N. Amaravathi

1

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

Judgement in Calender Case No.514 of 2011, on the file of I Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nizamabad.

Name of complainant ::The State of A.P. Represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Traffic Nizamabad.

Names of Accused::Kunchepu Raju S/o Sayulu, age: 28 years, Caste: Oddera, Occ: Driver of Tractor bearing No. AP 25 W 3055, Trolley bearing No. AP 25 T 4022, R/o Nagaram village of Nizamabad mandal & Dist.

Nature of Offence::U/s. 337,338 IPC & sec. 181, 196 of M.V.Act.

Finding::IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 337, 338 IPC and sec. 181 and 196 of Motor Vehicle Act and the accused is acquitted U/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months.

Sentence::Acquittal.

Date of Occurrence::03-09-2010

Date of Complaint:: 03-09-2010

Date of Apprehension::29-09-2010 of the accused

Date of Release on bail::29-09-2010

Date of commencement of trail::10-02-2012

Date of Close of trial::13-03-2014

Date of Sentence of Order::24-03-2014

Explanation of delay::---

I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, ToNizamabad. The Hon'ble Ist Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

Present: Ms. N. Amaravathi, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Monday, the 24th day of March, 2014.

C.C.No.514 of 2011 (Cr.No.107/2010 of P.S. Traffic, Nizamabad)

Between:

The State through Police, Traffic Police station, Nizamabad.

.. Complainant.

and

Kunchepu Raju S/o Sayulu, age: 28 years, Caste: Oddera, Occ: Driver of Tractor bearing No. AP 25 W 3055, Trolley bearing No. AP 25 T 4022, R/o Nagaram village of Nizamabad mandal & Dist.

.. Accused.

This case coming on this the 21st day of March, 2014 before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Senior APP for the State and of Sri D.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate for the accused and after having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

The accused stand charged for the offences punishable U/sec.

337, 338 IPC and sec. 181 and 196 of M.V.Act.

2.The Sub Inspector of police, Traffic, police station, Nizamabad, filed final report against the accused U/sec. 173 Cr.P.C. in

Cr.No.107/2010 with the following allegations in brief are as follows:

On 3.9.2010, LW2/Shaik Anwar, LW3/Shaik Ayyaz, LW4/Salma

Begum and LW8/Md.Kajim went to Sarangapoor village for Ifthar and while returning back in an auto bearing No. AP 25 W 1235, when they reached the turning point of Arsapally, at that time, one tractor trolley bearing No. 4022 were started and all of sudden came back and dashed the said auto and due to that, LW2/Shaik Anwar,

LW3/Shaik Ayyaz, LW4/Salma Begum and LW8/Md.Kajim sustained injuries and after knowing the same, LW1/Syed Ahmed gave report

3

to police and police registered it as a case in crime No. 107/2010,

U/sec. 337, 338 IPC and sec. 181 and 196 of M.V.Act and investigated into. After completion of the investigation, final report is filed. Hence, the case.

3.After filing the final report by the police, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/sec. 337, 338 IPC and sec. 181 and 196 of M.V.Act, against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies furnished to the accused as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined U/s. 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/sec. 337, 338 IPC and sec. 181 and 196 of M.V.Act, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the complainant LW1/Syed Ahmed as PW1, the injured LW3/Shaik Ayyaz as PW2, the eye witness

LW7/Mohammed Miraj as PW3, the injured LW8/Md.Kajim as PW4, the owner of the crime vehicle LW9/Komati Rajireddy as PW5, the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama LW11/Kakkala

Babu as PW6, the investigation officer LW14/B.Sailoo as PW7, the other investigation officer LW15/Shaik Jahingeer as PW8 and documents marked Exs.P1 to P5, on its behalf.

7.The learned APP has given up LW10/Narsimloo yadav. On 24.9.2013, the police failed to serve summons to LW2/Shaik Anwar,

LW4/Salma Begum, LW5/Kumari Tanujma and LW6/Kumar

Nazuman. Hence, the evidence of LW2 and LW4 to LW6 is closed. On

4

06.1.2014, police failed to serve summons to LW12/Dr.N.Krishna and LW13/Dr.Jaya Prakash. Hence, the evidence of LW12 and LW13 is closed.

8.After the completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was called for examination U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. for explaining the incriminating material evidence against him, in the evidence of

PW1 to PW8, having understood the same, the accused denied the incriminating material evidence against him and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

10.Now the point for determination are:

1) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec. 337 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec. 338 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec. 181 of Motor

Vehicle Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

4) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec. 196 of Motor

Vehicle Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offences punishable U/sec. 337, 338 IPC

5

and sec. 181 and 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, the prosecution shall establish that:

1.On 3.9.2010, LW2/Shaik Anwar, LW3/Shaik Ayyaz, LW4/Salma Begum and LW8/Md.Kajim went to Sarangapoor village to have Ifthar and while returning back to Nizamabad in Auto bearing No. AP 25 W 1235 and when they reached Arsapally turning point at that time, one tractor bearing No. AP 25 W 3055 and tractor trolley bearing No. 4022 all of sudden came back and dashed to the said Auto and due to that LW2/Shaik Anwar, LW3/Shaik Ayyaz, LW4/Salma Begum and LW8/Md.Kajim sustained injurie, by knowing the same, LW1/Syed Ahmed gave report to police.

2.The crime vehicle involved in the incident is the tractor bearing No. AP 25 W 3055.

3.The accused who is facing trial was the driver of the crime tractor bearing No. AP 25 W 3055.

4.The incident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle Tractor bearing No. AP 25 W 3055.

12.Point No.1:- Perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to PW6 and documents marked Exs.P1 to P5 that

PW1/Syed Ahmed testified that on 3.9.2010, LW2/Shaik Anwar and

LW4/Salma Begum and PW2/Shaik Ayyaz went to attend Ifthar party at Sarangapoor and while returning back to Nizamabad in an auto bearing No. 1235 and when they reached near the transformer of

Arsapally (V), at that time, one motor vehicle accident took place with a tractor bearing No. 3055 and he came to know about the same through LW6/Kumar Nazuman, then immediately he went to the scene and found LW2/Shaik Anwar, LW3/Shaik Ayyaz and

LW4/Salma Begum with injuries and thereafter, shifted them to the

Govt. head quarters hospital, Nizamabad, which is corroborated with

6

the version of the investigation officer PW7/B.Sailoo and the contents of the report Ex.P1.

