Kum Mellam Reshma

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, NANDIGAMA

Present: Smt.M.Reshma,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama

Firday, this the 28th day of February, 2025.

Calendar Case No. 138 of 2019

BETWEEN:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigama Police Station, NTR District. …. Complainant A N D 1.Jayana Rama Govind S/o Venkateswara Rao (late), 43 years, C/Vysya, R/o Nandigama town and mandal. 2.Jayana Kavitha, W/o Rama Govind, 40 years, 40 years, C/Vysya, R/o Nandigama town and mandal.

....Accused.

This case came up before me on 25.02.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Smt.V.L.V.Hima Bindu for the Complainant and Sri B.Ramakrishna, Learned Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigama Police station filed the charge sheet in Crime number 281 of 2018 against the accused for the offences punishable under section 448, 427, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian penal code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

A1 is the younger son of PW.1/ J. Nagaraja Kumari and A2 is the wife of A1. In the year 2014 during the lifetime of the husband of PW.1, their properties were partitioned among them. The shop which is situated at the old market in the old building in Dr.No. 16-19 is mutated in the name of PW.1 by her husband. On 27.09.2018 A1 and A2 destroyed the lock of the said shop and threw all the objects in the shop by replacing them with their materials though there is an injunction order from the Hon’ble Court.

The said shop was given on rent to PW.5/ Javvaji Prabhakara Rao. Again on 28.09.2018 at 17.00 hours A1 and A2 trespassed into the house of PW1 and threatened her with dire consequences to transfer the properties in their name. Hence, PW.1 gave a report to the police.

Based on the report of LW.1, LW.9/ P.V.S.S.N.Suresh, Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No 281 of 2018 for the offences punishable under sections 448, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, and investigated into. During the course of the investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. On 16.10.2018 LW.9 issued notices u/s. 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3. This court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under section 448, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused. On the appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short the Cr.P.C).

4. The Accused were examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable u/s. 448, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and the accusation leveled in the charge sheet is read over, and explained to the accused in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked

Ex.P1 to P9. The evidence of LW.3/ D.Siva Sankara Rao was given up by the prosecution as he died. The prosecution evidence is reported closed.

6. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them, for which they denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is : Whether the prosecution is

able to establish the guilt of the A1 and A2 for the offenced

punishable U/s. 448, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?

POINT:

9. The case of the prosecution is on 27.09.2018 A1 and A2 destroyed the lock of the shop of PW1 and threw all the objects in the shop by replacing them with their materials though there is an injunction order from the Hon’ble Court. The said shop was given on rent to PW.5/ Javvaji

Prabhakara Rao. Again on 28.09.2018 at 17.00 hours A1 and A2 trespassed into the house of PW1 and threatened her with dire consequences to transfer the properties in their name.

10. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Eight witnesses viz; PW1/ J.Nagaraja Kumari is the defacto complainant. Pws.2 to 7/ J.Naga Venkata Satish, K.Satyanarayana,

V.Srinivasa Rao, J.Prabhakara Rao, Shaik Gani and G.Srinivasa Rao are the eye witnesses. PW.8/ P.V.S.S.N.Suresh, S.I. of Police, Nandigama police station is the Investigating officer.

11. The prosecution relies upon the following documents. Ex.P1/

Report, Ex.P2 to Ex.P7/ 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW.2 to PW.7 respectively, Ex.P8 is FIR and Ex.P9 is Rough sketch

12. Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused.

13. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, relying on the depositions of PW.1 to 8 and Exhibits Ex.P1 to P9, vehemently argues that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14. PW1 is the defacto-complainant. She deposed that A1 is her younger son and A2 is the wife of A1. In the year 2014 during the lifetime of her husband, their properties were partitioned among them, the shop which is situated at the old market in the old building in D.No.16-19 in the name of her husband is mutated in her name. It is further the evidence of

PW1 that on 27.09.2018 A1 and A2 destroyed the lock of the shop and threw all the objects in the shop by replacing them with their materials. She further deposed that the shop was given on rent to PW.5. She further deposed that A1 and A2 destroyed even though there is an injunction order from the Hon’ble Court and again on 25.8.2018 A1 and A2 trespassed into the house of PW1 and threatened her with dire consequences to transfer the properties on their name. PW1 lodged report/

Ex.P1 to the police.

15. PW.2/J.Naga Venkata Satish is the elder son of PW.1, turned hostile and resiled from his earlier statement. During his cross-examination he admitted that he used to live along with PW1 at the time of institution of this case and further stated that he is residing separately along with his wife. But he did not state anything about the case.

16. PW.3/K.Satyanarayana, PW.4/V.Srinivasa Rao, PW.5/J.Prabhakara

Rao, PW.6/Sk.Gani and PW.7/ G.Srinivasa Rao who are the eye witnesses deposed that they do not know anything about the case. They turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor sought permission from the Court to declare Pws.2 to 7.

After obtaining permission, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor asked questions to them in the nature of cross-examination but, they have denied the suggestions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and denied the version of the prosecution. Nothing could be culled out from the cross- examination of PWs 2 to 7. Subsequently the statements of the Pws.2 to 7

before the police are marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P7 respectively.

17. The evidence of Investigating officer/ PW.8 PVSSN Suresh, S.I.

of Policeis as follows:

On 28.09.2018 at 17.00 hours he received a report from PW.1, basing on it, he registered it as a case in Cr.No. 281/ 2018 U/s. 448, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC, issued FIR to all the concerned, Ex.P8 is FIR, he examined and recorded the statements of PW.1 and PW.2 in Police station, visited the scene of offence situated at Old vegetable market,

Nandigama prepared Rough sketch/ Ex.P9, examined Pws. 3 to 6 and

LW.3/D.Siva Sankara Rao and recorded their statements, issued Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C. notices to the accused and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

18. To prove the case, the prosecution should prove that the accused

A1 and A2 entered into the premises of PW1 with an intention to intimidate, insult or annoy PW1. The prosecution should also prove that the accused destroyed or brought a change in the property of PW1, which diminished the value of the property of PW1 with an intention to cause wrongful loss to

PW1. The prosecution should also prove that the accused threatened

PW1, thereby causing alarm to the victim to perform any act that she was not legally bound to do.

19. PW1 deposed that on 27-9-2018 A1 and A2 destroyed the lock of the shop and threw all the objects in the shop by replacing them with their materials. A1 is the son of PW1 and A2 is her daughter-in-law.

According to the testimony of PW1, she was not present at the time when the alleged acts were done by the accused. She stated that she went to

Vijayawada and after coming to know about the incident she returned.

During her cross-examination, she admitted that she received show-cause notices from municipal authorities regarding the affidavit given by PW1, and also for the cancellation of house tax receipts. During her cross- examination, she also admitted that she filed a civil suit against A1, and the same was dismissed, she further admitted that A1 filed a civil suit on the file of the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions court, Khammam on their entire properties in OS number 145/18 and the disputed property i.e the shop in which the alleged incident is said to have happened in this case is shown as item number two in that suit.

