Sri M.Siva Kiran

1 C.C.29/2022

JFCM, ARAKU

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

Present: SRI M. SIVA KIRAN, XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli. (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Araku

Friday, this the 8th day of December, 2023

C.C. No . 29/2022

Between:

State rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthagiri Police Station.… Complainant VS Accused Thangula Vasanth Kumar, S/o Moddu, aged 50 years, Gadabagulugu village, KuridiPanchayat,Dumbriguda Mandal, Driver of auto bearing No. AP 39 TM 4658 … Accused

This case came before me on 01.12.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Ld. A.P.P for Complainant-State and Sri J. K. Ratna Raju, Ld.

Counsel for accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon hearing arguments on both sides, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1This case emerges out of the police report filed by the S.I of

Police, Ananthagiri Police Station, against the accused person in Cr. No.

27/2021 of his police station for the alleged offence punishable U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC.

2.(I)The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, on 29.01.2021 the deceased namely Thangula Balakrishna (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and L.W.10-Killo Ramu went to Loha village of

Pinakaota panchayat to attend mature function in the auto of the accused bearing No. AP 39 TM 4658 and after attending the function, both the deceased and L.W.10-Killo Ramu while returning in the same auto and at about 04.00 p.m., when they reached near Jalada village turning, the 2 C.C.29/2022

JFCM, ARAKU

accused being the driver of the said auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and applied sudden brakes in a turning near Jalada village, as a result of which auto went on its left side and turned turtle and fallen in the valley, resulting the deceased fell underneath the auto and sustained severe bleeding injury on his left side abdomen. Then, L.Ws.6 to 9 viz., D. Nooka Raju, R. Satyanarayana, R. Lakshmana and B. Kanaka Rao who were nearby the scene of offence, rushed there and found the deceased with injuries and shifted him to Government Hospital, Paderu in another auto for treatment and from there, on 02.02.2021 the deceased was admitted in Vijetha Hospital, Visakhapatnam and On 04.02.2021, the deceased was shifted to K.G.H., Visakhapatnam and while undergoing treatment at KGH, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 07.02.2021. ON that, L.W.1-Thangula Balanath who is the brother of the deceased gave a report to the police on 08.02.2021. Basing on the said report, L.W.18- B.

Narasinga Rao, Head Constable, Ananthagiri P.S., registered the same as a case in Cr.No.21/2021 under Section 304-A of IPC and issued FIR and investigated the matter.

(ii)During course of investigation, L.W.18 B. Narasinga Rao visited

KGH and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the inquest panchyatadars and sent corpse to L.W.17-Dr. Y. Sravani,

Assistant Professor for autopsy, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, examined it and prepared rough sketch and got photographed the scene of offence. L.W.19-K. Sudhakar, S.I.

of Police, Ananthagiri P.S., took up further investigation in this case and served Sec.41- A Cr.P.C., notice on the accused person and released him after obtaining sureties. L.W.16-R. Sudheer, M.V. Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. L.W.17- Dr. Y. Sravani, Assistant Professor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the 3 C.C.29/2022

JFCM, ARAKU

cause of the death is septic shock and peritonitis due to blunt injury abdomen and after completion of investigation, LW20/K. Ramu, SI of Police,

Ananthagiri PS., filed charge sheet U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC, against the accused by my learned predecessor in office.

4.On appearance of accused person, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/sec. 251 Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation for the offence U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC, is read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution cited as many as 20 witnesses, out of which, they could able to examine nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 on their behalf of. The learned APP has given up the evidence of L.W.1-T. Balanadh since he died, L.W.-4 V. Appanna, L.W.5-S. Rajkumar, L.W.7-R. Satyanarayana, L.W.12-

T. Bhagavan, L.W.13-S. Appalaraju, L.W.14-R. Ramesh, L.W.15-R. Ramesh,

L.W.16-R. Sudheer, L.W.17-Dr. Y. Sravani, Assistant Professor, L.W.18-B.

Narsinga Rao, Head Constable, Ananthagiri P.S. and L.W.20-K. Ramu-K.

Ramu, S.I. of Police, Ananthagiri P.S.,

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused person was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is putforth to him, for which, he stated as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused person. Perused the material available on record.

8.Now, the point that arises for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the

guilt of the accused person for the alleged

offence punishable U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC, beyond

all reasonable doubt?

4 C.C.29/2022

JFCM, ARAKU

P O I N T:

9.The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, accused who is the driver of auto bearing No. AP 39 TM 4658 drove the same at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brakes near Jalada village at a turning point, as a result of which the auto turned turtle and the deceased who was traveling in the said auto sustained severe bleeding injury on his left side abdomen and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries and thereby the accused committed the offence punishable U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC.

10.In order to prove the case of prosecution, L.W.2/T. Narayana is examined as P.W.1, L.W.3/T. Ravisankar is examined as P.W.2, L.W.6/D.

Nooka Raju is examined as P.W.3 through him Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P.1, L.W.8/R. Lakshmana Rao is e xamined as P.W.4 through him Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P.2, L.W.9/B. Kanaka Rao is examined as P.W.5 through him Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as

Ex.P.3, L.W.11-G. Thamoth is examined as P.W.6, L.W.10/K. Ramu is examined P.W.7 through him Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P.4,

L.W.21-G. Tumnadh is examined as P.W.8 through him Ex.P.5 is marked,

L.W.19-K. Sudhakar the then S.I. of Police, Ananthagiri P.S., is examined as

P.W.9, through him, report of the complainant is marked as Ex.P.6, FIR is marked as Ex.P.7, scene observation report is marked as Ex.P.8, rough sketch is marked as Ex.P.9, PME report is marked as Ex.P.10, M.V.I. report is marked as Ex.P.11.

11.L.W.2 T. Narayana is the son of complainant/L.W.1/T. Balanath, and he is examined as P.W.1 and he deposed that the deceased is his paternal uncle and on 29.01.2021 after attending maturity function at

Kedabagaluru, the deceased met with an accident while he was traveling in 5 C.C.29/2022

JFCM, ARAKU

an auto and the auto turned turtle at ghat road after crossing Jallada village and that on 7.2.2021 the deceased was died while undergoing treatment in

KGH and that he do not know the manner of the accident and the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident and that he was acted as inquestdar while conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased at

KGH.

12.PW2 is the brother of the deceased and he deposed on the same lines as deposed by P.W.1.

13.The eye witness L.W.6/D. Nookaraju is examined as P.W.3 and he deposed that about one year back at about 11 a.m., one auto turned turtle and the passengers in the said auto fell down and sustained injuries.

Then, he along with L.W.7/R. Satyanarayana, L.W.8/R. Lakshmana, L.W.9/B.

Kanaka Rao and others shifted the injured to PHC, Pinakota and except that he do not know the manner of the accident and that who is the driver of the said auto. In view of hostility, the learned APP obtained permission and cross examined PW3, but nothing was elicited in the cross examination of

PW3, except marking of his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement as ExP1.

14.Another eye witness L.W.8/R. Lakshmana Rao is examined as

P.W.4 and he deposed that about two years back one auto turned turtle, that the passengers in the said auto fell down and sustained injuries. Then, he along with P.W.3, L.W.7/R. Satyanarayana, L.W.9/B. Kanaka Rao and others shifted the injured to PHC, Pinakota and except that he do not know the manner of the accident and that who is the driver of the said auto. In view of hostility, the learned APP obtained permission and cross examined

PW4, but nothing was elicited in the cross examination of PW4, except marking of his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement as ExP2.

15.Another eye witness L.W.9/B. Kanaka Rao is examined as P.W.5 and he deposed that about one year back one auto turned turtle, that the 6 C.C.29/2022

JFCM, ARAKU

passengers in the said auto fell down and sustained injuries. Then, he along with P.W.3, P.W.4, L.W.7/R. Satyanarayana and others shifted the injured to

PHC, Pinakota and except that he do not know the manner of the accident and that who is the driver of the said auto. In view of hostility, the learned

APP obtained permission and cross examined PW5, but nothing was elicited in the cross examination of PW5, except marking of his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement as ExP3.

