M. Vijaya Rameswari

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.I CLASS MAGISTRATE BHIMAVARAM.

PRESENT : Kum.M.Vijaya Rameswari II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Tuesday, the 30th day of April, 2019.

CALENDAR CASE No.1118/2017 Between :

State – Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police,

Palakoderu P.S. ...Complainant.

And

Konisetty Venkata Ratnam @ Venkatesh @ Nagaraju @ Mahesh, S/o. Nageswara Rao, 30 yrs., Kapu, Telagamsettivarimeraka, H/o. Yarramsettivarimeraka, Narasapuram. …Accused. This case is coming before this court on 25-04-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. Gr-II for the Prosecution and of Sri

S. Nagababu, Counsel for accused and upon hearing the arguments and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The accused is arrayed before this court for the offence punishable U/Secs.379 and 411 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) in Crime

No.151/2017 of Palakoderu Police Station.

2. The prosecution case in nut-shell is that on 20.10.2017 at about 5 P.M., at the house of LW1 Pala Srinivasu, Upparagudem, Palakoderu Mandal, unknown culprits committed theft of Gold Pusthelathradu weighing about 3½ sovereigns of his wife Pala Mangamma and escaped with the booty. On his report, a case in Cr.No.151/2017 was registered by LW10/V. Venkateswara

Rao, S.I. of Police of Palakoderu P.S., u/s.379 of IPC on 27.10.2017 at 10 P.M.

and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch.

3. During the course of investigation, LW9 P. Lovaraju, SI of Police of

Kruthivennu P.S. arrested the accused on 2.11.2017 at 2 P.M., at Ambedkar

Statue Centre, Lakshmipuram and recovered stolen property in this case 2 along with other case properties under mediator reports in the presence of mediators L.W.7/Mangapudi Ramesh Babu and L.W.8/Nakka Subba Rao and produced the accused before the court for remand and informed about recovery of stolen property in this case to the SI of Police, Palakoderu P.S. On receipt of the information, LW10 filed PT warrant and produced the accused

before this court on 8.11.2017 and regularized the case. After completion of

investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.

4. This case was taken on file for the offence punishable under

U/sec.379 or 411 of IPC against accused.

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

6.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the accusation against him and the charge U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to PW5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-4 and MO.1. Learned APP has given up the evidence of other list cited witnesses and reported no further evidence.

8. After completion of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., with the incriminating material available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence evidence. Defence evidence was closed.

9. Heard Arguments.

10 Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the charge U/Sec. 379 or 411 IPC beyond

all reasonable doubt or not? ”

11. P O I N T:-

The prosecution case is that on 20.10.2017 at about 5 P.M., at the house of LW1 Pala Srinivasu, Upparagudem, Palakoderu Mandal, 3 unknown culprits committed theft of Gold Pusthelathradu weighing about 3½ sovereigns of his wife Pala Mangamma and escaped with the booty. Hence, the charge.

The prosecution has examined P.ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P.1 to

P.4 and M.O.1 in favour of prosecution. There is no oral or documentary evidence on behalf of defence.

The charge has been framed against the accused U/Sec.379 and alternatively U/sec.411 of IPC against the accused.

12. The court has framed charge against the accused U/s 379 of IPC, in order to prove the offence U/s 379 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that accused committed theft of MO.1 with dishonest intention, from the possession of PW 1 & PW 2 without their consent. PW 1 & PW 2 are material witnesses for the charge U/s 379 of IPC. PW.1 & PW.2 deposed that accused use to work in their sweet shop and he committed theft of MO.1 which was kept on the dressing table and later accused was found missing, his cell was switched off. PW. 1 lodged report and PW.1&2 deposed that they got suspect on accused. The subsequent conduct of the accused is relevant U/s 8 of

Indian Evidence Act, but that itself is not sufficient to prove of guilty of the accused U/s 379 of IPC.

13.The court also framed charges against the accused U/s 411 of

IPC. PW.3 & PW.5 are material witnesses to prove the ingredients of Sec.411 of IPC. PW.3 testified in his evidence that on 02-11-2017, at 1:30 pm the Sub- inspector of Police, Kruttivenu Police Station called him and asked him to come to Ambedkar Statue in Harijanawada, Lakshmipuram Village to act as mediator. He along with VRA N Subba Rao went to that place and Sub- inspector of police and constables were present at that time, on seeing them one person who is coming on Honda Activa scooter towards Bhimavaram tried to escape from that place. They stopped him, on enquiry conducted by the PW.5, accused revealed his identity particulars and voluntarily confessed 4 that he had committed theft of motorcycle and other thefts including the offence concerning in this case. Accused handed over two plastic boxes from the storage of dicky of the scooter. On the verification of the plastic boxes, the stolen property concerning in this case was found. The Sub-inspector of police arrested the accused ans seized the scooter and gold ornaments.

14.PW.5, the investigation officer who arrested the accused, deposed in his evidence that on 02-11-2017 at about 2 pm, he secured PW.3 & LW8 as mediators and proceed to Ambedkar Statue in Lakshmipuram

Village, and they caught hold the accused, on his interrogation accused voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence and he had possession of two plastic tins. Accused opened one plastic tin and found gold ornaments belongs to the crime of Kruttivenu Police Station and found gold sootram with chain belongs to the crime of Palakoderu PS. He recovered the same and arrested the accused, sent him to court for judicial custody.

15.During the cross-examination of PW.3, the counsel for the accused elicited that it took 1 to 1½ hours to complete the procedure. He further deposed that he did not remember the weight of the recovered gold nantaadu with sutrams. He further testified that it took two hours for seizure of stolen property. He further deposed that it took 1 to 1 ½ hours to scribe the mediator’s report.

