Smt. N. Lavanya

O.S.No.630 OF 2007 1 Spl. Magistrate Cou rt, Nandyal.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, NANDYAL

Present: Smt. N.Lavanya, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, FAC Special Magistrate, Nandyal

Wednesday, the 30th day of January, 2019.

Original Suit No.630/2007

Thatireddy Lakshmi Reddy, S/o Thatireddy Pedda Rami Reddy, aged about 58 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. ... Plaintif

Versus

1. Manda Subbarayudu, S/o Manda Kondaiah, aged about 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. [Died] by his L.Rs.,

2. Manda Pedda Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Late Manda Subbarayudu, aged 40 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District.

3. Manda Nagendrudu, S/o Late Manda Subbarayudu, aged 30 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o H.No.28/121/C, 1st Line, 2nd Room, Opp. Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Gudipatigadda, Nandyal, Kurnool District.

4. Manda Nagesh, S/o Late Manda Subbarayudu, aged 26 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District.

5. Manda Chinna Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Late Manda Subbarayudu, aged 23 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District.

6. Pedda Venkata Subbamma, W/o Pagidi Pullaiah, aged 35 years, Hindu, R/o H.No.482, C/o

7. Chinna Venkata Subbamma, W/o Polisetty Rama Subbaiah, aged 34 years, Hindu, R/o H.No.1-72, Kothapalle village, Debaguntla Mandal, Kurnool District.

8. P.Nagendramma, W/o P.Venkateswarlu, aged 29 years, Hindu, R/o H.No.25-6-7, Opp. Santhi Prasanthi Theater, Gandi Nagar, Vijayawada.

[Amended as per orders in I.A.No.560/2012, dated 03.03.2015].

... Defendants

This suit is coming on 04.12.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Rama Chandra Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri

T.Rama Gopal Reddy, Sri T.R. Raghava Reddy and Sri S.Ramudu, Advocates for Defendants No.5 and 8, and the Defendants No.2 to 4, 6 & 7 set exparte, and the Defendant No.1 died; and upon hearing both sides; and having stood for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O.S.No.630 OF 2007 2 Spl. Magistrate Cou rt, Nandyal.

J U D G M E N T

This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of an amount of

Rs.10,036/- with costs and interest from the estate of the defendant No.1, now in the hands of Defendants No.2 to 8, on foot of a promissory note.

2.The averments of plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The Defendant No.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.14,000/- from plaintiff on 25-12-2001 for his family/business necessities and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Kothapalli Villagem Nandyal

Mandal, agreeing to repay the same with interest at rate of 24% per annum, either to plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, on 29.07.2004 the 1st defendant paid Rs.10,000/- towards part payment of the above promissory note, and endorsed the same on the reverse of the promissory note. Later, inspite of several oral demands made by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant failed to pay the debt amount. On 14.11.2007, plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant died intestate leaving behind him, defendants No.2 to 8 as his nearest legal heirs. They succeeded the estate of the deceased 1st defendant, and the cause of action survived to them, and as such they are added as defendants No.2 to 8 in the suit.

Hence the plaint.

3. Defendant No.5 filed written statement by denying material contentions raised in the plaint. The material averments of written statement, in brief, are as follows:-

He contended that the 1st defendant Late M.Subbarayudu has not left the properties in the hands of his wife and children. He also contended that his father i.e., 1st defendant did not borrowed any amount

O.S.No.630 OF 2007 3 Spl. Magistrate Cou rt, Nandyal.

from the plaintiff for his family necessities. He submitted that the 1st defendant addicted to vices like drinking, gambling, etc, and used to spent all the income to his vices only, and he never look after the welfare of the family and did not borrow any amount for the family necessities. He also submitted that the defendants are not enjoying the properties and estate of Late M.Subbarayudu, since he has no either movable or immovable properties. Moreover, after the death of 1st defendant, the defendant No.2 was looking after the welfare of defendants No.3 to 6 with great difficulty.

Later, defendant No.2 also died, and so there is no income to the defendants No.3 to 6. He also submitted that he was no knowledge about the borrowing of suit promissory note amount from the plaintiff by his father i.e., M.Subbarayudu. There is no legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendants prior to filing of the suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs in the interest of justice.

4.During trial, the plaintiff was examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. On behalf of defendants, the defendant No.5 was examined as DW1. No documentary evidence was adduced on their behalf.

5.Heard the learned Counsel for plaintiff and defendants.

6.Basing on the pleadings, my predecessor in office has framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the 1 st defendant borrowed Rs.14,000/- on 25.12.2001 for his family necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff at Kothapalli (V) agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum?

O.S.No.630 OF 2007 4 Spl. Magistrate Cou rt, Nandyal.

2. Whether the 1 st defendant paid Rs.10,000/- towards part payment on 29.07.2004 and made endorsement on the reverse of the pronote?

3. Whether the 1 st defendant is an agriculturist and so the plaintiff is claiming interest @ 12 ½% p.a. though the stipulated rate of interest @ 24% p.a.?

4. Whether the 1 st defendant died intestate on 14.11.2007 leaving behind him the defendants D2 to D8 as his L.Rs, and they succeeded to the estate of deceased 1 st defendant?

5. Whether D1 Late M.Subbarayudu left the properties in the hands of wife and children?

6. Whether Late Subbarayudu [D1] used to look after the family affairs and borrowed amounts for the joint family necessities?

7. Whether Late Subbarayudu [D1] addicted to vices like drinking, gambling, etc., and used to spend all his income to his vices only?

8. Whether the L.Rs of the 1 st defendant are not enjoying the properties of Late M.Subbarayudu, since he has no either movable or immovable properties?

9. Whether it has to be proved by 2 nd defendant that he was looking after the welfare of D3 to D6 with great difficulty, as D3 to D6 have no source of income?

10.Whether it is mandatory to issue a legal notice to the

defendants before filing of the suit?

11.To what relief?

7.After the death of Defendant No.3, after filing of neat copy of plaint,

Defendant No.8 filed written statement, which is as follows:

Defendant No.8 submitted the same lines as submitted by the defendant No.5 regarding material contentions. She denied that her father addicted to vices like drinking, gambling etc. She also denied that her father Late M.Subbarayudu did not execute any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. She also submitted that she has no knowledge

O.S.No.630 OF 2007 5 Spl. Magistrate Cou rt, Nandyal.

about the borrowing of suit promissory note amount from the plaintiff by the 1st defendant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

8.Subsequently, after perusing the plaint and written statement, my predecessor in office, framed the following additional issues for trial:

1. Whether Late M.Subbarayudu, husband of D8 had left the

properties in the hands of his wife and children?

2. Whether Late M.Subbarayudu had borrowed Rs.14,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.12.2001 for his family and business necessities?

3. Whether Late Subbarayudu did not look after family affairs and borrowed amount for the joint family necessities?

4. Whether the defendants are not enjoying the properties of Late M.Subbarayudu?

5. Whether defendant No.2 died during pendency of the suit?

6. Whether defendant No.8 has no knowledge about the borrowing of the amount and execution of the promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff?

