Moguram Gayathri

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.26/2025 Page No.1 APGU150000332025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

NARASARAOPET.

Present:Smt. A. Salomi, I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet, FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet,

Monday, this the 20th day of April, 2025.

C.C.No.26/2025

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Rompicherla Police Station. …. Complainant

And

1. Allatipalli Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Nagireddy, Age : 50 Years, Caste : Reddy, R/o Vipparla Reddyapalem Village, Rompicherla Mandal.

2. Bijjam Venu Gopala Reddy, S/o Krishan Reddy late, Age : 44 years, Caste : Reddy, R/o Brahmanapalli Village, Vinukonda Mandal. …. Accused No.1 and 2.

This case is coming on 16-04-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate for complainant and of Sri M.P.Venkateswara Reddy, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.26/2025 Page No.2

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rompicherla Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act in Crime

No.139/2024 of Rompicherla Police station.

2. A brief resume of the case of prosecution reads thus:-

The A.1 is a residence of Reddypalem village, Rompicherla mandal. A.1 brought public distribution rice in the surrounding villages at a low price of Rs.14 from the public and took it to the rice mill of A.2 in Nekarikallu Village and sold it for Rs.20/-.

Few months ago, when A.1 told A.2 that it was difficult in transporting, he gave A.1 the vehicle bearing No.AP39 TX2564 that he had. A.1 brought vehicle to carry 40 sacks(50 KG each). On 05.10.2024 LW.5/D.Ashok, Sub-Inspector of Police, received information about the illegal stock of PDS rice, he secured LW3/Kothapalli

Narayana and LW4/Potluri Hemalatha as mediators and proceeded he along with his staff to Santhagudipadu Village, at about 6.00 am, they conducted vehicle checking by that time coming towards Santhamavuluru road from Santhagudipadu

Village stopped vehicle bearing No.AP39 TX 2564, on seeing their vehicle they stopped the vehicle from the distance and they tried to ran away, LW5 caught hold him with the help of staff found 2000 kgs of PDS rice in Ashok leyland bearing

No.AP39 TX 2564 under a cover of a Mediatornama, seized PDS rice 2000 kgs.

LW.5 has registered police proceedings as a case in Cr.No.151/2024, U/sec. 318(4)

BNS and Sec.7 of EC Act of Rompicherla PS Original FIR along with report to the

Hon’ble court copies of FIR submitted to all officers concerned. During the course

of investigation LW5 served notice u/sec.35(3) to accused No.1 and 2, examined

Lws 1 and 2 i.e.,S.Hari Krishna, J.Naganjaneyulu and recorded their statements u/sec.180 BNSS, visited the scene of offence, inspected the same and prepared a

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.26/2025 Page No.3 rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 06.10.2024 LW.5 sent a requisition to the mandal Executive Magistrate, Rompicherla for issuing suitable instructions about the seized 2000 kgs of PDS for safe custody under proper acknowledgment, after completion of investigation and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.Considering the charge sheet and material on record this court took cognizance of the offence punishable u/sec. 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and

Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act against accused No.1 and 2.

4.After appearance of accused, the copies of the documents as required

U/sec.230 BNSS were furnished to them.

5.Accused was examined under section 262 BNSS, and Charge for the offence

U/sec. 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act were framed against accused No.1 and 2, read over and explained the same in

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

6.In pursuance of the case of prosecution the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and no material objects are marked. The evidence of LW2/J.Naganjaneyulu, LW4/Potluri Hemalatha were given up by the learned Senior APP. Accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed.

7.Accused was examined u/sec.351 B.N.S.S by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.I have heard the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused No.1 and 2.

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.26/2025 Page No.4

9. Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of

accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Sec.

318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sec. 7 of Essential

Commodities Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.It is the case of prosecution that the Accused No.1 and 2 were transporting the PDS rice which is prohibited by the Government and thereby committed offence

U/Sec. 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities

Act.

11. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P4. PW1 is the Police Constable, PW2 is the VRO, who act as mediator,

PW3 is the S.I. of police, who registered the FIR and investigated this case. Ex.P1 is Mediatornama, dt.05.10.2024, Ex.P2 is First Information Report, Ex.P3 is Rough sketch, Ex.P4 is acknowledgment of handover of the PDS rice.

12. In the evidence of PW1 in his chief examination that on 05-10-2024, he followed his S.I of police LW.5 along with Home Guard/LW.2 and reached main center of High Way at Santhagudipadu Village, LW.5 got the information about the illegal stock of PDS rice, as such he secured the presence of

LW.3 and LW.4 as the mediators, at about 6.00 am they noticed one Ashok Leyland carrier auto came from the side of Santhagudipadu and proceeding towards

Addanki Road. On suspicion LW.5 stopped the vehicle and enquired the driver about the contents of the vehicle. He disclosed his identity as Allatipalli China

Srinivasareddy and he is transporting PDS rice then LW.5 inquired him in the presence of LW.3 and LW.4. Не voluntarily confessed that he procured the PDS rice from the card holds for Rs.12/- per KG with an intention to sell the same at higher price i.e., Rs.20/ kg to one Gopala Reddy at Vinukonda. On verification of the vehicle they found 40 bags of PDS rice each 50 kgs. Lw.5 arrested the

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.26/2025 Page No.5 accused, seized rice bags under cover of mediatornama after informing the reasons of arrest, Mediatornama prepared on the spot by using their Lap top and duly attested by LW.3 and LW.4 on the spot.

13.PW.2/K.Narayana, VRO, deposed in his chief examination that on 05-10- 2024, at about 6.00 am, while he was present to Karlakunta Village. The S.I. of

Rompicherla P.S., called him over phone and asked him to come to the police station, then he along with LW.4 went to the police station there LW.5 informed him that he received credible information about the illegal transport of PDS rice and requested him to act as mediator. Then he along with LW.5, and 4 other staff went to the scene of offence situated at Santhagudipadu Village. There they observed one Ashok Leyland vehicle coming from Vippariapalli, and the driver of the vehicle after looking them in the police jeep accused tried to escape, then LW.5 with the help of staff caught hold the accused. LW.5 inquired accused and he disclosed his name as Allatipalli China Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Nagireddy, further disclosed for his family necessity he purchased PDS rice for Rs.12/- from the card holders and selling the same to one Venugopala Reddy for Rs.20/- and he further disclosed that the vehicle belongs to Venugopalareddy. Then LW.5 searched the auto and found 40 bags, each bag weighing of 50kgs. Then LW.5 called Venugopalareddy over phone and asked him to come to the scene of offence. Then A2 came to the scene of offence. Then LW.5 prepared mediatornama in Lap top and he along with Lw.4 singed on it and LW.5 seized the PDS rice in his presence. Ex.P1 is the signature of

PW.2 on mediatornama. Then LW.5 along with the accused persons return back to the police station.

14. PW.3/D.Ashok, Sub-Inspector of Police in his chief examination deposed that on 05-10-2024 he received credible information at about 6.00 AM, with regard to the illegal transportation of PDS rice. Then he secured PW.2 and LW.4 as

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.26/2025 Page No.6 mediators and proceeded he along with his staff to Santhagudipadu Village,

Rompicherla Mandal, conducted vehicle checking by the time was coming towards

Santhamavuluru Road from Santhagudipadu Village bearing No.AP 39 TX 2564.

On seeing their vehicle accused stopped the vehicle from the distance and tried to escape. Then he caught hold accused persons with the help of staff and enquired accused persons separately in the presence of PW.2 and LW.4, accused persons revealed their names as Allatipalli Srinivasareddy i.e., A1 and he confessed that he is purchasing the PDS rice for Rs.12/- and the same was selling to Venugopala

Reddy i.e., A2. He found the 40 rice bags in vehicle and brought the weighing machine and weighed the rice bags the total bags 2000 kgs each bag contains 50 kgs, seized the vehicle and rice in the presence of PW.2 and LW.4, prepared the

Ex.P1 mediatornama, Dt.05.10.2024. Then he arrested the accused under Ex.P1 and returned to Police station along with accused and seized property. Basing on the Ex.P1 he registered case in Cr.No.151/2024, U/Sec. 318(4) BNS & Sec.7 of

EC. Act. He submitted Ex.P.2 original FIR Hon'ble Court and his superior officers.

