Police.

12.(1) PW.1 in his chief testimony categorically stated that on 22.05.2017 he and PW.2 went to Mangithurthi Village for inaugurating of the building and at that time 500 villagers of the said village came there and police were also present. PW.1 further deposed that they went to inauguration of the information sector as per the directions of their higher officials through the then local M.L.A and at that time some persons raised slogans opposing the said M.L.A and duly demanding the plaque in the name of persons of Peketi

People. At that time they noticed one person was trying to consume pesticide demanding to erect the plaque containing in the names of Peketi persons and they gave report to the police.

(2) The above averments of PW.1 read with the averments in Ex.P1 complaint would indicate that the Government renovated the Ramalayam temple at Mangithurthi Village and A5 presented Idols of lord Rama and

Matha Sita and they also erected the plaque containing the names of parents of A5 and when PW.1 tried to remove the same as it was kept at the temple without the permission of the Government, about 500 persons gathered there and confronted them at the time of inaugurating the hall in the said temple.

(b) In the cross-examination PW.1 admitted that as the name of the

M.L.A found on the plaque which they intend to inaugurate the persons who gathered there raised objections due to specific defense. Thus, the evidence of PW.1 would indicate that about 500 persons gathered and obstructed from inaugurating the newly renovated hall and as such, he did not identify the persons who obstructed them from discharging their official functions.

5 (3) PW.2 who is Deputy Executive Engineer corroborated the evidence of PW.1 in all aspects. PW.2 did not identify the persons who obstructed them from inaugurating the hall with the local M.L.A.

(4) The evidence of PW.3 is very peculiar though he has stated that several persons gathered and raised slogans in inaugurating the temple by the then local M.L.A what all in his chief evidence that A1 and A2 present and he noticing them but he did not notice the persons A4 and A5 at the time of incident. The investigation done by the investigating officer would disclose that A5 presented Idols of Lord Rama and Matha Sita and fixed a plaque containing the names of his parents if the renovation was undertaking by him and PW.1 and 2 were trying to inaugurate the hall with the local M.L.A, A5 and his supporters obstructed PW.1 and PW.2. In the absence of any instigation what is the need and necessity to gather A1 to A3 along with other persons and raised slogans against PW.1 and PW.2 the very statement of PW.3 that he did not noticed A4 and A5 clearly indicates that he is interested witness due to politics in the village and as such his evidence cannot be taken into consideration.

(5) PW.4 who is also an eye witness in his chief testimony stated that about 4 years back, photos of parents of A5 were affixed at the entrance of

Ramalayam in Pallapu Veedhi that SI of Police and his staff came there and tried to remove those photos and at that time A1 and A3 and other persons obstructed SI of Police and others for removing the photos of parents of A5.

The evidence of PW.4 is entirely different to the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 what all PWs 1 and 2 stated that when the M.L.A was inaugurating newly constructed hall in the Ramalayam Temple, the villagers came and obstructed them where as the evidence of PW.4 is that and the SI of police 6 when tried to remove the plaque containing the photos of the parents of A5,

A1 to A3 obstructed the SI of police. Thus the evidence of PW.4 is highly unbelievable and as such, the same is dis-carded.

(6) PW.5 is a resident at Ramalayam of Mangithurthi Village. He heard some galata at Ramalayam and came out of his house and he came to know that the plaque containing the photos of A5 were placed at Ramalayam and

Endowment Department Officials obstructed when tried to remove the same.

PW.5 did not state who obstructed the officials of Endowment Department and also PW.5 evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

(7) PW.6 who is an eye witness also stated that A1 to A3 and others gathered and obstructed the duties of tourism Authorities when they tried to replace the said plaque containing the photos of the parents of A5 with that of plaque containing the name of the then local M.L.A. The evidence of PW.6 is highly doubtful because of the fact that what is the need and necessity A1 to A3 obstruct PWs 1 and 2 when the plaque containing the photos of A5 were attempt to be removed and that to absence of A5.