16.L.W.6/G. Thamoth is examined as P.W.6 and he deposed that about two years back the family members of the deceased informed him about the death of the deceased and he attended the funeral of the deceased and except that he do not know anything about this case. The evidence of P.W.6 is hearsay.

17.L.W.10 K. Ramu who was traveling along with the deceased in the auto is examined as P.W.7 and he deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of this case and did not witness any accident and that he came to know that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. In view of hostility, the learned APP obtained permission and cross examined PW7, but nothing was elicited in the cross examination of PW7, except marking of his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement as ExP4.

18. P.W.8 is one of the inquest panchayatdar who was present at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased by police and he deposed that at the request of the police, he acted as inquest panchayatdar and the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P.5 inquest report and that the panchayatdars opined that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in a road accident

19. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 coupled with Ex.P-5, it is clear that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in a road accident.

7 C.C.29/2022

JFCM, ARAKU

There is no whisper in the evidence of PWs 1 to 8 that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at that time of accident and due to his rash and negligence act he caused the accident. The evidence of PW1 to 7 do no speak about the manner of the accident.

20.There remains the evidence of Investigating Officer i.e., PW9 who took up further investigation in this case and he deposed about the legal formalities done by him and L.W.18 B. Narasinga Rao in this case. The evidence of PW9 shows that on 8.02.2021 while L.W.18 B. Narasinga Rao,

HC was in the police station, L.W.1 T. Balnath presented a report and he registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 27/2021, U/sec. 304-A of IPC and issued FIR which is marked as Ex.P.7 and also examination of witnesses i.e.,

PW1 and P.W.2, L.W.1 T. Balanadh, L.W.4/V. Appanna, L.W.5/S. Rajkumar and recording the statements and proceeding to scene of offence and examining the same in the presence of mediators and preparing scene observation report Ex.P.8 and rough sketch Ex.P.9, and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased person in the presence of inquest panchayathadhars and send the body to postmortem examination. The evidence of PW9 further shows he sent requisition to MVI for inspection of the crime vehicle and served 41- A Cr.P.C., notice on accused person and after of receipt of PME report and MVI report which are marked as ExP10 and ExP11 and after completion of entire investigation, his successor filed charge sheet in this case.

21. During cross examination of PW9, he denied the suggestions that the accused is not the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and that the crime vehicle was planted for the purpose of getting insurance to the deceased family members and P.Ws.3 to 5, 7 did not state as mentioned in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements and that the accused did not commit any offence.

8 C.C.29/2022

JFCM, ARAKU

22.PW1 and PW2 are the relatives of the deceased person and their evidence only speaks about the death of the deceased in a road accident and they were not present at the time of accident and they do not know about the manner of the accident. PW3 to P.W.5 are the persons who immediately shifted deceased in another auto to PHC, Pinakota and they did not state that the accused is the driver of the auto at the time of the accident. PW8 is the person who was present at the time of conducting of inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The conjoint testimonies of

PW1 to PW8 coupled with the contents of ExP5-inquest report, ExP6/report

dated 8.2.2021, ExP7-FIR and ExP10 PME report which clearly show that the

death of the deceased is due to the severe injuries on his left side abdomen sustained in the incident. Thus, It is clear from Ex.P-5 that the cause of death of the deceased is due to the severe injuries sustained by him on his left side abdomen in the road accident. There is no dispute from the side of the learned defence counsel about the death of the deceased person due to injuries sustained by him in a road accident. Thus, the prosecution established that the death of deceased is not natural and he died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident.

23. It is the case of the prosecution that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., the auto at the time of accident and he drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brakes at the scene of offence and as a result of which the auto turned turtle, for which the deceased who was traveling in the said auto sustained severe bleeding injuries on his left side abdomen. In this case, prosecution cited

P.W.3 to 5 as eye witnesses to the accident. There is no whisper in the evidence of PWs 1 to PW7 that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at that time of accident. PW1 to PW7 did not speak about the manner of accident. Since PW3 to P.W.5 did not support the case of 9 C.C.29/2022

JFCM, ARAKU

prosecution, the Ld. APP obtained permission and cross-examined them, but, nothing was elicited in support of the case of prosecution. The evidence of PW1 to PW7 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the guilt of accused person, except establishing the fact of death of deceased person due to injuries in the said incident, which was undisputed by the defence counsel. There is no positive material placed by the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged accident. In the absence of any cogent evidence from PW1 to PW7 to say that the accused is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident, the evidence of PW9 that accused is responsible for the said accident will not gain any importance. There is no cogent and consistent evidence against the accused person to prove that he is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he acted rashly or negligently, resulting the death of deceased in the alleged accident.

24. In the light of the above discussion, this court is of considered view that though the prosecution proved that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident, however, the prosecution failed to prove that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove the crime vehicle rashly or negligently and caused the accident.

Therefore, this court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused person for the alleged offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

25.In the result, this court finds that the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.304 (A) of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated U/sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no marked or unmarked property in this case.

10 C.C.29/2022

JFCM, ARAKU

Typed to my dictation by the Superintendent (discharging duties as Stenographer), corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 8th day of December, 2023.

XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli. (FAC) Judicial First Class Magistrate, Araku.

Appendix of Evidence

itnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Accused:

PW1 :T. Narayana -None- PW2:T. Ravi Shankar PW3:D. Nooka Raju PW4:R. Lakshmana Rao PW5:B. Kanaka Rao PW6:G. Tumanku PW7:K. Ramu PW8:G. Tumnadh PW9:K. Sudhakar

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 :161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3

Ex.P2 :161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4

Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5

Ex.P4:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7

Ex.P5:Inquest report

Ex.P6:Report of L.W.1 T. Balanadh dt.08.02.2021

Ex.P7:First Information Report

Ex.P8:Scene observation report dt.09.02.2021

Ex.P.9:Rough sketch

Ex.P.10: Postmortem examination report

Ex.P.11: Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report

For Accused :-Nil-

Material Objects marked Nil

XIII AMM/AKP.

FAC JFCM, ARAKU.

11 C.C.29/2022

JFCM, ARAKU

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

ANAKAPALLI

C.C.No. 29/2022

Date of Offence::29.01.2021 Date of complaint/report::29.01.2021 Date of release on bail::Sec. 41- A Cr.P.C. Date of taken on file::24.02.2022 Date of commencement of trial::14.03.2022 Date of closure of trial::17.11.2023 Date of sentence or order::08.12.2023 Reason for delay::-- Name of the Complainant::State rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthagiri Police Station.

Particulars of the accused:

AccusedThangula Vasanth Kumar, S/o Moddu, aged 50 years, Gadabagulugu village, Kuridi Panchayat, Dumbriguda Mandal, Driver of auto bearing No. AP 39 TM 4658

U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC, Nature of offence

Found not guilty Finding of the court

Sentence of Order :In the result, this court finds that the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.304 (A) of IPC and accordingly, he 12 C.C.29/2022

JFCM, ARAKU

is acquitted U/sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated U/sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no marked or unmarked property in this case.

XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Araku.

C.C.54/22 JFCM, Araku

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

Present: SRI M. SIVA KIRAN, XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli. (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Araku

Friday, this the 22nd day of December, 2023

C.C. No . 54/2022

Between:

State rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthagiri Police Station… Complainant VS Accused Varadapureddy Meeraswamy, S/oDemudu,32years, Sriramapuram village, Devarapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam district Driver of Tractor No. AP 31 TN 4051 and Trolley No. AP 31 TN 3852 … Accused

This case came before me on 20.12.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Ld. A.P.P for Complainant-State and Sri B. Premchand, Ld. Counsel for accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon hearing arguments on both sides, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1This case emerges out of the police report filed by the S.I of

Police, Ananthagiri Police Station, against the accused person in

Cr. No. 4/2022 of his police station for the alleged offence punishable

U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC.