Then A2 surrendered before him, on the same day he visited the scene of offence, drawn Ex.P3 rough sketch. Then he examined PW.1 and LW.2 at police station and same day issued 35(3) BNSS to A1 and A2. On 06-10-2024, he send a requisition to Tahasildar to receive the PDS rice. On 07-10-2024 he handover the PDS rice to

CSDD with Ex.P.4 acknowledgment of handover the PDS rice, after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

15. To prove its case, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW1 and

PW3, who are the police officials. PW2 being the VRO in his chief examination supported the version of Pws.1 and 3. Whereas in his cross examination he categorically admitted that at the time of incident he was working as VRO,

Reddypalem but he did not mention in mediatornama that he was working as VRO,

Reddypalem and PW2 could not say whether they mentioned exact location of the

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.26/2025 Page No.7 scene of offence in mediatornama, which creates suspicion. PW2 further admitted that he along with VRA went to the scene of offence but he did not mention the same in the mediatornama and he did not observe any documentary proof relating to the crime vehicle where the alleged PDS rice was seized by the police and further he was unable to recollect about the crime vehicle was not in the name of

Venugopalareddy and he cannot say whether the rice are packed in plastic bags or gunny bags, which clearly creates a reasonable suspicion with regard to the presence of PW2 at the time of seizure of PDS rice. If really PW2 participated in the seizure of PDS rice, as well as the rice was packed in what type of bags used by the accused, but in this case PW2 did not state the same. Hence, this court doubted the presence of PW2 on the date of alleged seizure of PDS rice as alleged by the prosecution. Even if it is believed that accused confessed and seizure of property took place in the presence of PW2 the same is not in compliance of

Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C. It is not the case of prosecution that there is no possibility to secure any persons of that locality to act as mediators. When there is possibility to secure mediators at the scene of offence, taking a mediator along with them is not in compliance to section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. the same principle was laid down by the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a decision reported in 2010 (1) ALT (Crl.)

32 (A.P.) S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor.

Wherein it was held in paragraph 15, 16 and 17 as follows:

15. Section 100(4) and (5) of Cr.P.C is as follows:

100. Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.- (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.26/2025 Page No.8 them or any of them so to do.

(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless especially summoned by it.

16. It has to be seen that the legislature in their wisdom have used the words “two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality”.

17. Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from

Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information.

When they were proceeding on information, they were right in taking mediators along with them. If in a given case the excise or police officials have to search a vehicle in a forest area or at a place where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators, then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C As referred to in the above provisions, the excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under subsection (4) of

Section 100 Cr.P.C The object of Section 100 Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.26/2025 Page No.9 genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken, but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.

16.In the instant case, it was held supra even though there is possibility to secure mediators at the scene of offence. When there is possibility of securing persons of that locality. Then Pw.3 should has made sincere efforts to secure the presence of that persons as per the principle laid down in the above decision. The fact remains that search is not conducted in the presence of independent persons of the locality. Since the search is not conducted in the presence of two or more independent witnesses and respectable inhabitants of the locality, the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated.

17.In this case, PW3 is the police Official who detected the case, registered the case and investigated the same. A person who detects the case, cannot register and investigate the same. But PW3 did so in this case. This is another lacuna in the case of prosecution.

18.In view of the above discussion this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge under 318 (4 of

BNS and Sec. 7 of E.C.Act and accused is to be acquitted.

19. Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate accused in the commission of the offence. It is well known that, the penal statue should be strictly construed and the prosecution needs to prove the alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is lacking in the present case on hand. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.26/2025 Page No.10

20.Hence, in facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the variant version on record, and latches on the part of investigation, this court hesitates to convict accused basing on evidence on record. Any amount of doubt that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be bestowed in favour of accused.

Hence, accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

21.In view of foregoing discussion, this court feels that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused.

22.In the result, and for the reasons indicated above, this court find that, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 318 (4) of BNS and Sec.7 of E.C. Act and accordingly they are acquitted under sections271(1)of BNSS. The bail bonds of accused persons and of their sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per Section 481 of BNSS. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 : S.Hari Krishna

P.W.2 : K.Narayana

P.W.3 : D.Ashok

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.26/2025 Page No.11

FOR DEFENCE:None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Mediatornama, dt.05.10.2024 Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: Rough sketch Ex.P4: Acknowledgment of handover of PDS rice

FOR DEFENCE : NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Sd/-A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.26/2025 Page No.12 APGU150000332025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

NARASARAOPET.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.No.26/2025

Date of Offence : 05.10.2024 Date of Complaint or Report : 05.10.2024 Apprehension of the accused: 41- Cr.P.C. Released on bail : -- Commencement of trial : 10.04.2026 Closure of Trial : 10.04.2026 Sentence or Order : 20.04.2026

Name of the Complainant: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Rompicherla Police Station.

Name of the accused:

1. Allatipalli Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Nagireddy, Age : 50 Years, Caste : Reddy, R/o Vipparla Reddyapalem Village, Rompicherla Mandal.

2. Bijjam Venu Gopala Reddy, S/o Krishan Reddy late, Age : 44 years, Caste : Reddy, R/o Brahmanapalli Village, Vinukonda Mandal.

Nature of offence: U/Sec 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.26/2025 Page No.13 Sec. 7 of E.C.Act. Plea of accused : Not guilty Finding : Not guilty ORDER:-In the result, and for the reasons indicated above, this court find that, A.1 and

A.2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 318 (4) of BNS and

Sec.7 of E.C. Act and accordingly they are acquitted under sections271(1)of

BNSS. The bail bonds of accused persons and of their sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per Section 481 of BNSS. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.

Explanation for delay: This case is taken on file on 23.01.2025 and accused persons appeared before this court on 22.05.2025 and copies furnished to accused

No.1 and 2, accused examined U/Sec262 BNSS, for the offence U/Sec.318 (4) of

BNS and Sec.7 of E.C. Act. This case is adjourned from 24.06.2025 to 31.10.2025 for non appearance of prosecution witnesses. Finally and from 06.11.2025 to 10.04.2026 prosecution examined Pws 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and on the same day prosecution evidence closed and on 15.04.2026 accused examined

U/Sec.351 BNSS and he denied the same and reported no evidence and on 16.04.2026 heard arguments on both sides and on 20.04.2026 Judgment

pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. Copy submitted to :-

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.22/2025 Page No.1 APGU150000292025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

NARASARAOPET.

Present:Smt. A. Salomi, I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet, FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet,

Monday, this the 20th day of April, 2025.

C.C.No.22/2025

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Rompicherla Police Station. …. Complainant

And

Allatipalli Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Nagireddy, Age : 50 Years, Caste : Reddy, R/o Vipparla Reddyapalem Village, Rompicherla Mandal. …. Accused.

This case is coming on 16-04-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate for complainant and of Sri M.P.Venkateswara Reddy, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rompicherla Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act in Crime

No.139/2024 of Rompicherla Police station.

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.22/2025 Page No.2

2. A brief resume of the case of prosecution reads thus:-

The accused is a residence of Reddypalem village, Rompicherla mandal.

Since about 2 years, the accused has been buying public distribution rice at 15 rupees in the surrounding villages and selling it at 20 rupees to the local farms and from last few days the accused bought public distribution rice from people in surrounding villages and kept them in his house. When it was 27 sacks (50 KG) the accused kept it at the verandah of his house asking them to take more and send it to the chicken farms. On 07.09.2024 LW.5/D.Ashok, Sub-Inspector of Police, received information about the illegal stock of PDS rice, he secured LW3/Pulivarthi

Suresh and LW4/Perupogu Ramalingaiah as mediators and proceeded he along with his staff to Vipparlareddypalem Village, at about 5.00 pm, they reached one old building near rice mill there they observed that accused came out of the house to take the vehicle, the accused saw them and tried run away, LW5 caught hold him with the help of staff found 27 bags of PDS rice which contains 1350 Kgs of rice under a cover of a Mediatornama, seized PDS rice 27 bags. LW.5 has registered police proceedings as a case in Cr.No.139/2024, U/sec. 318(4) BNS and Sec.7 of

EC Act of Rompicherla PS Original FIR along with report to the Hon’ble court copies of FIR submitted to all officers concerned. During the course of investigation

LW5 served notice u/sec.35(3) to accused, examined Lws 1 and 2 i.e.,

G.Ramanaiah, R.Motilala Naik and recorded their statements u/sec.180 BNSS, visited the scene of offence, inspected the same and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 09.09.2024 LW.5 sent a requisition to the mandal

Executive Magistrate, Rompicherla for issuing suitable instructions about the seized 27 bags of PDS rice i.e., 1350 of kgs for safe custody under proper acknowledgment, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.Considering the charge sheet and material on record this court took cognizance of the offence punishable u/sec. 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.22/2025 Page No.3 Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act against accused.

4.After appearance of accused, the copies of the documents as required

U/sec.230 BNSS were furnished to them.

5.Accused was examined under section 262 BNSS, and Charge for the offence U/sec. 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sec. 7 of Essential

Commodities Act were framed against accused, read over and explained the same in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In pursuance of the case of prosecution the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and no material objects are marked. The evidence of LW2/R.Motilal Naik, LW4/Perupogu Ramalingaiah were given up by the learned Senior APP. Accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed.

7.Accused was examined u/sec.351 B.N.S.S by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.I have heard the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

9. Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of

accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 318(4) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sec. 7 of Essential

Commodities Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.It is the case of prosecution that the Accused was transporting the PDS rice which is prohibited by the Government and thereby committed offence U/Sec.