(b) In the cross-examination he did not know from which time the plaque the parents of A5 kept in the said building thus it indicates that PW.6 trying to project A1 to A3 even though they are no way related to A5 or his family. Therefore, the evidence of PW.6 is also not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

(8) PW.7 and PW.8 are Police Constables and PW.9 is investigating officer. The evidence of PW.7 and PW.8 is that when PWs 1 and 2 tried to remove the plaque containing the photos of parents of A5, A1 to A4 obstructed PWs 1 and 2 at the instance of A5 and thereby they caused obstruction from discharging of official duties of PWs 1 and 2. PW.9 C.I of 7

Police in his chief testimony that upon receiving report from PW.1 and after registering the same a case in Crime No.53/2017 he went to the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P3. The evidence of PWs 7, 8 and 9 would indicate that while PWs 1 and 2 were trying to remove the plaque and trying to inaugurate the building with the help of local M.L.A some persons gathered and obstructed them.

(9) Merely because PW.1 and PW.2 are Government Officials and were present at the Ramalayam Temple they should have been there at the temple and whey went to temple for inauguration purpose there should be some written instructions to them about the functions to be discharged.

During the course of investigation the CI of police has not collected any document which would indicate that PW.1 and 2 attended to the temple to discharge their official duties even if the allegations leveled against the accused are taken into consideration what all the public who gathered there, they obstructed to remove the plaque containing the photos of the parents of A5. The police have not seized the said plaque which was tried to be removed or they did not file the photographs of the said plaques. In the absence of any evidence to show that Pws 1 and 2 were discharging their official functions and also failed to produce the plaque which was sought to be removed by PWs 1 and 2 and it cannot be said that PWs 1 and 2 were discharging their official functions when they were obstructed by the accused.

13.For the foregoing discussion it is held that PWs 1 and 2 failed to identify the accused as the persons who gathered at the time of scene of offence and also investigating officer failed to prove that PWs 1 and 2 were in fact discharging their official duties at the time of incident and also failed 8 to prove that they made attempt to remove the plaque while discharging their official duties and the evidence of Pws 3 and 4 do not disclose the presence of A5 at the time of said incident who is the prime person at whose instance the incident has taken place It is held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

14.In the result, the accused/A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 353, 109 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under

Sections 353 , 109 r/w 34 of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. No property is produced before the court in this case, and hence, there is no order as to disposal of property.

Typed to my dictation to the stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- M.Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1/17.10.2022: Pacha Krishna.

PW2/17.10.2022: G.S.V.Venkata Satyanarayana.

P.W.3/21.11.2022: Ch.Seshagiri Rao.

P.W.4/21.11.2022: Y.Kondala Rao.

P.W.5/21.11.2022: T.Rama Krishna.

P.W.6/21.11.2022: G.Surya Chandra Rao.

P.W.7/17.08.2023: U.Ramesh.

P.W.8/21.11.2023: R.Venkata Ramana.

P.W.9/12.02.2024: V.Koteswara Rao.

For Defence:None.

9

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/22.05.2017:Report

Ex.P2/22.05.2017: FIR

Ex.P3/--: Rough Sketch.

For Defence:

Ex.D1: Marked portion of PW.6.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil.

Sd/- M;Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram // True Copy//

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram 10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PITHAPURAM.

C.C.No.537/2018

Date of offence:22.05.2017

Date of report or complaint:22.05.2017

Date of apprehension of the accused :04.10.2018

Date of Release on bail: ----

Date of commencement of trial : 17.10.2022

Date of close of trial:: 20.02.2024

Date of sentence or order: 27.04.2024

Explanation of delay or remarks: Due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution. Name of the Complainant: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Rural P.S. Name of the accused: 1. Yalla Bapiraju @ Bapanna Dora, S/o.Surya Rao, 63 years, Kapu, Pallapu Veedhi, Mangiturthi Village,Pithapuram Mandal. 2. Peketi Sreenu, S/o.Suryam, 58 years, Kapu, Anjaneyaswamy temple Veedhi, Mangiturthi Village, Pithapuram Mandal. 3. Malireddy Ramakrishna, S/o.Pedabulliyya, 48 years, Kapu, Pallapu Veedhi, Mangiturthi Village, Pithapuram Mandal.