16.During the cross-examination of PW.5, the counsel for the accused elicited that he secured the mediators and taken the assistance of his staff, they all proceeded towards the Ambedkar statue.

17.The learned APP argued that the evidence of PW.3 & PW.5 is sufficient to convict the accused. All prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution, therefore accused is liable for punishment. The learned defense counsel argued that there are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and same was elicited in their respective cross- 5 examinations, the recovery of MO.1 from the possession of accused is not believable, therefore accused may be acquitted.

18.While scrutinizing the evidence of the PW.3 & PW.5, PW.3 deposed that on 02-11-2017 at 1:30 pm, PW.5 requested him and LW.8 to come to Ambedkar Statue at Harijanawada in Lakshminarayanapuram village. They went there by that time PW.5 & constables were present. Per contra, PW.5 deposed that on 02-11-2017 at 2:00 pm, he had secured PW.3 &

LW.8 as mediators and all proceeded to Ambedkar statue at

Lakshminarayanapuram Village. PW.3 deposed that accused has handed over two plastic boxes, kept in the storage of dickey of the scooter and recovered the MO.1 from one of the plastic boxes handed over by the accused.

19.The evidence of PW.5 reveals that accused had the possession of small plastic tins and accused himself opened the one of the plastic tins in their presence and found gold sutram with chain belongs to the crime of

Palakoderu PS. The evidence of the PW.5 is totally silent that whether accused kept that two small plastic tins in the dicky of the scooter. PW.3 deposed that accused kept the MO.1 in plastic box per contra PW.5 deposed accused kept MO.1 in plastic tin, moreover, PW.4 failed to produce the either box or tin before this court along with MO.1. In the cross-examination PW.3 testified that, he does not remember the weight of the recovered gold i.e., nantaadu with sutrams. In the cross-examination of PW.5, he deposed that he had seized MO.1 weighing about 24.894 grams and the weight of lakka is 7 grams. The attested copy of mediator report Ex.P2 also reveals that lakka is weighed about 7 grams. PW.5, admitted in his cross-examination that he cannot mention the weight of the MO.1 without obtaining certificate from the appraiser. He further admitted that he did not filed the appraiser report in this case. Evidence of the PW.3 is also totally silent that whether PW.5 secured the appraiser and got measured the weight of the MO.1.

6

20.In order to prove the offence U/s 411 of IPC, the recovery of MO.1 from the possession of the accused is relevant. PW.3 deposed MO.1 was recovered from the scooter dickey of the accused but PW.5 deposed that

MO.1 straight away recovered from the possession of the accused. PW.4 failed to produce the plastic tin or box before the court along with MO.1.

PW.5 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not secure the appraiser and got measured by weighing the MO.1. PW.3 deposed that he did not remember the weight of MO.1. PW.5 surprisingly deposed in his evidence that MO.1 is weighing about 24.894 grams without got measured by the appraiser and did not certified by the appraiser. How PW.5 mentioned the weight of MO.1 without the assistance and certification of the appraiser.

Moreover, according to Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act, the recovery of MO.1 from the possession of the accused is relevant. PW.3 & PW.5 deposed contradictory versions about the recovery of MO.1 from the possession of the accused. PW.3 deposed Mo.1 was recovered from the dickey of the scooter of the accused whereas PW.5 deposed that he recovered MO.1 from the possession of the accused himself. PW.3 deposed MO.1 was kept in plastic box whereas PW.5 deposed that MO.1 was kept in plastic tin. Therefore, the recovery of MO.1 is itself is doubtful from the possession of the accused.

Hence, benefit of doubt is given to the accused.

21.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.379 of IPC or alternative charge u/s.411 of IPC and he is acquitted for the said charge in terms of Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months and thereafter shall stand cancelled as contemplated under sec.437-A Cr.PC. M.O.1 was already given to PW-1 towards interim custody shall holds good and the same is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30th day of April, 2019.

Sd/- Miss M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Bhimavaram.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE : NONE.

PW1: Pala Srinivasa Rao.

PW2: Pala Mangamma.

PW3: M. Ramesh Babu.

PW4: V. Venkateswara Rao.

PW5: P. Lova Raju.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Report given by PW1 to police.

Ex.P2: Relevant portion in the mediators report.

Ex.P3: FIR.

Ex.P4: Rough sketch.

FOR DEFENCE : NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

M.O.1 is Gold thread with suthras.

Id/- Miss M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II AJFCM

Bhimavaram 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGEMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM

CALENDAR CASE No.1118/2017

DATES OF:

1.Offence : 20-10-2017 2.Complaint : 27-10-2017 3.Apprehension of accused : 08-11-2017 4.Commencement of Trial : 16-10-2018 5.Close of Trial : 25-04-2019 6.Judgment : 30-04-2019 7.Complainant : State – Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakoderu P.S. 8.Name of the accused :

Konisetty Venkata Ratnam @ Venkatesh @ Nagaraju @ Mahesh, S/o. Nageswara Rao, 30 yrs., Kapu, Telagamsettivarimeraka, H/o. Yarramsettivarimeraka, Narasapuram.

9. Offence : U/sec.379 or 411 IPC 10.Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty 11.Finding : Found not guilty.

12.Result :

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.379 of IPC or alternative charge u/s.411 of IPC and he is acquitted for the said charge in terms of Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months and thereafter shall stand cancelled as contemplated under sec.437-A Cr.PC. M.O.1 was already given to PW-1 towards interim custody shall holds good and the same is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Miss M. Vijaya Rameswari,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhimavaram. Copy submitted to: The Hon`ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G.Dt., Eluru by way of CD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.I CLASS MAGISTRATE BHIMAVARAM.