20. Admittedly there are property disputes between PW1 and the family of accused no. 1 and 2. The property is said to have given on lease to PW5 but he did not depose anything about the lease and turned hostile.

In her cross-examination PW1 stated that she does not know whether

PW5 was present during the alleged incident. This gives rise to doubt in the mind of the court regarding the presence of A1 and A2 at the time of the alleged incident.,

21. Upon perusal of the record, it is clear that the alleged incident took place on 27.9.2018 at 11 AM, and the report was lodged by PW1 on 28.9.2018 at 5 PM against A1 and A2. PW1 failed to explain the reasons for the delay in lodging the report to the police against accused no. 1 and

2. Therefore, it appears that after due deliberation and consultations, PW1 lodged a report against the accused.

22. Admittedly the entire case revolves around the property issues between the family of PW1 and Accused no. 1 and 2. The evidence of

PW1 is not trustworthy and is not convincing the court. There are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident to believe the version of PW1. As there are family disputes between the families of PW1 and the family of the accused, there is every possibility of foisting a false case against the accused for the property.

23. The prosecution could not prove that PW1 was in possession of the property and that the accused entered into such property or remained unlawfully with an intention to commit an offence. Further PW1 herself admitted in her cross-examination that there are civil disputes on the file of the Hon’ble principal district and sessions, judge, Khammam. To support the version of the PW1 no document has been filed by the prosecution to show that PW1 was in possession of the property. Hence, the prosecution could not prove the offence against the accused under section 448 of IPC.

PW1 deposed that the accused A1 and A2 caused damage to the property of PW1 but she did not depose anything about the change caused by them to the property which diminished the value of the property. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed as to when and how the accused trespassed and who was intimidated or annoyed by the acts of the accused. Hence, the prosecution could not prove the offence against the accused under section 427 of IPC.

24. PW1 deposed that the accused threatened PW1 with dire consequences. But there is no whisper concerning the intention to cause the victim of the offence to perform any act that she was not legally bound to do. Mere uttering the words without causing alarm or compelling doing or obtaining some act does not fulfill the ingredients of section 506 of IPC. Hence, the prosecution could not prove the offence against the accused under section 506 of IPC.

25. In his cross-examination PW7 admitted that he did not mention the delay of 30 hours in column no.8 of FIR. He further admitted that he did not collect any material objects and did not take any photographs at the scene of offence. In this case to prove the destruction and damage this court finds that the photographs of the scene of offence play a vital role.

The testimony of the mediator for the scene observation is also important to ascertain the actual damage cost to the property. In the present case on hand, there is no such evidence to corroborate and to support the version of PW1 and PW7. PW7 failed to procure any mediator in this case.

Moreover, PW7 admitted that he did not examine anyone who are shown in the rough sketch except PW3 who has turned hostile. None of the eyewitnesses deposed anything about the alleged incident. It shows the lacunae in the investigation done by PW7.

26. It is well-settled law that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and if any reasonable doubt exists the benefit shall go in favor of the accused.

27. In view of the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

28.  In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 448, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed on my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 28th day of Feburary, 2025.

Sd/- M. Reshma

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandigama

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF WITNESSES

For ProsecutionFor Defense.

PW.1 : J.Nagaraja Kumari - None - PW.2 : J.Naga Venkata Satish PW.3 : K.Satyanarayana PW.4 : V.Srinivasa Rao PW.5 : J.Prabhakara Rao PW.6 : Sk. Gani P.W.7 : G.Srinivasa Rao PW.8 : P.V.S.S.N.Suresh

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

For Prosecution.For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Report - NIL - Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C.statement of PW.2 Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C.statement of PW.3 Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C.statement of PW.4 Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.P.C.statement of PW.5 Ex.P6 : 161 Cr.P.C.statement of PW.6 Ex.P7 : 161 Cr.P.C.statement of PW.7 Ex.P8 : F.I.R. Ex.P9 : Rough sketch

Material Objects:

For Prosecution: For Defence:

NIL

Sd/- M.Reshma

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nandigama // TRUE COPY //

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nandigama

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No. 138 of 2019 on the file of

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NANDIGAMA

Date ofReport orApprehensiReleaseCommenceClose ofJudgment offence Complainton of theon bailment oftrial accused trial 27.09.1828.09.18Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice30.10.2019 20.01.2025 28.02.2025 issued to accused.

Explanation for delay and remarks:

This case was taken on file on 25.03.2019. On 11.07.2019 copies of documents were furnished to the accused. On 19.10.2019 Accused are examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. On 15.10.2024 Pw.1 was examined and Ex.P1 is marked. On 07.012025 PW.2 to Pw.6 were examined and Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 are marked. On 16.01.2025 PW.7 was examined and Ex.P7 is marked. On 20.01.2025 PW.8 was examined and Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are marked. On 29.01.2025 Accused are examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C, and defence evidence is closed. On 17.02.2025 heard final arguments. Judgment pronounced on 28.02.2025. Hence, the delay.

BETWEEN:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigama Police Station, NTR District. …. Complainant A N D 1.Jayana Rama Govind, S/o Venkateswara Rao (late), 43 years, C/Vysya, R/o Nandigama town and mandal. 2.Jayana Kavitha, W/o Rama Govind, 40 years, 40 years, C/Vysya, R/o Nandigama town and mandal.

...Accused.

Offence : U/s. 448, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC

Finding : Not guilty.

Result :- In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 448, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/- M.Reshma

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nandigama // TRUE COPY //

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nandigama

Copy submitted to: 1.The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

3. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, NANDIGAMA

Present: Smt.M.Reshma,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama

Friday, this the 28th day of February, 2025.

Calendar Case No. 39 of 2024

BETWEEN:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigama Police Station, NTR District. …. Complainant A N D

Irri Jagadeesh, S/o Ramnadh, 36 years, C/ Boya, R/o Plot No. 24, OU colony, Madhuranagar colony,

R.L. Nagar, Rampalli Uppal Mandal, Medchal. ....Accused.

This case came up before me on 17.02.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri Sk.Karimulla, Learned Counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigama Police station filed the charge sheet in crime number 539 of 2023 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian penal code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

On 01.10.2023 at 5.00 hours while the deceased Lanka Srinivasa

Rao was proceeding on his Scooty bearing No. AP 40N 4478 from

Venkatapalem village to Penuganchiprolu to make payments to the coolies, when he reached near Nandigama bypass, Chandapuram fly over, the accused who was driving his car bearing No. AP 29 CA 0018, came in a rash and negligent manner and drove the same at high speed, without blowing horn and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell down on the road and died on the spot. On knowing the same, LW.1/defacto-complainant who is the mother of the deceased by the name Lanka Chittemma rushed to the Government hospital, Nandigama and saw the dead body of the deceased.