4. Pulapu Apparao, S/o.Nookaraju, 48 years, Kapu, Deevan Dooddi, Mangiturthi Village,Pithapuram Mandal. 5. Peketi Babu @ Bonthala Gangadhar Rao, S/o.Sathiyya, 56 years,Kapu, Peketi Vari Veedhi, Mangithurthi Village, Pithapuram Mandal.

Offence: Under Sections 353, 109 r/w 34 IPC Finding :Found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused/A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 353 , 109 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sections 353 , 109 r/w 34 of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. No property is produced before the court in this case, and hence, there is no order as to disposal of property.

// True Copy// Sd/- M.Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram

A.J.F.C.M, Pithapuram.

Copies submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, .Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, PITHAPURAM.

Present Sri Modadugula Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram.

Saturday, this the 27 th day of April, 2024.

CALENDER CASE No.422/2019

Between: State Sub- Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Rural P.S. …Complainant

And

1.Koppireddy Chandra Sekhar @ Sekhar, S/o.Ramaswamy, C/Kapu, Pallapu Street, Mallam Village, Pithapuram Mandal.

2.Koppireddy Ramaswamy, S/o.Janaki Ramayya, C/Kapu, Pallapu Street, Mallam Village, Pithapuram Mandal.

3.Koppireddy Janaki Ramayya, S/o.Narayana Murthy, C/Kapu, Pallapu Street, Mallam Village, Pithapuram Mandal.

..Accused

This case is coming on 26.04.2024 before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant-State and of Sri R.Sitanna, Advocate of accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.150/2018 for the offence under

Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.The allegations against the accused are that

(a) P.W.1 is resident of Mallam Village and living by doing cultivation.

After the demise of his father, P.W.1 and his younger brother Dhone

Veerabhadra Rao partitioned their properties in the presence of elders and that about two years back, the younger brother of P.W.1 i.e., Dhone 2

Veerabhadra Rao also demised due to ill-health and after his demise, disputes arose between P.W.1 and the wife of his younger brother/Vijaya

Lakshmi Annapurna Bhavani regarding the landed property and that she filed civil suits and obtained injunction orders and that they also filed criminal cases. Due to land disputes, Accused No.2 who is father of Bhavani occupied the land of P.W.1 and that P.W.1 complained the same to District Collector,

Kakinada and the District Surveyor surveyed the land and fixed boundary stones, but Accused Nos.1 and 2 removed the boundary stones and on 11.09.2018 in the morning, P.W.1 pledged his gold haram in a pawn broker,

Pithapuram and received an amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) and gave cash of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to his wife and paid due amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards cloth debt and in the evening at about 04.00 P.M, P.W.1 purchased two rice bags and returning home on his motor bike and on the way at about 05.00 P.M when P.W.1 reached near his fields, Outskirts of Jalluru village, in the meantime the accused Nos.1 to 3 who lurked there, stopped him, picked up quarrel with regard to land disputes and the accused extorted one cell phone, cash of RS.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only). It is submitted by

P.W.1 that during the scuffle, rice bags fell on the road and he received contusions and that the accused threatened P.W.1 and that P.W.1 reported the matter in Pithapuram Rural Police station.

(b) P.W.4 received complaint from P.W.1, registered the same as a case in Crime No.150/2018 under Sections 341, 384 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, P.W.4 visited the scene of offence, examined the same, prepared rough sketch, examined the witness and L.W.8/P.V.S.R.Murthy, Sub-Inspector of Police took up further 3 investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, P.W.8 observed that there are many criminal cases pending between both parties and according to the evidence of witnesses, except obstruction, threatening and simple injuries, no means of extortion was proved. P.W.4 served under

Section 41-A Cr.P.C notices to the accused and after completion of entire investigation charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 3..