2.(i)The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, on 09.01.2022 at about 06.00 p.m., the deceased Kottana Srinu (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) went to Devarapally sandy on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 35 AG 0480 and that on his return at about 07.00 p.m., when the deceased reached near Gavireddy vari fields situated in between Sriramapuram and

Pedda Gangavaram village and by that time, the accused being the driver of

C.C.54/22 JFCM, Araku tractor bearing No. AP 31 TN 4051 and trolley No. AP 31 TN 3852 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, went to extreme left side road and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased with the trolley bearing No. AP 31 TN 3852 to his face while going to Sriramapuram village from Peda Gangavaram, as a result of which the deceased sustained injury on his face, right eye, laceration on the right knee, fracture injury on right wrist and bleeding injuries on the right thigh and right shoulder and died at the spot. On coming to know about the same, the wife of the deceased presented a report to L.W.16-M. Laxmipathi, Head Constable, Ananthagiri

P.S.

(ii)Basing on the said report, he registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.4/22 under Section 304-A of IPC and investigated the matter. During course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined it, prepared rough sketch, photographed the scene and prepared the scene observation report in the presence of mediators, held inquest over the dead body of deceased and served Sec.41- A Cr.P.C., notice on the accused person and released him after obtaining sureties. L.W.14-P. Gopi Krishna,

M.V. Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. L.W.15/T.S.

Sravanti, Civil Assistant Surgeon conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased might have been died due to head injury with severe intracranial bleeding leading to hemorrhage and shock leading to cardio respiratory arrest. After completion of investigation,

LW17/K. Ramu, SI of Police, Ananthagiri PS., filed charge sheet U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC, against the accused by my learned predecessor in my office.

C.C.54/22 JFCM, Araku

4.On appearance of accused person, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/sec. 251 Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation for the offence U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC, is read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which, he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution cited as many as 17 witnesses, out of which, they could able to examine eight witnesses as PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 on their behalf of. The learned APP has given up the evidence of L.W.2/K. Ramakrishna,

L.W.3/D. Srinivasa Rao, L.W.6/K. Appalanaidu, L.W.8/K. Devudu Naidu,

L.W.9/S. Madiri, L.W.11/Ch. Ravi, L.W.13/R. Rambabu, L.W.14/P. Gopi

Krishna and L.W.15-T. Satya Sravanthi.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused person was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is putforth to him, for which, he stated as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused person. Perused the material available on record.

8. Now, the point that arises for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused person for the alleged offence punishable U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T:

9.The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, accused who is the driver of Tractor bearing No. AP 31 TN 4051 and trolley bearing No. AP 31

TN 3852 drove the same at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased K. Srinu while he was coming on his motor cycle

C.C.54/22 JFCM, Araku bearing No. AP 35 AG 0480 as a result of which the deceased received severe bleeding injuries all over his body and died at the spot and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC.

10.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the de-facto complainant/LW1-K. Krishnaveni, is examined as PW1 and through her, her report is marked as ExP1. L.W.4/K. Ramunaidu is examined as P.W.2,

L.W.5/K. Akkunaidu is examined as P.W.3, L.W.12/G. Suresh is examined

P.W.4 through the scene observation report is marked as Ex.P.2, L.W.7/K.

Venkataramana is examined as P.W.5 through him, 161 Cr.P.C statement is marked as Ex.P.3, L.W.10/K. Kotibabu is examined as P.W.6 thorough him, the inquest report is marked as Ex.P.4, L.W.16/M. Laxmipathi, Head

Constable, Ananthagiri P.S. is examined as P.W.7 through him, the FIR is marked as Ex.P.5 and the rough sketch is marked as Ex.P.6 and L.W.17/R.

Ramu, S.I. of Police, Ananthagiri P.S., is examined as P.W.8, through him the PME report is marked as Ex.P.7 and the MVI report is marked as Ex.P.8.

11.The de-facto complainant/L.W.1/K. Krishnaveni, is the wife of the deceased and she is examined as P.W.1 and she deposed that about one year back on the 9th January evening time, her husband/deceased went to market, Devarapalli village and that at about 7 p.m., some one informed her over phone that while returning to home on a bike, her husband met with an accident caused by a tractor and he died at the spot in between

Srirampuram and Peda Gangavaram. Then, she presented Ex.P.1 report to the police. She do not know the owner of the vehicle and the driver of the crime and its registration. In the cross-examination, she admitted that her husband himself hit the backside of the tractor and she compromised with the accused out of the court for money and at the instance of police, she gave report and she do not know the manner of the accident. Even as per

C.C.54/22 JFCM, Araku the case of prosecution, P.W.1 was not present at the time of accident and she received phone information about the accident.

12.The cousin of the deceased is examined as P.W.2 and he deposed that about one year back in the month of January, he came to know that the deceased met with an accident and died on the spot, that immediately he went to the hospital and noticed the dead body of the deceased. The police conducted inquest in his presence and he signed on the inquest report as one of the mediators. The panchayatdars opined that the deceased died due to accident.

13.One of the family members of the deceased is examined as

P.W.3 and he deposed that on 09.01.2022 at about 7.30 p.m., while he was coming from Devarapalli to Peda Gangavaram village and that when he reached Srirampuram, he noticed the dead body of the deceased with injuries to his head, right shoulder and his head crushed. Some of the village who were present at the scene informed that the deceased was going on his motorcycle, the accused dashed him with his tractor and trolley and the tractor tyre ran over head of the head of the deceased, then he intimated to the police station. P.W.3 further stated that he do not remember the tractor registration number and he identifed the driver of the said vehicle as accused. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not witness the accident personally and that his family members compromised with the accused.

14.One of the villagers of the deceased is examined as P.W.5 and he deposed that at about two years back the deceased died in a road accident and he did not witness the accident and he do not know about the manner of the accident. In view of hostility, the learned APP obtained permission and cross examined PW5, but nothing was elicited in the cross

C.C.54/22 JFCM, Araku examination of PW5, except marking of his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement as

ExP3.

15.From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 it is clear that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in a road accident. There is no whisper in the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5 that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at that time of accident and due to his rash and negligence act he caused the accident. The evidence of PW1 to 3 and 5 do no speak about the manner of the accident.

15.P.W.6 is one of the inquest panchayatdars who was present at the time of conducting of inquest over the dead body of the deceased by police and he deposed that police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and in the presence of other panchayatdars and the panchayatdars opined that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained the road accident and the police prepared inquest report and it is marked as Ex.P.4 and he signed on it. The testimony of P.W.6 is unchallenged by defence counsel.

16.P.W.4 is one of the mediators at the time of preparation of scene observation report by the police and he deposed that on 10.01.2022 at about 8.00 a.m., in his presence and in the presence of their village

Talayar, police observed the scene of offence which is trashing floor of

Gowrireddy, that they noticed the dead body of Srinu and one motorcycle and he do not remember the registration number of the said motorcycle and the police prepared the scene observation report which is marked as

Ex.P.2 and he signed on it.

17.There remains the evidence of Investigating Officer i.e., PW7 who conducted investigation in this case. PW7 is the investigation officer and he deposed about the legal formalities done by him in this case. The

C.C.54/22 JFCM, Araku evidence of PW6 shows that on 10.01.2022 at about 7.00 a.m., P.W.1 presented a report and he registered the same as case in Cr. No. 4/2022,

U/sec. 304-A of IPC and issued FIR which is marked as Ex.P.5 and also examination of witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW3 and P.W.5 and L.W.2-K.

Ramakrishna, L.W.3-D. Srinivasa Rao and L.W.6-K. Appalanaidu and recording their statements and proceeding to scene of offence and examining the same in the presence of mediators and preparing scene observation report and rough sketch, which is marked as ExP6 and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased person in the presence of inquest panchayathadhars.

18. During cross examination of PW7, he denied the suggestions that the accused did not commit any offence and a false case was foisted against him for getting insurance to the family members of the deceased, that the accused is not the driver of the tractor and trolley at the time of accident and it was not involved in the accident.