PRESENT : Kum.M.Vijaya Rameswari II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Thursday, the 22nd day of November, 2018

CALENDAR CASE No.739/2016 (Crime No.160/2016 of Bhimavaram I Town P.S.) Between : State – Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram I Town P.S.

...Complainant

And

Pasthula Govindraju @ Raju, S/o. Nageswara Rao, 42 yrs., S. Balija, Bank Colony, Bhimavaram. …Accused

This case is coming before this court on 16.11.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. Gr-II for the Prosecution and of Sri K.V. Ramana, Advocate for accused, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-inspector of police, Bhimavaram I Town P.S., has filed the charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.354(C) and 324 of IPC in Cr.No.160/2016.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 17.6.2016 at about 9.30 A.M., at Chinnivari Street, Mutyamvanithota, Bhimavaram, the accused who is brother-in-law of LW1: Pisthula Mahalakshmi, videographed her with his camera cell, when LW1 raised objection, the accused beat her with hands and kicked with legs, dragged her into burning hearth, Kallapilli

Rajyavathi put off hearth, the accused dragged her on road and caused injuries on her left knee and beat her with grinder stone on her right foot and caused swelling injury. Having received the hospital intimation and statement of LW1 from LW8 B. Trinadha Rao, HC of Police of Bhimavaram I Town P.S.,

LW9 K. Sudhakara Reddy, SI of Police registered a case in Cr.No.160/2016 u/s.354(C), 324 and 109 of IPC on 17.6.2016 at 2.15 P.M. and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he examined the scene of offence 2 and prepared rough sketch, secured L.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their 161

Cr.P.C. statements, Later, he served 41(A) notice on the accused. After completion of investigation and after receipt of wound certificate, he laid charge sheet.

3.Basing on the material available on record, this case was taken by my predecessor for the offence punishable under U/sec. 354(C) and 324 of IPC against accused,

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are furnished as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for the accusation against him and the charge U/Sec. 354(C) and 324 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence except marked Ex.D1 contradiction in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of

PW2..

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the points for consideration:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for

the offence punishable U/Sec. 354(C) and 324 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt or not?

10. Point :-

According to prosecution case, on 17.6.2016 at about 9.30 A.M., at Chinnivari Street, Mutyamvanithota, Bhimavaram, the accused who is brother-in-law of LW1: Pisthula Mahalakshmi, videographed her with his camera cell, when LW1 raised objection, the accused beat her with hands 3 and kicked with legs, dragged her into burning hearth, Kallapilli Rajyavathi put off hearth, the accused dragged her on road and caused injuries on her left knee and beat her with grinder stone on her right foot and caused swelling injury.

11.To prove it’s case, Prosecution examined three witnesses P.Ws.1 to P.W.6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1 in favour of prosecution.

12.The testimony of PW.1 reveals that on 17-6-2016 at about 9- 30a.m. while she was having tea at the back yard of her house, she observed that accused took her photos through the door hole from his house and the same was observed by PW.2. She questioned the accused and asked for cell phone, at that time accused dragged her to four houses and thrown her towards burning hearth, somehow she escaped. She further deposed accused sat on her chest and misbehaved with her. Accused pick up the grinder stone and try to beat on her head but grinder stone fell down on her foot. She received swelling injury and she also received injury on her left knee. This incident witnessed by the witnesses and shifted her to

Government Hospital, Bhimavaram. P.Ws.2 to 5 corroborated with the evidence of P.w.1 and deposed incriminating evidence against the accused.

P.w.6, 7 are investigation officer deposed the same and filed charge sheet against the accused.

13. The charge has been framed against the accused U/Sec.354-C of

IPC. In order to prove the offence under section 354-C of I.P.C. the prosecution has to prove that the accused outraised the modesty of P.W.1 by way of watching her or capture her image while she was engaging in private act. In the instant case PW.1 deposed that accused took her photo while she was having tea. It is not the private act. Surprisingly P.w.2 deposed in his chief examination that he observed that accused videographed and captured the images of P.W.1 while she was having bath. He witnessed the same and 4 informed the same to P.W.1. She asked the cell phone of the accused. Ex.P.1 is the report of P.W.1.

14.In Ex.P.1 PW.1 mentioned that she sat in the back yard of her house and had tea, at that time accused captured her through vediographed from the hole of the door. The evidence of PW.1 and 2 are quiet contradictory on material aspects of outraising modesty of P.W.1. According to the evidence of PW.1 to 5, accused dragged the P.W.1 from her house to burning hearth and sat on her chest. But there are contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 in connection with who rescued the PW.1 from accused. The presence of P.W.3 is also doubtful. According to Ex.P.1 PW.1 mentioned her sister PW.3 came to the scene of offence after the incident and joined her in the hospital. Per contra PW.3 deposed in her evidence that she was present at the time of incident and she is direct eye witness to the incident.

15.According to the evidence of P.W.2 the ingredients of Sec.354-C of IPC are attracting but P.W.1 herself failed to depose the incriminating evidence against the accused. Moreover PW.7 the investigation officer failed to seize the cell phone of the accused to establish that accused photographed the PW.1 and captured her image while she was engaging in private act. Prosecution failed to adduce the reliable evidence to prove this fact. The evidence of P.W.1 and 2 are contradictory. Therefore prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused U/Sec.354-C of I.P.C.

16. The charge has been framed against the accused U/Sec.324 of

IPC. In order to prove the offence Sec.324 of IPC the prosecution has to prove that accused voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1 with instrument and she sustained injury. In the instant case PW.1 testified that accused pick up the grinder stone and try to beat her on her head. Somehow she escaped but grinder stolen fell down on her leg and she received swelling injury. Accused 5 dragged her by caught hold tuft of hair and she received injury on her left knee.