3.This case was taken on file against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 392 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 3, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr. P. C.

5.Accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under section 239 of Code of

Criminal Procedure. Charges framed against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 506 r/w 34 IPC. Charges are read over and explained to accused Nos.1 to 3 in Telugu. Having heard and understanding the same, accused Nos.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined 9 witnesses as P.W.s 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The learned APP has given up the evidence of L.W.12-P.V.R.Murthy.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the incriminating material available against them in Telugu for which they denied the same. Accused Nos.1 to 3 did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and that Exs.D1 and D2 were marked on their behalf.

8. Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

4

9.(1) P.W.1/Dhone Atchutaramayya deposed that on 11.09.2018 while he was returning home on his bike at about 04.30 P.M, the accused Nos.1 and 2 stopped his bike and snatched his phone and an amount of

Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) and that he further deposed that

Accused Nos.1 and 2 pushed the bike and Accused No.3 accompanied

Accused Nos.1 and 2 and that he filed Ex.P1 report.

(2) P.W.2/A.Ganga Maha Lakshmi, wife of P.W.1, deposed on the same lines as that of P.W.1 and further deposed that P.W.1 prawned her gold ornaments for Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) and gave

Rs.5000/- and that P.W.2 and her daughter went for scan at Kakinada and when they were returning, she received call from P.W.1 and that P.W.1 informed about Accused Nos.1 to 3 snatching phone and cash of Rs.60,000/- from P.W.1 and that he is on the way to police station.

(3) P.W3/Y.Ramana, eye witness turned hostile and deposed that he do not know anything about the case.

(4) P.W.4/K.Venkata Ramana, ASI deposed about receiving complaint from P.W.1, registration of Ex.P3/FIR, visiting to scene of offence, preparing

Ex.P4/rough sketch and handing over the investigation to L.W.8/SI of Police who carried out further investigation till filing of charge sheet.

10.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt or not?

11.(1) P.W.1 in his chief evidence deposed before the Court that Accused

Nos.1 and 2 are his relatives and in the cross examination, he admitted that there are disputes between the families of P.W.1 and accused.

5 (2) P.W.2, who is wife of P.W.1 stated that she does not remember the time at which P.W.1 called her and informed her about the incident and denied the suggestion that P.W.1 pawned her gold ornaments for

Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) (3) Moreover, perusal of evidence of P.W.2 discloses that she was returning from Kakinada and that she is not a direct witness to the accident and hence her evidence cannot be relied upon to determine the guilt of accused.

(4) As far as evidence of eye witness/P.W.3 is concerned, upon learning the fact that he has to depose only the truth, turned hostile and deposed that he do not know anything about the case and did not support the case of prosecution.

(5) Moreover, the only evidence available before the Court is the testimony of P.W.1 and PW2. In the cross examination, by marking

Exs.D1/CC of Injunction order and D2/chargesheet filed in Cr.No.151/2018 the learned counsel for the defence established that there are prior disputes between the family of P.W.1 and accused herein and there is every chance of falsely implicating the accused Nos.1 to 3 in the present case.

12. As far as offence under Section 323 IPC is concerned:

Prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to show that accused Nos.1 to 3 attacked on P.W.1 and furthermore, P.W.1 neither in his evidence nor in his report disclosed about the accused Nos.1 to 3 attacked P.W.1. If accused really attacked P.W.1, P.W.1 would definitely be treated by a doctor. But no doctor was examined and no wound certificate was produced before this

Court to show that accused caused hurt to P.W.1. P.W.1 in his evidence only deposed that accused pushed his bike. There is no mention of accused 6 attacking him. Since there is no incriminating material available against the accused Nos.1 to 3 to show that they attacked P.W.1, benefit of doubt may be granted and hence the accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal for the offence under Section 323 IPC.