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.22/2025 Page No.4 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act.

11. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P4. PW1 is the Head constable, PW2 is the independent witness, who act as mediator, PW3 is the S.I. of police, who registered the FIR and investigated this case. Ex.P1 is Mediatornama,dt.07.09.2024, Ex.P2 is First Information Report,

Ex.P3 is Rough sketch, Ex.P9 is acknowledgment, of handover of the PDS rice.

12. In the evidence of PW1 in his chief examination that on 07-09-2024 LW.5

Sub-Inspector of Police, received credible information about the illegal stock of PDS rice. Then he secured mediators LW.3 and LW4 and proceeded to

Vipparlareddypalem Village, at about 5.00 pm, they reached to one old building near rice mill which is belongs to Allatipalli Srinivasareddy, there they noticed one carrier auto parked at the said place, they went to the old building and found shifting of rice bags from inside of the room to parked vehicle. On inquiry by LW.5 the said police who are working there informed that they are working under the instructions of Allatipalli Srinivasareddy. Then LW.5 secured the presence of

Allatipalli Srinivasareddy, on enquiry accused voluntarily confessed that he procured the PDS rice from the card holders for Rs.15/- per KG with an intention to sell the same at higher price i.e., Rs.20/- kg to poultry forms. On verification they found 27 bags of PDS rice each 50 kgs. Lw.5 arrested the accused, seized rice bags under cover of mediatornama, prepared Mediatornama prepared on the spot by using their Lap top and duly attested by LW.3 and LW.4 on the spot.

13.PW.2/P.Suresh, VRO, deposed in his chief examination that on 07-09-2024, at about 4.00 pm, LW5 called him to come to the police station, then they went to the police station there LW.5 informed him that they received the credible information about PDS rice and requested him to act as mediator and he accented

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.22/2025 Page No.5 for that. Then he along with LW.5 and one mediator and two constables went to the scene of offence situated at Reddypalem, there one Allatipalli Srinivasareddy after looking them in police jeep ,he tried to escape then LW.5 with the help of staff caught hold him and asked him why you are escaping. Then he disclosed that the police came to catch him and he further disclosed he has PDS rice in his house.

Accused further disclosed he purchasing PDS rice from the card holders for Rs.15/- and selling the same for higher price, showed the PDS rice and LW.5 searched the same and found 27 bags weighing of 1350 kgs. Then LW.5 prepared to mediatornama at the scene of offence with his hands, he along with LW.4 attested on it.

14. PW.3/D.Ashok, Sub-Inspector of Police in his chief examination deposed that on 07-09-2024 he received credible information about the illegal stock of PDS rice.

Then he secured PW.2 and LW.4 as mediators and proceeded he along with his staff to Vipparlareddypalem Village, at about 5.00 P.M, they reached to one old building near rice mill which is belongs to Allatipalli Srinivasareddy. The rice bags was present in Varanda, by the time of their arrival one person tried to escape on seeing them then he caught hold him with the help of his staff and he enquired accused in the presence of PW.2 and LW.4 and he revealed his name as Allatipalli

Srinivasareddy and confessed that he is illegally stocking the PDS rice. Then he found the rice in Varanda and brought the weighing machine and weighed the rice and the total 1350 kg in 27 bags, each contain 50 kgs. Then he seized the 27 bags, prepared the mediatornama in the presence of PW.2 and LW.4. Ex.P1 is

Mediatornama, dt.07-09-2024. Then he arrested the accused under Ex.P1 and returned to Police station along with accused and seized property. Basing on Ex.P1 he registered Ex.P.2 as a case in Cr.No.139/2024, U/Sec.318(4) BNS and Sec.7 of

EC. Act, he submitted original FIR Hon'ble Court and his superior officers. On the same day he visited the scene of offence, drawn Ex.P3 Rough sketch, examined

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.22/2025 Page No.6 PW.1 and LW.2 at police station and same day he issued 35(3) BNSS to accused.

On 09-09-2024 he send a requisition to Tahasildar to receive the PDS rice, handover the PDS rice to CSDD with Ex.P4 acknowledgment of handover the PDS rice and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

15. To prove its case, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW1 and

PW3, who are the police officials. PW2 being the VRO in his chief examination supported the version of Pw’s 1 and 3. Whereas in his cross examination he categorically admitted that at the time of incident he was working as VRO,

Reddypalem but he did not mention in mediatornama that he was working as VRO,

Reddypalem and PW2 failed to explain what circumstances stopped him to write the true fact with regard to his working place in the mediatornama, which creates suspicion. PW2 further admitted that he along with VRA went to the scene of offence but he did not mention the same in the mediatornama and he did not observe any documentary proof relating to the house where the alleged PDS rice was seized by the police and further he was unable to recollect about the boundaries of the house and he cannot say whether the rice are packed in plastic bags or gunny bags, which clearly creates a reasonable suspicion with regard to the presence of PW2 at the time of seizure of PDS rice. If really PW2 participated in the seizure of PDS rice, he might have stated the house particulars as well as nearby surrounding boundaries particulars as well as the rice was packed in what type of bags used by the accused, but in this case PW2 did not state the same.

Hence, this court doubted the presence of PW2 on the date of alleged seizure of

PDS rice as alleged by the prosecution. Even if it is believed that accused confessed and seizure of property took place in the presence of PW2 the same is not in compliance of Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C. It is not the case of prosecution that there is no possibility to secure any persons of that locality to act as mediators.

When there is possibility to secure mediators at the scene of offence, taking a

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.22/2025 Page No.7 mediator along with them is not in compliance to section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. the same principle was laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a decision reported in 2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32 (A.P.) S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P.

Rep. by Public Prosecutor. Wherein it was held in paragraph 15, 16 and 17 as follows:

15. Section 100(4) and (5) of Cr.P.C is as follows:

100. Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.- (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless especially summoned by it.

16. It has to be seen that the legislature in their wisdom have used the words “two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality”.

17. Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from

Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information.

When they were proceeding on information, they were right in taking mediators along with them. If in a given case the excise or police officials have to search a vehicle in a forest area or at a place where

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.22/2025 Page No.8 there is no possibility of securing any local mediators, then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C As referred to in the above provisions, the excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under subsection (4) of

Section 100 Cr.P.C The object of Section 100 Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken, but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.

16.In the instant case, it was held supra even though there is possibility to secure mediators at the scene of offence. When there is possibility of securing persons of that locality. Then Pw.3 should has made sincere efforts to secure the presence of that persons as per the principle laid down in the above decision. The fact remains that search is not conducted in the presence of independent persons of the locality. Since the search is not conducted in the presence of two or more independent witnesses and respectable inhabitants of the locality, the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated.

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.22/2025 Page No.9

17.In this case, PW3 is the police Official who detected the case, registered the case and investigated the same. A person who detects the case, cannot register and investigate the same. But PW3 did so in this case. This is another lacuna in the case of prosecution.

18.In view of the above discussion this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge under 318(4) of

BNS and Sec. 7 of E.C.Act and accused is to be acquitted.

19. Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate accused in the commission of the offence. It is well known that, the penal statue should be strictly construed and the prosecution needs to prove the alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is lacking in the present case on hand. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

20.Hence, in facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the variant version on record, and latches on the part of investigation, this court hesitates to convict accused basing on evidence on record. Any amount of doubt that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be bestowed in favour of accused.

Hence, accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

21.In view of foregoing discussion, this court feels that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused.

22.In the result, and for the reasons indicated above, this court find that, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 318 (4) of BNS and Sec.7 of

E.C. Act and accordingly they are acquitted under sections271(1)of BNSS. The

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.22/2025 Page No.10 bail bonds of accused and of his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per Section 481 of BNSS. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 : G.Ramanaiah P.W.2 : P.Suresh P.W.3 : D.Ashok

FOR DEFENCE:None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Mediatornama, dt.07.09.2024 Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: Rough sketch Ex.P4: Acknowledgment of handover of PDS rice

FOR DEFENCE : NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Sd/-A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narasaraopet.

FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.22/2025 Page No.11 APGU150000292025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

NARASARAOPET.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.No.22/2025

Date of Offence : 07.09.2024 Date of Complaint or Report : 07.09.2025 Apprehension of the accused: 41- Cr.P.C. Released on bail : -- Commencement of trial : 06.11.2025 Closure of Trial : 10.04.2026 Sentence or Order : 20.04.2026

Name of the Complainant: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Rompicherla Police Station.

Name of the accused: Allatipalli Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Nagireddy, Age : 50 Years, Caste : Reddy, R/o Vipparla Reddyapalem Village, Rompicherla Mandal.

Nature of offence: U/Sec 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sec. 7 of E.C.Act. Plea of accused : Not guilty Finding : Not guilty ORDER:-In the result, and for the reasons indicated above, this court find that, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 318 (4) of BNS and

Sec.7 of E.C. Act and accordingly they are acquitted under sections271(1)of

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.22/2025 Page No.12 BNSS. The bail bonds of accused and of his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per Section 481 of BNSS. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.