13.The injured PW2/Shaik Ayyaz testified that on 3.9.2010, at about 8-00 pm, while he along with LW2/Shaik Anwar, LW4/Salma

Begum and LW8/Md.Kajim coming from Sarangapoor (v) to

Shantinagar, Nizamabad in an auto bearing No. AP 25 W 1235 and when they reached near Arsapally turning point, at that time, one tractor bearing AP 25 W 3055 dashed their auto and due to that he sustained injury on his chest and he lost one teeth of upper jaw and

LW2/Shaik Anwar sustained injuries on his under the right eye,

LW4/Salma Begum sustained injuries on her leg and on her back,

LW8/Md.Kajim sustained injuries on his abdomen and thereafter, they were shifted to the Govt. head quarters hospital, Nizamabad, which is corroborated with the version of the driver of the auto

PW3/Mohammed Miraj.

14.The panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama

PW6/Makkala Babu testified that about 2 years back, at about 6-00 pm, the police conducted the scene of offence panchanama and also drafted the rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P3 and

P4, which is corroborated with the version of the investigation officer

PW7/B.Sailoo. Though, the prosecution failed to examine the medical officer LW12/Dr.N.Krishna and LW13/Dr.Jayaprakash, the prosecution proved that the incident took place at the scene of offence, on the date of incident.

15.Point No.2: As per the evidence of PW1/Syed Ahmed, he came to know about the incident through LW6/Kumar Nazuman who

7

informed that the motor vehicle accident took place with a tractor bearing No. 3055 which is corroborated with the version of the injured PW2/Shaik Ayyaz, which is corroborated with the contents of the report Ex.P1. The investigation officers PW7/B.Sailoo and

Pw8/Shaik Jahangeer failed to get inspected the crime vehicle tractor with trolley and the vehicle Auto involved in the incident by the motor vehicle inspector. The investigation officer PW7/B.Sailoo testified that he conducted the scene of offence and drafted the rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P3 and P4 in presence of the panch witnesses PW6/M.Babu and LW10/Narsimloo Yadav.

Though, there is not mention of the number of the crime vehicle on

Ex.P3 and P4, the version of PW7/B.Sailoo and PW8/Shaik Jahangeer is believable with respect to the incident and the crime vehicle involved in the incident is the tractor bearing No. AP 25 W 3055 with trolley bearing No. AP 25 T 4022.

16. Point No.3: So far as the identification of the accused is concerned the prosecution examined the investigation officer

PW7/B.Sailoo who testified that on 29.9.2010, PW5/K.Rajireddy brought the accused and handed over him to police and on enquiry, the accused confessed the commission of the offence. But,

PW5/K.Rajireddy is silent with respect to that he himself handed over the accused to police. PW5/K.Rajireddy testified that about 4 years back, one Raju used to work as the driver of his tractor and one day at about 6-00 pm, he himself and his driver Raju went to bring Diesel for the tractor after parking the same by the side of the road at Arsapally turning point and after half an hour, when he return back to his tractor, then he came to know from the public that one auto dashed on the back of his tractor. Though, PW1/Syed

8

Ahmed and PW2/Shaik Ayyaz identified the accused, but the eye witness and the driver of the auto bearing No. 1235,

PW3/Mohammed Miraj did not identify the accused. Moreover, the other injured PW4/Md.Kajim also failed to identify the accused. As per the evidence of Pw1/Syed Ahmed, when he reached the scene of offence then he found that some of the persons caught hold of the driver of the crime vehicle and he saw him. But, the investigation officer PW7/B.Sailoo and PW8/Shaik Jahangeer failed to examine the persons who caught hold of the accused, at the scene of offence.

Hence, there is a reasonable doubt with respect to the identification of the accused. The investigation officer failed to collect documents of the crime vehicle. The evidence of both the investigation officers

PW7/B.Sailoo and PW8/Shaik Jahangeer is silent with respect to the offences punishable U/s. 181, 196 of Motor Vehicle Act committed by the accused. Therefore, the accused is the person who drove the crime vehicle at the time of incident on the date of incident, beyond all reasonable doubt.

17.Point No.4: Inview of the above discussion in point No.1 to 3, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused is the person who drove the crime vehicle at the time of incident, on the date of incident. As such, there is no necessity of discussion with respect to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle by the accused at the time of incident, on the date of incident.

18.In view of the above discussion, in point No. 1 to 4, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/s. 337, 338 IPC and sec. 181 and 196 of

Motor Vehicle Act, beyond all reasonable doubt.

9

19.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 337, 338 IPC and sec. 181 and 196 of Motor Vehicle

Act and the accused is acquitted U/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months.

Typed to my dictation by P.A., corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th day of March, 2014.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:-For Defence:-

PW1/LW1: Syed Ahmed -None- PW2/LW3: Shaik Ayyaz PW3/LW7: Mohammed Miraj PW4/LW8: Md.Kajim PW5/LW9: Komati Rajireddy PW6/LW11: Makkala Babu PW7/LW14: B.Sailoo. PW8/LW15: Shaik Jahangeer.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: is the Report, dt: 03.9.2010. Ex.P2: is the entire statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P3: is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P4: is the rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P5: is the original FIR. Ex.P6: is the medical certificate of LW2/Sk.Anwar Ex.P7: is the medical certificate of PW2/Sk.Ayyaz. Ex.P8: is the medical certificate of LW4/Salma Begum Ex.P9: is the medical certificate of PW8/Mohd. Kajim.

For Defence:- -Nil-

MOs. marked - Nil -

I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

10

1

Calender and Judgement

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

Judgement in Calender Case No.357 of 2011, on the file of I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Court, Nizamabad.

Name of complainant ::The State of A.P. Represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Traffic, Nizamabad.

Names of Accused::Gandla Om S/o Gangaram, age: 34 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occ: Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 28 T 6129, R/o H.No. 10-2-4, Shivajinagar, Nizamabad.

Nature of Offence::U/sec. 304-A, 337, 338 IPC.

Finding::IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 304-A, 337, 338 IPC and the accused is acquitted U/s. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months.

Sentence::Acquittal.