7. To what relief?

9.After framing of additional issues, the plaintiff was again examined in chief.

10.Heard both sides and perused the written arguments filed by both parties.

11.On perusal of the entire material record, and going through the issues framed by my learned predecessors in office, it seems that several issues were framed on 24.10.2016 and 17.11.2017, which are almost

O.S.No.630 OF 2007 6 Spl. Magistrate Cou rt, Nandyal.

similar in nature. Hence, this Court feels to recast the issues which are necessary for proper adjudication.

The re-casted issues are as follows:

1. Whether the suit promissory note, dated 25.12.2001 for Rs.14,000/- is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the part payment endorsement, dated 29.07.2004 is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

3. Whether the deceased M.Subbarayudu left any properties behind him to the defendants?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount against the estate of the deceased M.Subbarayudu, if any, fallen in the hands of D2 to D8?

5. To what relief?

12.ISSUES NO.1 & 2:-1. Whether the suit promissory note, dated 25.12.2001 for Rs.14,000/- is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the part payment endorsement, dated 29.07.2004 is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

As the plaintiff is seeking particular claim, the initial burden lies upon him to establish his case. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief by mostly reiterating the averments of his plaint. He deposed that 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.14,000/- from him on 25.12.2001 and executed the suit promissory note on the same day in his favour undertaking to repay the debt with interest at 24% p.a., and subsequently on 29.07.2004 he made part payment of Rs.10,000/- towards promissory note and endorsed the same on the reverse of the promissory note.

13. In support of his oral evidence, plaintiff produced a suit promissory note, dated 25.12.2001 for Rs.14,000/- as Ex.A1 and the part payment endorsement for Rs.10,000/- on the back of Ex.A1 was marked as Ex.A2.

O.S.No.630 OF 2007 7 Spl. Magistrate Cou rt, Nandyal.

During cross examination, the evidence of plaintiff as PW1 was not shaken on any material aspects. He stated that he did not issue legal notice prior to the filing of the suit, but got issued legal notice to the L.Rs of Late

M.Subbarayudu. He also stated that Late M.Subbarayudu owns a residential house and Ac.0.70 cents of land at Kothapalli village, but he did not submit any document for the same.

14.On perusal of the documentary evidence i.e. suit promissory note/Ex.A1 and Part Payment/Ex.A2 corroborating the version of plaintiff that the 1st defendant i.e., father of the defendants No.2 to 8 by name

M.Subbarayudu borrowed amount of Rs.14,000/- from plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note in his favour. Subsequently, during the life time of 1st defendant, on 29.07.2004 he paid Rs.10,000/- towards part payment and endorsed the same on the reverse of Ex.A1 Suit pronote.

Thus, the version of plaintiff was supported by documentary evidence and it shows that plaintiff successfully discharged his legal burden of proof to defendants.

15.Now, the onus of proof lies on the defendants to disprove the case of plaintiff and to establish their own case. In the written statement they have taken the plea that their father i.e., Late M.Subbarayudu did not borrow any amount for his family necessities. Again in the written statement itself, they contended that they have no knowledge about the borrowing of suit promissory note amount from the plaintiff by Late

M.Subbarayudu. That means they are not aware of the transaction between their father and plaintiff. It does not mean that their father did not borrow any amount from plaintiff. Either in written statement or in

O.S.No.630 OF 2007 8 Spl. Magistrate Cou rt, Nandyal.

cross examination of PW1, it was not denied that the signatures are of their father in suit promissory note/Ex.A1 and Part payment endorsement/Ex.A2. It is not their case that signatures of their father were forged therein. However, as plaintiff successfully discharged his legal burden of proof, it is up to the defendants to prove that the suit pronote is not true, valid and that it is created one.

16.In order to prove their contention, the defendant No.5 filed affidavit in lieu of her examination in chief by contending that the defendants have not succeeded any property from their father and that their father has not borrowed amount from plaintiff for their family necessities, and that they are not enjoying the properties and estate of Late M.Subbarayudu. In his cross examination, he categorically deposed that he do not know about the borrowing of amount by his father and execution of pronote in favour of Plaintiff since he was minor by the date of pronote. He also stated that he do not know even about part payment endorsement on the backside of pronote, and he also stated that he do not know the contents of his chief examination. So, he did not testify that his father not borrowed the suit amount and not executed the Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff. This evidence shows that DW1 does not aware whether his father borrowed the pronote amount and executed said pronote in favour of plaintiff. The defendant

No.8 filed affidavit in lieu of her examination in chief but not appeared

before Court for cross examination. Hence, her evidence was eschewed

from consideration.

17.On careful scrutiny of evidence on record, it appears that defendants mainly contending that their father did not leave any property in their

O.S.No.630 OF 2007 9 Spl. Magistrate Cou rt, Nandyal.

hands and hence they are no way liable to pay the debt amount.

However, with the evidence adduced on record by plaintiff, the Court believed that the suit promissory note/Ex.A1 and the part payment endorsement for Rs.10,000/- under Ex.A2 are true, valid and binding on defendants. Hence, issues No.1 & 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff against the defendants.

18. ISSUE NO.3:- Whether the deceased M.Subbarayudu left any properties behind him to the defendants?

The contention of plaintiff is that the 1st defendant M.Subbarayudu owned a house property and land an extent of Ac.0.70 cents at Kothapalli village. But the same was not denied by the defendants. The defendants has taken only plea that his father M.Subbarayudu addicted to vices like drinking, gambling, etc, and used to spent all the income to his vices only.

It is to note here that whether there is any property in the name of deceased borrower or not, the defendants are liable only to the extent of the estate, if any, of the deceased borrower lies in the hands of defendants.

On perusal of the material on record, and the suit pronote under

Ex.A1, it clearly shows that the 1st defendant i.e., the father of D2 to D8 borrowed an amount of Rs.14,000/- in the year 2001, and out of the same, during his life time itself he paid Rs.10,000/- towards part payment in the year 2004. The plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2007 for Rs.10,036/- including interest. Now a days ten thousand rupees is not a huge amount, and that too the entire suit amount is not being paid by a single person.

The 1st defendant Late M.Subbarayudu died leaving behind him 4 sons and 3 daughters as his legal heirs. If the suit debt is divided among the said 7

O.S.No.630 OF 2007 10 Spl. Magistrate Cou rt, Nandyal.

members, it is a very little amount to be paid by each person. There is no denial by the defendants D2 to D8 that the 1st defendant doesn't own any house property or landed property as contended by the plaintiff. So, the defendants being legal heirs to the estate of the deceased M.Subbarayudu are liable to pay the suit amount out of the estate, now lying in their hands.

19. ISSUE NO.4:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount against the estate of the deceased M.Subbarayudu, if any, fallen in the hands of D2 to D8?