13.As far as offence under Section 341 IPC is concerned: There is no material evidence available against the accused Nos.1 to 3 to show that accused restrained P.W.1. P.W.3 who is cited as eye witness turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. If accused really restrained

P.W.1, P.W.3 would definitely depose the same in this Court but on the contrary P.W.3 deposed that he do not know anything about the case from which an infernce can be drawn that no such restraint took place on the date of the accident.

14.As far as offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned: The only evidence available to show that accused Nos.1 to 3 threatened P.W.1 is the evidence of P.W.1 and since P.W.1 in his evidence admitted that there are previous disputes between both their families, there is every chance of falsely implicating the accused Nos.1 to 3 in the present case. Since this

Court opines that no such incident took place, the question of threatening the accused does not arise. Hence the accused are entitled for acquittal.

Since prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to show that P.W.1 pawned gold ornaments of P.W.2 and since there is no other incriminating material available against the accused nos.1 to 3, except for the evidence of

P.W.1, this Court opines that benefit of doubt may be granted to accused

Nos.1 to 3 and hence accused are entitled for acquittal.

14.In the result, the accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 323, 341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are 7 acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under

Sections 323, 341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation to the stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- M.Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1/18.01.2024: D.Atchutaramayya

PW2/09.02.2024: A.Ganga Maha Lakshmi

P.W.3/06.03.2024: Y.Ramana.

P.W.4/03.04.2024: K.Venkata Ramana

For Defence:None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/11.09.2018:Report of P.W.1

Ex.P2/12.09.2018: Marked portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of

P.W.2

Ex.P3/11.09.2018: FIR

Ex.P3/12.09.2018: Rough sketch

For Defence:

Ex.D1: Certified copy of Injunction order in I.A.1154/2016 in O.S.173/2016

Ex.D2: Charge sheet in Crime No.151/2018

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil.

Sd/- M;Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram // True Copy//

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PITHAPURAM.

C.C.No.422/2019

Date of offence:11.09.2018

Date of report or complaint:11.09.2018

Date of apprehension of the accused :24.04.2019

Date of Release on bail: ----

Date of commencement of trial : 18.01.2024

Date of close of trial:: 26.04.2024

Date of sentence or order: 27.04.2024

Explanation of delay or remarks: Due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution. Name of the Complainant: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Rural P.S. Name of the accused: 1.Koppireddy Chandra Sekhar @ Sekhar, S/o.Ramaswamy, C/Kapu, Pallapu Street, Mallam Village, Pithapuram Mandal.

2.Koppireddy Ramaswamy, S/o.Janaki Ramayya, C/Kapu, Pallapu Street, Mallam Village, Pithapuram Mandal.

3.Koppireddy Janaki Ramayya, S/o.Narayana Murthy, C/Kapu, Pallapu Street, Mallam Village, Pithapuram Mandal.

Offence: Under Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC Finding :Found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 323, 341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

// True Copy// Sd/- M.Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram

A.J.F.C.M, Pithapuram.

Copies submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari,

Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PITHAPURAM.

Present: Sri Modadugula Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram

Saturday, the 27 th day of April, 2024.

CALENDER CASE NO. 183/2019

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Gollaprolu Police Station. …Complainant

And

Nandika Veerababu, S/o.Sankhara Rao, 31 years, C/SC Madiga, Kondavarapeta, Kathipudi Village, Sankhavaram mandal, Driver of Auto bearing No.AP 05 TA 5389. …..… Accused

This case is coming on 26.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant-State and of Sri R.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gollaprolu Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.176/2012 on its file for the offence punishable under Section 338, 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 181 of M.V.Act.

