Sri N.Rajasekhar

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE:VIJAYAWADA

Friday, the 17th day of November, 2023 -:PRESENT:-

Sri N. Rajasekhar

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

@@@

Calendar Case N o. 190/2017

The State, Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, II-Town P.S,

Vijayawada City....... Complainant

Vs.

1) Chandaluri Venkata Renu, S/o. Rama Subbayya, A/40 years, C/ Vysya, R/o. D.No. 14-42-21, Marispet, beside Krishna Temple, Tenali, Guntur District. (Driver of Tanker Lorry bearing No. AP 20 T 4275)

2) Budigi Srinivasa rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, A/38 years, C/Mudirajulu, R/o. D.No. 7-80/3, Satram Bazar, Opp. Panchayat

Office, Wyra, Wyra Mandal, Khammam District. (Driver of car ........Accused No.

bearing No. AP 20 AQ 5657) 1 & 2

This case is coming on 26.10.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri I.R.N, Advocate for A1 and Sri A.Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for A2 and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub-Inspector of Police, II-Town Police Station of Vijayawada City laid charge sheet in Crime No. 70/2017, U/sec. 304-A Indan Penal Code (in short IPC) against A1 & A2.

02. The Prosecution case in nutshell,

One Cheboyina Kishore Yadav (P.W.1) is the son of Gopala Krishna (deceased) resident of Nynavaram Mandal of Vijayawada Rural and running a shamiana shop at his village. The deceased used to visit his fields daily on his motor bike bearing

No. AP 16 CW 1392. On 08.02.2017 at about 7:30 a.m, the deceased being rider of his motor-cycle left his house and visited his fields situated at Jakkampudi

Panchayat limits and later while, he returning towards his house on the same motor- bike, and on the way when he reached near Christu Ashram on road, he tried to overtake front going car bearing No. AP 20 AQ 5657, in the mean time, driver of said

2

car i.e, A2 (B.Srinivasa Rao) all of sudden opened right side front door, as the deceased tilted his bike towards right, in the mean-time A1 being driver of over-speeding opposite coming tanker lorry bearing Regd No. AP 20 T 4275 hit the motor bike in rash manner and with high-speed as deceased fell down and run over by said lorry and died instantaneoulsy on spot due to crush injury. The said accident occured at 10:30 a.m. One N.Vijay Kumar/P.W.2 witnessed the accident directly and he identified the deceased as the father of P.W.1 and gave information to

P.W.1. On such information, P.W.1 came to scene and found his father lying dead on spot. Hence P.W.1 lodged report. Based on the report of P.W.1, S.I of Police,

II-Town, K.Subbarao/P.W.9 registered a case in Cr.No. 70/2017, U/Sec. 304-A IPC, took up investigation, inspected scene of offence, prepared scene observation report and rough sketch and examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1 & P.W.2 and other witnesses and held inquest over dead-body of deceased, prepared inquest report and sent dead-body for autopsy. Pending investigation on 09.02.2017, P.W.9 complied Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C against A1 & A2 and dispensed with their arrest. Later

P.W.9 collected post-mortem report of deceased and accident report from concerned officials and thus completed investigation and filed charge sheet.

03. Cognizance of offence was taken U/sec. 304-A IPC.

04. On appearance of A1 & A2, case copies furnished to them as contemplated

U/Sec.207 Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C)

05. A1 & A2 are examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C, stated substance of accusation, explained and read over its contents to them in Telugu language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

06. To prove their case, prosecution examined P.W’s.1 to P.W.9 and exhibited

Exs.P1 to P12 and Ex.D1 & Ex.D2.

07. After closure of prosecution side evidence, A1 & A2 are examined U/Sec.313 (1) (b) Cr.P.Cfor the incriminating material lying in P.Ws evidence for which they stated everything as false and incorrect and reported no defence evidence.

3

08. I have heard arguments of learned APP and learned defence Counsel’s for

A1 & A2 respectively.

09. The learned APP for State argued that the evidence both oral and documentary adduced on record established the guilt of A1 & A2 for the offence charged, hence, prayed to convict A1 & A2.

10. Per contra, the learned Advocate appearing for A1 vehemently argued that A1 was innocent and he did not commit alleged offence and he wase falsely implicated in to this case and alleged eye witness/P.W.2 is close-associate to P.W.1 and as he was planted as witness and that the deceased/rider of motor-cycle was negligent in riding his motor-bike and he all of sudden fell-down on road and A1 being driver of tanker laden with crude oil tried best effort to stop vehicle but due to crude oil load, he is unable to avoid accident and that no negligence or rash act on his part and that P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.6 & P.W.7 being eye-witnesses could not identify either A1 or A2 as rash or negligent in driving their respective vehicles and thus prosecution failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence prayed to acquit accused No.1 from this case.