Since the Issue No.1 to 3 are answered in favour of the Plaintiff, and as the Defendants did not dispute their relationship with the 1st Defendant i.e., Late M.Subbarayudu, this Court concludes and holds that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire Suit claim from the estate of the deceased

M.Subbarayudu, lying in the hands of the Defendants D2 to D8.

Hence, this Issue is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

20.ISSUE NO.5:- To what relief ?

In the result, the Suit is decreed with costs, directing the

Defendants No.2 to 8, to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,036/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the Suit till the date of Decree, and thereafter, with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of Decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.10,036/-, from and out of the estate of the Deceased Manda

Subbarayudu, now lying in their hands.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 30 th day of January, 2019.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, FAC Special Magistrate, Nandyal.

O.S.No.630 OF 2007 11 Spl. Magistrate Cou rt, Nandyal.

O.S.No.630 OF 2007 12 Spl. Magistrate Cou rt, Nandyal.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintif. PW1: Thatireddy Laxmi Reddy

For Defendants. DW1: M.Venkata Subbaiah

Exhibits marked

For Plaintif For Defendants

Ex.A1: Original Pronote, dated 25.12.2001.- NIL - Ex.A2: Part payment endorsement, dated 29.07.2004.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, FAC Special Magistrate, Nandyal.

O.S.No.630 OF 2007 13Spl. Magistrate Cou rt, Nandyal.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, NANDYAL

Present: Smt. N.Lavanya, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, FAC Special Magistrate, Nandyal

Wednesday, the 30th day of January, 2019.

Original Suit No.630/2007

Thatireddy Lakshmi Reddy, S/o Thatireddy Pedda Rami Reddy, aged about 58 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. ... Plaintif

Versus

1. Manda Subbarayudu, S/o Manda Kondaiah, aged about 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. [Died] by his L.Rs.,

2. Manda Pedda Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Late Manda Subbarayudu, aged 40 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District.

3. Manda Nagendrudu, S/o Late Manda Subbarayudu, aged 30 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o H.No.28/121/C, 1st Line, 2nd Room, Opp. Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Gudipatigadda, Nandyal, Kurnool District.

4. Manda Nagesh, S/o Late Manda Subbarayudu, aged 26 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District.

5. Manda Chinna Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Late Manda Subbarayudu, aged 23 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o Kothapalli village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District.

6. Pedda Venkata Subbamma, W/o Pagidi Pullaiah, aged 35 years, Hindu, R/o H.No.482, C/o

7. Chinna Venkata Subbamma, W/o Polisetty Rama Subbaiah, aged 34 years, Hindu, R/o H.No.1-72, Kothapalle village, Debaguntla Mandal, Kurnool District.

8. P.Nagendramma, W/o P.Venkateswarlu, aged 29 years, Hindu, R/o H.No.25-6-7, Opp. Santhi Prasanthi Theater, Gandi Nagar, Vijayawada.

[Amended as per orders in I.A.No.560/2012, dated 03.03.2015].

... Defendants

Suit for recovery of Rs.10,036/- being the principal and interest due on a Promissory note dated 25.12.2001 for Rs.14,000/- executed by 1st defendant (deceased) in favour of plaintiff for his family expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. Later, on 29.07.2004 the 1st defendant paid Rs.10,000/- towards part payment of the above promissory note, and endorsed the same on the reverse of the promissory note. Inspite of repeated demands by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant during his lifetime, and to the defendants No.2 to 8 after the death of 1st defendant, being legal heirs of the deceased borrower, they did not repay the same. Hence the suit for suit amount and with costs.

O.S.No.630 OF 2007 14 Spl. Magistrate Cou rt, Nandyal.

Plaint presented on 27.07.2007 and filed on 29.08.2007. J.V. of Rs.10,036/- and a Court fee of Rs.816/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

This suit is coming on 04.12.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Rama Chandra Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri T.Rama Gopal Reddy, Sri T.R. Raghava Reddy and Sri S.Ramudu, Advocates for Defendants No.5 and 8, and the Defendants No.2 to 4, 6 & 7 set exparte, and the Defendant No.1 died; and upon hearing both sides; and having stood for consideration till this day, this Court doth and decree.

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs;

2. That the Plaintiff do recover a sum of Rs.10,036/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the adjudged sum of Rs.10,036/- from and out of the estate, if any, of the deceased 1st defendant Manda Subbarayudu, now lying in the hands of defendants No.2 to 8; and

3. That the plaintiff do recover a sum of Rs.3,525/- being costs of suit from and out of the estate of deceased 1st defendant by name Manda Subbarayudu, now lying in the hands of defendants No.2 to 8.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 30 th day of January, 2018.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, FAC Special Magistrate, Nandyal.

MEMO OF COSTS.

For Plaintif For Defendants Rs. Rs.

1.Stamp on Plaint816-00 -

2.Stamp on Vakalat2-00 2-00

3.Stamp on Process700-00 - As much as claimed

4.Advocate Fee Senior1,003-00Nil [not certified]

5.Advocate Fee Junior334-00 -

6.Publication Charges600-00 -

7.Writing Charges20-00 -

8.Type Charges50-00 - Total: 3,525-00 2-00

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, FAC Special Magistrate, Nandyal.

C.C.No.285 of 2017 1 JMFC Court, Banaganapalle.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BANAGANAPALLE.

Present :- Smt. N. LAVANYA,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BANAGANAPALLE.

Friday, this the 16th day of February, 2018.

C.C.No.285 OF 2017

Between:

The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Owk P.S. … COMPLAINANT

AND

Jamaligari Dastagiri, S/o J. Madar Basha, aged 24 years, Muslim, R/o Gangavaram village, Sirivella Mandal, Driver of Auto bearing No.AP21 TX 1372. … ACCUSED

*****

This Case has been coming before me on 15.02.2018 for final hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, for Prosecution; and of Sri T.Madhava Reddy and Sri T.R.Jagannatha Reddy, Advocates for the Accused, and upon hearing them, and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Owk P.S. has laid Charge-sheet against the Accused for the offence under Section 304[A] IPC in Crime

No.28/2017.

2.The case of the Prosecution, as per the Charge-sheet, in brief, is as follows:-

The defacto complainant by name Boya Malkapuram

Maheswari [LW1] is native of Ramapuram village, Owk Mandal and she is the wife of deceased B.M.Madhusudhan. On 23.02.2017 at evening hours

Madhusudhan [deceased] went to Kolimigundla village on his motor cycle bearing No.AP21 BB 6371 on his personal work and returned to Cherlopalli village late in the evening, and when the deceased reached near High

School, outskirts of Ramapuram village at about 8.30 PM, the accused being driver of auto bearing No.AP21 TX 1372 which was proceeding from

Cherlopalli side, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn lost control over the auto and hit to the motor

C.C.No.285 of 2017 2 JMFC Court, Banaganapalle.

cycle of Madhusudhan [deceased], as a result of which he fell down on the road with bleeding injuries. Meanwhile LWs.4 to 8 [Moola Pakkira Goud,

Pujagolla Balaramudu, Pilli Prabhakar, Gollakonda Kambagiri Ramudu and

Kommusani Ramanjineyulu] coming in opposite direction, the accused applied sudden break to the auto. The deceased Mangali Narayana who sat on back side of the auto fell down from the auto and sustained bleeding and dumb injury near left hand wrist and fell unconscious. Immediately LW4 [Avula Bangaraiah] and

LW5 [Beeram Venkata Subba Reddy] telephoned to LW1 [Nagendra] and

LW2 [Nagaraju]. Later, the deceased Mangali Narayana was shifted to

Shanthiram Hospital, Nandyal for treatment, and while undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed to injuries.