2.Brief facts of the charge sheet are that

(a) On 22.11.2012 at 12.45 P.M, P.Ws.1 to 4 got into the passenger Auto bearing No.AP 5 TA 5389 at Kathipudi and they were traveling in the auto to go to

Pithapuram and their respective destinations and on the way, the accused drove his auto bearing No.AP 5 TA 5389 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed while proceeding from Kathipudi to Pithapuram side and tried to avoid an in coming RTC

Bus and hit the mile stone and tree in the left side road margin on NH 216 Road, near Thatiparthi Road Junction, Gollaprolu mandal at about 01.15 P.M, as a result,

P.Ws.1 to 4 and accused sustained severe and simple injuries on their persons and the crime vehicle front portion was badly damaged and the injured were shifted to

Kakinada and one of the injured I.e., P.W.4 was joined in 7 Star Emergency Hospital,

Kakinada for expert treatment and that P.Ws.1 to 3 were admitted in GGH, Kakinada 2 for treatment.

(b) On receipt of MLC intimation from L.W.5/Ch.Venkata Reddy, CMO. GGH,

Kakinada, L.W.8/HC 1963 recorded the statement of injured P.W.1 on 22.11.2012 from 05.00 P.M to 05.15 P.M and sent the same to SHO, Gollaprolu Police Station on point of jurisdiction. On receipt of MLC intimation and statement of P.W.1, P.W.7 registered the same as a case in Crime No.176/2012 under Section 338 and 337 IPC of Gollaprolu Police Station on 22.11.2012 at 06.00 P.M and investigated into. During the course of investigation, P.W.7 visited Government General Hospital, Kakinada, examined P.Ws.1 to 3, visited 7 Star Super Specialty Hospital, Kakinada recorded the statement of P.W.4, visited the scene of offence, examined the same, prepared rough sketch and during the course of investigation, on 27.11.2012 at about 10.00

A.M accused surrendered before P.W.7, sent the accused to Court for judicial remand. L.W.5 who treated the injured P.Ws.1 to 3 opined that the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 to 3 are simple in nature. P.W.6 who treated the injured P.W.4 opined that the injuries are Grievous in nature. P.W.5 inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report. After completion of entire investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Section 338, 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

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

5.Accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. Substance of accusation for the offence under Section 338, 337 IPC are read over and explained to accused in

Telugu. Having heard and understanding the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In support of the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 are examined and

Exs.P.1 to P9 are marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 3 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material available against him for which the accused denied the same. Accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of defecne.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.

9.(1) P.W.1/P.Shiva, has deposed that on 22.11.2012 at 12.45 P.M, P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 to 4 boarded an Auto bearing No.5389 and that when the auto reached

Thatiparthi Junction, the driver of the auto drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner in good speed and while overtaking the bus, he lost control and hit the milestone and he along with P.Ws.2 to 4 sustained injuries.

(2) P.W.2/N.Ramakrishna, also deposed on the same lines with respect to traveling in auto and about driver of the auto drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner in good speed and while overtaking the bus, he lost control and hit the milestone, as a result they sustained injuries.

(3) P.W.3/J.Gangamma, P.W.4/G.Ravi also deposed on the same lines as that of

P.Ws.1 and 2.

(a) Nothing was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.1 with respect to non- occurrence of accident. Except for P.W.1 incapability to tell the name of the owner and driver of the auto and the entire registration number; nothing was elicited.

(b) P.W.2 in his cross examination stated that he does not remember the entire number of the said auto and he further stated that he cannot tell the name of the driver. He denied the suggestion that he did not see the face of the driver.

(4) P.Ws.1 to 4 deposed that deposed that at the time of accident, the driver of the auto in a rash and negligent manner while overtaking the bus, he lost control and hit the milestone. However, in the cross examination of P.W.3,when P.W.3 was confronted with Ex.D1 marked portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, he stated in his cross examination that “Pithapuram vaipu nunchi Kathipudi Velthunna bus ni thappinchakapoyi” and not that auto driver was overtaking the bus.

(5) P.W.4 in his cross examination stated that he does not remember the 4 entire registration number and that he cannot tell the name of the owner but he stated that the bus was coming in opposite direction.

(6) Passenger of an auto is not expected to know the name of the owner of the auto and hence the suggestion that he does not know the name of the driver of auto is false, and it is not reasonably expected to remember the entire auto number after lapse of twelve years. Hence nothing was elicited in the cross examination to discredit the evidence of P.W.4.