19.Another Investigating Officer is examined as P.W.8 and he deposed that he served 41-A Cr.P.C. notice on the accused person and after of receipt of PME report and MVI report which are marked as ExP7 and

ExP8 and after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

20.PW1 and P.W.2 are the wife and cousin of the deceased person and their evidence only speaks about the death of the deceased in a road accident and they were not present at the time of accident and they do not know about the manner of the accident. PW3 is the person who was proceeding to the place of offence on the date of accident and he saw deceased with injuries on his head and his head was crushed and also sustained injury to his right shoulder and he came to know some of the

C.C.54/22 JFCM, Araku villagers who were present at the scene that the deceased while going on his motorcycle, the accused dashed him with his tractor and the tractor ran over head of the deceased and then he intimated the same to the police station. P.W.4 who was present at the time preparation of scene observation report. PW6 is the person who was present at the time of conducting of inquest over the dead body of the deceased.

21. The conjoint testimonies of PW1 to PW6 coupled with the contents of

ExP4-inquest report, ExP1/report dated 02.02.2020, ExP5-FIR and ExP8

PME report clearly shows that the death of the deceased is due to the severe injuries on his head and body sustained in the road incident. There is no dispute from the side of the learned defence counsel about the death of the deceased person due to injuries sustained by him in a road accident.

Thus, the prosecution established that the death of deceased is not natural and he died due to the injuries sustained in a road accident.

22. It is the case of the prosecution that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased while he was coming on opposite direction on his motorcycle, for which, the deceased sustained injuries on his head, right shoulder and his head was crushed. There is no whisper in the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 5 and 6 that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at that time of accident. PW3 deposed that the persons present there informed him that accused is the driver of the tractor and trailor. PW3 came to know from the persons who were present there that the accused is the driver of the tractor and trailor. Thus, PW3 did not witness that accused drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident and his evidence is hearsay and therefore, his evidence will not gain any importance to show that accused is driver of the crime vehicle at the time

C.C.54/22 JFCM, Araku of accident. Further, the evidence of PW3 do not show about manner of accident. Since PW5 did not support the case of prosecution, the Ld.APP obtained permission and cross-examined him, but, nothing was elicited in support of the case of prosecution. The evidence of PW1 to PW6 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the guilt of accused person, except establishing the fact of death of deceased person due to injuries in the said incident, which was undisputed by the defence counsel. There is no positive material placed by the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged accident. PW7 failed to examine the persons who witnessed the accident and who informed PW3 about the manner of the accident. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence from the prosecution witnesses to say that the accused is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident, the evidence of PW7 and 8 that accused is responsible for the said accident will not gain any importance. There is no cogent, consistent and convincing evidence to say about the manner of the accident and therefore, it cannot be held that accused acted rashly or negligently and caused the accident, resulting the death of deceased in the alleged accident.

23. In the light of the above discussion, this court is of considered view that though the prosecution proved that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him on his head, right shoulder and also due to crushing of his head in the accident, however, the prosecution failed to prove that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove the crime vehicle rashly or negligently and caused the accident. Therefore, this court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused person for the alleged

C.C.54/22 JFCM, Araku offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

22.In the result, this court finds that the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.304 (A) of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated U/sec.

437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no marked or unmarked property in this case.

Typed to my dictation by the Superintendent (discharging duties as Stenographer), corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 22nd day of December, 2023.

XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,Anakapalli. (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Araku.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Accused:

PW1 :K.Krishna -None- PW2:K.Ramunaidu PW3:K.Akkunaidu PW4:G.Suresh PW5:K.Venkataramana PW6:K.Kotibabu PW7:M.Laxmipathi PW8:K.Ramu

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 :Original Report of P.W.1

Ex.P2 :Scene observation report

Ex.P3:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of L.W.7

Ex.P4:Inqurest report

Ex.P5:First Information Report

Ex.P6:Rough sketch

C.C.54/22 JFCM, Araku

Ex.P7:Postmortem examination report

Ex.P8:M.V.I. report

For Accused :-Nil-

Material Objects marked Nil

XIII AMM/AKP.

FAC JFCM, ARK.

C.C.54/22 JFCM, Araku

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

ARAKU

C.C.No. 54/2022

Date of Offence:: 09.01.2022 Date of complaint/report:: 10.01.2022 Date of release on bail:: Sec. 41- A Cr.P.C. Date of taken on file:: 14.02.2022 Date of commencement of trial:: 23.12.2022 Date of closure of trial:: 01.12.2023 Date of sentence or order:: 22.12.2023 Reason for delay:: Police failed to produce witnesses on time. Name of the Complainant:: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthagiri Police Station,

Particulars of the accused:

AccusedVaradapureddy Meeraswamy, S/o Demudu, 32 years, Sriramapuram village, Devarapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam district Driver of Tractor No. AP 31 TN 4051 and Trolley No. AP 31 TN 3852

U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC, Nature of offence

Found not guilty Finding of the court

Sentence of Order : In the result, this court finds that the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.304 (A) of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated U/sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no marked or unmarked property in this case.

III Addl.Junior Civil Jduge, Anakapalli FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class , Araku. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Copy to the Superintendent of Police,Ananghagiri

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE PADERU

Present: SRI. M. SIVA KIRAN,

XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalli.

FAC., Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Paderu

Friday, this the 13th day of October, 2023

C.C. No. 111/2022

Between:

State rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, G. Madugula Police Station.… Complainant VS Accused Perla Veera Venakta Gupta, S/o. Laxmayya, aged 38 years, Business, G. Madugula, Driver of Bolero Pick UP Vehicle AP 31 TE 3087. … Accused

This case came before me on 29.09.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Ld. A.P.P for Complainant-State and Sri. S. Mohan Krishna and Smt. S. Jancy, Ld. Counsels for accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon hearing arguments on both sides, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1This case emerges out of the police report filed by the S.I of Police,

G. Madugula Police Station, against the accused person in Cr.No. 07/2022 of his police station for the alleged offence punishable U/sec. 304 (A) and 279 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, on 05.02.2022 early hours at about 03.45 AM., the Defacto-complainant/L.W.1 P. Seshagiri Rao and his father P.

Thrimurthulu, who is deceased person, had loaded onion in the hopper auto bearing no. AP 39 TN 3970 and the deceased and driver of auto coming to G. Madugula for business and when they reached near Ganneruputtu village of Kodapalli Panchayat, one Bolero vehicle bearing no. AP 31 TE 3087 van driver drove the van in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the hopper auto AP 31 TN 3970, for which, his father received severe injury on his head and died on the spot and the auto driver received bleeding injuries.

a)Basing on the report of LW1-Pabbinedi Seshagiri Rao, LW11/ P. Appalaraju,

Head constable 433 of G. Madugula Police Station, registered the same as case in Cr.

2

No. 07/2022, U/sec. 304 (A), 337, 279 of IPC and issued FIR and investigated the matter. During course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence , examined it in the presence of two mediators i.e., LW7 V. Ramakrishna and LW8 M. Eswara Rao and prepared scene observation report and rough sketch and examined the witnesses, and recorded their statements and got conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdhars and sent the body of post mortem examination and sent the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 31 TE 3084 to MVI for inspection of the crime vehicle. L.W.12 S.I of Police, G. Madugula P.S served Sec.41- A

Cr.P.C., notice on the accused person and released him after obtaining sureties. After completion of investigation, LW12/A. Srinivasarao, SI of Police, G. Madugula PS., filed charge sheet U/sec. 304 (A) and 279 of IPC.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence U/sec. 304 (A), 279 of IPC, against the accused by my learned predecessor in my office.

4.On appearance of accused person, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/sec. 251

Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation for the offence U/sec. 304 (A) and 279 of

IPC, is read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution cited as many

as 12 witnesses, out of which, they could able to examine six witnesses as PW1 to

PW6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 on their behalf of. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW3/S, Tatarao, Lw/m. Eswararao, lw9/r. Sudheer, lw10/ Dr. N. Ravi

Kiran and LW11/P. Appalaraju.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused person was examined

U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is putforth to him, for which, he stated as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused person.

Perused the material available on record.