Date of Occurrence::19-04-2010

Date of Complaint:: 19-04-2010

Date of Apprehension::21-04-2010 of the accused

Date of Release on bail::21-04-2010

Date of commencement of trail::11-01-2013

Date of Close of trial::21-03-2014

Date of Sentence of Order::27-03-2014

Explanation of delay::---

I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, ToNizamabad. The Hon'ble Ist Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

Present: Ms. N. Amaravathi, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Thursday, the 27th day of March, 2014.

C.C.No. 357 of 2011 (Cr.No.47/2010 of Traffic P.S., Nizamabad)

Between:

The State through Police, Traffic police staion, Nizamabad.

.. Complainant.

and

Gandla Om S/o Gangaram, age: 34 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occ: Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 28 T 6129, R/o H.No. 10-2-4, Shivajinagar, Nizamabad.

.. Accused.

This case coming on this the 24th day of March, 2013 before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Senior APP for the State and of Sri Bajrang Singh, Advocate appointed as State Brief for the accused, and after having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

The accused stand charged for the offences punishable

U/sec.304-A, 337, 338 IPC.

2.The Sub Inspector of police, Traffic, police station, Nizamabad, filed final report against the accused U/sec. 173 Cr.P.C. in

Cr.No.47/2010 with the following allegations in brief are as follows:

On 19.4.2010, at about 5-30 am, the deceased No. 1 board an auto bearing No. AP 25 V 3455 infront of Lavanya Traders, situated at Arsapally in order to go to Railway station and in the mean time, one lorry bearing No. AP 28 T 6129 coming from Nizamabad towards

Bodhan in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the said stationed auto and due to that the deceased No.1 to 3 sustained injuries and they were shifted to Govt. head quarters hospital,

3

Nizamabad and while shifting the injured persons from the premises of the Govt. head quarters hospital, Nizamabad, the deceased No. 1 and 2 succumbed with injuries. Thereafter, LW1/Shaik Jafar gave report to police and police registered it as a case in crime

No.47/2010, U/s. 304-A, 337, 338 IPC and investigated into. After the completion of the investigation, final report is filed. Hence, the case.

3.After filing the final report by the police, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/sec. 304-A, 337, 338 IPC, against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies furnished to the accused as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined U/s. 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/sec. 304-A, 337, 338 IPC, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the complainant LW1/Shaik Jafar as PW1, the injured LW9/Azam Khan as PW2, the injured LW10/Sk.Sulthan as

PW3, the owner of the crime vehicle LW12/B.Lingareddy as PW4, the panch witness for the inquest panchanama LW15/Syed Isaq as PW5, the panch witness for the inquest panchanama LW17/Shaik Abdul as

PW6, the panch witness for the inquest panchanama

LW19/K.Bhumaiah as PW7, the medical officer LW23/L.Ramulu as

PW8, the other medical officer LW21/Mothilal as PW9, the investigation officer LW27/Shaik Jahangeer as PW10, the other

4

investigation officer LW25/M.Narender as PW11, the motor vehicle inspector LW24/N.Satyanarayana as PW12 and documents marked

Exs.P1 to P16, on its behalf.

7.The learned APP has given up LW2/Wazeeda Begum,

LW3/Mohd. Hafeez, LW5/Shaik Ahmed, LW11/P.Hanmanthu,

LW16/Meraj Khan and LW20/P.Nivarthi. On 2.7.2013, the police failed to serve summons to LW4/Aneesa Begum and LW6/Rathod

Shankar. Hence, the evidence of LW4 and LW6 is closed. On 17.9.2013, the police failed to serve summons to LW7/MD.Jaleel and

LW8/Si.Ismail. Hence, the evidence of LW7 and LW8 is closed. On 5.11.2013, the police failed to serve summons to LW13/Anwar Khan and LW14/Sk.Latheef. Hence, the evidence of LW13 and LW14 is closed. On 28.1.2014, the police failed stating that LW22/Sanjay

Singh is whereabout not known. Hence, the evidence of LW22 is closed.

8.After the completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was called for examination U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. for explaining the incriminating material evidence against him, in the evidence of

PW1 to PW12, having understood the same, the accused denied the incriminating material evidence against him and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

10.Now the point for determination are:

1) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec. 304-A IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

5

2) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec. 337 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec. 338 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offences punishable U/sec. 304-A, 337, 338

IPC, the prosecution shall establish that:

1) On 19.4.2010, at about 5-30 am, the deceased No. 1 boarded an auto bearing No. AP 25 V 3455, infront of Lavanya Traders, situated at Arsapally in order to go to Railway station and in the mean time, one lorry bearing No. AP 28 T 6129 coming from Nizamabad towards Bodhan in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the said stationed auto and due to that the deceased No.1 to 3 sustained injuries and they were shifted to Govt. head quarters hospital, Nizamabad and while shifting the injured persons from the premises of Govt. head quarters hospital, the deceased No. 1 and 2 succumbed with injuries and by knowing the same, he gave report to police.

2) The crime vehicle involved in the incident is the lorry bearing No. AP 28 T 6129.

3) The accused who is facing trial was the driver of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No. AP 28 T 6129.

4) The incident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No. AP 28 T 6129.

12.Point No.1:- Perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW12 and documents marked i.e., Ex.P1 to P16, that

PW1/Shaik Jafar testified that on 19.4.2010, at about 5-30 pm, he came to know about the incident, then he went to the spot and found one lorry and one auto and the deceased No.1 lying on the ground with injuries, on his obdomen and legs, then he shifted him and other injured person to Govt. head quarters hospital, Nizamabad, which is

6

corroborated with the versions of Pw2/Azam Khan and

PW3/Sk.Sulthan.

13.The investigation officer PW11/M.Narender Reddy testified that he went to the Govt. head quarters hospital, Nizamabad and he conducted the scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased No. 1 to 3 under

Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 in presence of the panch witnesses PW5 to PW7 and

LW16, LW18 and LW20, which is supported by the panch witnesses

PW5 to PW7.

14.Though the other injured person are not examined by the medical officer PW8/L.Ramulu, but PW8/L.Ramulu testified that on 19.4.2010, he examined the injured persons PW2/Azam Khan,

LW6/Rathod Shankar, LW7/MD.Jaleel and LW8/Sk.Ismail and issued medical certificates Ex.P6 to Ex.P9. The injuries mentioned in the medical certificate of PW2/Azam Khan, LW6/Rathod Shankar,

LW7/MD.Jaleel and LW8/Sk.Ismail are corroborated with the version of the injured PW2/Azam Khan.