(7) P.W.5 got marked Ex.P2/MVI report which discloses the following damages. :

1.Fork bent, 2.Front side body bent, 3.Windshield glass broken, which goes to show that there is some kind of accident.

(8) P.W..6/Dr.Venkata Reddy deposed about the injuries sustained by P.W.4 and that he issued Ex.P3/wound certificate whish discloses that P.W.4 sustained fracture of left tibia and femur and that he came to the opinion that the injuries are

Grievous in nature.

(9) P.W.7/N.Sanyasi Naidu, Sub-Inspector of Police deposed about Ex.P4/MLC intimation, registration of Ex.P5/FIR, preparation of Ex.P6/rough sketch and receiving of wound certificates of P.Ws.1 to 3/Exs.P7 to P9.

10.Now the point for determination is,

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence

under Section 338, 337 IPC or not?

11.POINT:

(1) Perusal of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 who are injured while traveling in the

Auto discloses that when they reached Thatiparthi Junction, the driver of the auto drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner at good speed and hit the mile stone.

However, perusal of Ex.P1 report given to police by P.W.1 does not disclose anything with respect to driver driving the auto in a rash and negligent manner. Moreover

Ex.P1 report discloses that the bus was coming in opposite direction. There is every 5 possibility that the accused might have gone to left side of the road to avoid much more force of the accident and hit the mile stone.

In order to determine the guilt of accused for the offence under

Section 338, 337 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused was

driving the auto in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in injuries.

(2) In the present case, perusal of Ex.P1 report does not disclose that the accused was driving the auto in a rash and negligent manner and perusal of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement goes to show that the bus was coming in opposite direction as a result, there is every possibility that accused took a sharp turn to avoid collusion with the bus and consequence of such act the auto hit the mile stone resulting in

PW1 to PW4 sustaining injuries. As a result, this court under benefit of doubt opines that accused was not driving the auto in a rash and negligent manner and this Court concludes that the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 338, 337 IPC.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under

Section 338, 337 IPC. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted for the said offences under

Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C and thereafter shall stand canceled.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of April 2024.

Sd/- M.Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW.1/20.02.2024: P.Shiva PW2/20.02.2024: N.Ramakrishna PW3/20.02.2024: J.Gangamma PW4/27.02.2024: G.Ravi PW5/05.03.2024: K.R.Ravi Kumar 6

PW6/05.03.2024: Dr.S.Venkata Reddy PW7/26.03.2024: N.Sanyasi Naidu, CI For Defence: None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1/22.11.2012: Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P2/27.11.2012: MVI report Ex.P3/ ---- : Wound certificate of P.W.4 Ex.P4/22.11.2012: MLC intimation Ex.P5/22.11.2012: Original FIR Ex.P6/22.11.2012: Rough sketch Ex.P7/ ---- : Wound certificate of P.W.2 Ex.P8/ ---- : Wound certificate of P.W.3 Ex.P9/ ---- : Wound certificate of P.W.1

For Defence: Ex.D1: Marked Green portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil.

Sd/- M.Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram // True Copy//

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PITHAPURAM.

C.C.No.183/2019

Date of offence:22.11.2012 Date of report or complaint:22.11.2012 Date of apprehension of the accused :27.11.2012 Date of Release on bail: --- Date of commencement of trial : 20.02.2024 Date of close of trial:: 03.04.2024 Date of sentence or order: 27.04.2024 Explanation of delay or remarks: Due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the Complainant:

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

Name of the accused: Nandika Veerababu, S/o.Sankhara Rao, 31 years, C/SC Madiga, Kondavarapeta, Kathipudi Village, Sankhavaram mandal, Driver of Auto bearing No.AP 05 TA 5389. . Offence:Under Section 338, 337 IPC

Finding :Found not guilty. Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 338, 337 IPC. Accordingly,Accused is acquitted for the said offences under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment as per Section 437- A of Cr.P.C and thereafter shall stand canceled.