Based on the report of LW.1, LW.12/ M.Pandu Dora, S.I. of Police registered a case in Cr.No 539 of 2023 for the offence under sections 304-

A of IPC, and investigated into. During the course of the investigation,

LW.12 visited the scene of offence and got drafted scene observation report and prepared a rough sketch, conducted inquest over the body of the deceased at Government hospital, Nandigama in the presence of panchayatdars LWs.8 and 9 and sent the body to Medical officer for post mortem, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. After receiving MVI report and P.M.report of deceased and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3. This court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC against the accused. On the appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short the Cr.P.C).

4. The Accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/s. 304-A of IPC and the accusation leveled in the charge sheet is read over, and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and marked

Ex.P1 to P9 . The evidence of Lw.4/ Lanka Ramesh, LW.5/ Lanka

Rambabu, LW.6/ Lanka Sambasiva Rao and LW.8/ Keesara Prabhakara

Rao was given up by the prosecution. The prosecution evidence is reported closed.

6. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is : Whether the prosecution is

able to establish the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable

U/s. 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9. The case of the prosecution is that On 01.10.2023 at 5.00 hours the deceased Lanka Srinivasa Rao was proceeding on his Scooty bearing

No. AP 40N 4478 from Venkatapalem village to Penuganchiprolu to make payments to the coolies, when he reached near Nandigama bypass,

Chandapuram fly over, the accused who was driving his car bearing No.

AP 29 CA 0018, came in a rash and negligent manner drove the same at high speed, without blowing horn dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell on the road and died on the spot.

On knowing the same, LW.1/defacto-complainant who is the mother of the deceased by the name Lanka Chittemma rushed to the Government hospital, Nandigama and saw the dead body of the deceased.

10. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Eight witnesses viz; PW1/ Lanka Chittemma is the defacto complainant and mother of the deceased. Pws.2 and 3/ R.Rayappa and

Gonela Tulasi are the eye witnesses. PW.4/ Ch.Murali is the brother of the deceased. PW.5/ K.Srinivasa Rao is the mediator to the Observation report. PW.6/ M.V.N. Raju is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. PW.7/

Dr.V.Swapnalatha is the doctor who issued P.M. certificate of the deceased. PW.8/ M.Pandu dora, S.I. of Police, Nandigama police station is the Investigating officer.

11. The prosecution relies upon the following documents. Ex.P1/

Report, Ex.P2/ 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2, Ex.P3/ 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW.3, Ex.P4/ Scene observation report, Ex.P5/ Inquest

Report, Ex.P6/ MVI report, Ex.P7/ P.M. report, Ex.P8/ FIR and Ex.P9/

Rough sketch.

12. Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused.

13. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, relying on the depositions of PW.1 to 8 and Exhibits Ex.P1 to P9, vehemently argues that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all the reasonable doubts.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all the reasonable doubts.

14. PW1/ L.Chittemma is the defacto-complainant and mother of the deceased. She deposed that her son died on 1.10.2023 while going on his scooty to Penuganchiprolu, when he reached Nandigama, a car hit him from behind and he died on the spot. She deposed that she could not say the car and scooty numbers and that she received information through his son’s phone from the scene of offence by some unknown person, on knowing the same she went to Government hospital, Nandigama and found the dead body of her son/deceased and she gave report/ Ex.P1.

15. During the cross-examination PW1 admitted that she does not know the contents of ex.P1 and that she does not know who drafted

Ex.P1. She further admitted that she does not know anything about this case.

16. PW.2/R.Rayappa and PW.3/Gonela Thulasi who are eye witnesses to the incident deposed that they do not know anything about this case and they turned hostile. They resiled from their earlier statements and they are marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. As such their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution case.

17. PW.4/ Ch.Murali deposed that PW.1 is his senior maternal aunt and the deceased is his brother, on 1.10.2023 at about 7.30 a.m. he received a phone call when he was at his house and received information about the accident met by the deceased, he went to the mortuary ward at

Government hospital, Nandigama and found the dead body of his brother, he know the scooter No. AP 29 CA 0018. Nothing could be elicited from his cross-examination.

18. PW.5/ K.Srinivasa Rao deposed that on 1.10.2023 at 8.00 a.m.

at request of police he along with LW.8 and 12 went to fly over bridge,

Nandigama, police prepared Ex.P4/ Scene observation report in their presence and he signed on it, at about 12.00 p.m. police conducted inquest in their presence, they the mediators came to opinion that the deceased died due to road accident, they singed on Ex.P5/ inquest report, the vehicle number of the scooty is AP 40N 4478.

19. PW.6/M.V.N.Raju, MVI deposed that on 11.10.2023 on receiving requisition from SHO, Nandigama, on 12.10.2023 he inspected the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 29CA 0018/ Motor car in the premises of

Nandigama police station and found the damages i.e. 1)Front bumper broken and 2) Bonnect bent, the said vehicle was put to road test and found breaking system is efficient and even in action, he is of the opinion that the accident was not occurred due to mechanical defects of the said vehicle. He issued Ex.P6/ MVI report.

20. PW.7/ Dr.V.Swapna Latha, CAS, Area hospital, Nandigama deposed that on 1.10.2023 she received a requisition from SHO,

Nandigama police station at about 2.25 p.m. and she conducted autopsy over the dead body of Lanka Srinivasa Rao and completed 5.00 p.m. and found the following external injuries i.e. 1) Laceration right mid parietal area 3x3 cm, 2) Abrasion right extending to upper thigh reddish in color, 3)Abrasion left knee joint and deformity present reddish in color, 4)

Fracture over left knee joint, 5) Abrasion over right schoulder extending to right elbow reddish in color, 6)Abrasion over left shoulder extending to left elbow, 7) Abrasion left knee joint posteriorly 7x10 cm reddish in color. She also found the following internal injuries: 1)Fracture of parietal bones present, 2) Brain hemorrhage present, 3)Fracture to left knee joint present, 4)Fracture to right digital present, 5)Fracture to left thigh present and 6)Fracture to left lower two rings present. She is of the opinion that the cause of death is due to head injury. Ex.P7 is P.M. certificate issued by her.

21. PW.8/ M.Pandu Dora, S.I. of Police deposed that on 1.10.2023 at 12.05 hours he received report from PW.1, basing on it, he registered it as FIR/ Ex.P8 in Cr.No. 539/2023 u/s. 304-A IPC, he examined and recorded the statement of PW.1 in police station, he visited the scene of offence at Chandapuram Fly over bridge, Nandigama, where he observed the scene and prepared Ex.P9/ rough sketch and scene observation report in the presence of PW.5, Lw.8, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, he visited GGH, Nandigama and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased , later he handed over the dead body to PW.7 for conducting autopsy, he has issued requisition to PW.6 in turn who inspected the crime vehicle, on 2.10.2023, he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.

notice to you, after receipt of Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

22. . PW1 is a hearsay witness and did not depose anything about the identity of the accused or the manner of the accident that led to the death of the deceased. Moreover, in her cross-examination she admitted that she does not know who prepared Ex.P1 and she is not aware of the contents of Ex.P1. PWs 2 and 3 who are eye witnesses of the alleged incident did not support the case of the prosecution.