15.Point no. 2:- As per the evidence of PW2/Azam Khan and

PW3/Sk.Sulthan, they do not know the lorry number and the driver of the lorry. The evidence of PW1/Shaik Jagar is also silent with respect to the same.

16.The motor vehicle inspector PW12/N.Satyanarayana testified that on 22.4.2010, he inspected the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.

AP 28 T 6129 and issued MVI report under Ex.P6 which is corroborated with the investigation officer PW11/M.Narendar Reddy.

7

Though, PW1 to PW3 failed to say the number of the crime vehicle lorry, but the evidence of PW11/M.Narendar Reddy and

PW12/N.Satyanarayana, the prosecution proved that the crime vehicle is the lorry bearing No. AP 28 T 6129.

17.Point No.3:- So far as the identification of the accused is concerned, the court is view that the prosecution witnesses PW1 to

PW3 who are the defacto complainant and the injured persons failed to identify the accused. Moreover, the prosecution failed to examine the other injured persons. The owner of the crime vehicle

PW4/B.Lingareddy did not support the case of the prosecution, except that he is the owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 28 T 6129.

Hence, there is reasonable doubt with respect to the identification of the accused. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused is the person who drove the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 28

T 6129 belongs to PW4/B.Lingareddy on the date of incident at the time of offence, beyond all reasonable doubt.

18.Point No.4: Inview of the above discussion in point No.1 to 3, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused is the person who drove the crime vehicle at the time of incident on the date of incident. As such, there is no necessity of discussion with respect to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident, on the date of incident.

19.In view of the above discussion, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable

U/sec. 304-A, 337, 338 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.

8

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 304-A, 337, 338 IPC and the accused is acquitted

U/s. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months.

Typed to my dictation by P.A., corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day of March, 2014.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:-For Defence:-

PW1/LW1: Shaik Jafar -None- PW2/LW9: Azam Khan PW3/LW10: Sk.Sulthan PW4/LW12: Buddai Lingareddy PW5/LW15: Syed Isaq PW6/LW17: Shaik Abdul PW7/LW19: Kanjari Bhumaiah Pw8/LW23: L.Ramulu PW9/LW21: Mothilal PW10/LW27: Shaik Jahangeer Pw11/LW25: M.Narendar Reddy PW12/LW24: N.Satyanarayana

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: is the report, dated: 19.4.2010. Ex.P2: is the entire statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C of PW4. Ex.P3: is the inquest panchanama of the over the deadbody of deceased No.1/Ameer. Ex.P4: is the inquest panchanama over the deadbody of the deceased/Shaik Abdul Sami. Ex.P5: is the inquest panchanama of the deceased No.3/Vittal Sopan Ex.P6: is the medical certificate of LW6/Shanker. Ex.P7: is the medical certificate of LW7/Md.Jaleel.

9

Ex.P8: is the medical certificate of Sk.Ismail. Ex.P9: is the medical certificate of PW2/Azam Khan. Ex.P10: is the PME report of the deceased No.1/Amar Shibibi Ex.P11: is the PME report of the deceased No.2/Sk.Abdul Sami. Ex.P12: is the medical certificate of PW3/Sulthan. Ex.P13: is the original FIR. Ex.P14: is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P15: is the rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P16: is the MVI report.

For Defence:- - Nil -

MOs. Marked - Nil -

I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

1

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

Judgement in Calender Case No. 533 of 2010, on the file of I Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nizamabad.

Name of complainant ::The State of A.P. Represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. I-Town, Nizamabad.

Names of accused:: A1: Dr.Neeli Ramchandar S/o Sitharamaiah, age: 47 years, Caste: Besta, Occ: Children specialist, R/o H.No. 5-6-203, Saraswathinagar, Road No. 4, Nizamabad.

A2: Neeli Seetha Ramaiah S/o Narsaiah, age: 85 years, Caste: Besta, Occ: House hold, R/o H.No. 5-10-377, Yellammagutta, Nizamabad.

A3: Smt.Neeli Mysamma W/o Seetha Ramaiah, age: 70 years, Caste: Besta, Occ: House hold, R/o H.No. 5-10-377, Yellammagutta, Nizamabad.

A4: Chintala Janaki W/o Bala Krishna @ Balakishan, age: 23 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occ: Student, R/o H.No. 11-1-2041, Chandrashekar colony, Nizamabad.

A5: Angala Bharath S/o Narayana, age: 46 years, Caste: M/Kapu, Occ: Agril. R/o Jandagally, Nizamabad.

Nature of Offence:: U/sec.498-A, 494 IPC.

Finding::IN THE RESULT, the accused A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.498-A, 494 IPC and the accused A1 to A5 are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A5 shall be in force for six months.

Sentence::Acquittal.

Date of Occurrence::prior to 01-12-2009.

Date of Complaint:: 01-12-2009

Date of Surrendered::13-09-2010 of the A1 to A5

Date of Release on bail::13-09-2010

Date of commencement of trail::31-08-2012

Date of Close of trial::07-03-2014

Date of Sentence of Order::24-03-2014

Explanation of delay:: ---

I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, ToNizamabad. The Hon'ble Ist Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

Present: Ms. N. Amaravathi, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Monday, the 24th day of March, 2014.

C.C.No. 533 of 2010 (Cr.No.341/2009 of P.S. Town-I, Nizamabad)

Between:

The State through Police, I-town Police station, Nizamabad.

.. Complainant.

And

A1: Dr.Neeli Ramchandar S/o Sitharamaiah, age: 47 years, Caste: Besta, Occ: Children specialist, R/o H.No. 5-6-203, Saraswathinagar, Road No. 4, Nizamabad.

A2: Neeli Seetha Ramaiah S/o Narsaiah, age: 85 years, Caste: Besta, Occ: House hold, R/o H.No. 5-10-377, Yellammagutta, Nizamabad.

A3: Smt.Neeli Mysamma W/o Seetha Ramaiah, age: 70 years, Caste: Besta, Occ: House hold, R/o H.No. 5-10-377, Yellammagutta, Nizamabad.

A4: Chintala Janaki W/o Bala Krishna @ Balakishan, age: 23 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occ: Student, R/o H.No. 11-1-2041, Chandrashekar colony, Nizamabad.