Sd/- M.Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram Copies submitted to:

1.The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. // True Copy//

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE PITHAPURAM

PRESENT: Sri Modadugula Leela Sai Subhash

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram

Friday, this the 26th day of April, 2024

O.S.70/2024

Between :

Eegala Trimurthulu, S/o.Suryanarayana, age 66 years, Business, D.No.13-1-83, Patha Gollaveedhi, Near Krishna Temple, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, Presently Kakinada District, Pithapuram JCJ Limits.

...Plaintiff

And

Korra Venkata Ramana, S/o.Veeraswamy, age 62 years, Retired Employee, Patha Gollaveedhi, Near Krishna Temple, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, Presently Kakinada District,

Pithapuram JCJ Limits. ..Defendant

This suit came up on 24.04.2024 before me for plaintiff exparte evidence in the presence of Sri Ch.S.V.S.V.Prasad Sarma, , sri G.S.B.Acharyulu, Sri G.Raja, Advocates for the Plaintiff; and the Defendant remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The present suit is filed seeking indulgence of the Court to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the suit amount with subsequent interest from the date of suit till the date of decree, grant interest at applicable rate from the date of decree till the date of realization, costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are:

(a) On 06.07.2021 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff for the purpose of family expenses 2 and to discharge sundry debts and executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand.

(d) Inspite of several repeated demands made by the plaintiff, defendant did not choose to pay any amount and postponed the same on one pretext or the other and that the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 09.01.2024 demanding the defendant to repay the entire amount together with interest and the said legal notice was received by the defendant and that the defendant did not choose to repay any amount to the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

3.Despite service of summons, the defendant failed to file written statement within statutory period before this Court, and so the defendant was set exparte on 16.04.2024.

4.The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A.3.

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

6. Now the point for determination is – Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for or not?

7.POINT:

(a) Plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and through his chief affidavit, plaintiff submitted before the Court that defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on 06.07.2021 for the purpose of family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and executed a promissory note on the same day after receipt of consideration and that despite making several requests to the defendant, the defendant did not choose to repay any amount 3 either towards principal or interest and so the plaintiff got issued Ex.A2/office copy of legal notice dated 09.01.2024 and the defendant received the same under Ex.A3/postal acknowledgment dated 17.01.2024 but did not choose to repay any amount and hence he is constrained to file this present suit.

(b) The plaintiff further got marked Ex.A1 i.e., original promissory note executed by defendant 06.07.2021 in favour of the plaintiff. Perusal of

Ex.A1/promissory note indicates that the promissory note was executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of attestors and scribe and that the defendant signed on Ex.A1 promissory note.

(c) Plaintiff further submits that he got issued Ex.A2 office copy of legal notice 09.01.2024 to the defendant calling upon him to repay the debt under

Ex.A1 promissory note and the defendant failed to repay the suit promissory note amount and the defendant received the same under Ex.A3/acknowledgment and that plaintiff made efforts to recover the suit promissory note debt.

(d) As the defendant remained exparte, P.W.1 was not subjected to cross examination and as a result, chief testimony of P.W.1 remains unrebutted.

(e) by virtue of the unrebutted evidence of PW1, the plaintiff discharged initial burden casted upon him to show that defendant borrowed the amount covered under the Ex.A1 promissory note and also proved that the said amount was not discharged either by said defendant. As a result, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8.In the result, suit is decreed with costs, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant by directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.81,267/- 4 (Rupees eighty one thousand two hundred and sixty seven only) with interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and with subsequent interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum adjudged i.e., Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousnd only).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- M.Leela Sai Subhash

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PITHAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1:24.04.2024 : Eegala ThrimurthuluNone

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1 is the original promissory note dated 06.07.2021

Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 09.01.2024

Ex.A3 is postal receipt and acknowledgment dated 17.01.2024.

FOR DEFENDANT: Nil

Sd/- M.Leela Sai Subhash

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PITHAPURAM