8. Now, the point that arises for determination is :- 3

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused person for the alleged offence punishable U/sec. 304 (A) and 279 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T:

9.The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, the accused, who is driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Bolero bearing No. AP 31 TE 3087, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in a speedy manner and dashed the hopper auto bearing no AP 39 TN 3970 and caused injuries, resulting the death of deceased/P. Thrimurthulu, and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 304 (A), 279 of IPC.

10.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the de-facto complainant/LW1-

P. Seshagirirao, is examined as PW1 and through him, his signature on report is marked as ExP1 and his sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement is marked as ExP2. LW2/P. Surya

Chakaram is examined as PW2, through him, sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement is marked as

ExP3. LW4/S. Talupulu is examined as PW3, through him, inquest report is marked as

ExP4. LW6/M. Narendra is examined as PW4, through him, sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement is marked as ExP5. LW7/V. Ramakrishna is examined as PW5, through him, the scene observation report dated 05.02.2022 is marked as ExP6. LW12/A.Srinivasa

Rao, SI of Police, G. Madugula PS., is examined as PW6 through him report of PW1 is marked as ExP7, FIR is marked as ExP8, rough sketch is marked as ExP9, PME report is marked as ExP10. MVI report is marked as ExP11 and photographs along with CD is marked as ExP12.

10.The de-facto complainant/LW1/P. Seshagiri Rao, is examined as PW1 and he deposed that about five months back, on one day he went to G. Madugula on his business purpose in an auto, someone informed him over phone that his father met with an accident and he immediately rushed to the accident spot and there he came to know his father was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Paderu, for treatment and he rushed to hospital and found dead body of his father. PW1 further deposed that he do not know the manner of accident and who caused the accident and when he was at

Hospital, someone obtained his signature in a written paper and hand over the dead body of his father and he did not give any report to police and he identified his signature on report, which is marked as ExP1. PW1 did not state in his evidence that 4 the accused is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of the accident. PW1 do not know about the manner of the accident and he did not witness the accident and his evidence is hearsay.

11.PW2 deposed on the same lines of the evidence of PW1. PW2 deposed about five months back in this year, on one day, he went to G. madugula on his business purpose in an auto, someone informed him over phone that his father met with an accident and he immediately rushed to Govt. Hospital, Paderu and he found dead body of his father and he do not know the manner of accident and who caused the accident and he cannot say the registration number of the auto and he do not know anything about this case. PW2 is not eye witness to the accident and he do not know the manner of accident. There is no material to show that accused is driver of crime vehicle and caused the accident and the evidence of PW2 is hearsay.

12.PW3 who is friend of PW1 deposed that about five months back, PW1 informed him over phone that his father met with an accident and requested him to come to Paderu and he immediately rushed to Paderu and he came to know that

PW1’s father died and except that he do not know anything about this case and police not examined him and he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of deceased and police prepared a report and he signed on it and witness identified his signature on report and it is marked as ExP4. Thus, the evidence of PW3 also do not show any incriminating against the accused person.

13.PW4 is cited as eye witness to the alleged incident and he deposed that about five months back at about 03.00 AM., himself and deceased were going from

Paderu to G. Madugula in the auto of deceased and he slept in the luggage carrier of the auto in the load of the onions and the deceased sat in the cabin of the auto and after some time, the accident took place, but he was in sleep and he did not realize it immediately and he did not sustain any injuries and he do not know who hit their auto and the deceased sustained injuries and he was shifted to hospital for treatment and then he informed about the accident to PW1 and PW2 over phone and he do not know the driver of the vehicle and he can not say its registration number.

5

14.PW5 is one of the mediators who was present at the time of scene observation conducted by police persons at the scene of offence and he deposed that he received information about the death of P. Trimurthulu who is his relative and himself and along with other persons came to Paderu and went to the place of accident i.e.,,

Ganneruputtu Village and at that time police also present and observed the scene of offence in his presence and in the presence of Madepalli Eswararao and prepared scene observation report and they signed on it and it is marked as ExP6. PW5 further deposed that from there, himself and other persons came to Area Hospital, Paderu and at the request of police, himself and other panchayatdars acted as inquest panchayatdars and police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased/P.

Trimurthulu and prepared Ex.P4 inquest report and they signed on ExP4 and they opined that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in a road accident. During course of cross examination of PW5, he deposed that he do not know the contents of

Ex.P4 and Ex.P6 and he signed on it at the request of police.

15.There remains the evidence of Investigation Officer i.e., PW6 who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet in this case. PW6 is the investigation officer and he deposed about the legal formalities done by him in this case. The evidence of PW6 shows that he took up further investigation from his HC 433/Appalaraju and as per C.D. file HC 433 while present in the police station received report on 05.02.2022, which is marked as ExP7 and he registered the same as case in Cr. No. 07/2022, U/sec. 304-A, 337, 279 of IPC and issued FIR , which is marked as Ex.P8, and also examination of witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW4 and LW3/S.

Tatarao and LW5/D. Gngadhar and recording the statements and proceeding to scene of offence and examining the same in the presence of mediators PW5 and another and preparing scene observation report and rough sketch, which is marked as ExP9 and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased person in the presence of inquest panchayathdhars and send the body to postmortem examination and handing over the same to the family members. The evidence of PW6 further shows that he sent requisition to MVI for inspection of the crime vehicle and served 41- A Cr.P.C., notice on accused person and after of receipt of PME report and MVI report which are 6 marked as ExP10 and ExP11 and after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

16. During cross examination of PW6, he denied the suggestions that the accused is not the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he did not collect any trip sheet of the crime vehicle and his HC 433 did not conduct investigation properly and he did not examine the witnesses at all and the witnesses did not state to him as mentioned in their Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statements and as he is sub-ordinate, he routinely verified the investigation and the accused did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated him in this case to get insurance to the deceased family members and there is no rashness or negligence at all on the part of the accused person.

17.PW1 and PW2 are the children of the deceased person and their evidence only speaks about the death of their father in a road accident and they were not present at the time of accident and they do not know about the manner of the accident. PW4 is eye witness, who was present in the vehicle at the time of accident, however, he do not know about the manner of the accident. PW3 and PW5 are the inquest panchaytdars at the time of Ex.P-4 inquest report. The conjoint testimonies of

PW1 to PW6 coupled with ExP4-inquest report, ExP7/report dated 05.07.2019 , ExP8-

FIR and ExP10 PME report, clearly shows that the death of the deceased is due to the injuries sustained in the road accident. There is no dispute from the side of the learned defence counsel about the death of the deceased person in a road accident.

Thus, the prosecution established that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in a road accident.

18. It is the case of the prosecution that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. PW4 who was cited as eye witness did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile and his evidence is that he do not know who is the driver of the crime vehicle and also did not say about its number and the manner of accident. There is no whisper in the evidence of PWs 1, PW2 and PW4 that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at that time of accident. PW1, PW2 and PW4 did not speak about the manner of accident. Since PW1, PW2 and PW4 did 7 not support the case of prosecution, the Ld.APP obtained permission and cross- examined them, but, nothing was elicited in support of the case of prosecution, except marking of their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5. Thus,

PW1, PW2 and PW4 disowned their own 161 Cr.P.C statements i.e., Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 and

Ex.P-5, when confronted. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the guilt of accused person, except establishing the fact of death of deceased person due to injuries in a road accident, which was undisputed by the defence counsel. There is no positive material placed by the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged accident. In view of the hostility of PW4, the evidence of PW6 that accused is responsible for the said accident will not gain any importance. There is no cogent and consistent evidence against the accused person to prove that he is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident.

19. In the light of the above discussion, this court is of considered view that though the prosecution proved that the deceased died due to the injuries in the road accident, however, the prosecution failed to prove that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove the crime vehicle rashly or negligently in speedy manner and caused the accident. Therefore, this court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused person for the alleged offences punishable under section 304-A, 279 beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, this court finds that the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.304 (A), 279 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec.

255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated U/sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no marked or unmarked property in this case.

Typed by me on my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of October, 2023.

XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli. FAC Judl. First Class Magistrate, 8

Paderu.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Accused:

PW1 :P. Seshagiri Rao -None- PW2:P. Surya Chakram PW3:S. Thalupulu PW4:M. Narendra PW5:V. Ramakrishna PW6:A. Srinivasa Rao

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 :Signature on the report of PW1

Ex.P2 :Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1

Ex.P3:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2

Ex.P4:Inquest report

Ex.P5:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4

Ex.P6:Scene observation report by PW5

Ex.P7:Report dated 05.07.2019

Ex.P8:FIR

Ex.P9:Rough sketch

Ex.P10:PME report

Ex.P11:MVI report

Ex.P12:Photographs along with CD.

For Accused :-Nil-

Material Objects marked

Nil.

XIII AMM/AKP FAC JFCM/Paderu.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

DISTRICT: VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No. 111/2022

Date of Offence::05.02.2022 Date of complaint/report::05.02.2022 Date of release on bail::Sec. 41- A Cr.P.C. Date of taken on file::12.04.2022 Date of commencement of trial::16.09.2022 Date of closure of trial::29.09.2023 Date of sentence or order::13.10.2023 Reason for delay::Police failed to produce witnesses on time. Name of the Complainant::State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, G. Madugula Police Station,

Particulars of the accused:

AccusedPerla Veera Venakta Gupta, S/o. Laxmayya, aged 38 years, Business, G. Madugula, Driver of Bolero Pick UP Vehicle AP 31 TE 3087.

Nature of offenceU/sec. 304 (A) and 279 of IPC,

Finding of the courtFound not guilty

Sentence of Order :In the result, this court finds that the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.304 (A), 279 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated U/sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no marked or unmarked property in this case.

XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli.

FAC Judl. First Class Magistrate,

Paderu.

1 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :: ANAKAPALLI

Present: M. Siva Kiran,

XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

(FAC) XI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate

Anakapalli.

Wednesday, this the 17 th day of January, 2024

C.C.No. 461/2021

Between:

State rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Town Police Station… Complainant VS

1. Ariga Bhavani Prasanthi, S/o Apparao, 19 years, H. No. 2-2-130, Kothuru AccusedNarasingaraopeta village, H/o Rajupalem, Anakapalli Mandal

2. Veereswarapu Mohan Kumar, S/o Ram Prasad, 21 years, R/o Kothuru, Anakapalli … Accused

This case came before me on 11.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Ld.A.P.P for Complainant-State and Sri K. Varun, Ld. Counsel for accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon hearing arguments on both sides, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case emerges out of the police report filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Town Police Station, against the accused 1 and 2 in Cr.

No. 1749/2020, of his police station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, the de-facto complainant/L.W.1/B. Lakshmana Rao is working as Sachivalaya Panchayat

Secretary, Sampathipuram Panchayat and On 20.06.2020 at about 6.30 P.M, after completion of his duty, he purchased plumbing material at

Thummapala by parking his two wheeler on the road margin and kept the said plumbing items in the two wheeler and at that time, two persons i.e., the accused 1 and 2 herein came there and tried to take away the vehicle keys,for which, L.W.1 laxmana Rao resisted the accused persons and the accused persons threatened L.W.1/B. Lakshmana Rao that if he dont give the keys to them, they will beat him with stones. Due to fear,

L.W.1/Laxmana Rao gave the keys to the accused and in the mean time, the police constables of Anakapalli Town P.S i.e., L.W.2/J. Venkata Ramacnahdra

Raju, Head Constable and L.W.3/B. Bhaskara Rao, Police Constable came there and asked L.W.1/B.Laxmana Rao what had happened. On that the accused who were in drunken state, quarreled with L.Ws.2 and 3 and later the accused further quarreled with L.W.4/G. Chitti Babu who was present nearby the scene of offence. Then, the de-facto complainant/L.W.1/B.

Laxmana Rao gave a report to the police.

2. (a)Basing on the report of LW1/B. Lakshmana Rao, LW.7/L.

Bhaskara Rao, Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Town Police Station registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 1749/20, under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR and entrusted the matter to L.W.8/V.Chakradhar, S.I of Police to investigate the matter. During course of investigation,

L.W.8/V.Chakradhar examined the witnesses and recorded their statements 3 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

and served Sec. 41- A Cr.P.C., notice to accused persons and after completion of investigation, L.W.9/R. Dhanunjay, S.I. of Police, Anakapalli

Town P.S., filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused persons by my learned predecessor in my office.

4.On appearance of accused persons, copies were furnished to them as required U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused persons were examined

U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C., and charges under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of

IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused in telugu, for which, they denied the contents of charges framed, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution cited as many as 9 witnesses, out of which, they could able to examine eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. The learned APP has given up the evidence of L.W.9-R. Dhanunjay, S.I. of Police, Anakapalli

Town P.S.,

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is putforth to them, for which, they stated as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.

Perused the material available on record.

4 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

8. Now, the point that arises for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused persons for the alleged offences under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T:

9.The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, on 20.06.2020 at about 6.30 P.M, P.W.1 purchased the plumbing material on his two wheeler at Tummapala and at that time, the accused 1 and 2 came there in a drunken condition and tried to take the vehicle keys of P.W.1, for which,

P.W.1 resisted the same and accused persons threatened them to beat him with stones and due to fear, P.W.1 gave keys to accused and at that time,

P.W.3 and P.W.4 came there and the accused persons quarreled with them and with P.W.5 and thus, the accused persons obstructed the duties of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and thereby committed the offence punishable under sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

10.To prove the case of prosecution, the de-facto complainant/L.W.1-B. Lakshmana Rao is examined as P.W.1 and through him, the report given by him is marked as Ex.P.1 and his 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P.2. The direct witness L.W.6/G. Ramu is examined as P.W.2 and his 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P.3, the Police personnel i.e.,

L.Ws.2 to 5 viz., J. Venkata Ramachandra Raju, B. Bhaskara Rao, G. Chitti

Babu and S. Narayanarao were examined as P.W.3 to P.W.6 respectively.

L.W.7/L. Bhaskara Rao, Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Town P.S., is examined 5 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

as P.W.7 and through him, FIR is marked as Ex.P.4 and L.W.8/V. Chakradhar,

S.I. of Police, Anakapalli Town P.S., is examined as P.W.8.

11.PW1 deposed that he know the accused persons and in the month of June, 2020 after purchasing plumbing articles, while he was going to house, an altercation was going at that place and some persons try to take his motorcycle key and At that time, the police came there and on seeing the police, the persons who are making galata fled away and he came to know about the names of the persons who made the galata through the persons who were present there and he gave report to the police, which is marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.1 did not identify that the accused persons are the persons who had committed the said offence and also did not state anything about altercation with P.W.3 to P.W.5. Since P.W.1 did not state that the accused persons are the persons who committed the alleged offence, the

Ld.APP declared him as hostile and obtained permission and cross-examined him, but, nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1, except marking of his 161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P.2. During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, P.W.1 deposed that the accused

persons are not the persons who committed the offence against

him.

12.PW2 had completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution and he deposed that he do not know the accused persons and he do not know anything about the case facts. In view of hostility of PW2, the learned

APP obtained permission and cross examined him, but nothing was elicited 6 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

in support of the case of prosecution,except marking of his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement as ExP3. PW2 disowned his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement i.e., ExP.3, when confronted.

13.P.W.3 Head Constable deposed that he along with P.W.4 were engaged in their duty on blue colts motorcycle and on receipt of information that at Thummapala two persons are creating nuisance and then they went there and by that time P.W.1 who was present there informed that his cell phone was forcibly taken by the two accused persons and then, they apprehended the accused persons. During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, P.W.3 deposed that the alleged scene of offence is a busy locality and he did not examine any person at the scene of offence as

P.W.1 was present at the scene of offence.

14.P.W.4 the then Constable deposed on the same lines as deposed by P.W.3.

15.P.W.5 the then Head Constable deposed that about three years back on one day while he was present at Thummapala, traffic was jammed and then he enquired the persons who were present there, for which they stated that some galata took place and except that he do not know anything about this case. During cross-examination, P.W.5 deposed that the alleged scene of offence is a busy locality.