17. P.ws.2 to 5 are eye witnesses to the incident, P.w.2 deposed in his evidence that accused caught hold tuft of hair of P.W.1 and dragged her towards the stove to caused burns to her. LW.4 rescued PW.1. Accused hit the PW.1 towards the wall. P.w.2 tried to save her mother. Accused pick up the grinder stone and beat the PW.1 on her right foot. P.W.3 none other than the sister of P.W.1 deposed that accused fisted the PW.1 on her stomach and neighbours intervened the rescued her. Accused caused injury with grinder stone and she received injury on her leg. P.w.4 is eye witness to the incident.

She deposed, accused dragged Pw.1 and pick up the grinder stone, it fell down on the leg of the P.W.1. The male persons who came to her tiffin center rescued the P.W.1. P.w.5 is also one of the eye witnesses deposed, accused caused injury to P.W.1 with grinder stone, it fell down on her leg. P.w.2 rescued the PW.1.

18. P.w.6 received medical intimation from Government Hospital,

Bhimavaram and he went to the hospital recorded the statement of PW.1 at hospital. P.w.7 is investigation officer and investigated in this case. Ex.P.5 is material document in this case. According to the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 accused used grinder stone as an instrument to cause injury to P.W.1, which is marked as M.O.1. Ex.P.5 is wound certificate of P.w.1. The evidence of the

P.W.1 is not corroborated with Ex.P.5.

19. According to Ex.P.1, P.w.1 sustained three injuries ie., she had received small injury on her back side of her head, 2nd injury on her foot and she also received injury on her knee. But Ex.P.5 reveals P.W.1 had one injury on her left knee. According to the prosecution case accused caused injury to

PW.1 with grinder stone which was alleged to fell down on the right foot of

P.w.1 and she sustained swelling injury but that injury was not reflected in 6

Wound Certificate of PW.1. According to P.W.6 incident happened on 17-6- 2016 but wound certificate dated 12-6-2016 5 days prior to the alleged date of incident. How Wound Certificate issued 5 days prior to the date of incident. The Court has to think as an ordinary prudent man if the evidence of P.W.1 to 5 is true P.W.1 might have received injury to her right foot which was caused by the accused with grinder stone. But according to Wound

Certificate there is no injury to P.W.1 on her foot. PW1 admitted in her cross- examination that accused and herself have civil dispute. Therefore the evidence of P.W.1 to 5 are not credible and trustworthy. There benefit of doubt is given to the accused. Point is answered accordingly.

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 354 (C) and 324 of I.P.C., and he is acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C., and thereafter shall stand cancelled.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 22nd day of November, 2018.

Sd/- Miss M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1: P. Mahalakshmi.-Nil- P.W.2: P.S.S. Durga Prasad. P.W.3: J. Lakshmi. P.W.4: K. Rajavathi. P.W.5: G. Somulamma. P.W.6: B.V.R.G. Thrinadha Rao. P.W.7: K. Sudhakarareddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Statement of PW1 recorded by Police. Ex.P.2: Medical Intimation.

7

Ex.P.3: FIR. Ex.P.4: Rough Sketch. Ex.P.5: Wound certificate.

FOR DEFENCE :-

Ex.D.1: Contradictory portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Stone.

Id/- Miss M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II AJFCM

Bhimavaram.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGEMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM

CALENDER CASE NO.739/2016 DATES OF:

1.Offence : 17-06-2016 2.Complaint : 17-06-2016 3.Apprehension of accused :41(A)(1) notice served 4.Commencement of Trial : 28-11-2017 5.Close of Trial : 16-11-2018 6.Judgment : 22-11-2018 7.Complainant : State – Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram I Town P.S.

8.Name of the accused :

Pasthula Govindraju @ Raju, S/o. Nageswara Rao, 42 yrs., S. Balija, Bank Colony, Bhimavaram.

9. Offence : U/Sec.354(C) and 324 of IPC. 10.Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty. 11.Finding :Found not guilty.

12.Result:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 354(C) and 324 of I.P.C., and he is acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C., and thereafter shall stand cancelled.

Sd/- Miss M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bhimavaram.

Copy submitted to: The Hon`ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G.Dt., Eluru.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.I CLASS MAGISTRATE BHIMAVARAM.

PRESENT : Kum.M.Vijaya Rameswari II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Tuesday, the 30th day of April, 2019

CALENDAR CASE No.171/2013

Between : State – Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram II Town P.S.

...Complainant

And

1. Gogulamanda Vijay Dinad, S/o. Dharma Rao, 40 yrs., SC Mala, Madugudibba, Rayalam Village, Bhimavaram Mandal.

2. Gogulamanda Vijaya Kumari, W/o. Vijay Dinad, 38 yrs., SC Mala, Madugudibba, Rayalam Village, Bhimavaram Mandal.

3. Kumari Margha Sahayam Subramanya Bhanu Sri.

4. Kumari Margha Sayayam Subrahmanya Bharathi. (Case against A3 and A4 is separated and numbered as C.C.1161/2018) …Accused

This case is coming before this court on 16.4.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. Gr-II for the Prosecution and of Sri K.V. Ramesh, Advocate for accused 1 and 2, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-inspector of police, Bhimavaram II Town P.S., has filed the charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4 for the offences punishable

U/Sec.420 r/w.34 of IPC in Cr.No.136/2011.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that both A1 and A2 are engaged in sending the aspirants to Gulf countries through agents.

During the year 1998, A3 and A4 promoted a company in the name and style as M/s. Garuda Tours and Travels located at 105 Mallik Chambers,

Hyderguda, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad and has obtained license from the

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by Protector of Emigrants. A1 and A2 in the course of their business, secured aspirants and previously A1 was cheated by some agents and while he was struggling, he got acquaintance with A3 and

A4 and contacted them to send aspirants to abroad. Both A3 and A4 with a dishonest intention and to gain wrongfully, promised A1 that they will send 2 the aspirants abroad for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- each to arrange Visa etc.