Basing on the complaint of LW1 [Mangali Nagendra], LW13 [N.V.L.Subramanyam] H.C.2398 of Nandivargam P.S. had registered a case in Crime No.136/2015 under Section 304[A] IPC and investigated into. On 22.12.2015 he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Mangali

Narayana and recorded the statements of LW1 to LW5 [Mangali Nagendra,

Mangali Nagaraju, Mangali Ramalakshamma, Avula Bangaraiah and

Beeram Venkata Subba Reddy] and on 23.12.2015 the Sub Inspector of

Police [LW14] recorded the statements of LW6 and LW7 [Rokkam Nagi

Reddy and Chakali Hanumanna]. On 17.01.2016 the S.I. of Police arrested the accused in the premises of Police Station and released him on bail after obtaining the sufficient sureties. LW11 Medical Officer, Government

Hospital, Nandyal conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued P.M. Certificate opining that the deceased died due to “Head injury with increasing extra dual hemorrhages”. LW12 C.V.Ramana, M.V.I.,

Nandyal examined the crime vehicle i.e., Auto bearing No.AP21 W 8917 and issued report opining that the accident was not due to any mechanical

C.C.No.285 of 2017 3 JMFC Court, Banaganapalle.

defects of the vehicle. Thus, the accused has committed offence punishable under Section 304[A] IPC. Hence, the Charge.

3.The case was taken on file against the Accused for the offence under Section 304[A] IPC.

4.On appearance of the Accused, the copies of the case documents furnished to him under Section 207, Cr.P.C.

5.During the course of examination, Accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C, regarding the allegation of the Prosecution for the offence under Section 304[A] IPC, the Accused had denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the Case is posted for trial.

6.On behalf of the Prosecution, PW1 to PW9 were examined, and

Exs.P1 to P14 are marked. The evidence of the rest of the Witnesses was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Hence, the

Prosecution evidence is closed.

7.After closure of entire Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and I explained the accused the incriminating material appeared against him in the evidence of

Prosecution witnesses in Telugu Language for which he denied the same, and stated that he has no defence witnesses to be examined on his behalf.

Hence defence side evidence is closed.

8.Heard.

9.The Point for consideration is whether the Prosecution is

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

Section 304[A] IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

SOLE POINT:

10. [a]To establish its case, the Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW9 and got marked exhibits P1 to P14.

C.C.No.285 of 2017 4 JMFC Court, Banaganapalle.

[b]Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on the complaint. Exs.P2 to P6, P8 & P9 are the 161 Cr.P.C Statements of PW1 to PW5, PW7 & PW8.

Ex.P7 is the signature of PW6 on Inquest Report. Ex.P10 is the First

Information Report. Ex.P11 is the rough sketch. Ex.P12 is the Inquest

Report. Ex.P13 is the Post Mortem certificate and Ex.P14 is the M.V.I.

report.

[c]PWs.1 and 2 being sons and PW3 being wife of the deceased Mangali Narayana deposed in their respective Chief Examination that they do not know the accused. They do not know anything about the facts of the case and they were never examined by the Police. They deposed that a few months ago the deceased died in an accident, but they do not know who is responsible for the said accident. PW4, PW5, PW7 and

PW8 who are the eye witnesses to the alleged offence, deposed that they do not the accused present in the open court hall and they do not know anything about the facts of the present case and they were never examined by police. PW1 to PW5, PW7 and PW8 were treated hostile by the learned A.P.P., and were cross examined by the Learned A.P.P., with the permission of the Court. In their respective cross examination they denied that they have stated before the Police as in Exs.P2 to P6, P8 and

P9 respectively; and that they are deposing false at the instance of the

Accused, as they have compromised with him. PW1 identified his signature on complaint given by him but denied its contents, and hence his signature is marked as Ex.P1.

[d]PW6 Inquest Panchayatdar deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of the case and he was never examined by

Police. The witnesses identified his signature on Inquest Report, but denied its contents as he put his signature on blank papers, and hence his signature is marked as Ex.P7.

C.C.No.285 of 2017 5 JMFC Court, Banaganapalle.

[e]PW9 the Head Constable, Nandivargam P.S. deposed in his Chief Examination that on 21.12.2015 basing on the complaint of PW1, he registered a case in Crime No.136/2015 under section 304[A] of IPC, and examined PW1 to PW3 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he held inquest over the body of deceased and immediately proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Later, he sent a requisition to Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspecting the crime vehicle. On 17.01.2016, LW14 arrested the accused and after collection of Post Mortem report of the deceased and the MVI report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. In his Cross

Examination by the learned Counsel for accused, he denied that he has foisted a false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

[f]Since PW1 to PW8 did not support the case of the

Prosecution regarding the identity of the Accused, Exs.P1 to P9 are not at all helpful to the Prosecution to prove that the accused negligently drove his Auto and that he is responsible for the death of the deceased Mangali

Narayana.

[[[11.In view of the above said discussion, it would disclose that the prosecution witnesses have not elicited incriminating act on the part of the accused i.e., causing death to the deceased Mangali Narayana due to rash and negligent driving on his part, etc., as because the prosecution witnesses have given go bye to the case of prosecution. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there are cloud of doubts which have not been unveiled by the prosecution. It is not just and proper on the part of the court to convict the accused without any corroborative evidence and non elicitment of incriminating act on the part of the accused and that too no prosecution witnesses stated anything against the accused. In the absence of any

C.C.No.285 of 2017 6 JMFC Court, Banaganapalle.

material evidence on behalf of prosecution, I came to conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence the case is liable for acquittal.

12.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304[A] of I.P.C., and is acquitted for the same under Section 255 [1] of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the Accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of Judgment, as per Section 437-A of

Cr.P.C., and thereafter, it shall stand cancelled.

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

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 5th day of October, 2017.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banaganapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW1: M. Nagendra PW2: M. Nagaraju PW3: M. Rama Lakshmamma PW4: A. Bangaraiah PW5: B. Venkata Subba Reddy PW6: T. Venkataiah PW7: R. Nagi Reddy PW8: Chakali Hanumanna PW9: N.V.L. Subramanyam, Head Constable

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION.

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on complaint. Ex.P2:161 Cr.PC statement of PW1. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW4 Ex.P6: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW5 Ex.P7: Signature of PW6 on Inquest Report. Ex.P8: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW7 Ex.P9: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW8 Ex.P10: First Information Report. Ex.P11: Rough sketch. Ex.P12: Inquest Report. Ex.P13: Post Mortem Certificate. Ex.P14: M.V.I. Report.