23. PW4 is a hearsay witness and also the relative of PW1 and the deceased. He deposed that he does not know the manner of the accident.

He did not depose anything about the identity of the accused nor the manner of the accident. During his cross-examination PW5/mediator admitted that he came to know the incident through PW1. He further stated that the deceased was his neighbor. Nothing could be culled out from his cross-examination.

24. PW.6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident did not occur due to mechanical defects of the said vehicle. Pw.7 is the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased and issued a P.M. report.

By examination of PW6 and PW7 the prosecution is able to prove the death of the deceased and the involvement of crime vehicle. But the manner of the accident which is very crucial in a case of this nature and the identity of the accused are not proved. None of the witnesses have stated anything about the identity of the accused and his rash and negligent act for causing the death of the deceased by driving the crime vehicle. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence against him and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

25. PW.8 is the Investigating officer and deposed about the registration and investigation into the crime. He is neither the defacto complainant nor the eyewitness to the incident. PW8 in his cross- examiation admitted that he did not mention the details of identification of the accused in the chargesheet. It is well settled law that conviction can be given based on the sole testimony of Investigation Officer. But in this case on hand the evidence of PW8 is untrustworthy and inconsistent.

26. On perusal of the record there is no evidence to show that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and that the deceased died due to a rash or negligent act done by the accused. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence against him and the accused is entitled to acquittal. It is well- settled law that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and if any reasonable doubt exists the benefit shall go in favor of the accused.

27. In view of the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

28. Since the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt this Court is not inclined to award compensation.

29. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed on my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 28th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- M. Reshma

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandigama

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF WITNESSES

For ProsecutionFor Defense.

PW.1 : Lanka Chittemma - None - Pw.2 : R.Rayappa PW.3 : Gonela Tulasi PW.4 : Ch.Murali PW.5 : K.Srinivasa Rao PW.6 : M.V.N. Raju PW.7 : Dr.V.Swapnalatha PW.8 : M.Pandu dora

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

For Prosecution.For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Report - NIL - Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C.statement of PW.2 Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C.statement of PW.3 Ex.P4 : Scene Observation Report Ex.P5 : Inquest report Ex.P6 : MVI Report Ex.P7 : P.M. Report Ex.P8 : F.I.R. Ex.P9: Rough sketch

Material Objects:

For Prosecution: For Defence:

NIL

Sd/- M.Reshma

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nandigama // TRUE COPY //

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nandigama

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No. 39 of 2024 on the file of

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NANDIGAMA

Date ofReport orApprehensiReleaseCommenceClose ofJudgment offence Complainton of theon bailment oftrial accused trial 01.10.2301.10.23Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice09.09.2024 29.01.2025 28.02.2025 issued to accused.

Explanation for delay and remarks:

This case was taken on file on 19.01.2024. On 05.08.2024 copies of documents were furnished to the accused and Accused is examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. On 10.09.2024 Pw.1 to Pw.4 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked. On 13.09.2024 PW.5 was examined and Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 are marked. On 21.01.2025 PW.6 and Pw.7 were examined and Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are marked. On 29.01.2025 PW.8 was examined and Ex.P8 is marked. On 17.02.2025 Accused is examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C, and defence evidence is closed. On the same day heard arguments. Judgment pronounced on 28.02.2025. Hence, the delay.

BETWEEN:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigama Police Station, NTR District. …. Complainant A N D

Irri Jagadeesh, S/o Ramnadh, 36 years, C/ Boya, R/o Plot No. 24, OU colony, Madhuranagar colony, R.L. Nagar, Rampalli Uppal Mandal, Medchal.

...Accused.

Offence : U/s. 304-A of IPC

Finding : Not guilty.

Result :- In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/- M.Reshma

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nandigama // TRUE COPY //

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nandigama

Copy submitted to: 1.The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, NANDIGAMA

Present: Smt.M.Reshma,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Nandigama

Wednesday, dated this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

Calendar Case No. 529 of 2019

Between:

Peetla Yella Raju S/o Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu, 36 years, Business, R/o Old Bypass Road, Nandigama town and mandal. NTR District. …Complainant A N D

Yarragunta Satya Vara Prasad, S/o Venkata Rao, Hindu, 45 years, Hotel Business, R/o C/o Karri Satyam Hotel, Munagacherla village area,

Nandigama mandal,NTR District. ...Accused

This case came up before me on 21-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Sk. Karimulla, Advocate for Complainant and Sri T.V.V.S.Sarma, Advocate for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The complainant filed a complaint against the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of N.I.Act.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

On 14.02.2018 accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant for his family expenses with an interest @ 24% p.a. and executed a demand promissory note. In spite of repeated demands made by him, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 574807 on 03.07.2019 for Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff towards part payment of the said cheque drawn on State Bank of India, Nandigama branch. On the same day, the complainant presented the above-said cheque in his account in

Indian Bank of Nandigama, Nandigama branch, but the same was returned on the same day by his banker along with an endorsement memo that “Funds Insufficient”. Subsequently, on 05.07.2019 the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused to discharge the cheque amount and the accused received the said notice on 09.07.2019 and the accused did not make any payment. Hence the complaint.

3. Based on the complaint, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act. Copies of documents are furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. and the contents of the accusation, are read over and explained to him in Telugu. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the case, complainant himself was examined as PW.1, the attestor of the promissory note is examined as PW.2 and Exhibits. P1 to P6 are marked.

5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material available against him. He denied the same and reported defence evidence.

But on 29.1.25 the accused reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence reported closed.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now, the point for determination is :-

Whether the complainant is able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I.Act ?

8. POINT:

It is the case of the complainant that on 14.02.2018 accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant for his family expenses and executed a demand promissory note. On repeated demands the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 574807 on 03.07.2019 for

Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff towards part payment and the said cheque drawn on State Bank of India, Nandigama branch. On the same day, the complainant presented the above-said cheque in his account in

Indian Bank of Nandigama, but it was returned on the same day with an endorsement memo “Funds Insufficient”. Subsequently, on 05.07.2019 the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused to discharge the cheque amount and the accused received the said notice on 09.07.2019 and did not choose to make any payment. Hence the complaint.

In order to establish the offence under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act,1881 the complainant must fulfill all the essential

ingredients of the offence. The ingredients in brief are as follows:-

1)Cheque is drawn by the accused for an amount maintained by

him with a banker;

2) Such cheque is presented for payment within a period of 3

months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its

validity and it has been drawn by the drawer for discharge of any

legally enforceable debt or liability;

3) The said cheque is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or

that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank.

Besides the above elements, the following conditions must be

fulfilled. Those are :- (I) Presentation of cheque to bank within six months.

(ii) Giving a legal notice in writing within 30 days.

(iii) Failure to make payment of the said amount of money within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice.

9. To establish the offence the complainant himself was examined as

PW.1 and deposed thaton 14.02.2018 the accused had borrowed

Rs.4,00,000/- and executed a promissory note/Ex.P5 (certified copy).