While so, L.Ws.1 and 2 proposed to go abroad and they approached A1 and

A2 and later, A1 took Rs.50,000/- from LW1 and his passport for obtaining

VISA and later A1 informed that they arranged VISA and asked to pay

Rs.2,00,000/- and they paid the same in the bank account of Garuda Travels and also paid Rs.2,000/- to A1 account for his expenditure, they realized the said amount, but failed to arrange the Visa as A1 paid the amount to A3 and

A4, who failed to arrange the Visa and several cases has been registered against A3 and A4 and they were arrested and sent for judicial custody and hence, they closed their office. Later, on the report of LW1, a case in

Cr.No.136/2011 u/s.420 r/w.34 of IPC of Bhimavaram II Town P.S. was registered by LW6/V. Srinivasa Rao, ASI of Police on 24.5.2011 at 8.30 P.M.

and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, on 17.8.2012, A1 was surrendered before the I Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram and was taken to police custody on 19.8.2012 and was thoroughly interrogated and his confession was recorded. He disclosed about the involvement of A3 and

A4 representing M/s. Garuda Tours and Travels, Hyderabad. Later, he was released on bail. On 13.2.2012, A2 was arrested and produced before the court for remand and later, she was released on bail. On 31.8.2012, A3 and

A4 were arrested and sent to court for judicial custody and later, they were released on bail. After completion of investigation, the SI of Police laid charge sheet.

3.Basing on the material available on record, this case was taken by my predecessor for the offence punishable under U/sec.420 r/w.34 of IPC against accused,

4. On appearance of the accused 1 to 4, copies of documents are furnished as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. A1 to A4 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge

U/Sec.420 r/w.34 of IPC against them have been framed, read over and 3 explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later, as A3 and A4 were not attending before the court for several adjournments, N.B.Ws. were issued and case against them is separated and numbered as C.C.1161/2018.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused 1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for which they denied the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the points for consideration:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 and A2 for the

offence punishable U/Sec.420 r/w.34 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt or not?

10. Point :-

The brief facts of case are that A1 to A4 with common intention cheated the Pw.1 that they would provide employment in abroad. PW1 believed the words of A1, A.2 and delivered Rs.2,52,000/-. A1,A2 deposited the said amount to Garuda Travels infavour of A.3, A.4 . But all accused failed to provide Visa to Pw.1 and cheated them .

11. Prosecution examined 3 witnesses in this case. Ex.P1 to Ex.P.5 are marked. ExP.1 is report, Exs.P2 and P.3 are counterfoils, Ex.P4 is 161

Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 and Ex.P5 is FIR.

12.Pw.1 G. Srinivas deposed in his evidence that he knows all accused. In the month of March, 2010 the A1, A2 came to their house promised that they would send PW1 to Gulf countries for employment and he could get Rs.50,000/- to Rs.70,000/- salary per month. A1 and A2 asked to arrange an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and asked to pay Rs.50,000/- initially and went away. On believing the words of A1 and A2, PW1 arranged

Rs.50,000/- and went to the house of A1 and A2. PW1 further testified that 4 he paid Rs.2,00,000/- in the account of Garuda Travels by mortgaging the house of his mother on the instructions of A1 and A2 to get Visa and also paid Rs.2,000/- to A1 towards his expenditure. Later, A1 and A2 did not provide VISA and failed to give reasonable answer. PW1 placed the matter

before the elders but A1 and A2 neither sent him for Gulf for employment nor

repaid the amount paid by PW1. Finally, PW1 went to police station and lodged the report.

13. PW2 is mother of PW1 and she did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Her statement recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C. before the police is marked as Ex.P2.

14. PW3 V. Srinivasa Rao, the then ASI of Bhimavaram II Town PS deposed in his evidence that on 24-06-2011 at about 8.30 pm he recorded the statement of PW1 and registered FIR in Cr.No.136/2011 U/s.420 r/w.34

IPC and recorded the statements of witnesses. Later, he addressed a letter to

ICICI Bank, Bhimavaram for furnishing certain information and statement of

Garuda Travels Account in connection with A3 and A4. He received the same. Later, he went for training. Later, LW8 took of further investigation and A2 to A4 were arrested by him. A1 surrendered himself before the court. After completion of investigation LW8 filed charge sheet.

15. During the cross examination, counsel for the accused elicited that PW1 deposited amount in the bank account of A3 and A4. He further admitted that there is no transaction between him and A1, A2. PW1 further admitted in his cross examination that he is not interested to prosecute the

A1, A2 as he is compromised with A1 and A2 out of court. PW2 also testified in his cross examination that she compromised with the A1 and A2.

16. While appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, though PW1 deposed incriminating evidence against A1 and A2 in chief examination, he deposed contradictory version in his cross examination.

Moreover, PW1 and PW2 testified in their cross examination that they have 5 directly deposited amount in the bank account of M/s.Garuda Travels in favour of A3 and A4.

17. A3 and A4 failed to appear before the court. Court issued NBW against A3 and A4 on 08-05-2014, since it is long pending NBW and police expressed their inability to execute the NBW against A3 and A4, court split up the case against A3 and A4 and proceeded against A1 and A2.

18. The charge has been framed against A1 and A2 U/s 420 of IPC.

The essential ingredients of 420 IPC is that if any person deceiving the others fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to prove that A1 and A2 induced PW1 to PW4 either with fraudulent or dishonest intention. In order to fulfill the ingredients of Sec.420 of IPC, the property must be delivered to accused. In the instant case PW1 to PW3 deposited the amount in the account of M/s.Garuda Travels not to A1 and A2. The court also framed charge U/s.34 of IPC, but prosecution failed to prove the common intention between A1 to A4 that they had common intention to induce the PW1 to deliver the property in favour of A3 and A4. According to Sec.320 of Cr.P.C,

Sec.420 of IPC is compoundable offence, PW1 and PW2 deposed in their cross examination that they are not interested to prosecute A1 and A2 as they deposited the amount in favour of A3 and A4. Therefore benefit of doubt is given to A1 and A2. Point is answered accordingly.

19. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 r/w.34 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C., and thereafter shall stand cancelled. There is no order as to property.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 30th day of April, 2019.

Sd/- Miss M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1: G. Srinivas.-Nil-

P.W.2: G. Bangaramma.

P.W.3: V. Srinivasa Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Report given by PW1 to Police. Ex.P.2: Counter foil. Ex.P.3: Counter foil. Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P.5: FIR.

FOR DEFENCE :- NIL.

Id/- Miss M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II AJFCM

Bhimavaram.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGEMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM

CALENDER CASE NO.171/2013 DATES OF:

1.Offence : Prior to 24-05-2011 2.Complaint : 24-05-2011 3.Apprehension of accused : A1:19.8.2012; A2:13.2.2012 4.Commencement of Trial : 07-04-2014 5.Close of Trial : 24-04-2019 6.Judgment : 30-04-2019 7.Complainant : State – Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram II Town P.S.

8.Name of the accused :

1. Gogulamanda Vijay Dinad, S/o. Dharma Rao, 40 yrs., SC Mala, Madugudibba, Rayalam Village, Bhimavaram Mandal.

2. Gogulamanda Vijaya Kumari, W/o. Vijay Dinad, 38 yrs., SC Mala, Madugudibba, Rayalam Village, Bhimavaram Mandal.

3. Kumari Margha Sahayam Subramanya Bhanu Sri.

4. Kumari Margha Sayayam Subrahmanya Bharathi. (Case against A3 and A4 is separated and numbered as C.C.1161/2018)

9. Offence : U/Sec.420 r/w.34 of IPC. 10.Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

11.Finding : Found not guilty 12.Result:

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 r/w.34 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C., and thereafter shall stand cancelled. There is no order as to property.

Sd/- Miss M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bhimavaram.

Copy submitted to: The Hon`ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G.Dt., Eluru, by way of C.D.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.I CLASS MAGISTRATE BHIMAVARAM.

PRESENT : Kum.M.Vijaya Rameswari II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Friday, the 23rd day of November, 2018

CALENDAR CASE No.840/2016 (Crime No.105/2016 of Akividu P.S.) Between : State – Represented by its Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Akividu P.S.

...Complainant

And

1. Byri Anjaneyulu, S/o. Anandarao, 32 yrs., K. Velama, Railway Station Road, Akiveedu.

2. Bokka Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkanna, 58 yrs., Gowda, Jawaharpet, Akiveedu.

3. Bokka Satyavathi, W/o. Satyanarayana, 55 yrs., Gowda, Jawaharpet, Akiveedu.

4. Busi Kalyan, S/o. Anjaneyulu, 31 yrs., K. Velama, Railway Station Road, Akiveedu.

5. Doddi Padma, W/o. Apparao, 42 yrs., K. Velama, near Doragari Water Tank, Akiveedu.

6. Penki Apparao, S/o. Simhachalam, 55 yrs., T. Kapu, Sappavari Veedhi, Akiveedu.

7. Gedela Appa Rao, S/o. Atchiyya, 43 yrs., T. Kapu, Ramalayam Street, Akiveedu.

8. Kadagala Tavitinaidu, S/o. Garam Naidu, 45 yrs., T. Kapu, Santhi Nagar, Akiveedu.

9. Chandaka Suribabu, S/o. Talupulu, 45 yrs., Yadava, Jawaharpet, Akiveedu.

10. Nalla Srinu, S/o. Venkata Rao, 45 yrs., T. Kapu, Srinagar Colony, Akiveedu.

11. Penumatsa Subbaraju, S/o. Ramarao, 65 yrs., Kshatriya, Ai-Bhimavaram, Akiveedu Mandal.

12. Seelaboina Raghavulu, S/o.Somanna, 40 yrs., Kshatriya, FCI Godowns, Akiveedu.

13. Dokala Ravi, S/o. Satyanarayana, 32 yrs., K. Velama, Sivalayam Veedhi, Akiveedu.

14. Thota Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o. Raghavulu, 5 yrs., Kapu, near Rice Mill, Ajjamuru, Akiveedu Mandal. …Accused

This case is coming before this court on 13.11.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. Gr-II for the Prosecution and of Sri

Ramani Ravindra, Advocate for accused, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

The Asst. Sub-inspector of police, Akividu P.S., has filed the charge sheet against the accused 1 to 14 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.143, 341 and 188 of IPC in Cr.No.105/2016.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 2-8-2016 at about 11.30 A.M., at Potti Sriramulu Centre, Akiveedu, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and wrongfully restrained the vehicular traffic and caused obstruction to the vehicular traffic and disobey the instructions of the police. On receipt of information, LW8 A. Srinivasa Rao, ASI of Police,

Akiveedu P.S. rushed there along with his staff and explained the accused that staging Rasta-Roko on the national high way and causing obstruction to the vehicles and public is an offence and prepared occurrence report and basing on the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.105/2016 U/Sec. 143, 341 and 188 of IPC on 2.8.2016 at 12.30 P.M. and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. He served 41-A Cr.P.C. notice on the accused on 3.8.2016.