C.C.No.285 of 2017 7 JMFC Court, Banaganapalle.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

NIL.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banaganapalle

C.C.No.285 of 2017 8 JMFC Court, Banaganapalle.

// True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banaganapalle.

C.C.No.285 of 2017 9 JMFC Court, Banaganapalle.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BANAGANAPALLE.

CALENDER IN C.C. No.75 of 2016

Date of Offence: 21-12-2015

Date of Complaint:21-12-2015

Date of Apprehension of Accused:17-01-2016

Date of taking on file:11-03-2016

Date of Appearance of Accused:21-02-2017

Date of Commencement of trial:29-08-2017

Date of Closure of trial:03-10-2017

Date of Sentence / Order:05-10-2017

Explanation for delay:No Delay.

Complainant :The State, Rep., by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nandivargam Police Station. Name of the Father'sAgeVillageMandalReligionCalling AccusedName

K. FarrokAbdulla32 VelugoduVelugoduHinduDriver years

Nature of Offence : Causing death by rash or negligent Act.

Section of Law : Under Section 304[A] of I.P.C.

Finding of the Court : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence/ Order: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304[A] of I.P.C., and is acquitted for the same under Section 255 [1] of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the Accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of Judgment, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, it shall stand cancelled.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banaganapalle.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate – cum – Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

C.C.No.285 of 2017 10 JMFC Court, Banaganapalle.

// True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banaganapalle.

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

KOILKUNTLA.

Present:- Smt. N.Lavanya, Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Banaganapalle.

FAC. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilkuntla

Dated Thursday, the 6 th day of July, 2017.

CALENDER CASE No.47 of 2014

State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Koilakuntla P.S.

... Complainant

- Versus –

Meka Sai Chandrasekhar, Son of Krishna Rao, Aged 26 years, Resident of

Bhagyanagaram Village, Dornipadu Mandal, Driver of Bus bearing

No.AP21-W-9237 Hire with by APSRTC Koilakuntla Depot.

.. Accused

This case is coming on 29.06.2017 before me, for Arguments in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate for the Prosecution; and of Sri C.Shivarami Reddy and Sri G.Dada Peer;

Advocates for the Accused; and after hearing on both the sides, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Koilakuntla P.S. has filed Charge

Sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable U/Section 304-A of

IPC.

2. The brief averments of the Complaint are that:-

On 22.01.2014, at about 09.30 hours, at APSRTC Bus stand in gate of Koilakuntla Town, wherein the Accused being the driver of bus bearing No.AP21-W-9237 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed while proceeding into RTC Bus stand, at that time, the

 C.C.No.47 of 2014 2 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

Accused lost control over the vehicle and hit the Deceased Buddesagari

Khasimbee, while she was going into bus-stand by walk, due to which, the Deceased fell down and received bleeding injuries and that the

Deceased was died while undergoing treatment at the Hospital and the same was witnessed by LW4 [Bhajantri Uday Kishore].

Adverting to the above, basing on the Report of LW1 i.e.,

Buddesagari Shameer Hussain, a case was registered by the Sub

Inspector of Police [LW10], Koilakuntla P.S. as in Cr.No.9 of 2014, under section 304-A of IPC. During the course of investigation, on 22.01.2014, he was examined Lws.1 to 7 [Buddesagari Shameer Hussain, Buddesagari

Khaja Hussain, Ghousemmagri Uchubai, Bajanthri Uday Kishore,

Inaganuru Rami Reddy, Bandaru Gopal and D.Chota Hussain] at the

Government Hospital, Koilakuntla town and recorded their Statement; and thereafter, he prepared the Rough Sketch of the scene of offence.

LW8 Dr.Nagendra Naik, being the Medical Officer,

Government Hospital, Koilakuntla who conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the Deceased and opined that the deceased was died due to

Hypovotenic shock and accordingly, he issued Wound Certificate. LW9 i.e., Y.Siva Kumar being the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Nandyal who inspcted the crime vehicle and issued Motor Vehicle Inspector Report according.

On 28.01.2014, at 10.00 hours, the Sub Inspector of Police had arrested the Accused who surrendered before him and sent for remand.

 C.C.No.47 of 2014 3 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

Thereafter, completion of all legal formalities, he filed the

Charge sheet against the Accused under the above section of law.

3. My Learned Predecessor has taken the cognizance of the offence U/Section 304-A of IPC against Accused and issued summons.

4. On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused is examined U/Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet is read over and explained to him in

Vernacular. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During trial, the Prosecution has examined totally six witnesses as PW1 to PW6 and Exs.P1 to P10 got marked.

7. The Accused is examined u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material appeared from the evidence of Prosecution

Witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard both the sides. Perused the material records.

9.Now the Point for determination is :- “Whether the Prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the Accused for the offence under section 304-A of

IPC alleged or otherwise? “ 10.PW1 who is the complainant in this case. He is the grandson of the Deceased person. He deposed in his chief examination is that at about one year back, his grand mother was died in road accident near

 C.C.No.47 of 2014 4 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

Koilakuntla bus stand. He further deposed that on the date of incident, he went to purchase the Bananas, he learn that his grand mother was died in an accident due to hit of RTC Bus. He also deposed that he does not know the bus bearing number and that he does not enquired about the crime vehicle driver. He further deposed that he does not know the contents of alleged complaint which was lodged by him and that he was turned as hostile.

[b]PW2, who is the independent eye witness in this case.

He deposed in his chief examination is that he does not know the

Deceased person and the Accused person. He further deposed that at about two years back, an accident was occurred near RTC Bus-stand of

Koilakuntla, at that time, he was doing his work in his shop. He further deposed that he has seen the accident; but he does not went to the scene of offence. He further deposed that the accident was occurred by

RTC Bus; but he does not know the number of RTC Bus and its driver. He also deposed that someone had shifted the deceased person to the

Hospital and that he does not know by whose negligence the accident was occurred and turned as hostile.

[c]PW3, who is the inquestdar in this case. He deposed in his chief examination is that he went to the Koilakuntla Hospital as the

Deceased person is his villager and there the Police obtained the signature on some papers; but he does not know the contents of it and turned as hostile.

[d] PW4 and PW5 who are the Panchayatdars in this case.

They deposed in their chief examinations are that they do not know the

 C.C.No.47 of 2014 5 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

name of the Deceased person; and that they put their signatures on some papers at the request of the Police; but they do not know the contents of Panchanama and turned as hostile.

[e] PW6 who is the investigating officer in this case. He deposed in his chief examination as the same contents of his Charge sheet averments. During his cross examination by the Defence Counsel

for Accused, he denied the formal suggestion put forth by the Defence

Counsel for Accused.