On repeated demands the accused issued cheque bearing No.574807 /Ex.P1 on 03.07.2019 for Rs.3,00,000/- towards part payment, and that the said cheque was dishonoured when it was presented in Indian bank,

Nandigama. In support of his contention he filed Ex.P2/Cheque return memo dated 03.07.2019. As the cheque got dishonoured PW1 got issued legal notice/Ex.P3 to the accused on 05.07.2019 and the same was received by the accused on 9.7.2019. In support of his contention PW1 filed postal acknowledgment/Ex.P4 to prove that the accused received the legal notice. PW.1 filed certified copy of decree dated 3.11.2022/Ex.P6 passed by the Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Nandigama in favour of PW.1. This is the theory of PW1 and it is not shattered in any way in his cross-examination.

10. In order to prove his case PW.1 got examined PW.2/ Shaik

Mahaboob Jani who is the attester to the promissory note/Ex.P5. He deposed that the accused borrowed amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for his family expenses from PW.1 in his presence and executed a promissory note, one Samudrala

Satyanarayana scribed the suit promissory note at the house of PW.1 at

Nandigama. The accused has received the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from

Pw.1 and put his signature on the promissory note in their presence. Other than general denials nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of

PW.2.

11. It is apparent on the face of record that the complaint is filed within the limitation period. As such the complainant has fulfilled all the essential ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence i.e Ex.P1 to P6 and therefore presumption is in favour of the complainant.

12. This court is inclined to rely upon the following decision:-

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalamani Tex & Anr. v. P.

Balasubramanian (2021) 5 SCC 283, held that the NI Act mandates that once the signatures of an Accused on the cheque/Negotiable instrument are established then these “reverse onus” clauses become operative. Now it has to be seen whether the accused could rebut the presumption. It is well settled law that to disprove the case of the complainant the accused has to establish his case by preponderance of probabilities.

But in the current case on hand the accused did not choose to lead any defense evidence even though ample opportunities were given to him.

The accused reported no defense evidence.

13. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that during the cross- examination of PW.1, he stated that “It is true that accused came to my

house and gave Ex.P1/cheque. It is true when the cheque was issued I

have a doubt whether it will be honoured or dishonoured. It is true I had

not believed the accused at the time of issuing cheque” and further argued that since the complainant did not believe that the cheque the accused is entitled for acquittal.

14. There is no such statutory provision that the complainant shall believe the accused and the cheque issued by him. It does not matter whether the complainant believes that the cheque is going to be honoured. Belief of the complainant in the cheque issued by the accused is not an essential ingredient under section 138 of NI Act. State of mind of the complainant and his belief in the cheque issued by the accused are not necessary ingredients to acquit the accused for offence u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Admittedly the cheque is issued by the accused. Except arguing that the complainant did not believe in the cheque issued by the accused the accused did not adduce any defence to rebut the presumptions u/s. 139 and 118 of NI

Act which are in favour of the complainant.

15. As seen from Ex.P1 and Ex.P5, both contain the signatures of the accused. It is not the case of the accused that he did not issue the cheque. It is also not the case of the accused that the signature on the cheque/Ex.P1 does not belong to him. It is not the case of the accused that he did not receive the legal notice issued by the complainant. Further the accused did not issue any reply notice to the complainant. The accused failed to repay the amount. The accused did not adduce any probable evidence to shatter the case of the complainant. The accused utterly failed to rebut the presumptions in favour of the complainant. The complainant established his case with the support of PW.2 and Ex.P1 to P6 and the essential ingredients u/s. 138 of NI

Act are clearly attracted in this case and therefore accused is not entitled for acquittal.

16. For the above-mentioned reasons the accused miserably failed to rebut the presumption raised in favour of the complainant under section 118 and 139 of NI act. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the complainant is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 138 of NI act and consequently, the accused is liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of the NI act. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the Complainant.

17. In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s.

138 of N.I. Act, and he is convicted for the same u/s. 255(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed by the Stenographer, Gr.III on my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M. Reshma

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandigama.

18. Hearing on quantum of sentence:-

When the convict is questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him, the accused (convict) pleaded mercy and submitted that his wife is suffering from ill-health. Hence, prayed to take the lenient view about the quantum of sentence. Considering the nature of the offence proved against the accused and as the accused deliberately issued the Ex.P1 cheque without having sufficient amount in his account, if the accused is released under the Probation of Offenders Act, it is nothing but traverse of justice and the very object of the legislative mandate of making cheque bounce an offence will be ruined. Therefore, this court is of the view that it is not a fit case to invoke beneficial provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the accused. Thus this court is inclined to impose the sentence against him.

19. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of N.I. Act, and he is convicted for the same u/s. 255(2) Cr.P.C. and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and shall pay fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) towards compensation to PW.1 within three months from the date of this Judgment. In default of payment of compensation, accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a term of one month.

The accused did not undergo any detention. Hence he is not entitled to set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C.

Since there is no property seized no order with regard to property.

A copy of Judgment is furnished to accused at free of cost.

Accused is appraised about his right of appeal and legal aid.

Typed by the Stenographer, Gr.III on my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M. Reshma

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR:

PROSECUTION:- ACCUSED/DEFENCE:

PW.1 : P. Yella Raju - None-

Pw.2 : Sk. Mahaboon Jani

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT :-

Ex.P1 : Cheque bearing No. 574807 dt. 03.07.2019.

Ex.P2 : Cheque return memo dt. 03.07.2019.

Ex.P3 : Office copy of Legal notice dt. 05.07.2019.

Ex.P4 : Postal acknowledgment dt. 09.07.2019.

Ex.P5 : Certified copy of promissory note dt. 14.2.2018.

Ex.P6 : Certified copy of Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.70/2021 dt.

3.11.2022 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandigama.

Documents marked for Accused/ Defence :

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

--Nil--

Sd/- M. Reshma

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nandigama.

// TRUE COPY //

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nandigama.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No. 529 of 2019 on the file of

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDIGAMA

Date ofReport orApprehensiReleaseCommenceClose ofJudgment offence Complainton of theon bailment of trial trial accused 14.02.2018 14.02.2018---- 16.03.202329.01.2025 23.04.2025

Explanation for delay and remarks:

This case was taken on file on 05.09.2019. On 14.02.2020 copies of documents were furnished to the accused and Accused is examined us.251 Cr.P.C . On 16.03.2023 Chief affidavit of PW.1 was filed and Exs.P1 to P4 got marked. On 17.08.2023 Ex.P5 & Ex.P6 are marked. On 14.09.2023 PW.1 was cross examined. On 26.09.2023 PW.2 was filed his chief affidavit. On 25.09.2024 PW.2 was cross examined and reported his evidence has been closed. On 28.11.2024 Accused is examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. He denied the evidence and reported defence evidence. But the accused did not produce his evidence and on 29.01.2025 defense evidence is closed. On 21.04.2025 heard final arguments. Judgment pronounced on 23.04.2025. Hence, the delay.