Explanation for delay: This case is taken on file on 23.01.2025 and accused appeared before this court on 22.05.2025 and copies furnished to accused, accused examined U/Sec262 BNSS, for the offence U/Sec.318 (4) of BNS and

Sec.7 of E.C. Act. This case is adjourned from 24.06.2025 to 31.10.2025 for non appearance of prosecution witnesses. Finally and from 06.11.2025 to 10.04.2026 prosecution examined Pws 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and on the same day prosecution evidence closed and on 15.04.2026 accused examined U/Sec.351

BNSS and he denied the same and reported no evidence and on 16.04.2026 heard arguments on both sides and on 20.04.2026 Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. Copy submitted to :-

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 1 Narasaraopet. C.C.241/2025

APGU150003482025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. A. Salomi, I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet, FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet,

Wednesday, this the 15th day of April, 2026.

C.C.No.241/2025

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nekarikallu Police Station. …. Complainant

And

Bathula China Venkateswara Rao, S/o China Pitchaiah, Age : 32 years, Caste : Waddera, R/o Ambedkar Colony, R/o Gundlapalli Village, Nekarikallu Mandal, Palnadu District. Driver of Tractor bearing No.AP 37VA 9968 and Truck No.AP 39 TR 5580. …. Accused DECEASED: Kumbha Sambaiah, s/o Nagaiah, Age : 67 Years, Caste : Yerukala, R/o Gundlapalli Village, Nekarikallu Mandal, Palnadu District.

This case is coming on 09-04-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate for complainant and of Sri D.Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 2 Narasaraopet. C.C.241/2025

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nekarikallu Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Sec.304(A) I.P.C. in

Crime No.2/2024 of Nekarikallu Police station.

2. A brief resume of the case of prosecution reads thus:-

That, LW1/Kumbha Ramanjaneyulu is complainant and son of deceased.

LW1 is resident of Gundlapalli village, Nekarikallu Mandal, Palnadu District. On 31.12.2023 at 3.00 pm, while accused was driving a tractor bearing No.AP 39 VA 9968, deceased/Kumbha Sambaiah was sitting on the right side of the engine of accused tractor to collect hay from LW-1 field, as the tractor approached the bend in the road at Nemalikanti Kanthayya's house in LW-1 colony, the accused driver drove the tractor fast and carelessly, causing deceased, who was sitting on the right side of the engine, to lose control of the tractor and fall under the big tire at the back. The big tire ran over deceased waist. Deceased suffered a blood injury. Then the accused tractor driver, and LW1 relatives took deceased on a bike to LW-1 village R.M.P. Dr.Bude for treatment. RMP doctor examined deceased and said that deceased had suffered a serious injury and advised LW1 to take deceased to a big hospital in Narasaraopet. Then LW1 was taken to

Raghavendra Hospital in Narasaraopet in a private jeep. There, the doctor treated deceased and told LW1 to take deceased to NRI Hospital, Mangalagiri for better treatment. While LW1 was being taken in an ambulance, on the way to

Pedakakani, deceased passed away. The dead body was shifted to AGH,

Narasaraopet. Later LW1 lodged a report.

2.2On the report of LW1, LW13/A.Bala Krishna Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.02/2024, U/sec.304-A IPC of Nekarikallu P.S,

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 3 Narasaraopet. C.C.241/2025 submitted copies of FIR to all the concerned officers and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation on 01.01.2024 LW.13 visited the scene of offence and prepared observation report in the presence of LW8/Devalla

Venkateswarlu and LW9/Mekala Daniyel and duly attested by them and prepared rough sketch of the scene. On 01.01.2024 at held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at mortuary room, Area Government Hospital, Narasaraopet in the presence of LW8/Devalla Venkateswarlu, LW9/Mekala Daniyel and LW10/Adavi

Alli Basha and prepared detailed inquest report duly attested by LW8 to 10 and also examined LW1/Kumbha Ramanjaneyulu, LW2/Kumbha Venkayamma,

LW3/Kojja Koteswari, LW4/Kojja Vinasamma, LW5/Kojja Padma, LW6/Yekula

Venkateswarlu, LW7/Jupalli Peda Vemaiah, and recorded their detailed statements U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. Later LW14/Ch.Suresh, Sub-Inspector of

Police took up investigation on the transfer of LW13. During the course of investigation LW.14 served notice U/s 41(A) Cr. P.C. to the accused on 08.01.2024, verified the crime vehicle records bearing registration No: AP 39 VA 9968 and truck no: AP 39 TR 5580, registered in the name of accused.

LW.11/Dr.Hema Sri conducted P.M. Examination over the dead body of the deceased issued P.M. Certificate and opined that cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief Shock and Hemorrhage leading to cardiology arrest".

LW12/B.Satyanarayana issued accident report and opined that the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle, after completion of investigation

LW14 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.

304-A of IPC.

3.Considering the charge sheet and material on record this court took cognizance of the offence punishable u/sec.304-A of IPC against accused.

4.After appearance of accused, the copies of the documents as required

U/sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 were furnished to him.

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 4 Narasaraopet. C.C.241/2025

5.Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation for the offences, under section u/sec.304-A of IPC, against accused is put to him, and the same is explained in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In pursuance of the case of prosecution the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12 and no material objects are marked.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW3/Kojja

Koteswari, LW4/Kojja Vinaasamma, LW5/Kojja Padma, LW7/Jupalli Peda

Vemaiah, LW9/Mekala Daniyel, LW10/Adavi Alli Basha, LW11/Dr.N.Hema Sri,

LW12/B.Satyanarayana Prasad, LW.14/P.Suresh Sub-Inspector of Police.

Accordingly, prosecution evidence is closed.

7.Accused was examined u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.I have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for the accused.

9. Now the question that arises for the consideration is :-

i) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11 . PW1 is the Defacto complainant and son of

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 5 Narasaraopet. C.C.241/2025 deceased, PW2 is wife of deceased, PW3 is eye witness, PW4 is mediator for

Ex.P5 and P6, PW5 is Investigating Officer who investigated this case.

11.The stand of accused is total denial.

12.In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable

U/sec.304-A of IPC the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients.

13. Point:-

To bring a cause of homicide under sec.304-A of IPC, the following conditions must exist, namely;

1. That the deceased Kumbha Sambaiah died due to injuries sustained in road accident;

2. That the accused had ride the crime vehicle at the time of accident in a rash or negligent manner; and

3. That there was direct nexus and proximity between the death of deceased due to the rash or negligent riding of accused at the time of accident.

14.PW1/K.Ramanjaneyulu, in his chief examination, deposed that on 31.12.2023, his father going to field work in Tractor when reached the road by that time one vehicle hit them due to that his father lost his balance and fell from the Tractor one vehicle ran over his body. He does not enquire who did the accident. Then he went to the hospital and by the time of his arrival his father was died, villagers obtained his signature on some paper but he does not know the contents of paper Ex.P1 is signature of Pw.1 in statement. At this stage, the

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 6 Narasaraopet. C.C.241/2025 learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor declared the witness has hostile with the permission of the court, he has turned down the case of prosecution, during evidence he resailed from the contents of his sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement i.e.,

Ex.P2. Therefore, the same cannot be looked into, for appreciating the prosecution evidence as could be seen from PW1 testimony, he did not deposed any incriminating material against the accused.

15.PW2/K.Venkatayamma in his chief examination, she deposed that on 31.12.2023 her husband going to field work in Tractor when he reached road by that time one vehicle hit them due to that her husband lost his balance and fell from the tractor one vehicle ran over his body. She does not enquire who did the accident, her villagers informed her about the accident, then she went to the hospital and by the time of her arrival her husband was died. At this stage, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared the witness has hostile with the permission of the court, she has turned down the case of prosecution, during evidence she resailed from the contents of her sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement i.e.,

Ex.P3.

16.PW3/Y.Venkateswarlu, in his chief examination, he deposed that he does not know anything about this case. At this stage, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor declared the witness has hostile with the permission of the court, he has turned down the case of prosecution, during evidence he resailed from the contents of his sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement i.e., Ex.P4.

17. PW4/D. Venkateswarlu, in his chief examination, he deposed that at about 2 years back, while he was present in his house by the time police requested him to act as mediators, he along with Lw.9 went to the scene of offence in their presence police drafted Ex.P5 scene observation report, dt.10.3.2020. He know the contents of Ex.P5 from there after he along with Lw.9 and Lw.10 went to the Area Hospital, Narasaraopet

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 7 Narasaraopet. C.C.241/2025 in their presence police conducted the Ex.P6 inquest over the dead body of deceased.

He know the contents of the Ex.P6. Deceased died due to injuries sustained by the time accident. Whereas in his cross examination he denied the suggestions made by the accused counsel.