16.P.W.6 who is police Constable deposed that on 20.06.2020 at afternoon hours this incident happened at Thummapala center and that on receipt of information from his station that some persons are creating 7 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

nuisance by consuming liquor, he went there along with breathe analyzer machine and he handed over the machine to P.Ws.3 and 4 who were present there.

17.P.W.7 is Inspector of Police who deposed that basing on the

Ex.P-1 report given by P.W.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.1749/2020 under

Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR, which is marked as

Ex.P.4 and his evidence shows that he entrusted the investigation of P.W.8

18.P.W.8 the Investigating Officer and he deposed that during the course of his investigation, he examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements, went to the scene of offence, examined and served 41-A Cr.P.C.

notice to the accused persons and after completion of his investigation, his successor filed charge sheet in this case. During cross-examination, he stated that he did not prepare any rough sketch and denied the suggestions that the accused persons did not commit any offence and a false case was foisted against them.

19.As seen from the evidence of PW1 to P.W.6, it is evident that

P.W.1 candidly stated that he do not know the names of the accused persons and he did not see the accused persons prior to the date of his giving evidence in the court i.e., on 17.08.2023. P.W.1 who is the main witness had deposed that the accused persons are not the persons who committed the offence against him. P.W.2 who is the direct witness turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.3 to 5 who are the Police

Personnel did not depose anything against the accused that they were assaulted and deterred by the accused persons while they were discharging 8 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

their lawful duties as public servants except stating that on receipt of information that the accused persons were creating nuisance at

Thummapala area in drunken state, they went there and there P.W.1 informed that the accused persons were forcibly taken away his cell phone.

But, the police failed to seize the cell phone from the possession of the accused nor there is any whisper in the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 that

P.W.6 came there and handed over breath analyzer machine to them and that they tested the accused persons. No document was filed by the prosecution to show that they conducted breath analyzer test to the accused persons. As such, the evidence of P.W.6 that he went to the alleged scene of offence and handed over the breath analyzer machine to P.W.3 and

P.W.4 will not gain any advantage.

20.P.Ws.3 to 6 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality, but no independent witness was examined by P.W.8. P.W.3 to 6 all are police personnel. When P.W.5 went to the scene of offence, the persons who made the galata had left the place. P.W.6 did not state that the accused persons were present at the place of offence and that they committed any acts as alleged by the prosecution. When P.W.1 candidly admitted that the accused persons are not the persons who had committed the offence against him, the testimony of P.W.3 and P.W.4 that they brought the accsued persons to the police station will not gain any advantage. As per the case of prosecution and the testimony of P.W.1, the accused persons had taken the two wheeler keys of P.W.1 forcibly. But, P.W.3 and P.W.4 stated that P.W.1 informed them that they had taken cell phone. Thus, there is inconsistency 9 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

in the evidence of P.W.1 with that of the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 whether it is the bike keys or cell phone which were alleged to have been forcbily taken from P.W.1.

21.It is the testimony of P.W.1 that when Police persons came there, the persons who committed the galata had fled away from the scene of offence. It is clear from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, that they did not state any incriminating evidence against the accused that the accused persons are the persons who had committed extortion by intentionally putting P.W.1 in fear and forcibly taken away his bike keys and also threatened him with dire consequences. No witness identified the accused persons that they were committed the offence. In the absence of any positive evidence from PW1, the testimony of other witnesses including the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 do not assume any much importance to prove the guilt of accused. Absolutely there is no material to prove that the accused are the persons who had committed the alleged offences against

P.W.1 and therefore, this court is of considered view that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, the accused persons are entitled for acquittal.

22. In the result, the A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons, if any, shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal 10 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

time as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C. There is no marked or unmarked property in this case.

Typed to my dictation by the Superintendent (discharging duties as Stenographer), corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 17th day of January, 2024.

XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, (FAC) XI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Accused:

PW1 :B. Lakshmana Rao -None- PW2:G. Ramu PW3:J.V. Ramachandra Raju PW4:B. Bhaskara Rao PW5:G. Chittibabu PW6:S. Narayana Rao PW7:L. Bhaskara Rao PW8:V. Chakradhar

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 :Report of P.W.1 Ex.P2 :161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4:FIR

For Accused :-Nil-

Material Objects marked :

- Nil -

XIII AMM/AKP (FAC) XI AMM, Akp.

11 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :: AT

ANAKAPALLE

DISTRICT: VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No. 461/2021

Date of Offence::20.06.2020 Date of complaint/report::20.06.2020 Date of release on bail::Sec. 41- A Cr.P.C. Date of taken on file::01.09.2021 Date of commencement of trial::17.08.2023 Date of closure of trial::11.01.2024 Date of sentence or order::17.01.2024 Reason for delay::Police failed to produce witnesses on time. Name of the Complainant::State rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Town Police Station

Particulars of the accused:

Accused 1. Ariga Bhavani Prasanthi, S/o Apparao, 19 years, H. No. 2-2-130, Kothuru Narasingaraopeta village, H/o Rajupalem, Anakapalli Mandal

2. Veereswarapu Mohan Kumar, S/o Ram Prasad, 21 years, R/o Kothuru, Anakapalli Under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 Nature of offence of IPC

Finding of the courtFound not guilty

Sentence of Order : In the result, the A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and 12 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons, if any, shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal time as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C. There is no marked or unmarked property in this case.

XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, (FAC) XI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli.

1

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

PRESENT: SRI M. SIVA KIRAN,

III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAKAPALLI

FAC JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARAKU

Friday, the 29 th day of December, 2023

C.C. No.91/2022

Between State rep. by the Enforcement Sub- Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau. Araku

... Complainant

And

Balorda Badesh S/o Balanna(L) , aged 38 years, C/o ST Valmiki, R/o Sarabhaguda village Araku valley mandal, Visakhapatnam District. …Accused

This case came up on 15.12.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst., Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri.P.Murali Mohan, Ld. counsel 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)This case is filed by the Sub Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau, against the accused, for the offence punishable U/sec. 34 (A) AP Excise Act &

Amendment Act No. 17 of 2020 in Cr.No. 204/2021 of SEB Araku .

2)The brief facts of the prosecution case, is that

On 26.07.2021 at about 11.15 AM., LW1- Sri. G.Dasu along with his staff LW3/G.kanakaraju and while they reached Sarabhaguda Junction of 2

Arakuvalley Mandal at about 11.15 Hrs by the time one male person was coming by carrying one white polythene gunny bag in his hand and on seeing the SEB,Araku, the accused tried to skulk away and LW1- G.Dasu ,

LW3/G.kanakaraju apprehended the accused and verified the said gunny bag and found 11 liquor bottles of Adan’s Supreme Blend Superior Grain Whisky (Without Heals) 180 Ml.,-03 bottles and he seized the said 11 liquor bottles under the cover of Occurrence Report and returned to the SEB, Araku and handed over the accused, contraband and material papers to

LW4/A.Ganapathi Babu SEB,Inspector, Basing on the occurrence report of LW- 1/G.Dasu, LW3/G.kanakaraju, SEB and LW4/A.Ganapathi Babu Enforcement

Inspector, SEB, Araku, registered the same as a case in Cr.No.204/2021 for the offence punishable U/s. 34 (A) AP Excise Act & Amendment Act No. 17 of 2020 and issued FIR and investigated the matter. During course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and drawn the samples from the seized property and send it for chemical analysis to LW4/A.Ganapathi Babu, Govt. Chemical Examiner, and he produced the accused before this court for Judicial Remand and after receipt of chemical analysis report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

3)This case was taken on file U/sec. 34 (A) AP Excise Act & Amendment

Act No. 17 of 2020 by my learned predecessor in office and summons were issued to the accused.

3

4)On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents are supplied to him as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/sec.

239 Cr. P.C and Charge U/sec. 34 (A) AP Excise Act & Amendment Act No. 17 of 2020 was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, the accused denied the contents of the charges framed, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, matter posted for trial.