BETWEEN:

Peetla Yella Raju S/o Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu, 36 years, Business, R/o Old Bypass Road, Nandigama town and mandal. NTR District. …Complainant A N D

Yarragunta Satya Vara Prasad, S/o Venkata Rao, Hindu, 45 years, Hotel Business, R/o C/o Karri Satyam Hotel, Munagacherla village area, Nandigama mandal, NTR District.

....Accused.

Offence : U/s. 138 of N.I. Act

Finding : Found Guilty.

Result : In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of N.I. Act, and he is convicted for the same u/s.

255(2) Cr.P.C. and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and shall pay fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) towards compensation to PW.1 within three months from the date of this Judgment. In default of payment of compensation, accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a term of one month.

The accused did not undergo any detention. Hence he is not entitled to set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C.

Since there is no property seized no order with regard to property.

A copy of Judgment is furnished to accused at free of cost.

Accused is appraised about his right of appeal and legal aid.

Sd/- M. Reshma

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama Nandigama // TRUE COPY //

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nandigama.

Copy submitted to: The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna,

Machilipatnam.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM-I ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

Present: Kum M .Reshma

I Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum- XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama

Wednesday, the 07th day of February, 2024.

Calendar Case No.281 of 2019

BETWEEN:

State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama Police Station, NTR District. …. Complainant

A N D

1. Jagannadham Gopi, R/o. Ashok Nagar, Nandigama Town & Mandal, NTR District (Deleted Accused)

2. Jaganadham Manoj Kumar, S/o. Ramayya, Age 26 years, R/o. Ashoknagar, Nandigama Town & Mandal, NTR District.

3. Jagannadham Nagaraju, R/o. Ashok Nagar, Nandigama Town & Mandal, NTR District (Deleted Accused)

(Case against Accused Nos.1 & 3 are deleted )

…..Accused

This case came up before me on 05.02.2024 for a final hearing in the presence of Smt Hima Bindu Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri. Md Ameen Advocate for the Accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigama Police Station has filed a charge sheet in Cr. No.95/2019 against the accused/A2 for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’).

2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows:

On 07.03.2019 in the afternoon PW.1/Berothula Gopalrao went to the function of his relative by name Jagannadham Siva. While he was eating lunch, the accused/A2 came there in a drunken state and quarelled with PW.1 due to previous disputes. On that, some elders who were present there separated them and sent them away from there. Later while Pws.1 & 6/B.Gopalarao & B.Venkateswarlu were going to the house of one U.Mallikharjuna Rao by foot to collect the money and at about 3.30 pm when they reached the Srinivasa wine shop at the by-pass the accused/A2 came out from the wine shop and quarrelled with PW.1 in a drunken state. On that PW.1 also exchanged some words with the accused/A2. On that the accused/A2 bore anger on PW.1 took a piece of iron bar and threw at PW.1.As a result he sustained a bleeding injury on his mouth. On that PW.6 and the neighbours who were present there separated them and

PW.6 informed LW.2/B.Venkaiah over the phone and LW.2 rushed to the spot and shifted PW.1 to Government Hospital, Nandigama.

On 07.03.2019 at 19.00 hours, on receipt of MLC intimation and statement of complainant PW.5/Smt. Kanaka Durga Sub-Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.

No.95/2019, for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC. During the investigation,

PW.5 visited the scene of offence, observed the scene and prepared a rough sketch.

She examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The statements of the witnesses revealed a case against the accused/A2 for the offence under section 324 of

IPC. Based on the witnesses it is revealed that the accused A1 & A3 were not present at the scene of offence nor beat PW.1 at any point in time. PW.8 deleted the accused/A1 & A3 from the list of the accused and filed a memo before the Court. On 13.03.2019 she issued a notice under section.41-A Cr.P.C to A2. PW.4/Dr.Gowtham

Babu, Medical Officer, issued a wound certificate of PW.1 opining that the injuries are simple in nature, and after completion of the investigation, PW.5 Sub-Inspector of

Police, filed a charge sheet in this case.Thus the accused A2 is liable for punishment under section 324 IPC.

3. This court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 324

IPC against the accused A2.

4. On the appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short the

Cr.P.C).

5. Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. A charge for the offence under section 324 of IPC has been framed, read over, and explained to the accused in

Telugu, for which pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked Ex.P1 to

P8.The evidence of LW.2/B.Venkaiah was closed as died. LW.4/Kakani Ramu was closed. No material objects were marked.

7. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides.

12. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused of the offence

punishable under Sections 324 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. POINT:

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of Pws.1,4 & 5 coupled with Exs.P1, P4, P5 to P7 goes to show that the accused had beaten PW.1, hence, prayed to convict the accused.

The learned counsel for the accused argued that Pws.2, 3, and 6 turned hostile and had not supported the case. There is no corroboration in the evidence of Pws.1, 4, 5 to 7. A false case has been foisted by PW.1 due to the disputes between them. There is no cogent, consistent, and trustworthy evidence to show that the accused had beaten

PW.1 and, as such prayed to acquit the accused.

To prove the offence punishable u/Sec.324 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused had voluntarily caused hurt to PW.1 by the use of a dangerous weapon

10. Coming to the evidence, P.W.1/B.Gopala Rao deposed that on 07.03.2019 in the afternoon, he went to the house of one Jagannadham Siva to attend the function. There he found the accused (A1 to A3) and picked up a quarreled with him. There the elders rescued him and pacified the matter. On the same day at 3.30 pm while he was going to the gas company, when he reached the bypass road near a wine shop the accused (A1 to A3) came there and beaten him. A2 beat with a rod on his mouth due to which he received sutures on his lower lip. A1 to A3 beat him with hands and legs. Then, he went to the Government Hospital, Nandigama and he was treated in the hospital for one day, sutured, and discharged the next day. At the hospital police recorded his statement

Ex.P1/Statement. PW.4/Dr.Goutham Babu deposed that on 07.03.2019 at 4.30 pm he examined PW.1/B.Gopala Rao and found Deep Laceratin over the lower lip(3X1 cm).

He issued Ex.P4/Wound certificate. PW.5/S.Kanaka Durga Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that on 07.03.2019 at about 5.30 pm she received hospital intimation on that she deputed HC.779 to record the statement of PW.1/B.Gopala Rao and HC.779 went to the Government Hospital, Nandigama recorded the statement of PW.1/ Ex.P1, and handed over the same to her. Based on it , registered a case in Cr. No.95/2019 for the offence punishable Under section 324 r/w.34 IPC issued Ex.P6/First information report. Immediately, she visited the government hospital, Nandigama where she examined PW.1 and LW.2/B.Venkaiah and recorded their statements. On the next day i.e., 08-03-2019 she visited the scene of offence situated at Jayalakshmi Dall mill where she observed the scene and prepared Ex.P7/rough sketch and examined PW6 &

LW4/B.Venkateswarlu & Kakani Ramu, Pws.2&3/D.Venkaiah & M.Bullabbai and recorded their statements. On 13.03.2019 she issued Section.41-A CrPC notice to A2.

Based on the evidence of the witnesses, she deleted A1 & A3 in this case.