After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

3.Basing on the material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable under U/Sec. 143, 341 and 188 of IPC against accused,

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are furnished as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the accusation against them U/Sec. 143, 341 and 188 of IPC and the same is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

3

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for which they denied the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the points for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 1 to

14 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 143, 341 and 188 of IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

10. Point :-

According to prosecution case, on 2-8-2016 at about 11.30 A.M., at Potti Sriramulu Centre, Akiveedu, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and wrongfully restrained the vehicular traffic and caused obstruction to the vehicular traffic and disobey the instructions of the police.

On receipt of information, LW8 A. Srinivasa Rao, ASI of Police, Akiveedu P.S.

rushed there along with his staff and explained the accused that staging

Rasta-Roko on the national high way and causing obstruction to the vehicles and public is an offence and prepared occurrence report and basing on the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.105/2016 U/Sec. 143, 341 and 188 of

IPC on 2.8.2016 at 12.30 P.M. and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. He served 41-A Cr.P.C. notice on the accused on 3.8.2016. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

11.To prove it’s case, Prosecution examined four witnesses P.ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 in favour of prosecution.

12.At the outset, it is significant to mention that P.Ws.1 to 3, who are said to be the victims turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

4

13. According to prosecution, PWs.1 to 3 are alleged to be the eyewitnesses but they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. During the course of cross-examination, P.Ws.1 to 3 denies their statements said to have made before police as in Exs.P1 to P.3.

14. Having regard to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, which does not give incriminating evidence against accused for the charge under section 143, 341 and 188 of IPC.

15. Though Pws.4 to 6 who are police personnel and investigation officer deposed incriminating evidence against the accused, it is not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The cause of action i.e., alleged Rasta-Roko and obstruction of vehicular traffic on the highway caused by the accused is not proved as PWs.1 to 3 themselves turned hostile. It is difficult to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused when the eyewitnesses turned hostile. Accordingly, this point is answered.

16.In the result, A1 to A14 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.143, 341 and 188 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C., and thereafter shall stand cancelled.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 23rd day of November, 2018.

Sd/- Miss M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1: K. Yesu.-Nil-

P.W.2: K. Veerraju.

5

P.W.3: M. Nancharamma.

P.W.4: N.V.V. Chalapathi Rao.

P.W.5: T. Srinu.

P.W.6: A. Srinivasa Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.

Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

Ex.P.4: Occurrence report.

Ex.P.5: FIR.

Ex.P.6: Rough Sketch.

FOR DEFENCE :- NIL.

Id/- Miss M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II AJFCM

Bhimavaram 6

CALENDAR AND JUDGEMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM

CALENDER CASE NO.840/2016 DATES OF:

1.Offence : 02-08-2016 2.Complaint : 02-08-2016 3.Apprehension of accused : 41-A notice served. 4.Commencement of Trial : 04-10-2018 5.Close of Trial : 13-11-2018 6.Judgment : 23-11-2018 7.Complainant : State – Represented by the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Akiveedu P.S.

8.Name of the accused :

1. Byri Anjaneyulu, S/o. Anandarao, 32 yrs., K. Velama, Railway Station Road, Akiveedu.

2. Bokka Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkanna, 58 yrs., Gowda, Jawaharpet, Akiveedu.

3. Bokka Satyavathi, W/o. Satyanarayana, 55 yrs., Gowda, Jawaharpet, Akiveedu.

4. Busi Kalyan, S/o. Anjaneyulu, 31 yrs., K. Velama, Railway Station Road, Akiveedu.

5. Doddi Padma, W/o. Apparao, 42 yrs., K. Velama, near Doragari Water Tank, Akiveedu.

6. Penki Apparao, S/o. Simhachalam, 55 yrs., T. Kapu, Sappavari Veedhi, Akiveedu.

7. Gedela Appa Rao, S/o. Atchiyya, 43 yrs., T. Kapu, Ramalayam Street, Akiveedu.

8. Kadagala Tavitinaidu, S/o. Garam Naidu, 45 yrs., T. Kapu, Santhi Nagar, Akiveedu.

9. Chandaka Suribabu, S/o. Talupulu, 45 yrs., Yadava, Jawaharpet, Akiveedu.

10. Nalla Srinu, S/o. Venkata Rao, 45 yrs., T. Kapu, Srinagar Colony, Akiveedu.

11. Penumatsa Subbaraju, S/o. Ramarao, 65 yrs., Kshatriya, Ai-Bhimavaram, Akiveedu Mandal.

12. Seelaboina Raghavulu, S/o.Somanna, 40 yrs., Kshatriya, FCI Godowns, Akiveedu.

13. Dokala Ravi, S/o. Satyanarayana, 32 yrs., K. Velama, Sivalayam Veedhi, Akiveedu.

14. Thota Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o. Raghavulu, 5 yrs., Kapu, near Rice Mill, Ajjamuru, Akiveedu Mandal.

9. Offence : U/Sec.143, 341 and 188 of IPC 10.Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

11.Finding : Found not guilty.

7

12.Result:

In the result, A1 to A14 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.143, 341 and 188 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C., and thereafter shall stand cancelled.

Sd/- Miss M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bhimavaram.

Copy submitted to: The Hon`ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G.Dt., Eluru, by way of CD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.I CLASS MAGISTRATE BHIMAVARAM.

PRESENT : Kum.M.Vijaya Rameswari II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Friday, this the 23rd day of November, 2018

CALENDAR CASE No.775/2016 (Crime No.139/2016 of Bhimavaram II Town P.S.) Between :

State – Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police,

Bhimavaram II Town P.S. ...Complainant

And

Padatari Praveen Kumar, S/o. Sanjay, 23 yrs., Kshatriya,Gold work, near Grandhi Srinu House, Mentevarithota, Bhimavarm. (Rider of Hero Splendor Pro motorcycle bearing No.AP37 BL 1256). …Accused

This case is coming before this court on 19.11.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. Gr-II for the Prosecution and of Sri

K.V. Ramesh, Advocate for accused, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-inspector of police, Bhimavaram II Town P.S., has filed the charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.139/2016.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 22.6.2016 at about 2.30 P.M., near Spandana Hospital, J.P. Road, Bhimavaram, the accused being rider of Hero Splendor Pro motorcycle bearing No.AP37 BL 1256, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and without blowing horn, hit the pedestrian deceased Challa Nagabushanam, resulting which, the deceased received severe head injury and died while shifting to Government Hospital,

Tadepalligudem by the accused.