A5: Angala Bharath S/o Narayana, age: 46 years, Caste: M/Kapu, Occ: Agril. R/o Jandagally, Nizamabad.

.. Accused.

This case coming on this the 20th day of March, 2014 before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Senior APP for the State and of Sri M.Rajendar Reddy, Advocate for the accused, and after having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:- :: JUDGMENT ::

The accused A1 to A5 stand charged for the offences punishable U/sec.498-A, 494 IPC.

2.The Sub Inspector of police, I-Town Police station, Nizamabad filed final report U/sec. 173 Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.341/2009 with the following allegations in brief are as follows:

In the year 1992, the marriage of LW1/Neeli Kavitha with the accused A1 took place and at the time of marriage, the parents of

3

LW1/Neeli Kavitha gave cash of Rs. 3 lakhs, 12 tulas gold towards dowry. Thereafter, they lead happy marital life for about 3 years and LW1/Neeli Kavitha blessed with 2 male children out of there wedlock. As the childrens are suffering with Neurological disorder and they are undergoing treatement in Rainbow hospital,

Hyderabad. The accused A1 use to harass LW1/Neeli Kavitha for want of additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh. Thereafter, the accused A1 developed illegal contacts with the accused A4 and thereafter the accused A1 got second marriage with the accused A4 with the help of the accused A2, A3 and A5. Thereafter, the accused A1 use to harass LW1/Neeli Kavitha and atlast he desorted LW1/Neeli Kavitha.

Thereafter, LW1/Neeli Kavitha gave a report to police and police registered it as a case in Cr.No.341/2009, U/sec.498-A, 494 IPC and investigated into. After the completion of the investigation, final report is filed. Hence the case.

3.After filing the final report by the police, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/sec. 498-A, 494 IPC, against the accused A1 to A5.

4.On appearance of the accused A1 to A5, case copies furnished to the accused A1 to A5 as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused A1 to A5 was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/sec.498-A, 494 IPC, charges framed, readover and explained to the accused A1 to A5 in vernicular, for which the accused A1 to A5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused A1 to A5, the prosecution examined the complainant LW1/Neeli Kavitha as PW1,

4

the witness LW2/P.Laxminarayana as PW2, the witnesses

LW4/Vagmare Sahed Rao, LW5/Kalevar Nandu and LW6/Chigurla

Laxmi as PW3 to PW5, the investigation officer LW7/J.Hanmandlu as

PW6, the other investigation officer LW8/S.Srinivas as PW7 and the documents marked i.e., Exs.P1 to P5 and on behalf of the defence

Ex.D1 is marked.

7.After the completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused A1 to A5 was called for examination U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C for explaining the incriminating material evidence against them in the evidence of PW1 to PW7, having understood the same, the accused

A1 to A5 denied the incriminating material evidence against them and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

9. Now the point for determination are:

1. whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec. 498-A IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec.494 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT No.1:- Perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW7 and documents marked i.e., Ex.P1 to P5 on behalf of the defence, documents marked i.e., Ex.D1, that

PW1/Neeli Kavitha testified that her marriage with the accused A1 took place on 26.4.1992 and at the time of her marriage, her parents gave cash of Rs. 3 lakhs and 12 tulas gold towards dowry, and after the marriage they lead happy marital life for about 3 years

5

and thereafter the accused A1 to A3 started harassing her for want of additional dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and she use to take her two childrens to the Rainbow hospital, situated at Hyderabad for treatment purpose and during the said time, the accused A1 developed illegal intimacy with the accused A4 and on 24.11.2009, when she along with her children was at her parents house, situated at Hyderabad, at that time, the accused A1 came and informed that he got second marriage with the accused A4 with the help of the accused A2 and A3 in a temple at Nizamabad, which is corroborated with the version of the father of PW1/Neeli Kavitha i.e.,

PW2/P.Laxminayayana.

11.The evidence of PW1/Neeli Kavitha is, in one version,

PW1/Neeli Kavitha states that when she return back to the house of the accused, 2 or 3 days after 24.11.2009, at that time, the accused

A1 not allowed her to come inside the house and abused her and her parents, then she again went to her parents house. In other version PW1/Neeli Kavitha testified that presently she is residing at the house of her husband which is also corroborated with the version of PW2/P.Laxminarayana. That means, presently, PW1/Neeli

Kavitha along with her children are residing at the house of the accused A1. But the evidence of both PW1/Neeli Kavitha and

PW2/P.Laxminarayana is silent with respect to that when PW1/Neeli

Kavitha along with her children return back to the house of the accused A1 and how long she was residing therein.

12.Both the prosecution witnesses PW1/Neeli Kavitha and

PW2/P.Laxminarayana admitted that the accused is paying regularly the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month and also providing the shelter in one version. The other version of PW1/Neeli Kavitha is that she alienated 2 Acres of land situated at, Nizamabad, which

6

was given by the accused through gift deed executed infavour of

PW1/Neeli Kavitha, as the accused A1 failed to provide any requirements to her, which shows the dual versions of PW1/Neeli

Kavitha. Moreover, the investigation officer PW7/S.Srinivas Rao admitted that he did not collect any pellipatti pertaining to the marriage of PW1/Neeli Kavitha and also not collected any incriminating material evidence, with respect to the dowry given by the parents of PW1/Neeli Kavitha. Though, PW3/V.Saheb Rao and

PW5/Chigurla Laxmi who worked as Aaya and cook also did not support the version of the prosecution. Moreover, PW3/Vagmare

Saheb Rao and PW4/Kalevar Nandu admitted in cross examination, that the accused A2 and A3 are resident of Yellammagutta and the accused A1 used to look after his 2 sons with love and affection and none of the prosecution witnesses deposed any incriminating material evidence against the accused A5. Hence, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused A1 to A5 for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A IPC.

13.Point No.2: In order to prove the guilt of the accused, for an offence punishable U/s. 494 IPC, the prosecution examined

PW1/Neeli Kavitha who testified that after she blessed with two male childrens out of their wedlock and both the children are suffering with Neorological problem, as they could not able to do their work by their own, which is corroborated with the version of

PW2/P.Laxminarayana. Further PW1/Neeli Kavitha testified that the accused A1 developed illegal intimacy with the accused A4 and got second marriage with her. But the prosecution failed to file any of the documents with regard to the receipts of the temple in which the accused A1 got second marriage with the accused A4 with the help of the accused A2 and A3. Moreover, the prosecution failed to examine the person who performed the second marriage of the

7

accused A1 with the accused A4 in the temple at Nizamabad and also the persons who attended the said marriage. The investigation officer PW6/J.Hanmandlu and PW7/S.Srinivas Rao also failed to collect any of the documents with respect to the accused A1 got second marriage with the accused A4. Hence, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW7 are not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/s. 494 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.