10.Pws.2, 3 &6/D.Venkaiah, M. Bullabbai, and B. Venkateswarlu deposed that they did not know anything about the case. Thus, a perusal of the above said evidence clearly shows that both the witnesses had resiled from their earlier statements recorded under Section.161 Cr.P.C statements.As such their statements under Section.161

Cr.P.C were marked as Exs.P2 , P3 and P3 respectively.

15. Thus, the evidence clearly shows that Pws.2, 3 &6/D.Venkaiah, M. Bullabbai, and B. Venkateswarlu turned hostile and did not support the case.As such their evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution. PW.5 is the investigating officer in this case and her evidence is formal in nature with regard to the investigation done by her. The evidence of PW.4 is only with regard to the fact that,he had issued the wound certificate/Ex.P6. Thus, the remaining evidence that is helpful to prove the case is of

PW.1.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 7-3-2019 A2, beat PW.1 and caused injury to his lip. As discussed above the independent witnesses did not support the case of prosecution.The evidence available for consideration is PW.1. The evidence of doctor shows Pw1 received injury on his lower lip.Whereas according to PW1 ,A2 beat on his mouth and caused sutured injury on his lower lip. But that is not so according to the evidence of doctor. As already discussed the independent witnesses did not support the version put forth by PW1. The evidence of PW1 is not getting corroboration from medical evidence and independent evidence.As per Ex P1 statement ,PW1 gave report against three persons.But the evidence of PW.5/S.Kanaka Durga Sub-Inspector of

Police,shows that based on the evidence of the witnesses, she deleted A1 & A3 in this case. Thus the material on record shows that the testimony of PW1 is not consistent and trustworthy. PW.5 also did not seize the crime weapon.The evidence of PW1 is not cogent, consistent and trustworthy.As such this court is of the view that the prosecution is not able to prove that the accused had committed the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt.

13. It is well-settled law that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and if any reasonable doubt exists, the benefit shall go in favour of the accused.

14. In view of the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

15. In the result, Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. As no property was seized and produced before this Court, no property order could be passed.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, Gr.III, corrected by me and

pronounced in the open court, this the 07 th day of February, 2024.

Sd/-M.Reshma

I Additional Junior Civil Judge CUM-I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class -CUM-XIV Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Nandigama

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF WITNESSES

For Prosecution For Defence.

PW1 : B.Gopala Rao - None -

PW2 : D.Venkaiah

PW3 : M.Bullabbai

PW4 : Dr.Goutham Babu

PW5 : .S.Kanaka Durga

PW6 : B.Venkateswarlu

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

For Prosecution. For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Statement of P.W1 Nil

Ex.P2 : Sec.161 CrP.C Statement of PW.2

Ex.P3 : Sec.161 CrP.C Statement of PW.3

Ex.P4 : Wound Certificate of PW.1

Ex.P5 : Hospital Intimation

Ex.P6 : FIR

Ex.P7 : Rough Sketch

Ex.P8 : Sec.161 CrP.C Statement of PW.6

Material Objects:

--NIL--

Sd/- M.Reshma

I Additional Junior Civil Judge CUM-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class -CUM-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama //TRUE COPY//

I Additional Junior Civil Judge CUM-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class -CUM XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No.281 of 2019 on the file of

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM-I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

NANDIGAMA

Date ofReport orApprehensionRelease onCommenceClose of trialJudgment offenceof the accusedbail Complaintment of trial 07.03.2019 07.03.2019--- 22.06.2023 24.01.2024 07.02.2024

Explanation for Delay :

This case was taken on file on 04.06.2019. On 03.10.2019 copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section.207 Cr.P.C. On 11.10.2019, accused were examined under section. 239 Cr.P.C and charge under section 324 of IPC was framed against him. PWs.1 to 6 are examined and Exs.P1 to P8 got marked. On 24.01.2024, accused is examined under section.313 Cr.P.C. He denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence. Heard the arguments on 05.02.2024. Judgment pronounced on 07.02.2024. Hence, the delay is explained accordingly.

Judgment in C.C.No:281 of 2019 on the file of

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM-I ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

BETWEEN:

State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama Police Station, NTR District. …. Complainant

A N D

1. Jagannadham Gopi, R/o. Ashok Nagar, Nandigama Town & Mandal, NTR District (Deleted Accused)

2. Jaganadham Manoj Kumar, S/o. Ramayya, Age 26 years, R/o. Ashoknagar, Nandigama Town & Mandal, NTR District.

3. Jagannadham Nagaraju, R/o. Ashok Nagar, Nandigama Town & Mandal, NTR District (Deleted Accused)

(Case against Accused Nos.1 & 3 are deleted ) …..Accused

Offence : Under Section. 324 IPC

Finding : Not found Guilty.

Result : In the result, Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. As no property was seized and produced before this Court, no property order could be passed.Sd/-M.Reshma

I Additional Junior Civil Judge CUM-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class -CUM-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama

Copy submitted to:

1.The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Dis No. Dt.

//TRUE COPY//

I Additional Junior Civil Judge CUM-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class -CUM XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, NANDIGAMA

Present: Smt.M.Reshma,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Nandigama

Friday, this the 28th day of February, 2025.

Calendar Case No. 330 of 2024

BETWEEN:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandarlapadu Police Station, NTR District. …. Complainant A N D

1. Nandigam Narendra, S/o Sambasiva Rao, 37 years, C/ Kamma, R/o Chamarru village, Achampet mandal.

2. Shaik Pulla Saheb, S/o Saida Saheb, 42 years, C/ Muslim, R/o Chandarlapadu village and mandal.

....Accused.

This case came up before me on 27.02.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Ch.Ravi Kumar, Learned Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of police, Chandarlapadu Police Station has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime Number 73 / 2024 for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of AP Excise act, 1968.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

On 20.03.2024 at 8.00 p.m. on Patempadu road, Chandarlapadu village and mandal, LW.3/ P.V.Krishna Rao, A.S.I. of Police along with his staff Lws. 1 and 2 / PC- 4085 and HG- 381 found the Accused coming with plastic covers possessing liquor bottles. On seeing the department officials, they tried to escape. But LW.3 along with his staff apprehended the accused and on enquiry, they gave their particulars, on verification they found 26 bottles of British Empire 650ml and 8 bottles of Old Tavern whisky 180ml in the possession of Accused and he seized the said material under cover of occurrence report and arrested the accused.

3. Based on the occurrence report, LW.3/ P.V.Krishna Rao, Asst.

Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No. 73 / 2024. He visited the police station along with the accused, seized property and submitted the copies of FIRs to all the concerned and examined LWs.1 and 2, and recorded their detailed statements in the case diary part II. Following

Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar guidelines, the Asst.Sub-Inspector of

Police issued Section.41-A of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred to as Cr.P.C) notice to Accused and instructed them to attend

before the Station House Officer, Nandigama Police Station whenever their

presence is required.