11. POINT:

After going through the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence on record and also the arguments of the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor and Defense Counsel for accused, this court observed that in this case, PW.1 is the complainant in this case and that he was turned as hostile. He was cross examined by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor; but the Prosecutuion did not elicit any useful information from him. This is the great set back to the case of Prosecution. When coming to the evidence of PW2, who is the eye witness to the incident. But, he does not deposed any incriminating material against the accused and turned as hostile. He was also cross examined by the learned Assistant

Public prosecutor; but the Prosecution did not grab any useful information from him for the case. This is also one of the lacune in this case. When coming to the evidences of PW3 who is the inquestdar and the Pws.4 and 5 are the Panchayatdars in this case. They were turned as hostile. They were cross examined by the learned Assistant Public prosecutor; but he did not elicit any useful information from them for the case of prosecu-

 C.C.No.47 of 2014 6 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

tion. This is also another lacuna in this case. When coming to the evidence of PW6, who is the investigating officer in this case and also he is the interesting witnesses in this case. Moreover, he is the Complainant in this case to file the Charge sheet before this Court. In general, Police official’s evidence is may not be considered in all cases; and the evidence of other Witnesses did not corroborate with his evidence to strengthen his evidence.

12.In cases of this sort, when the Material Witnesses who are the

Pivotal Witnesses given go bye to the case of Prosecution, the

Prosecution can no longer edifice the case against the Accused. As such, it is held that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

13. On conglomeration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Prosecution established the death of the

Deceased person alone and failed to establish the identity of the

Accused, the alleged negligent act that has resulted to death of the

Deceased Person, as such the Court determined the point holding that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused for the accusation levelled against him beyond all reasonable doubt.

14. IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Section 304-A of IPC and thereby he is acquitted for the same u/sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties

 C.C.No.47 of 2014 7 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Typed by the Stenographer directly pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6 th day of July, 2017.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Banaganapalle. FAC. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Koilakuntla.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution For Defence

PW1 : B.Shameer HussainNone

PW2 : B.Uday Kishore

PW3 : Rami Reddy

PW4 : B.Gopal

PW5 : Chota Hussain

PW6 : B.Madhusudhan [Sub Inspector of Police]

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :- For Defence :-

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on Complaint;Nil.

Ex.P2 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1;

Ex.P3 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2;

Ex.P4 : Signature of PW3 on the Inquest Report.

Ex.P5 : Signature of PW4 on the Inquest Report.

Ex.P6 : First Information Report;

Ex.P7 : Rough Sketch;

Ex.P8 : Inquest Report.

Ex.P9 : Post Mortem Report;

Ex.P10 :Motor Vehicle Inspector Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR :-

Nil.

J.M.F.C., BPL.

FAC. JMFC, KKL

 C.C.No.47 of 2014 8 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

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

Calendar Case No.47 OF 2014

1.Date of offence22.01.2014

2.Date of report22.01.2014

3.Date of filing18.02.2014

4.Date of appearance of the Accused03.04.2014

5.Date of commencement of trial11.05.2015

6.Date of completion of trial29.06.2017

7.Date of Judgment06.07.2017

8.ComplainantThe Sub Inspector of Police, Koilakuntla P.S. in Cr.No.09 of 2014. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.No. Name of the Accused Father’s Name Age Calling Religion Residence

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meka Sai Chandrasekhar, Son of Krishna Rao, Aged 26 years, Resident of

Bhagyanagaram Village, Dornipadu Mandal, Driver of Bus bearing

No.AP21-W-9237 Hire with by APSRTC Koilakuntla Depot.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence : Causing death by rash or negligent act.

U/Section : 304-A of IPC.

Finding : Accused found not guilty.

O R D E R: The Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Section 304-A of IPC and thereby he is acquitted for the same u/sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The

Bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Banaganapalle. FAC. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Koilakuntla.

Copy submitted: To the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

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

KOILKUNTLA.

Present:- Smt. N.Lavanya, Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Banaganapalle.

FAC. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilkuntla

Dated Thursday, the 6 th day of July, 2017.

CALENDER CASE No.19 of 2017

State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sanjamala P.S.

... Complainant

- Versus –

Sangatipalli Jayaramudu, Son of Chinna Kondaiah, Aged 26 years,

Resident of Proddatur Road, Mydukur Town in Kadapa District, Rider of

Hero Passion Pro Motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BD-0141.

.. Accused

This case is coming on 29.06.2017 before me, for Arguments in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate for the Prosecution; and of Sri S.Khaseem Saheb; Advocate for the Accused; and after hearing on both the sides, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sanjamala P.S. has filed Charge

Sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable U/Sections 337, 304-A of IPC.

2. The brief averments of the Complaint are that:-

On 06.12.2016, in the morning, at 10.30 hours, while T.Siva

Ramaiah [LW1] and his wife, by name, Talari Siva Nagamma [Deceased] were left Ramapuram Village on their Motor cycle to see the Aradhana at

Kasireddy Nayana Ashramam near Mukkamalla Village, at about 11.00

 C.C.No.19 of 2017 2 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

AM, when they reached near Petrol Bunk, outskirts of Akumalla Village, on

Koilakuntla – Owk road, the Accused being the rider of Motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BD-0141 came in opposite direction and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle of LW1 [T.Siva

Ramaiah] and the deceased person fell down; and that T.Sivaramaiah received bleeding injury on right side of head and right hand; and that the Deceased Naga Sivammma received bleeding injury on her left side of fore-head, right eye, left knee; and that she was shifted to Government

Hospital, Koilakuntla for treatment; and thereafter, the deceased was shifting to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment; and that she was died while undergoing treatment.

Adverting to the above, basing on the Report of LW1 i.e.,

Talari Sivaramaiah, a case was registered by V.C.Satya Narayana [LW16],

Head Constable of Sanjamala P.S. as in Cr.No.194 of 2016, under sections 337, 304-A of IPC. During the course of investigation, LW17 i.e.,

M.Sreedhar, Sub Inspector of Police was verified the investigation done by V.C.Satya Narayana [LW16] and examined the witnesses as Lws.5 to 8 [R.Chinna Naga Seshudu, T.Pedda Hussainiah, T.Prasad and T.Kambagiri].

On 11.12.2016, at 11.00 hours, he was arrested the Accused and released him by taking sufficient sureties.

Dr.V.Rajasekhar, being the then Assistant Professor,

Department of Forensic Medicine [LW13], Kurnool who conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the Deceased and accordingly, he issued the

Certificate accordingly.

 C.C.No.19 of 2017 3 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

Dr.Vinod Kumar, Civil Assistant Surgeon LW14] who treated

T.Siva Ramaiah [LW1] opined that the injuries caused to him are simple in nature and issued certificate accordingly.

LW15 [C.V.Ramana] being the then Motor Vehicle Inspector,

Nandyal who inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle and issued the Report.

Thereafter completion of all legal formalities, the Sub

Inspector of Police, Sanjamala P.S. [LW18] has filed the Charge sheet against the Accused under the above section of law.

3. My Learned Predecessor has taken the cognizance of the offences U/Sections 337, 304-A of IPC against Accused and issued summons.