11. Whereas counsel for A2 vehemently argued none of the eye witnesses identified A2 as the car driver and I.O also could not produce any piece of evidence to show that A2 is car driver and even no identification parade was conducted against A1 & A2 by summoning alleged eye witnesses and thus prosecution failed to prove their case against A2, hence A2 is entitled to be acquitted.

12. Now, the point for determination is;

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 & A2 for the

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

13. POINT:

It is the case of prosecution that on 08.02.2017 at about 10:30 a.m, the deceased being rider of motor-cycle bearing No. AP 16 CW 1392 while proceeding towards his house and on the way, he tried to overtake front going car bearing No.

AP 20 AQ 5657, whileso its driver/A2 opened right side front door, as the deceased tilted his motor-bike towards right side and in the mean time A1 being the driver of

4

tanker lorry bearing No. AP 20 T 4275 hit the deceased/motor cyclist and run over up on him as deceased sustained crush injuries and died on spot instantaneoulsy and which acts of A1 & A2 do not amount to culpable homicide, but punishable u/ sec. 304- A IPC for their rash and negligent act.

14. To bring home the guilt of A1 & A2 , the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses P.W’s.1 to 9. P.W.1 is defacto complainant/son of deceased/hearsay witness, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 are ocular witnesses, P.W.5 is hearsay witness/wife of deceased, P.W.6 & P.W.7 are owners of alleged crime lorry and car respectively, P.W.8 is inquest mediator and P.W.9 is investigating officer.

15. This Court keenly perused the oral evidence of P.W.1 who set criminal law in to motiondeposed that the deceased/G.Gopala Krishna is his father and on 08.02.2017 at about 10:30 a.m, while he present at his house at Ambapuram, P.W.2 telephoned him and informed that deceased/motor-cyclist met with a fatal road accident at Christu

Ashram on road at Jakkampudi as a car driver all of sudden opened door of his car as deceased contacted door and fell-down on road and in the mean-time a tanker lorry hit deceased and run over up-on him as deceased died on spot instantaneously due to crush injury. P.W.1 further deposed on such information, he rushed to scene of offence and found dead body of his father/deceased on road and also noticed crime car and tanker lorry and also found A1 & A2 at scene and then he gave Ex.P1 report to police. P.W.1 deposed his father died due to the negligent act of car driver and rash act of lorry driver who hit his father without hooting horn. P.W.9 who said to be the investigating officer deposed that he registered a case in Cr.No. 70/2017 u/sec. 304-A IPC based on

Ex.P1 report made by P.W.1 on 08.02.2017. This Court perused Ex.P1 contents and which contents were on the same lines of P.W.1’s oral evidence regarding death of deceased due to fatal road accident and said accident occured near Christu Ashram,

Pamulakaluva centre and rash and negligent acts of car and lorry drivers. But Ex.P1 contents did not disclose specifically that P.W.1 noticed alleged lorry and car at scene and its drivers A1 & A2 at scene of offence respectively. Thus P.W.1 improved his 5 version a little bit. P.W.2 who said to be ocular witness deposed that on 08.02.2017, he visited Kothuru Tadepalli on his motor bike and later returning towards Vijayawada on his motor bike and on the way when he reached Jakkampudi on road, he noticed a moving car and on its back a moving bike, whileso all of sudden car driver opened the door on right side (while moving car) as the rider of bike contacted the door and fell down and in the meantime the opposite coming lorry hit deceased/motor cyclist and ran over upon him as the deceased died on spot. P.W.2 deposed A2 as the car driver and