5)To prove the guilt of accused, prosecution examined LW1/Sri.G.Dasu, examined asP.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1,P.2 and M.O.1

LW4/A.Ganapathibabu, Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station, Araku ., examined as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW2- SVASN Raju , Enforcement Constable, SEB

Station,Araku, LW3-G.A.Kanakaraju Enforcement Cosntable, SEB, Station,

Araku and LW4/A.Munneswari, Government Chemical Examiner, Regional

Prohb. & Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam,

6)After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined U/s.

313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material available in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is putforth to him, for which he stated that the prosecution evidence is false and reported no defence evidence.

7)Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

8)Now, the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt

of accused for the alleged offence punishable U/sec.

34 (A) AP Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 beyond all

reasonable doubt?

4

9)The contention of the learned Asst., Public Prosecutor is that the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 and documents exhibited i.e., Ex.P.1 to P.4 is cogent, consistent, corroborative and could prove the guilt of accused and therefore prays this Court to convict him as per law in the interests of justice.

10)The learned counsel for accused argued that accused is an innocent and he did not commit any offence and nothing was seized as alleged by the prosecution and the liquor bottles are planted for the purpose of this case and the Investigating Officer failed to secure any independent mediators and this case is foisted for statistical purpose and except the interested testimony of police officials, there is no other evidence on record to prove about seizure of liquor bottles. Upon the above grounds urged, he prays to acquit the accused in the interests of justice.

11)The case of prosecution in brief, is that, the accused person was found in possession of 11 liquor bottles of and thereby committed the offence punishable under A.P Excise Act.

12)Point: In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined two witnesses i.e., P.W.1 and PW2 and got marked

Ex.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1. Ex.P-1 is the occurrence report, Ex.P.2 is the original

FIR in Crime No.204/2021. Ex.P.3 is letter of advice, Ex.P.4 is chemical analysis report. M.O.1 is the unexpanded portion of liquor of in the sample bottle.

13)P.W.1-G.Dasu, deposed that On 26-7-2021, himself along with his staff members L.W.2/i.e., SV.ASN.Raju , and L.W.3/ G.A Kanakaraju, 5 proceeded to Sarabaguda Junction at about 11.15 am and found person carrying one polythene bag and on seeing them he tried to skulk away and they apprehend the accused and verified the gunny bag and found 11 bottles of ADANS supreme blend superior whisky of each 180ml, without heals. He enquired about the identity particulars of the accused persons and questioned him about the liquor bottles for which, he stated the purchased from Government retail outlets shop at Araku and taking the same to sell at higher rate. He asked him about permit or licence, for which he he seized the Liquor bottles by securing the sample for analysis and collected samples from the seized quantity of M.O.1 affixed the seal and drafted the occurrence report and handed over the accused, seized contraband and occurrence report to PW2. ExP1 is occurrence report. During cross-examination of P.W.1, he deposed that the scene of offence is busy locality surrounded by residential houses. PW1 deposed that they did not secure any independent mediators. PW1 further deposed that though they tried to secure local inhabitants as mediators, no one came forward to act as mediators. P.W.1 denied the suggestions that no contraband was seized from the possession of accused as deposed by him and this case is foisted for statistical purpose and the case property is planted for the purpose of this case and accused is no way concerned with the present case.

14)PW2- A.Ganapathi Babu Enforcement Inspector, SEB,Araku on 26- 07-2021at about 11.15 am PW1 along with other staff members SVASN Raju,

GA Kanakaraju came to the SEB,Araku handed over the accused person and 6 contraband to him and he he registered Occurrence report as a case in Cr.

No.204/2021 for the offence Sec. 34 (A) AP Excise Act & Amendment Act No.

17 of 2020 and issued FIR. The FIR is marked as ExP2. He arrested the accused and sent for judicial remand and he examined PW1, LW4/

A.Ganapathibabu recorded their statement and sent the samples for chemical analysis and after receipt of chemical analysis report, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. ExP3 is letter of advice and ExP4 is chemical analysis report. During cross examination of PW2, he denied the suggestions that he did not visit the place where PW1 caught the accused person and he did not prepare rough sketch and this case is foisted against the accused for statistical purpose and liquor bottles are planted for the purpose of this case and no property was seized from the possession of accused.

15)After careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 and PW2 and material on record, it reveals that there are no independent mediators to prove the seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of the accused. It is admitted by P.W.1 that the scene of offence is busy locality surrounded by residential houses. However, P.W.1 did not try to secure any mediators at the time of seizure of the property. , which clearly shows that no sincere or best efforts were made by P.W.1 to secure any independent mediators at the time of seizure of property. It is the testimony of PW1 that though they tried to secure mediators, no person came forward to act as mediators. The explanation stated by P.W.1 for not securing independent mediators is not 7 acceptable as there is no mention in Ex.P-1 about the names of the persons to whom they requested to act as mediators and further no notices were issued to any person by PW1 requesting them to act as mediators. When there are no independent mediators to the seizure of property, though the scene of offence is a busy locality, the prosecution theory of seizing the property from the possession of the accused has to be looked with suspicion and failure to seize the contraband in presence of independent mediators is certainly fatal to case of prosecution. The said proposition of law was laid down by our Hon'ble High Court of A.P in Yeduru Srinivasa Reddy Vs.

State of A.P., reported in 2002 (1) ALD (Crl) 347, wherein it was held that, “when no mediators were examined, though search conducted in a

busy locality, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be

sustained”. In the absence of independent mediator, the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused becomes doubtful and it is not safe to come to a conclusion that the contraband was in possession of the accused.

18)It is the testimony of P.W.1 that accused confessed before him that he purchased the liquor bottles in Government retail wine shop and taking same sell at higher rates. P.W.1 is a Police Official and confession to

P.W.1 is inadmissible in evidence as it is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence

Act, 1872. P.W.1 is the complainant/informant and PW2 is the investigating officer. Except the testimonies of P.W.1 and 2, there is no other evidence to corroborate the case of prosecution. It is unsafe to rely on the testimony of 8

P.W.1 and 2 who are no other than the Police Officers who acted as complainant/informant and investigating officer in this case and who are naturally interested in getting conviction to accused, therefore, the testimony of PW1 and PW2 cannot gain any advantage to prove that the accused was found in possession of the alleged contraband and that accused had committed the alleged offence. In the light of above discussion and in view of the above discrepancies pointed out, this court is of considered view that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt for the alleged offence punishable

U/sec. 34 (A) AP Excise Act & Amendment Act No. 17 of 2020 and thereby, accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

19)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section U/sec. 34 (A) AP Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure for the said offence. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stands canceled after expiry of six months as contemplated under Section 437(A)of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 29th day of December,

2023.

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Araku 9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

P.W. 1G.Dasi P.W.2A.Ganapathi Babu

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex. P1Occurrence report Ex. P2Original FIR in Crime No.204/2021 of SEB,Araku EX.P3Letter of advice EX.P4Chemical analysis report

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

M.O.1Sample bottle contained unexpended portion of ADANS supreme blend superior whisky of each 180ml

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Araku 10

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE COURT OF Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Araku

C.C.No. 204/2021

1)Date of Offence : 26.07.2021

2)Date of Complaint : 26.07.2021

3)Date of Apprehension of accused: 26.07.2021

4)Date of Commencement of Trial: 03.07.2023

5)Date of Close of Trial: 01.12.2023

6)Date of Judgment: 22.12.2023

7)Complainant: State rep. by the Enforcement Sub- Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau. Araku

8)Name of the accused: Balorda Badesh S/o Balanna(L) , aged 38 years, C/o ST Valmiki, R/o Sarabhaguda village, Araku valley mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

9)Offences: U/sec. 34 (A) AP Excise Act & Amendment Act No. 17 of 2020 in Cr.No. 204/2021 of SEB,Araku.

10)Plea of accused: NOT GUILTY

11)Finding: NOT GUILTY

12)Result:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section U/sec. 34 (A) AP Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stands canceled after expiry of six months as contemplated under Section 437(A)of Cr.P.C.

13)Explanation for delay: The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution. No witness is retained beyond three days.

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Araku.