4. On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused is examined U/Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet is read over and explained to him in

Vernacular. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During trial, the Prosecution has examined totally nine witnesses as PW1 to 9 and Exs.P1 to P14 got marked.

7. The Accused is examined u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material appeared from the evidence of Prosecution

Witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

 C.C.No.19 of 2017 4 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

8.Heard both the sides. Perused the material records.

9.Now the Point for determination is :- “Whether the Prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the Accused for the offences under sections 337, 304-A of IPC alleged or otherwise? “ 10.PW1 to PW7 who are the blood relatives and eye witnesses to the Deceased person respectively. They did not depose any incriminating material against the Accused by stating that they did not know anything about the facts of the case and that they were not examined by the Police; and further deposed that few months back, the

Deceased was died in an accident; but they did not know who is responsible for the said accident and that they were turned as hostile.

[b] PW8 who is the Inquestdar in this case. He deposed in his chief examination is that on 07.12.2016, he along with Lws.11 and 12 [N.Jayanna and C.Nagamma] were attended the Inquest over the dead body of the deceased person at the Government General Hospital,

Kurnool and that he further deposed that he knows the contents of inquest Report. He was cross examined by the Defence Counsel for

Accused, he denied the formal suggestion put forth by the Defence

Counsel for Accused.

[c] PW9 who is the investigating officer in this case. He deposed in his chief examination as the same contents of his Charge sheet averments. During his cross examination by the Defence Counsel

 C.C.No.19 of 2017 5 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

for Accused, he denied the formal suggestion put forth by the Defence

Counsel for Accused.

11. POINT:

After going through the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence on record and also the arguments of the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor and Defense Counsel for accused, this court observed that in this case, PWs.1 to 7 are the complainant and independent wit- nesses in this case; but they did not depose any incriminating material against the Accused and turned as hostile; and that they were cross ex- amined by the Prosecution, he did not elicit any useful information from them for the case of prosecution. So, this is the great set back to the case of prosecution. When coming to the evidence of PW8, who is the in- questdar in this case. As per the evidence of PW8, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the Accused had committed the commission of offence; and that too Prosecution has not cross examined another in- questdar in this case. This is also one of the lacuna in this case. When coming to the evidence of PW9, who is the investigating officer in this case and also he is the interesting witnesses in this case. Moreover, he is the Complainant in this case to file the Charge sheet before this Court. In general, Police official’s evidence is may not be considered in all cases; and the evidence of other Witnesses did not corroborate with his evidence to strengthen his evidence.

12.In cases of this sort, when the Material Witnesses who are the

Pivotal Witnesses given go bye to the case of Prosecution, the

Prosecution can no longer edifice the case against the Accused. As such,

 C.C.No.19 of 2017 6 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

it is held that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

13. On conglomeration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Prosecution established the death of the

Deceased person alone and failed to establish the identity of the

Accused, the alleged negligent act that has resulted to death of the

Deceased Person, as such the Court determined the point holding that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused for the accusation levelled against him beyond all reasonable doubt.

14. IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sections 337, 304-A of IPC and thereby he is acquitted for the same u/sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed by the Stenographer directly pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6 th day of July, 2017.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Banaganapalle. FAC. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Koilakuntla.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution For Defence

PW1 : Siva RamuduNone

PW2 : T.Pedda Ramudu

PW3 : R.Naga Siva

PW4 : R.Chinna Naga Seshudu

 C.C.No.19 of 2017 7 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

PW5 : T.Pedda Hussainaiah

PW6 : T.Kambagiri

PW7 : G.Venkateswarlu

PW8 : P.Thimma Reddy

PW9 : V.C.Satya Narayana [Head Constable]

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on Complaint;

Ex.P2 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1;

Ex.P3 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2;

Ex.P4 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3;

Ex.P5 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4;

Ex.P6 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of PW5;

Ex.P7 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of PW6;

Ex.P8 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of PW7;

Ex.P9 : Inquest Report;

Ex.P10 : First Information Report;

Ex.P11 : Rough Sketch;

Ex.P12 : Post Mortem Report;

Ex.P13 : Wound Certificate of PW1;

Ex.P14 : Motor Vehicle Inspector Report.

For Defence :- Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR :-

Nil.

J.M.F.C., BPL.

FAC. JMFC, KKL.

 C.C.No.19 of 2017 8 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

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

Calendar Case No.19 OF 2017

1.Date of offence07.12.2016

2.Date of report07.12.2016

3.Date of filing17.01.2017

4.Date of appearance of the Accused03.03.2017

5.Date of commen1cement of trial22.06.2017

6.Date of completion of trial29.06.2017

7.Date of Judgment06.07.2017

8.ComplainantThe Sub Inspector of Police, Sanjamala P.S. in Cr.No.194 of 2016. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.No. Name of the Accused Father’s Name Age Calling Religion Residence

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sangatipalli Jayaramudu, Son of Chinna Kondaiah, Aged 26 years,

Resident of Proddatur Road, Mydukur Town in Kadapa District, Rider of

Hero Passion Pro Motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BD-0141.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence : Causing hurt by rash and negligent act; Causing death by rash or negligent act;

U/Sections : 337, 304-A of IPC

Finding : Accused found not guilty.

O R D E R: The Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sections 337, 304-A of IPC and thereby he is acquitted for the same u/sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The Bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Banaganapalle. FAC. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Koilakuntla.

Copy submitted: To the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

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

KOILKUNTLA.

Present:- Smt. N.Lavanya, Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Banaganapalle.

FAC. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilkuntla

Dated Thursday, the 6 th day of July, 2017.

CALENDER CASE No.103 of 2016

State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Uyyalawada P.S.

... Complainant

- Versus –

Itikala Chakali Venkateswarlu @ Babu Rao, Son of Late Venkateswarlu,

Aged 27 years, Allur Village, Uyyalawada Mandal, Driver of Tipper bearing

No.AP02-X-7858.

.. Accused

This case is coming on 29.06.2017 before me, for Arguments in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate for the Prosecution; and of Sri A.Mallikarjuna Reddy; Advocate for the

Accused; and after hearing on both the sides, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Uyyalawada P.S. has filed Charge

Sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable U/Sections 337, 304-A of IPC.

2. The brief averments of the Complaint are that:-

On 06.12.2015, at about 09.30 hours, the Deceased Maddela

Chinna Obula Reddy and Pemmireddy Sudarshana Reddy [LW9] were proceeded from Allur Village to Nayanalappa Swamy Temple on their

 C.C.No.103 of 2016 2 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

motor cycle bearing No.AP21-AJ-4035 and that when they reached near

Suddamalla Rastha located between Koilakuntla-Jammalamadugu road in

Allur Village, at that time, the Accused being the driver of Tipper bearing

No.AP02-X-7858 and kept his vehicle across to the road and unloading the mud without giving proper signals and lifted the body of tipper; and the body of tipper connected with an electric wire, due to which, the

Tipper body received electric shock and the same was dashed to Maddela

Chinna Obula Reddy [Deceased] motor cycle, due to which, he was received electric shock to his left hand and bleeding injuries; and the

Pillion rider P.Sudharshan Reddy [LW9] also received bleeding injury and the same was witnessed by P.Raghu Swamy Reddy [LW5], Syed

Mohammad Hussain [LW6].