14.In view of the above discussion, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused A1 to A5 for the offences punishable U/s. 498-A, 494 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.In the result, the accused A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.498-A, 494 IPC and the accused A1 to A5 are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused

A1 to A5 shall be in force for six months.

Typed to my dictation by P.A., corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th day of March, 2014.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:-For Defence:-

PW1/LW1: Neeli Kavitha -None- PW2/LW2: Paka Laxminarayana PW3/LW4: Vagmare Saheb Rao PW4/LW5: Kalevar Nandu PW5/LW6: Chigurla Laxmi. PW6/LW7: J.Hanmandlu PW7/LW8: S.Srinivas Rao.

8

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: is the report, dated: 1.12.2009. Ex.P2: is the entire statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of PW3. Ex.P3: is the entire statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of PW4 Ex.P4: is the entire statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of PW5. Ex.P5: is the original FIR.

For Defence:-

Ex.D1: is the marked portion of cross examination of PW1.

MOs. Marked - Nil -

I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

1

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

Judgement in Calender Case No.566 of 2012, on the file of I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Court, Nizamabad.

Name of complainant ::The State of A.P. Represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. II-Town, Nizamabad.

Names of Accused::A1: Pappala Veera Chandrashekar, S/o Appa Rao, age: 39 years, Caste: Kapu, Occ: Sales manager in Vardhaman threads Ltd.,near Nacharam,Hyderabad R/o F.R. 13 Samskruthi Prangan, Nacharam.

A2: Dora Malleswar rao S/o Thrimurthulu, age: 37 years, Occ: Asst. Sales officer in Vardhaman threads Ltd., near Nacharam, Hyderabad R/o 183 EWSH Santosh nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

Nature of Offence:: U/sec. 448, 290, 342, 506 R/w 34 IPC.

Finding::IN THE RESULT, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec. 448, 290, 342, 506 R/w 34 IPC and the accused A1 and A2 are acquitted U/s. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 and A2 shall be in force for six months.

Sentence::Acquittal.

Date of Occurrence::18-03-2012.

Date of Complaint:: 10-04-2012

Date of Surender ::11-05-2012 of the accused A1 and A2

Date of Release on bail A1 & A2::11-05-2012

Date of commencement of trail::08-03-2013

Date of Close of trial::20-03-2014

Date of Sentence of Order::28-03-2014

Explanation of delay::---

I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, ToNizamabad. The Hon'ble Ist Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

Present: Ms. N. Amaravathi, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Friday the 28th day of March, 2014

C.C.No. 566 of 2011 (Cr.No.42/2012 of P.S. Town-II, Nizamabad)

Between:

The State through police, Police station, Town-II, Nizamabad.

.. Complainant.

And

A1: Pappala Veera Chandrashekar, S/o Appa Rao, age: 39 years, Caste: Kapu, Occ: Sales manager in Vardhaman threads Ltd.,near Nacharam,Hyderabad R/o F.R. 13 Samskruthi Prangan, Nacharam.

A2: Dora Malleswar rao S/o Thrimurthulu, age: 37 years, Occ: Asst. Sales officer in Vardhaman threads Ltd., near Nacharam, Hyderabad R/o 183 EWSH Santosh nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

.. Accused.

This case coming on this the 25th day of March, 2014 before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Senior APP for the State and of Sri B.Krishnanad, Advocate, for accused, and after having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:- :: JUDGMENT ::

The accused A1 and A2 stand charged for the offences punishable U/sec. 448, 342, 290, 506 R/w 34 IPC.

2.The Sub Inspector of police, II-Town Police station, Nizamabad filed final report u/sec. 173 C.r,P,C in cr.no.42/2012, with the following allegations in brief are as follows:

LW1/B.Rajender is the resident of Ashok Veedhi, Nizamabad and he use to work as sales representative of Vardhaman threads Limited, at Nizamabad and the accused A1 and A2 are the manager and sales officer at Vardhaman threads Limited and LW1/B.Rajender failed to pay the collection of amount which was collected from the customers and utilized the same personally. On 10.3.2012, the accused A1 and

A2 asked amount to LW1/B.Rajender to repay the said amount. Then,

3

LW1/B.Rajender promised but not repaid. Thereafter, on 18.3.2012, at about 9-00 am, the accused A1 and A2 criminally trespassed into the house LW1/B.Rajender and wrongfully restrained LW2/B.Vijya

Chitra and abused her in filthy language and threatened them to kill.

Thereafter, LW1/B.Rajender gave report to police and police registered it is a case in crime No. 42/2012, U/sec. 448, 342, 290, 506 R/w 34

IPC, and investigated into. After the completion of the investigation, final report is filed. Hence the case.

3.After filing the final report by the police, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/sec. 448, 342, 290, 506 R/w 34 IPC, against the accused A1 and A2.

4.On appearance of the accused A1 and A2, case copies furnished to the accused A1 and A2 as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused A1 and A2 are examined U/s. 251 Cr.P.C, for the offences punishable U/s. 448, 342, 290, 506 R/w 34 IPC, for which the accused A1 and A2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused A1 and A2, the prosecution examined the complainant LW1/Boinpally Rajender as

PW1, the witness LW3/Dibbikar Rajender as PW2, the investigation officer LW6/Md.Asif as PW3, the other investigation officer

LW5/S.M.Basheer as PW4 and documents marked i.e., Exs.P1 and P2, on its behalf.

7.After the completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused A1 and A2 was called for examination U/s.313 Cr.P.C. for explaining the incriminating material evidence against them, in the

4

evidence of Pw1 to PW4, having understood the same, the accused A1 and A2 denied the incriminating material evidence against them and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

9.Now the point for determination are:

1) whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

A1 and A2 for an offence punishable U/sec. 448 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused A1 and A2 for an offence punishable U/s. 290 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused A1 and A2 for an offence punishable U/s. 342 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

4) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused A1 and A2 for an offence punishable U/s. 506 R/w 34

IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT :- Perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e.