18.So, the evidence which remains in favour of the prosecution is that

PW5/A.Bala Krishna is none other than the investigation officer as his evidence shows that on 01.01.2024 at about 7.00 am., PW1 came to the police station and gave Ex.P7 report, basing on that he registered case Ex.P8 FIR in crime No.

Cr.No.2/2024, U/sec.304-A IPC, he submitted original FIR to his superior officers and to Hon'ble Court, from there after he along with PW1 went to the scene of offence by that time he secured PW4 and LW9 in their presence he drafted the scene observation report and also prepared Ex.P9 rough sketch, then he went to the Area hospital, Narasaraopet and secured the PW4, LW9 and LW10 in their presence he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased and examined the Pw1, 2, LW3 to 5 at hospital and recorded their 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements, handover the deceased body to Lw.11 for postmortem, after completion of postmortem he hand over the deceased body to his blood relatives, then he again went to the scene of offence and examined Pw3 and LW7 and recorded their Sec.161(3) of Cr.PC statements. On 08.01.2024 accused surrendered

before him along with crime vehicle No.AP 37VA9968, after verifying his identify

particulars issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to accused. On 08.01.2024 he gave requisition to LW12 for inspection of crime vehicle. On his transfer he hand over the CD file to LW.14, on perusal of record on 20.08.2024 LW.14 received

Ex.P.10 Postmortem report from LW.11, on 02.05.2025 LW14 received Ex.P11

MVI Report from LW12, after completion of investigation Lw.14 filed charge sheet against the accused. Whereas in his cross examination he denied the suggestions made by the accused counsel.

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 8 Narasaraopet. C.C.241/2025

19.It is brought to the notice of the Court that, the family of deceased have came to an understanding with the accused outside of the Court, and arrived for an amicable settlement, and perhaps with that reason, the witnesses cited and examined have not supported to the prosecution case. Though, the investigating officer, PW5 has demonstrated the manner how he conducted investigation from the stage of registration of FIR under Ex.P8 till the stage of filing final report, recording statements of witnesses, what is evident is that, his evidence has not been supported by any other independent witnesses and since the material witnesses have turned down the prosecution case, it is not safe to rely on the solitary testimony of the investigating officer, for connecting the accused with the offences alleged.

20.As pointed out by the learned defence counsel, PW5 is not the direct witness. He did not seized any document to connect the accused with the crime vehicle. Further more, none of the prosecution witnesses gave the details of accused as driver of crime vehicle, and no documents is seized by the investigating officer to connect the accused with the crime vehicle on the date of incident. The evidence of PW5 is also silent about the circumstances which inclined him to conclude that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent riding of the accused. Thus, there is no direct or documentary or circumstantial evidence to hold that, the accused drive the crime vehicle at the time of accident in a rash or negligent manner and hit the deceased. In absence of any supportive oral or documentary evidence, the sole testimony of PW5/investigation officer is not sufficient to substantially prove that, the accused had ridden the crime vehicle at the time of accident in a rash or negligent manner.

21.On summoning up of the entire evidence, this court finds no convincing and satisfactory evidence to hold that, the accused had ridden the crime vehicle at the time of accident in a rash or negligent manner. Even though the death of

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 9 Narasaraopet. C.C.241/2025 deceased as reiterated in the evidence of PW6 with contents of Ex.P6 i.e.,

Inquest report and Ex.P10 i.e., Postmortem of the deceased, the prosecution failed to establish the direct nexus and proximity between the death of the deceased, due to the rash or negligent riding of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the Point is answered in favour of the accused.

22.In view of the findings recorded by this court on point, this court is considered that, the prosecution failed to bring the accused for the substance of accusation levelled against him beyond reasonable doubt.

23.Therefore, in the absence of such concrete evidence and attracting necessary elements, accused cannot be held to be liable for the offence levelled against him. As already stated, only on account of settlement arrived in between the parties, outside the Court, the prosecuting party turned against prosecution during evidence, and hence, it can be said without any hesitation that, no case is made out against accused, for want of legal and acceptable evidence, and consequently, accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused.

24.In the result, and for the reasons indicated above, this court find that, accused is not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A of IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence and he set at liberty. The bail bond of accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months from the date of judgment as per the provisions of u/sec.437(A) of

Cr.P.C. In this case, no property was produced. Hence, no property order is passed.

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 10 Narasaraopet. C.C.241/2025

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 : K.Ramanjaneyulu

P.W.2 : K.Venkayamma

P.W.3 : Y.Venkateswarlu

P.W.4 : D.Venkateswarlu

P.W.5 : A.Bala Krishna

FOR DEFENCE:

None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW1 on report

Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1

Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2

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

Ex.P.5 : Scene observation report dt. 10-03-2020

Ex.P.6 : Inquest report

Ex.P.7 : Report of PW1

Ex.P.8 : First Information Report in crime No.48/2022

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 11 Narasaraopet. C.C.241/2025

Ex.P.9: Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P.10: Post-mortem report

Ex.P.11: Motor vehicle inspector report

FOR DEFENCE : NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Sd/-A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

// True Copy //

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 12 Narasaraopet. C.C.241/2025

APGU150003482025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

NARASARAOPET.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.No.241/2025

Date of Offence : 31.03.2023

Date of Complaint or Report : 01.01.2024

Apprehension of the accused : --

Released on bail : 41(A) Cr.P.C.

Commencement of trial : 23.03.2026

Closure of Trial : 08.04.2026

Sentence or Order : 15.04.2026

Explanation for delay : No delay

Name of the Complainant: tate represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Phirangipuram Police Station.

Name of the accused: Bathula China Venkateswara Rao, S/o China Pitchaiah, Age : 32 years, Caste : Waddera, R/o Ambedkar Colony, R/o Gundlapalli Village, Nekarikallu Mandal, Palnadu District. Driver of Tractor bearing No.AP 37VA 9968 and Truck No.AP 39 TR 5580.

DECEASED: Kumbha Sambaiah, s/o Nagaiah, Age : 67 Years, Caste : Yerukala, R/o Gundlapalli Village, Nekarikallu Mandal, Palnadu District.

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 13 Narasaraopet. C.C.241/2025

Nature of offence: U/Sec.304 (A) of Indian Penal Code.

Plea of accused : Not guilty

Finding : Not guilty

ORDER:- In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.304-A IPC, thereby he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated

U/Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.

Explanation for the delay:-

This case was taken on file against the accused on 17.05.2025. On 24.06.2025 case copies furnished to the accused under section 207 Cr.P.C. On 05.11.2025 accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C., an accusation has been framed for the offence under Section 304-A of The Indian Penal Code is explained in Telugu language for which accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. This case is adjourned from 27.11.2025 to 18.03.2026 for non appearance of prosecution witnesses. Finally on 23.03.2026 Pw.1 to PW4, on 08.04.2026 PW5 were examined, Exhibits P.1 to P.11 were marked, prosecution evidence was closed on the same day. On 09.04.2026 accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied all incriminating material put him and stated no defence evidence, on 10.04.2026 heard arguments on both sides, on 15.04.2026 Judgment pronounced, hence no delay.

Sd/-A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Copy submitted to :- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 1 Narasaraopet. CC.894/2025

APGU150019292025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. A. Salomi, I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet, FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet,

Friday, this the 10th day of April, 2026.

C.C.No.894/2025

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nekarikallu Police Station. …. Complainant

And

Chandran Vinay Gum, S/o Vinay Gum, Age : 29 Years, Caste : Sejji, R/o Kotha Mankalam Village, Nallalam Villupuram, Tamilnadu State. Driver of Lorry bearing No.TN 52 K 7704. …. Accused

DECEASED: Kolumula Sai baba, S/o Mohiddin Saheb, Age : 42 Years, Caste : Muslim, R/o Gundlapalli Village, Nekarikallu Mandal, Palnadu District.

This case is coming on 09-04-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate for complainant and of Sri K.Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 2 Narasaraopet. CC.894/2025

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nekarikallu Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Sec.304(A) I.P.C. in

Crime No.16/2024 of Nekarikallu Police station.

2. A brief resume of the case of prosecution reads thus:-

That, LW1/Sure Rama Krishna is a resident of Durgi village and Mandal.

The deceased/Kolumula Saibaba is a resident of Gundlapalli Village of

Nekarikallu Mandal and working as Home Guard vide general No.151 in traffic police station, Narasaraopet town. On 14.01.2024 at morning LW1 left from Durgi

Village, while he was proceeding towards Narasaraopet on his Glamour bike vide bearing No.AP07 CQ 3559 to attend his duty, in route the deceased was joined with LW1 at Gundlapalli village on his bike vide bearing No.AP07 BT 1652, both were proceeding on the way when they reached to RTC bus stop center,

Nekarikallu village and Mandal, then the accused being driver of lorry driver vide bearing No.TN52K7704 drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn, hit the deceased from rear side resulting which he succumbed to death by crushing his head and died on spot. At that time, the deceased hit the bike of LW-1 and L.W-1 also fell on the road, but no injuries received to him. On learnt the same, LW2/Kolumula Hussain Basha, LW3/Shaik

Imrana, LW4/Shaik Imamvali, LW5/Kolumula Bujji, LW6/Shaik Mastan Vali rushed to the spot and found the dead body of deceased.