A1 as the lorry driver and also deposed registered number of car as AP 20 AQ 5657 and registered number of lorry as AP 20 T 4275. P.W.2 furthermore deposed that the said accident occured due to the rash acts of A2/car driver and A1/lorry driver. P.W.2 further deposed the deceased died due to crush injury upon the head. P.W.2 further stated that he shifted the dead body to the road margin for clearing traffic. But P.W.2 omitted to depose that he was the person gave information to P.W.1 and also omitted to depose about the visit of P.W.1 to scene on such information. But his evidence is very clear that deceased/motor cyclist died on spot due to crush injury as deceased was run over by said lorry. P.W.3 being ocular witness deposed that on one day in the year 2017 while he was doing coolie works at a nursery at Pamulakaluva, he heard a big noise from road as he rushed to the place where noise came and found that an accident got occured. P.W.3 deposed that he came to know lorry hit a car but he could not notice either the registered number of said lorry or car or its drivers. But P.W.3 evidence did not disclose specifically about death of deceased at spot and he even could not whisper about the deceased as a motor cyclist met with accident. The defence counsels did not cross examine P.W.3 and challenge his evidence in any manner. Thus the evidence of P.W.3 could not prove the death of deceased at scene as P.W.3 committed crucial omissions. Moreover P.W.3 denied his acquaintance with deceased/Gopala Krishna. P.W.4 who said to be ocular witness deposed that on one day in the year 2017 while he was working at Pamulakaluva nursery, heard a big noise 6 from nearby as he rushed to scene along with other coolies and found that an accident was occured on road. P.W.4 further deposed that he came to know a car driver while running car, opened its door, consequently a motor-cyclist who followed said car contacted door and fell down and in the mean time a lorry hit motor cyclist. P.W.4 deposed that he noticed crime lorry, car and motor bike on road but he could not notice registered numbers of said vehicles or its drivers. The defence counsels could not cross examine P.W.4 too and challenge his evidence in any manner. However, P.W.4 also omitted to depose about the factum of death of deceased on spot. The prosecution failed to elicit crucial facts regarding accident occured and the manner of accident from the mouths of P.W.3 & P.W.4. Furthermore P.W.4 also could not state either registered numbers of said crime vehicles or about its drivers. The evidence of

P.W.3 & P.w.4 on record relevant to prove a factum that an accident occured near nursery situated at Pamulakaluva centre at relevant time. This Court perused the rough sketch/Ex.P7 and also scene observation report/Ex.P4 and found about existence of a forest nursery very near abutting to scene of offence. Thus P.W.3 & P.W.4 were chance witnesses and their rushing to scene of offence on hearing the sound of accident highly proabable but their evidence on record could not prove the death of deceased on spot. P.W.3 & P.W.4 omitted such crucial facts in their respective evidence. But the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2 were very specific, clear and consistent regarding the factum of death of deceased due to fatal road accident whih occured near Christu Ashram,

Pamulakaluva centre on road. P.W.5 who said to be the wife of deceased, got information from her son (P.W.1) corroborated about the death of deceased due to fatal road accident occured near Christu Ashram at Pamulakaluva centre but she denied her acquaintance with either car driver or lorry driver but stated that she came to know drivers of lorry and car were rash in driving said vehicles respectively. But the defence counsels cross examined P.W.1, P.W.2 & P.W.5 at length but did not dispute about death of deceased due to fatal road accident, place of scene of occurence of 7 accident in any manner. Furthermore the evidence of P.W.8/inquest and scene obseravtion mediator discloses that scene of offence is located near Christu Ashramam after crossing Pamulakaluva and that he noticed blood strains, crime car bearing No.

5657 and lorry bearing No. 4275 at scene and also deposed the deceased sustained crush injuries upon his face and shoulder. Although the defence counsels cross-examined P.W.8 but could not elicit any doubtful material about the death of deceased and place of occurence of accident located near Christu Ashram. Regarding injuries, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is divergent with one another but defence counsels could not deny the factum that the deceased died due to injuries caused in a fatal road accident. If it is so, the inconsistencies regarding injuries in prosecution witnesses liable to be ignored and not fatal to prosecution case. Be that as it may. Ex.P5/inquest report and

Ex.P11/post mortem report is very clear and specific about the injuries caused to the deceased. The deceased sustained multiple injuries and specifically crush injuries over face. Thus the prosecution adduced cogent evidence regarding injuries caused to deceased in a fatal road accident and death of deceased caused due to such injuries.

Furthermore prosecution able to prove said accident occured on road near Christu

Ashram at Pamulakaluva centre at relevant time.

16. Now it is the bounden duty of prosecution to prove the facts that while the deceased/motor cyclsit tried to overtake the front going car of A1, bearing No. AP 20

AQ 5657, A1 opened front door on right side as deceased/motor cyclist tried to avoid the accident, tilted his bike right side and in the meantime A2 being the driver of the opposite coming tanker lorry bearing No.AP 20 aq 5657 without hooting horn, drove lorry with high speed and in rash manner and hit the deceased motor cyclist and also run over upon him. P.W.3 & P.W.4 said to be ocular witnesses neither stated the registered numbers of said car or lorry nor about its drivers as A2 & A1respectively.