PW1 to PW4 and the documents marked i.e., Ex.P1 and P2, that

PW1/B.Rajender testified that he use to work as sales representative in the Branch officer of Vardaman traders limited, Nizamabad,

Mahaboobnagar, Adilabad from the year 2009 to 2013 and the accused A1 used to work as sales manager at Hyderabad and the accused A2 used to work as sales manager from Nizamabad, Adilabad,

Mahaboobnagar Dist. and about 2 years back, due to Telangana hesitation, he could not able to collect the sale consideration from the customer for the sale of Vardaman traders and at that time, the

5

accused A1 and A2 demanded to pay cash of Rs.1,80,000/- and they took him to Hyderabad and obtained his signature on blank stamp papers and also collected the LIC police papers, land documents with respect to land situated at Mopal village.

11.PW1/B.Rajender further testified that the accused A1 and A2 got issued notice for the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- and thereafter, two months, on one day at about 10-00 pm or 11-00 pm, when he return back to his house, then LW2/B.Vijaya Chitra informed him that the accused A1 and A2 came upon his house and demanded to arrange an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- and then he gave report to police. As per the evidence of PW2/D.Rajender about 1 ½ year back, he along with

PW1/Boinpally Rajendar and LW4/D.Shankar use to work in VN wines situated at Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad and on one day at about 6-00 am, they went to the house of PW1/B.Rajender for getting keys of the wine shop and at that time, he found quarrel between Vijay chitra i.e., LW2 and two persons and also found bleeding injury on the left hand of LW2/Vijay chitra and also found broken pieces of bangles, then he intervened and pacified the issue between them. But the investigation officer PW4/SM.Basheer Ahmed failed to collect the medical certificate of LW2/B.Vijaya Chitra and also failed to seize the broken bangle pieces from the scene of offence.

12.Though, PW2/D.Rajender identified the accused A1 and A2, the prosecution failed to examine LW4/D.Shankar who also present at the time of incident along with PW2/D.Rajender. If it is believed that the incident took place on 10.3.2012 and the accused A1 and A2 obtained the signature of PW1/B.Rajender on blank papers and took LIC policy papers and documents pertaining to the land, then, what made him not to give the report to police. On the other hand, the investigation

6

officer PW4/S.M.Basheer Ahmed also failed to investigate the case with regard to the same. None of the documents filed pertaining to the amount which PW1/B.Rajender has to pay and for which the accused

A1 and A2 got issued notice. The investigation officer

PW4/S.M.Basheer Ahmed also failed to collect the said notice for demand of payment of Rs.1,85,000/- by the accused A1 and A2.

Hence, the evidence of PW1/Boinpally Rajender and PW2/Dibbikar

Rajender require corroboration with the other independent witnesses at the scene of offence who witnessed the incident.

13.As per the evidence of Pw1/B.Rajender, immediately after the incident he gave report to police and as the police did not take any action as such he filed private complaint i.e., Ex.P1, on 11.4.2012.

Ex.P1 disclose that the incident took place on 10.3.2012, at about 6- 30 am and thereafter, on 18.3.2012, which show that there is delay of one month or of 22 days for giving complaint under Ex.P1. Admittedly,

PW1/B.Rajender failed to file the report given to police. Hence, there is delay of one month in giving the complaint under Ex.P1 against the accused A1 and A2. Moreover, PW1/B.Rajender admitted that there are neighbours to his house, then there will be the possibility of the neighbours might have witness the incident as the alleged incident took place, at about 6-30 am. Admittedly, the investigation officer

PW4/S.M.Basheer Ahmed did not visit the scene of offence and did not examine any of the neighbours. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses Pw1 to PW4 are not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/s. 448, 342, 290, 506 R/w 34

IPC.

14.In view of the above discussion, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused A1 and A2 for the offences

7

punishable U/s. 448, 290, 342, 506 R/w 34 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec. 448, 290, 342, 506 R/w 34 IPC and the accused A1 and A2 are acquitted U/s. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 and A2 shall be in force for six months.

Typed to my dictation by P.A., corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of March, 2014.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

PW1/LW1: Boinpally Rajender - Nil - PW2/LW3: Dibbikar Rajender PW3/LW6: Md.Asif PW4/LW5: S.M.Basheer Ahmed.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: is the report, dated: 11.4.2012. Ex.P2: is the original FIR.

For Defence:-

- Nil -

MOs. Marked -Nil-

I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

1

Calender and Judgement

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

Judgement in Calender Case No.42 of 2014, on the file of I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Court, Nizamabad.

Name of complainant ::The State of A.P. Represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Town-I, Nizamabad.

Names of JCL::Ramadugu Prashanth S/o Narsaiah, age: 15 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occ: 9th class student, R/o Kulaspoor (V), Nizamabad Dist.

Nature of Offence::U/s. 379 or 411 IPC.

Finding::IN THE RESULT, the Juvenile Justice Board satisfied that, the Juvenile in Conflict With Law has did not commit an offence U/s. 379 or 411 IPC and the Juvenile in Conflict With Law is acquitted U/s. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Juvenile in Conflict With Law shall stand cancelled. The case property under CPR No. 14/2014 i.e., Mo.1 which is given to PW1/Nalla Rakesh for interim custody shall be retained by him, after the appeal time is over.

Sentence::Acquittal.

Date of Occurrence::11-01-2014

Date of Complaint:: 12-01-2014

Date of Apprehension::15-01-2014 of the JCL

Date of Release on bail::29-01-2014

Date of commencement of trail::23-10-2013

Date of Close of trial::19-02-2014

Date of Sentence of Order::28-03-2014

Explanation of delay::---

I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, ToNizamabad. The Hon'ble Ist Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

Present: Ms. N. Amaravathi, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Friday, the 28th day of March, 2014.

C.C.No. 42 of 2014 (Cr.No.21/2014 of Town-I, P.S. Nizamabad)

Between: The State through Police, Town-I, Police station, Nizamabad.

.. Complainant.

And

Ramadugu Prashanth S/o Narsaiah, age: 15 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occ: 9th class student, R/o Kulaspoor (V), Nizamabad Dist. .. Juvenile in Conflict with Law.