2.2On the report of LW1, LW13/A.Bala Krishna, Sub-Inspector of Police registered the report of LW1 as a case in Cr.No.16/2024, u/sec.304-A IPC, submitted the original FIR along with the report of LW1 to the Hon'ble Court and took up investigation. During the course of investigation LW13 visited the scene

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 3 Narasaraopet. CC.894/2025 of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and drafted by the detailed observation report in the presence of LW8/Ramisetty Venkateswarlu

LW9/Male Raju, thereafter LW13 visited the mortuary of Area Government

Hospital, Narasaraopet and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW8/Ramisetty Venkateswarlu LW9/Male Raju, LW10/Shaik

Moulali and at that time examined LW1 to LW6 and recorded their detailed statements u/sec.161 Cr.P.C and sent the dead body of the deceased to the

Medical officer, CAS, Area Hospital, Narasaraopet for Postmortem examination and after inquest secured the LW7 and recorded his detailed statements u/sec.161 Cr.P.C. On transfer of LW13, LW14/P.Rambabu, Sub-Inspector of

Police, assumed charge of this police station, took up investigation in this case during his investigation served notice to the accused u/sec.41(A) Cr.P.C.

LW11/Dr.K.S.Dayanidhi conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased issued Postmortem Certificate and opined that the deceased was died due to

Traumatic Brain Injury due to Road Traffic Accident. LW12/B.Satyanarayana

Prasasd examined the crime vehicle issued Motor Vehicle Inspection report that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle

TN52K7704 involved in the accident. On transfer of LW14, LW15/Ch. Suresh,

Sub-Inspector of Police, assumed charge of this police station, took up investigation, verified the CD file and on completion of investigation prepared charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec.304(A) IPC.

3.Considering the charge sheet and material on record this court took cognizance of the offence punishable u/sec.304-A of IPC against accused.

4.After appearance of accused, the copies of the documents as required

U/sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 were furnished to him.

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 4 Narasaraopet. CC.894/2025

5.Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation for the offences, under section u/sec.304-A of IPC, against accused is put to him, and the same is explained in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In pursuance of the case of prosecution the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12 and no material objects are marked.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW.3/Shaik

Imrana, LW6/Shaik Mastan Vali, LW7/Jupalli Raju, LW9/Male Raju, LW10/Shaik

Moulali, LW11/Dr.K.S.Dayanidhi, LW12/B.Satyanarayana, LW14/P.Rambabu

Sub-Inspector of Police, LW15/P.Suresh Sub-Inspector of Police. Accordingly, prosecution evidence is closed.

7.Accused was examined u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.I have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for the accused.

9. Now the question that arises for the consideration is :-

i) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12 . PW1 is the Defacto complainant and eyewitness, PW2 is son of deceased, PW3 is brother of deceased, PW4 is

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 5 Narasaraopet. CC.894/2025 mediator for Ex.P5 and P6, PW6 is Investigating Officer who investigated this case.

11.The stand of accused is total denial.

12.In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable

U/sec.304-A of IPC the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients.

13. Point:-

To bring a cause of homicide under sec.304-A of IPC, the following conditions must exist, namely;

1. That the deceased Kolumula Saibaba died due to injuries sustained in road accident;

2. That the accused had ride the crime vehicle at the time of accident in a rash or negligent manner; and

3. That there was direct nexus and proximity between the death of deceased due to the rash or negligent riding of accused at the time of accident.

14.PW1/S.Rama Krishna, in his chief examination, deposed that on 14.01.2024 he started from his house to Narasaraopet on his bike and when he reached Gundlapalli Village he met deceased, then they both proceeded to their duties at about 11.30 am, he reached Nekarikallu going ahead to the deceased then he suddenly heard the noise and deceased bike hit his bike due to that he fell down aside, when he saw him he already died. He does not know which vehicle hit him, how the accident was occurred. He received minor injuries, on

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 6 Narasaraopet. CC.894/2025 the same day some villagers obtained his signature on some paper but he do not know the contents of paper Ex.P1 is signature of Pw.1 in statement. At this stage, the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor declared the witness has hostile with the permission of the court, he has turned down the case of prosecution, during evidence he resailed from the contents of his sec.161(3)

Cr.P.C statement i.e., Ex.P2. Therefore, the same cannot be looked into, for appreciating the prosecution evidence as could be seen from PW1 testimony, he did not deposed any incriminating material against the accused.

15.PW2/K.Hussain Basha in his chief examination, he deposed that on 14.01.2024 he received telephone call from his brother and informed him that his father met with an accident at Nekarikallu. He does not enquire about the accident. At this stage, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared the witness has hostile with the permission of the court, he has turned down the case of prosecution, during evidence he resailed from the contents of his sec.161(3)

Cr.P.C statement i.e., Ex.P3.

16.PW3/Shaik Imamsa, in his chief examination, he deposed that on 14.01.2024 he received telephone call from his brother and informed him that his brother met with an accident at Nekarikallu. He does not enquire about the accident. At this stage, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared the witness has hostile with the permission of the court, he has turned down the case of prosecution, during evidence he resailed from the contents of his sec.161(3)

Cr.P.C statement i.e., Ex.P4.

17. PW4/Ramisetty Venkateswarlu, in his chief examination, he deposed that at about 2 years back he accompanied with police to Nekarikallu bus stop in his presence police prepared Ex.P5 scene observation report, he attested in Ex.P5. He know the contents of Ex.P5 from there after he along with Lw.9 and L.W.10 went to the

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 7 Narasaraopet. CC.894/2025

Government Hospital, Narasaraopet in their presence police conducted Ex.P6 inquest over the dead body of deceased. He along with Lw.9 and L.w.10 attested in inquest report he know the contents of Ex.P6, the deceased was died due to the injuries sustained by the time of accident. Whereas in her cross examination she denied the suggestions made by the accused counsel.

18. PW5/K.Bujji, in her chief examination, she deposed that she received telephone call from her neighbours and they informed her that her husband met with an accident at Nekarikallu. She does not enquire about the accident. At this stage, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared the witness has hostile with the permission of the court, she has turned down the case of prosecution, during evidence she resailed from the contents of her sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement i.e., Ex.P7.

19.So, the evidence which remains in favour of the prosecution is that

PW6/A.Bala Krishna is none other than the investigation officer as his evidence shows that on 14.01.2024 at about 12.00 pm., PW1 came to the police station and gave Ex.P8 report, basing on that he registered case Ex.P9 FIR in Crime

No.16/2024, U/sec.304-A IPC. He submitted original FIR to his superior officers and to Hon'ble Court, from there after he along with PW1 went to the scene of offence by that time he secured PW4 and LW9 in their presence he drafted the scene observation report and also prepared Ex.P10 rough sketch, then he went to the Area hospital, Narasaraopet and secured the PW4, LW9 and LW10 in their presence he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased and examined the Pw1 to 3, PW5 and LW3 and LW6 at hospital and recorded their 161 (3)

Cr.P.C statements, then he handover the deceased body to Lw.11 for postmortem, after completion of postmortem he hand over the deceased body to his blood relatives. Then he again went to the scene of offence and examined

Lw7 and recorded his Sec.161(3) of Cr.PC statement, on his transfer he handed

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 8 Narasaraopet. CC.894/2025 over CD file to LW14. On perusal of record on 29.01.2024 accused surrendered

before LW14 along vehicle with crime No.TN 52 K7704, after verifying his identify

particulars Lw14 issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to accused. On 17.01.2024 LW14 gave requisition to LW12 for inspection of crime vehicle and on 11.02.2024 Lw14 received Ex.P11 Postmortem report from LW.11. On 14.02.2024 LW12 conduct inspection of crime vehicle and issued Ex.P12 M.V.I report, after completion of investigation Lw.15 filed charge sheet against the accused. Whereas in his cross examination he denied the suggestions made by the accused counsel.

20.It is brought to the notice of the Court that, the family of deceased have came to an understanding with the accused outside of the Court, and arrived for an amicable settlement, and perhaps with that reason, the witnesses cited and examined have not supported to the prosecution case. Though, the investigating officer, PW6 has demonstrated the manner how he conducted investigation from the stage of registration of FIR under Ex.P9 till the stage of filing final report, recording statements of witnesses, what is evident is that, his evidence has not been supported by any other independent witnesses and since the material witnesses have turned down the prosecution case, it is not safe to rely on the solitary testimony of the investigating officer, for connecting the accused with the offences alleged.