4. During the course of the investigation, LW4 / M.Durga

Maheswara Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police forwarded sample Nos. 16764 and 16765 to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, obtained an analysis report where the analyst found the samples of British Empire 650ml and

Old Tavern whisky 180ml are to be Indian made liquor and the beer and filed it as C.E. No. 1260 / 2024.

5. This Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and summons were issued to them. On their appearance copies were furnished to them under section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused are examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. This Court has framed charge for the offence under section 34 (a) of AP Excise Act and the substance of the accusation is read over and explained to them in

Telugu. Having understood the same, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.V.Krishna Rao, Sub Inspector of Police / LW.3 as PW.1.

Exhibits P1 to P4 / Occurrence report, FIR, Letter of Advice and Analysis report respectively and M.Os.1 and 2/ Sample bottles of British Empire 650ml and Old Tavern whisky 180ml got marked through him. The evidence of Lws. 1 and 2 / PC- 4085 and HG- 381 was given up by the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor. Thereafter, prosecution reported no further evidence. A1 and A2 are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence available against them for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the arguments of the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned defence Counsel.

8. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

Accused A1 and A2 for the offence under section 34(a) of the AP

Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. POINT:

It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.03.2024 at 8.00 p.m. on

Patempadu road, Chandarlapadu village and mandal, LW.3/ P.V.Krishna

Rao, A.S.I. of Police along with his staff Lws. 1 and 2 / PC- 4085 and HG- 381 , found the accused in possession of 26 bottles of British Empire 650ml and 8 bottles of Old Tavern whisky 180ml and the same were seized, arrested the accused under the cover of Occurrence report/ Ex.P1.

It is further the case of the prosecution that based on occurence report he registered a case and thus the accused are liable for the offence charged with.

10. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined PW.1/ P.V.Krishna Rao, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police and through him Exhibits P1 to P4 / Occurrence report, FIR, Letter of Advice and Analysis report respectively and M.Os.1 and 2/ Sample bottles of

British Empire 650ml and Old Tavern whisky 180ml are marked.

11. PW.1/ P.V.Krishna Rao, A.S.I. of Police deposed as follows:-

On 20.03.2024 at 8.00 p.m. on receipt of credible information, he along with his staff L.Ws.1 and 2 went to the Patempadu road,

Chandarlapadu village and mandal and found the accused coming by walk with plastic covers, on seeing the policemen, Accused tried to skulk away, but with the assistance of his staff, he caught hold the accused. On verification PW1 found 26 bottles of British Empire 650ml and 8 bottles of

Old Tavern whisky 180mland seized the same from the possession of

Accused, he lifted sample bottles under cover of Occurrence report /

Ex.P.1. M.Os.1 and 2 are sample bottles. Then he returned to Police station along with Ex.P1, contraband and the accused and registered a case in Cr.No. 73 / 2024 for the offence punishable U/s.34-A of AP. Excise

Act under Ex.P2/ FIR. He sent the original FIR to Court and copies to all concerned. He issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused. Later LW.4/

M.Durga Maheswara Rao, S.I. of Police sent the sample bottles to

Forensic Laboratory, Kakinada under Letter of Advice/ Ex.P3 and he received Ex.P4/ Analysis report opining that the contraband is Indian

Made liquor. After receiving Ex.P4 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

12. In the present case, it is very evident and apparent from the record that no mediators were procured by investigation officer/ PW.1/

P.V.Krishna Rao, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police/PW.1 even though the scene of offence is a busy locality. On perusal of the record the remaining witnesses who are not examined by the prosecution are also police personnels. It is relevant to note section 100(4) of Cr.P.C according to

which while conducting search the investigating officer shall call

upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the

locality in which the search is situated to act as witnesses to the

search and if local inhabitants are not available efforts has to be

made to call upon inhabitants from other locality to act as witnesses

by passing an order in writing. But PW.1 failed to pass written orders to the local inhabitants or the nearby inhabitants as the case may be to act as witnesses.

According to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in Yedduri Sreenivasulu vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2002 (1)

ALD Cri 347 wherein while dealing with the application of section 100(4)

Cr.P.C it has been held that nonpassing of written order to procure presence of a witness makes the entire search conducted by the prosecution invalid. Clearly, there are no such written orders passed by

PW.1 in the present case to secure presence of witness to search which is fatal to the case of prosecution. PW.1 had failed to give satisfactory reasons for not securing the mediators which is fatal to its case. The prosecution did not choose to examine any other witnesses other than

PW1.

Moreover, PW1 did not issue any order in writing to anyone to act as mediators. Even though there are signatures of the accused on occurrence report, according to Sec. 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is

established principle that the self-incriminating material or

confession made by the accused before the police is inadmissible in

nature. Further a conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses as held by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Botcha Raju VS State

Rep. By the Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle 1994 (2)

ALT (Crl. P.69 (AP).

14. It is well-settled law the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused were in possession of the liquor and the same was seized from them.

15. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence charged under section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act,1968, and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. M.Os.1 and 2, the non- valuable property shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred.

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

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- M. Reshma

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF WITNESSES

For ProsecutionFor Defense.

PW1 : P.V. Krishna Rao - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

For Prosecution.For Defence:

Ex.P1: Occurrence Report Nil Ex.P2: FIR Ex.P3: Letter of Advice Ex.P4 : Analysis Report

Material Objects:

For Prosecution:

M.O.1 - Sample bottle of British Empire 650ml. M.O.2 - Sample bottle of Old Tavern whisky 180ml.

For Defence: NIL

Sd/- M.Reshma

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nandigama // TRUE COPY //

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nandigama

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No. 330 of 2024 on the file of

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NANDIGAMA

Date ofReport orApprehenReleaseCommenceClose ofJudgment offence Complaintsion of theon bailment oftrial accused trial 20.03.2420.03.24Issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. 24.02.2025 25.02.2025 28.02.2025 notice to accused

Explanation for delay and remarks:

This case was taken on file on 21.04.2024. On 26.07.2024 copies of documents were furnished to the accused. On 17.02.2025 accused are examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. and a charge for the offence punishable u/Sec.34(A) of AP Excise Act has been framed against them. On 25.02.2025 PW.1 has been examined and Ex.P1 to P4 and M.Os.1 and 2 got marked. On 27.02.2025 Accused are examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C, and defence evidence is closed and also heard the arguments. Judgment pronounced on 28.02.2025. Hence, the delay.

BETWEEN:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandarlapadu Police Station, NTR District. …. Complainant A N D

1. Nandigam Narendra, S/o Sambasiva Rao, 37 years, C/ Kamma, R/o Chamarru village, Achampet mandal.

2. Shaik Pulla Saheb, S/o Saida Saheb, 42 years, C/ Muslim, R/o Chandarlapadu village and mandal. …Accused.

Offence : U/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

Finding : Not guilty.

Result :- In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence charged under section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act,1968, and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. M.Os.1 and 2, the non-valuable property shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred.

Sd/- M.Reshma

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nandigama // TRUE COPY //

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nandigama

Copy submitted to: 1.The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

3. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.