Adverting to the above, basing on the Report of LW1 i.e.,

M.Nageswaramma, a case was registered by the G.Nagendra Prasad [LW16], Sub Inspector of Uyyalawada P.S. as in Cr.No.107 of 2015, under sections 337, 304-A of IPC. During the course of investigation, he was conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of

Lws.1 to 5 [M.Nageswaramma, M.Obula Reddy, M.Harinatha Reddy,

D.Rama Krishna Reddy and P.Raghu Swamy Reddy] and Panchayatdars

Lws.10 and 12 [A.Siva Rama Krishna Reddy and K.Ramakrishna Reddy] and recorded their Statements and also prepared the Rough Sketch of the

Scene of offence.

Dr. S.Raja Sekhar Reddy being the then Medical Officer,

District Area Hospital, Nandyal [LW13] who treated the injured person i.e.,

K.Rama Krishna Reddy [LW12] and issued the Wound Certificate.

 C.C.No.103 of 2016 3 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

Dr. Vinod Kumar [LW14] being the then Medical Officer,

Community Health Centre, Koilakuntla who conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased person and issued Postmortem Certificate.

LW15 [S.Siva Sankar] being the Motor Vehicle Inspector,

Nandyal who inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle and issued the Report.

Thereafter, on 14.12.2015, at 11.00 hours, Sub Inspector of

Police, had arrested the Accused; and that after completion of all legal formalities, he filed the Charge sheet against the Accused for the offences under sections 337, 304-A of IPC.

3. My Learned Predecessor has taken the cognizance of the offences U/Sections 337, 304-A of IPC against Accused and issued summons.

4. On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused is examined U/Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet is read over and explained to him in

Vernacular. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During trial, the Prosecution has examined totally eight witnesses as PW1 to 8 and Exs.P1 to P12 got marked.

 C.C.No.103 of 2016 4 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

7. The Accused is examined u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material appeared from the evidence of Prosecution

Witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard both the sides. Perused the material records.

9.Now the Point for determination is :- “Whether the Prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the Accused for the offences under sections 337, 304-A of IPC alleged or otherwise? “ 10.PW-1 to PW6 who are the blood relatives and independent witnesses to this case. They did not depose any incriminating material against the Accused by stating that they did not know anything about the facts of the case and that they were not examined by the Police and turned as hostile.

[b] PW7 who is the Inquestdar in this case. He deposed in his chief examination is that he along with Lws.11 and 12 [ M.Chennaiah and K.Rama Krishna Reddy] were attended the Inquest over the dead body of the deceased person at the Community Health Centre,

Koilakuntla and that he further deposed that he knows the contents of inquest Report. He was cross examined by the Defence Counsel for

Accused, he denied the formal suggestion put forth by the Defence

Counsel for Accused.

[c] PW8 who is the investigating officer in this case. He deposed in his chief examination as the same contents of his Charge

 C.C.No.103 of 2016 5 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

sheet averments. During his cross examination by the Defence Counsel

for Accused, he denied the formal suggestion put forth by the Defence

Counsel for Accused.

11. POINT:

After going through the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence on record and also the arguments of the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor and Defense Counsel for accused, this court observed that in this case, PWs.1 to 6 are the complainant and independent wit- nesses in this case; but they did not depose any incriminating material against the Accused and turned as hostile; and that they were cross ex- amined by the Prosecution, he did not elicit any useful information from them for the case of prosecution. So, this is the great set back to the case of prosecution. When coming to the evidence of PW7, who is the in- questdar in this case. As per the evidence of PW9, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the Accused had committed the commission of offence; and that too Prosecution has not cross examined another in- questdar in this case. This is also one of the lacuna in this case. When coming to the evidence of PW8, who is the investigating officer in this case and also he is the interesting witnesses in this case. Moreover, he is the Complainant in this case to file the Charge sheet before this Court. In general, Police official’s evidence is may not be considered in all cases; and the evidence of other Witnesses did not corroborate with his evidence to strengthen his evidence.

12.In cases of this sort, when the Material Witnesses who are the

Pivotal Witnesses given go bye to the case of Prosecution, the

 C.C.No.103 of 2016 6 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

Prosecution can no longer edifice the case against the Accused. As such, it is held that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

13. On conglomeration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Prosecution established the death of the

Deceased person alone and failed to establish the identity of the

Accused, the alleged negligent act that has resulted to death of the

Deceased Person, as such the Court determined the point holding that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused for the accusation levelled against him beyond all reasonable doubt.

14. IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sections 337, 304-A of IPC and thereby he is acquitted for the same u/sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed by the Stenographer directly pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6 th day of July, 2017.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Banaganapalle. FAC. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Koilakuntla.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution For Defence

PW1 : M.NageswarammaNone

PW2 : Raghuswamy Reddy

 C.C.No.103 of 2016 7 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

PW3 : S.Md. Hussain

PW4 : K.Srinivasulu

PW5 : Yella Reddy

PW6 : Sudharshan Reddy

PW7 : Siva Rama Krishna Reddy

PW8 : G.Nagendra Prasad [Sub Inspector of Police]

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on Complaint;

Ex.P2 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1;

Ex.P3 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2;

Ex.P4 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3;

Ex.P5 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4;

Ex.P6 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of PW5;

Ex.P7 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of PW6;

Ex.P8 : Inquest Report;

Ex.P9 : First Information Report;

Ex.P10 : Rough Sketch;

Ex.P11 : Post Mortem Report;

Ex.P12 : Motor Vehicle Inspector Report.

For Defence :- Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR :-

Nil.

J.M.F.C., BPL.

FAC. JMFC, KKL.

 C.C.No.103 of 2016 8 J.M.F.C Court, Koilakuntla.

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

Calendar Case No.103 OF 2016

1.Date of offence06.12.2015

2.Date of report06.12.2015

3.Date of filing29.03.2016

4.Date of appearance of the Accused16.12.2016

5.Date of commencement of trial15.06.2017

6.Date of completion of trial29.06.2017

7.Date of Judgment06.07.2017

8.ComplainantThe Sub Inspector of Police, Uyyalawada P.S. in Cr.No.107 of 2015. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.No. Name of the Accused Father’s Name Age Calling Religion Residence

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Itikala Chakali Venkateswarlu @ Babu Rao, Son of Late Venkateswarlu,

Aged 27 years, Allur Village, Uyyalawada Mandal, Driver of Tipper bearing

No.AP02-X-7858.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence : Causing hurt by an act which endanger human life etc.,

Causing death by rash or negligent act.

U/Sections : 337, 304-A of IPC.

Finding : Accused found not guilty.

O R D E R: The Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sections 337, 304-A of IPC and thereby he is acquitted for the same u/sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The Bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Banaganapalle. FAC. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Koilakuntla.

Copy submitted: To the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.