21.As pointed out by the learned defence counsel, PW6 is not the direct witness. He did not seized any document to connect the accused with the crime vehicle. Further more, none of the prosecution witnesses gave the details of accused as driver of crime vehicle, and no documents is seized by the investigating officer to connect the accused with the crime vehicle on the date of incident. The evidence of PW6 is also silent about the circumstances which inclined him to conclude that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent riding of the accused. Thus, there is no direct or documentary or circumstantial

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 9 Narasaraopet. CC.894/2025 evidence to hold that, the accused drive the crime vehicle at the time of accident in a rash or negligent manner and hit the deceased. In absence of any supportive oral or documentary evidence, the sole testimony of PW6/investigation officer is not sufficient to substantially prove that, the accused had ridden the crime vehicle at the time of accident in a rash or negligent manner.

22.On summoning up of the entire evidence, this court finds no convincing and satisfactory evidence to hold that, the accused had ridden the crime vehicle at the time of accident in a rash or negligent manner. Even though the death of deceased as reiterated in the evidence of PW6 with contents of Ex.P6 i.e.,

Inquest report and Ex.P11 i.e., Postmortem of the deceased, the prosecution failed to establish the direct nexus and proximity between the death of the deceased, due to the rash or negligent riding of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the Point is answered in favour of the accused.

23.In view of the findings recorded by this court on point, this court is considered that, the prosecution failed to bring the accused for the substance of accusation levelled against him beyond reasonable doubt.

24.Therefore, in the absence of such concrete evidence and attracting necessary elements, accused cannot be held to be liable for the offence levelled against him. As already stated, only on account of settlement arrived in between the parties, outside the Court, the prosecuting party turned against prosecution during evidence, and hence, it can be said without any hesitation that, no case is made out against accused, for want of legal and acceptable evidence, and

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 10 Narasaraopet. CC.894/2025 consequently, accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused.

25.In the result, and for the reasons indicated above, this court find that, accused is not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A of IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence and he set at liberty. The bail bond of accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months from the date of judgment as per the provisions of u/sec.437(A) of

Cr.P.C. In this case, no property was produced. Hence, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 10 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 : S.Rama Krishna

P.W.2 : K.Hussain Basha

P.W.3 : Shaik Imamsa

P.W.4 : R.Venkateswarlu

P.W.5 : K.Bujji

P.W.6 : A.Bala Krishna(IO)

FOR DEFENCE:None

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 11 Narasaraopet. CC.894/2025

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW1 on report

Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1

Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2

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

Ex.P.5 : Scene observation report

Ex.P.6 : Inquest report

Ex.P.7 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5

Ex.P.8 : Report of PW1

Ex.P.9 : First Information Report in crime No.48/2022

Ex.P.10 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P.11 : Post-mortem report

Ex.P.12 : Motor vehicle inspector report

FOR DEFENCE : NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Sd/-A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 12 Narasaraopet. CC.894/2025

APGU150019292025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

NARASARAOPET.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.No.894/2025

Date of Offence : 14.01.2024.

Date of Complaint or Report : 14.01.2024

Apprehension of the accused : --

Released on bail : 41(A) Cr.P.C.

Commencement of trial : 09.03.2026

Closure of Trial : 08.04.2026

Sentence or Order : 10.04.2026

Explanation for delay : No delay

Name of the Complainant: tate represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Phirangipuram Police Station.

Name of the accused: Chandran Vinay Gum, S/o Vinay Gum, Age : 29 Years, Caste : Sejji, R/o Kotha Mankalam Village, Nallalam Villupuram, Tamilnadu State. Driver of Lorry bearing No.TN 52 K 7704.

DECEASED: Kolumula Sai baba, S/o Mohiddin Saheb, Age : 42 Years, Caste : Muslim, Gundlapalli Village,

II Addl. Civil Judge Court(Junior Division), Page No. 13 Narasaraopet. CC.894/2025

Nekarikallu Mandal, Palnadu District.

Nature of offence: U/Sec.304 (A) of Indian Penal Code.

Plea of accused : Not guilty

Finding : Not guilty

ORDER:- In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.304-A IPC, thereby he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated

U/Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.

Explanation for the delay:- No delay.

Sd/-A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Copy submitted to :- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

// True copy //

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.762/2025 Page No.1 APGU150017002025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION): NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. A. Salomi, I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet, FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet,

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026.

C.C.No.762/2025

Between: The State, Through Sub-Inspector of Police, Rompicherla Police Station. . . . Complainant.

And

Veldurthi Durga Prasad Kulakarni, S/o Ramachandra Rao, Age : 33 years, Caste : Brahmin, R/o 16-3-178, Plot No.243, Vastanth Nagar, KPHB Colony,Kukatpalli, Hyderabad. Bearing No.TS08 JJ 8910. . . . Accused Deceased : Lingamguntla Venkateswarlu, S/o Lingaiah, Age : 66 years, Caste : Madiga, R/o SC Colony, Santhagudipadu Village of Rompicherla Mandal. -o0o-

This calendar case came before me for disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P, for the State, and Sri. P.Chakrapani advocate for accused, upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, 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, Rompicherla Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Sec.106(1) of Bharatiya

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.762/2025 Page No.2 Nyaya Sanhita 2023 in Crime No.169/2024 of Rompicherla Police station.

2. A brief resume of the case of prosecution reads thus:-

That, the deceased/Lingamguntla Venkateswarlu working as a cleaner in the bus of Sri Krishna Chaitanya School, Narasaraopet. On 29.10.2024 at 07.30 pm, after completion his work the deceased returned to his Village and on the way he drank the Tea in Meeravali Tea stall, which is on beside of the road of their village and while he tried to cross the State High-Way by walk, the accused being the driver of car bearing No. TS08 JJ 8910 was coming from Rompicherla side the driver of the car drove his car with rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell down on the road and received bleeding injuries on his head, at that time LW1/Lingamguntla Ramesh and

LW6/Lingamguntla Linga Rao stood near the scene, immediately they rushed to the spot and shifted the Injured to GBR Hospital, Narasaraopet, for treatment, the duty doctor examined and declared that he died before brought to the hospital. LW1 came to P.S and lodged a report.

3.Basing on the report of LW1, LW12/D.Ashok, Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.169/2024, U/sec.106(1) BNS of Rompicherla P.S and took up investigation, visited the scene of offence and inspected the same in the presence of LW1 and LW6 and prepared a observation report and duly arrested by them, drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence and on 30.10.2024, LW12 conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of

LW7/Bathula Ramakrishna, LW8/Guddati Venkateswarlu, LW9/Aluri Dhanamaiah.

During the inquest LW12 secured the presence of witnesses LW1/Lingamguntla

Ramesh, LW2/Lingamguntla Guravaiah, LW3/Lingamguntla Yesamma,

LW4/Gadikoyya Jayamma, LW5/Beerla Yesobu, LW6/Lingamguntla Lingarao and recoreded their statements, send the body of deceased to LW10 for conducting autopsy. On 05.11.2024 the accused came to the police station and appeared

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.762/2025 Page No.3

before LW12, LW12 served 35 (3) BNSS notice to the accused. LW10/Dr.K.Alekhya

conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and she opined that the cause of death was "Intracranial Haemorrhage femur fracture leading to

Hypovolemic Shock leading to cardio-respiratory arrest". LW11/Smt.Ch.Maneesha, inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report opined that the accident is not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. During the course of investigation LW13/Ch.Manikrishna, Sub-Inspector of Police, received the CD file from LW12 and all the line are correct, after completion of the investigation LW13 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 106(1)

BNSS.

4.Considering the charge sheet and material on record this court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 106(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita 2023.

5.After appearance of accused, the copies of the documents as required

U/sec.230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were furnished to him.

6.Accused was examined under section 262(2) of B.N.S.S, and the substance of accusation under Section 106(1), of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 against accused was read over and explained, in Telugu language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

7.In pursuance of the case of prosecution, has examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11 and no material objects are marked. The learned senior

Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW2/Ligamguntla Guravaiah,

LW4/Gadikoyya Jayamma, LW6/Lingamguntla Linga Rao, LW7/Bathula

Ramakrishna, LW9/Aluri Dhanamaiah, LW10/Dr.K.Alekhya, LW11/Ch.Maneesha,

LW13/Ch.Manikrishna Sub-Inspector of Police. Accordingly, prosecution evidence is closed.

8.Accused was examined u/Sec.351 of B.N.S.S by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.762/2025 Page No.4

9.I have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

10. Now the question that arises for the consideration is :- “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the

guilt of the accused for the offence under section 106(1) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

11.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11. PW1 is son of deceased, PW2 is wife of deceased,

PW3 is eye witness, PW4 is mediator for inquest and scene observation report,

PW5 is Investigating officer who investigated this case.

12.In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under

Sec.106(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients.