This case coming on this the 27th day of March, 2014 before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Senior APP for the State and of Smt. Ramadevi (legal aid) Advocate, for the Juvenile in Conflict with Law and after having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:- :: FINAL ORDER ::

The Juvenile in Conflict with Law stand inquiry for an offence

U/sec. 379 IPC.

2.The Sub Inspector of police, I-Town police station, Nizamabad, filed final report U/sec.173 Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.21/2014, with the following allegations in brief are as follows:

On 11.1.2013, LW1/Nalla Rakesh parked his Pulsar motor cycle bearing No. AP 10 AE 6769, infront of his house and on the next day, i.e., on 12.1.2013, he found missing of his motor cycle. Thereafter,

LW1/Nalla Rakesh gave report to Police and police registered it as a case in Cr.no. 21/2014, U/s. 379 IPC, and investigated into. After the completion of the investigation, final report is filed. Hence the case.

3.After filing the final report by the police, cognizance was taken for an offence U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC, against the Juvenile in Conflict with Law.

3

4.On appearance of the Juvenile in Conflict with Law, case copies furnished to the Juvenile in Conflict with Law as required U/sec.207

Cr.P.C.

5.The Juvenile in Conflict with Law was examined U/sec. 251

Cr.P.C. for an offence U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC, for which the Juvenile in Conflict with Law reported that he did not commit the offence and claimed for inquiry.

6.In order to prove an offence U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC, committed by the Juvenile in Conflict With Law, the prosecution examined the complainant LW1/Nalla Rakesh as PW1, the panch witnesses for the confession cum recovery panchanama LW2/Shaik Dasthagiri and

LW3/Macha Vinod as PW2 and PW3, the investigation officer

LW4/Md.Thalali Khan as PW4 and the documents marked i.e., ExP1 to P4 and material object marked i.e., MO.1, on its behalf.

7.After the completion of the prosecution side evidence, the

Juvenile in Conflict With Law was called for examination U/s. 313

Cr.P.C. for explaining the incriminating material evidence against him in the evidence of PW1 to PW4, having understood the same, the Juvenile in Conflict With Law denied the incriminating material evidence against him and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

9.Now the point for the determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved that the Juvenile in

Conflict With Law has committed an offence U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

4

11.In order to prove that the Juvenile in Conflict with Law has committed an offence U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution shall establish that:

1.On 11.1.2014, at about 7-00 pm, LW1/N.Rakesh went to

BIG ‘C’ shop, situated at Nizamabad on his motor cycle bearing

No. AP 01 L 2767 and parked the same near by the BIG C shop and received the phone call and in the mean while he found missing of his motor cycle and thereafter he gave report to police.

2.The Juvenile in Conflict With Law is the person who committed theft of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 01 L 2767 from near by BIG C shop, situated at Nizamabad, on 11.1.2014, at about 7-00 pm.

12.Point No. 1 :- Perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to PW4 and documents marked i.e., Exs.P1 to

P5 and material objects marked i.e., Mo.1, that PW1/N.Rakesh testified that on 11.1.2014, at about 7-00 pm, he went to the BIG ‘C’ shop, situated at Bus stand, Nizamabad, on his Hero Honda splender motor cycle bearing No. AP 01 L 2761 and parked the same infront of the said shop and he attended the call beside his motor cycle and within 5 minutes, he found missing of his motor cycle and he search for the same in the surrounding places, but could not found the same and thereafter, he gave report Ex.P1 to police, which is corroborated with the contents of the report Ex.P1.

13.Admittedly, the investigation officer PW4/Md.Thalali Khan failed to conduct the scene of offence panchanama. Though the evidence of the panch witness Pw2/Shaik Dasthagiri did not support the case of the prosecution, but the sole testimony of the investigation officer

PW4/Md.Thalali khan along with contents of the report Ex.P1 is

5

believable with regard the missing of the said motor cycle. Hence, the prosecution establish that on 11.1.2014, at about 7-00 pm, theft of Mo.1 took place, from infront of the BIG ‘C’ shop situated at Bus stand, Nizamabad.

14.Point No. 2:- So far as the identification of the Juvenile in

Conflict With Law is concerned, the prosecution examined the investigation officer PW4/Md.Thalali Khan who testified that on 15.1.2014, while he was conducting, the vehicle checking at

Nehrupark, Nizamabad, at about 9-00 am, he apprehended the

Juvenile in Conflict With Law along with Mo.1 and on enquiry he revealed his name and confessed the commission of the offence then he recovered Mo.1 from the possession of the Juvenile in

Conflict With Law under the cover of panchanama in presence of the panch witnesses PW2/Shaik Dasthagiri and PW3/Macha Vinod under

Ex.P5. But both the panch witnesses PW2/Shaik Dasthagiri and

PW3/Macha Vinod did not support the version of the investigation officer PW4/Md.Thalali Khan. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of Mo.1 from the possession of the Juvenile in Conflict

With Law under Ex.P5. Hence, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW4 are not sufficient to prove that the Juvenile in

Conflict With Law has committed an offence U/s. 379 or 411 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that Juvenile in Conflict With Law has committed an offence U/s. 379 or 411 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. In the result, the Juvenile Justice Board satisfied that, the

Juvenile in Conflict With Law did not commit an offence U/s. 379 or 411 IPC and the Juvenile in Conflict With Law is acquitted U/s. 255

6

(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Juvenile in Conflict With Law shall stand cancelled. The case property under CPR No. 14/2014 i.e.,

Mo.1 which is given to PW1/Nalla Rakesh for interim custody shall be retained by him, after the appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by P.A., corrected and pronounced by me in open Juvenile Justice Board on this the 28th day of March, 2014.

Members:- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C.,

1. Nizamabad.

2.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:-For Defence:-

PW1/LW1: Nalla Rakesh -None- PW2/LW2: Shaik Dasthagiri PW3/LW3: Macha Vinod PW4/LW4: Md.Thalali Khan.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: is the report, dated: 12.1.2014 Ex.P2: is the signature on the confession cum recovery panchanama. Ex.P3: is the signature on the confession cum recovery panchanama. Ex.P4: is the original FIR. Ex.P5: is the marked portion on the confession cum recovery panchanama.

For Defence:- -Nil-

MOs. Marked

MO.1: Hero Honda splendor plus motor cycle bearing No. AP 01 L 2761.

Members: I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad. 1.

2.

7