3. On receipt of report from LW1: Amarapu Naga Vara Prasad, VRO,

LW12 M. Ramesh Babu, CI of Bhimavaram II Town P.S. registered a case in

Cr.No.139/2016 u/s.174 Cr.P.C. on 22.6.2016 at 6 P.M., and endorsed the 2 same for investigation to LW13 B. Surendra Kumar, SI of Police. During the course of investigation, LW13 examined LW1 and recorded his 161 Cr.P.C.

statement and published the photograph of the dead body in newspaper for establishing its identity. On 23.6.2016, L.Ws.2 to 5 came to PS by identifying the dead body. On 23.6.2016, LW13 visited the scene of offence and inspected it minutely and prepared rough sketch. Later, he secured the presence of the witnesses and recorded their statements, He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. The accused was given notice under sec.41-A

Cr.P.C.

4.LW10 Dr. S. Ramanjaneyulu, CAS, Government Hospital,

Bhimavaram who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock due to head injury.

5.LW11 T. Sai Satyanarayana, Asst.MVI, inspected the crime vehicle and issued accident report, in which he opined that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle.

6.After completion of investigation and after receipt of MVI report, and PM certificate of the deceased, LW13 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec. 304-A of IPC.

7. Basing on the material available on record, this case was taken by my predecessor for the offence punishable under U/sec.304-A of IPC against the accused.

8. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are furnished as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

9. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and the accusation U/sec. 304-A of IPC against accused is read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

10. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. The learned APP has given up the remaining list cited witnesses.

11.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

12.Heard both sides.

13.Now the points for consideration:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the

offence punishable U/sec. 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt or not ?

14. Point :-

According to prosecution, on 22.6.2016 at about 2.30 P.M., near

Spandana Hospital, J.P. Road, Bhimavaram, the accused being rider of Hero

Splendor Pro motorcycle bearing No.AP37 BL 1256, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and without blowing horn, hit the pedestrian deceased

Challa Nagabushanam, resulting which, the deceased received severe head injury and died while shifting to Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem by the accused.

15.While appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses, PWs.3 and 4 who are alleged eyewitness turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. PW1 is the VRO who gave Ex.P1 report to police initially and also drafted Ex.P.2 scene observation report He neither deposed about the number of the crime vehicle nor identified the accused. PW2 is the relative of the deceased, but he came to know about the death of the deceased but nothing more.

16. Barring the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, there remains the evidence of PW5 who is an investigation officer and he deposed incriminating evidence against the accused, but he failed to connect the link between accused with 4 crime vehicle. In his evidence he deposed he served section- 41-A Cr.P.C.

notice to accused.

17.None of the prosecution witnesses deposed about the number of crime vehicle, identification of accused, how accident occurred. No eye witness supported the prosecution. Evidence of PW1 and PW2 establishes that deceased met with an accident and died. But none of the prosecution witnesses deposed how accident occurred, which vehicle involved in commission of offence and rash and negligent on the part of the accused while driving the crime vehicle.

18. A precise reading of section 304-A of Indian penal code 1860, it is learnt that to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under the said proviso stated supra, the prosecution needs to prove:

1. Involvement of crime vehicle.

2. Identification of accused.

3. Accused drove the crime vehicle at the time of occurrence.

4. He drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at the time of occurrence.

19. The prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of sec. 304-A of IPC that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner.

PWs.3 and 4 are alleged eyewitnesses to the accident, but they turned hostile. Except PW5, none of the prosecution witnesses deposed incriminating evidence against the accused.

20. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated, this court holds that the prosecution failed to place sufficient material to show that the accused caused death of deceased. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC 5 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Thus, the point is answered.

21.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C., and thereafter shall stand cancelled.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 23rd day of November, 2018.

Sd/- Miss M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1: ANV Prasad. -Nil-

P.W.2: Ch. Raghu.

P.W.3: T. Ramesh.

P.W.4: P. Rajyalakshmi.

P.W.5: B. Surendra Kumar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Report.

Ex.P.2: Scene observation report.

Ex.P.3: Inquest report.

Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4.

Ex.P.6: FIR.

Ex.P.7: Rough sketch.

Ex.P.8: Altered FIR..

Ex.P.9: PM Report.

Ex.P.10: MVI Report.

FOR DEFENCE : --Nil--. id/- Miss M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II AJFCM

Bhimavaram.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGEMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM

CALENDER CASE NO.775/2016 DATES OF: 1.Offence : 22-06-2016 2.Complaint : 22-06-2016 3.Apprehension of accused :41(A) notice served 4.Commencement of Trial : 09-08-2018 5.Close of Trial : 19-11-2018 6.Judgment : 23-11-2018 7.Complainant : State – Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram II Town P.S.

8.Name of the accused :

Padatari Praveen Kumar, S/o. Sanjay, 23 yrs., Kshatriya,Gold work, near Grandhi Srinu House, Mentevarithota, Bhimavarm. (Rider of Hero Splendor Pro motorcycle bearing No.AP37 BL 1256).

9. Offence : U/Sec.304-A of IPC. 10.Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty. 11.Finding : Found not guilty

12.Result:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C., and thereafter shall stand cancelled.

Sd/- Miss M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Bhimavaram.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru by way of CD.