13. Point:- 106(1) Causing death by negligence.

1. That the deceased Lingamguntla Venkateswarlu died due to injuries sustained in road accident;

2. That the accused had ride the crime vehicle at the time of accident in a rash or negligent manner; and

3. That there was direct nexus and proximity

between the death of deceased due to the

rash or negligent riding of accused at the

time of accident.

14.PW1/L.Ramesh, in his chief examination, he deposed that on 29.10.2024 at about 7.30 pm., his father went to duty as a Lorry cleaner, when he reached

Santhagudipadu Village, while he trying to cross the highway one car hit his father,

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.762/2025 Page No.5 due to that his father sustained injuries and he fell unconscious, villagers informed him about the accident of his father. He does not know the manner of accident, by the time of their arrival to hospital his father was died, by that time his relatives obtained his signatures on a written paper, but he does not know the contents of written paper Ex.P.1/Signature of P.W.1 in statement. Police did not examine him.

At this stage, the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor declared the witness has hostile with the permission of the court, he has turned down the case of prosecution, during evidence he resailed from the contents of his sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement i.e., Ex.P2.

15.P.W.2/L.Yesamma, who is wife of deceased deposed that on 29.10.2024 at about 7.30 pm., her husband went to duty as a Lorry cleaner, when he reached

Santhagudipadu Village, while he trying to cross the highway one car hit her husband, due to that her husband sustained injuries and he fell unconscious, villagers informed her about the accident of his father. She does not know the manner of accident, by the time of their arrival to hospital her husband was died, police did not examined her. At this stage, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile with the permission of the court, she turned down the case of prosecution, during evidence she resailed from the contents of her sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement i.e., Ex.P3.

16. P.W.3/B.Yesobu, is eye witness deposed that he does not know anything about this case. Police did not examined him. At this stage, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile with the permission of the court, he turned down the case of prosecution, during evidence he resailed from the contents of his sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement i.e., Ex.P4.

17. P.W.4/G.Venkateswarlu, who is mediator for Inquest and scene observation report deposed that at about 2 years back, while he was present in his house by the time police requested him act as mediator, he along with Lw.7 went to the scene of offence in their presence police drafted Ex.P5 scene observation report, dt.10.3.2020. He know the contents of Ex.P5 from there after he along with Lw.7

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.762/2025 Page No.6 and Lw.9 went to the Area Hospital, Narasaraopet in their presence police conducted the Ex.P6 inquest over the dead body of deceased. He know the contents of the Ex.P6. Deceased died due to injuries sustained by the time accident.

18.So, the evidence which remains in favour of the prosecution is that

PW5/D.Ashok is none other than the investigation officer as his evidence shows that on 29.10.2024, at about 10.25 pm, PW.1 came to police station and gave

Ex.P7/report, basing on that he registered the case in Cr.No.169/2024,

U/Sec.106(1) of BNS and he examined P.W1 at police station, submitted Ex.P8/

Original FIR to all superior officers and to Hon'ble Court. On 30.10.2024 he along with PW1 went to the scene of offence by that time he secured LW7 and PW.4 in their presence he drafted the scene observation report and also prepared Ex.P9/ rough sketch and he examined PW.2, PW.3, LW2, LW.4 and LW6 and recorded their statements U/Sec.180 BNSS at scene of offence. Then he went to the Area hospital, Narasaraopet and secured the PW.4, LW7 and LW9 in their presence he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased, handover the deceased body to LW10 for postmortem, after completion of postmortem he hand over the deceased body to his blood relatives. On 05.11.2024 accused surrendered before him along with crime vehicle bearing No.TS 08JJ 8910, he issued Sec. 35(3)BNSS to accused and gave requisition to LW.11 for inspection of crime vehicle. On 18.11.2024 he received Ex.P10/Postmortem report from LW11. On 25.11.2024

LW.11 conducted inspection of crime vehicle and issued Ex.P11/MVI report. He handover the C.D filed to LW.13, on his transfer L.W13 verified his investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused U/sec.106(1) BNS.

19.It is brought to the notice of the Court that, “the family of deceased have came to an understanding with the accused outside of the Court, and arrived for an amicable settlement, and perhaps with that reason, the witnesses cited and examined have not supported to the prosecution case”. Though, the investigating officer, PW5 has demonstrated the manner how he conducted investigation from

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.762/2025 Page No.7 the stage of registration of FIR under Ex.P8 till the stage of filing final report, recording statements of witnesses, what is evident is that, his evidence has not been supported by any other independent witnesses and since the material witnesses have turned down the prosecution case, it is not safe to rely on the sole testimony of the investigating officer, for connecting the accused with the offences alleged.

20.As pointed out by the learned defence counsel, PW.5 is not the direct witness. He did not seized any document to connect the accused with the crime vehicle. Further more, none of the prosecution witnesses gave the details of accused as driver of crime vehicle, and no documents is seized by the investigating officer to connect the accused with the crime vehicle on the date of incident. The evidence of PW5 is also silent about the circumstances which inclined him to conclude that the accident was not occurred due to rash or negligent riding of the accused. Thus, there is no direct or documentary or circumstantial evidence to hold that, the accused drive the crime vehicle at the time of accident in a rash or negligent manner and hit the deceased. In absence of any supportive oral or documentary evidence, the sole testimony of PW5/investigation officer is not sufficient to substantially prove that, the accused had ridden the crime vehicle at the time of accident in a rash or negligent manner.

21.On summoning up of the entire evidence, this court finds no convincing and satisfactory evidence to hold that, the accused had ridden the crime vehicle at the time of accident in a rash or negligent manner. Even though the death of deceased as reiterated in the evidence of PW5 with contents of Ex.P6 i.e., Inquest report and

Ex.P10/Postmortem of the deceased, the prosecution failed to establish the direct nexus and proximity between the death of the deceased, due to the rash or negligent riding of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/sec.106(1) BNS beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the Point is answered in favour of the accused.

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.762/2025 Page No.8

22.In view of the findings recorded by this court on point, this court is considered that, the prosecution failed to bring the accused for the substance of accusation levelled against him beyond reasonable doubt.

23.Therefore, in the absence of such concrete evidence and attracting necessary elements, accused cannot be held to be liable for the offence levelled against him. As already stated, only on account of settlement arrived in between the parties, outside the Court, the prosecuting party turned against prosecution during evidence, and hence, it can be said without any hesitation that, no case is made out against accused, for want of legal and acceptable evidence, and consequently, accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused.

24. In the result, and for the reasons indicated above, this court find that, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 106(1) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, accordingly he is acquitted under Section 278(1)

B.N.S.S. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands canceled after the expiry of 6 months as per Section 481 B.N.S.S. In this case, no property was produced. Hence, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 : L.Ramesh

P.W.2 : L.Yesamma

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.762/2025 Page No.9 P.W.3 : B.Yesobu

P.W.4 : G.Venkateswarlu

P.W.5 : D.Ashok (IO)

FOR DEFENCE:None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of P.W.1 on statement

Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2

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

Ex.P.5 : Scene Observation Report

Ex.P.6 : Inquest Report

Ex.P.7 : Report of PW1

Ex.P.8 : Original FIR

Ex.P.9 : Rough Sketch

Ex.P.10: Postmortem Report

Ex.P.11 : MVI Report

FOR DEFENCE : NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Sd/-A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.762/2025 Page No.10 APGU150017002025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

NARASARAOPET.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.No.762/2025

Date of Offence : 29.10.2024

Date of Complaint or Report : 29.10.2024

Apprehension of the accused : --

Released on bail : 41(A) Cr.P.C.

Commencement of trial : 16.03.2026

Closure of Trial : 10.04.2026

Sentence or Order : 17.04.2026

Explanation for delay : No delay

Name of the Complainant:

The State, Through Sub-Inspector of Police, Rompicherla Police Station. . . . Complainant.

Name of the accused: Veldurthi Durga Prasad Kulakarni, S/o Ramachandra Rao, Age : 33 years, Caste : Brahmin, R/o 16-3-178, Plot No.243, Vastanth Nagar, KPHB Colony,Kukatpalli, Hyderabad. Bearing No.TS08 JJ 8910. . . . Accused Deceased : Lingamguntla Venkateswarlu, S/o Lingaiah, Age : 66 years, Caste : Madiga, R/o SC Colony, Santhagudipadu Village of Rompicherla Mandal.

Nature of offence: U/Sec.106(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.762/2025 Page No.11 Plea of accused : Not guilty

Finding : Not guilty

ORDER:-In the result, and for the reasons indicated above, this court find that, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 106(1) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, accordingly he is acquitted under Section 278(1)

B.N.S.S. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands canceled after the expiry of 6 months as per Section 481 B.N.S.S. In this case, no property was produced. Hence, no property order is passed.

Explanation for the delay:- No delay.

Sd/-A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Copy submitted to :- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

// True Copy //

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.