P.W.3 & P.W.4 did not identify A1 & A2 herein as the drivers of crime tanker lorry and crime car respectively. P.W.3 & P.W.4 did not state specifically that they have seen 8

A1 & A2 at scene of offence. Moreover P.W.3 & P.W.4 denied their acquaintance with

A1 & A2. Thus the evidence of P.W.3 & P.W.4 on record no way incriminate A1 & A2 in to alleged offence in any manner and even their evidence did not disclose A1 & A2 as the drivers of crime tanker lorry and crime car respectively. P.W.2 is the direct eye witness and he said to be returning towards his village from Tadepalli Kothuru on the date of accident and at the time of occurence of accident. During cross examination of

P.W.2 the counsel for A1 elicited that “P.W.1 is resident of our village but not my friend”. Whereas counsel for A1 during cross examination of P.W.1 elicited that “It is true that L.W.2/N.Vijay Kumar is also resident of Ambapuram. Thus P.W.1 & P.W.2 got acquaintance with each other. The learned counsel for A1 vehemently argued that

P.W.2 is a planted witness in this case as he is close associate to P.W.1 and that P.W.2 did not witness accident at all. Be that as it may. The version of prosecution is that, while deceased motor cyclist following the car of A2, and tried to overtake said car, A2 opened the front door on right side as the deceased/motor cyclist tilted motor cycle on right side to avoid accident, and in the mean time the opposite coming lorry driven by

A1 hit deceased/motor cyclsit and run over upon him and consequently deceased sustained crush injuries and died on spot. But the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2 quite contra to prosecution, discloses that deceased/motor cyclist contacted the front door of car on right side when A1 opened it as deceased/motor cyclist fell down on road and in the mean time lorry hit and run over upon him. Thus the evidence of prosecution witnesses/P.W.1 & P.W.2 quite contrary to the case set up by the prosecution and thus manner of accident is itself very inconsistent. The prosecution is not able to putforth their case on proper lines. Furthermore P.W.1 & P.W.5 are son and wife of deceased and they did not witness the accident occured at all directly and they are mere hearsay witnesses and got information about accident occured from P.W.2. P.W.1 & P.W.5 admittedly have no prior acquaintance with A1 & A2. Furthermore P.W.1 during chief examination itself improved his version that he has seen A1 & A2 at scene and also 9 noticed the registered numbers of crime tanker lorry and car but his Ex.P1 report omitted such facts.

17. Furthermore the alleged witnesses/P.W.1 to P.W.5 on record have no acquaintance with A1 & A2 before the date of accident. The investigating officer/P.W.9 who investigated the matter in deep, failed to conduct test identification parade of A1 & A2 by summoning eye witneses/P.W.2 to P.W.4 for the reasons better known to him.

For which this Court relied upon decision in “Piginaraji Ranga Rao Vrs State of

Andhra Pradesh”, reported in 2009(1) ALD Crl. 971 AP.

In the said case the Hon’ble High Court held that when there was no possibility for the injured to witness the driver, it is pertinent to hold Test Identification Parade.

No conviction can be recorded based on identity of the accused in the Court after long lapse of time without his identification at the earliest point of time and without Test

Identification Parade.

18. In the present case also if A1& A2 were present at scene after alleged accident, P.W.2 to P.W.4 had chance to see the complexion of A1 & A2. In case,

P.W.9/I.O ought to have conducted test identification parade of A1 & A2 by summoning

P.W.2 to P.W.4/eye witnesses in accordance with law and such TIP proceedings would be helpful to prove prosecution case. In the present case, the witnesses/P.W.2, P.W.3 &

P.W.4 (eye witnesses) were given their respective evidences on 19.04.2023, 10.05.2023 and 10.05.2023 respectively whereas the alleged accident occured on 08.02.2017. If it is so, there is about six long years gap after accident, P.W.2 to P.W.4 seen A1 & A2

before this Court during course of trial. Human memory is not a photographic memory

to reflect things as it is irrespective of time. Thus identification of A1 & A2 by P.W.2 after lapse of six long years is doubtful. P.W.3 & P.W.4 unable to identify A1 & A2.

P.W.1 & P.W.5 are mere hearsay witnesses. If it is so, basing on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 one cannot arrive at a just decision that A1 & A2 were the allege drivers and 10 they have driven their respective vehicles in rash manner. Furthermore the overt acts of deceased/motor cyclsit and A1, in the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4/eye witnesses is quite contrary with that of prosecution story (discussed supra).

19. Furthemore the I.O deposed that on 09.02.2017 one Vemula Srinivasa

Rao/P.W.6 produced A1 before him as he ascertained identity of A1, collected driving license of A1 and also collected vehicle documents of tanker lorry and recorded the statements of P.W.6 and also got offence report from A1 under Ex.P9. Likewise one

V.Brahmaiah/P.W.7 said to be produced A2 on 09.02.2017, hence he collected vehicle documents of car, recorded the statement of P.W.7 and got offence report from A2 under Ex.P10. This Court perused Ex.P9 & Ex.P10 documents respectively in which A1 confessed the deceased/motor cyclist hit the door of A2 car and fell down on road and consequently run over by his lorry and died on spot. Whereas A2 confessed that he negligently opened door while running his car, as a result the deceased/motor cyclist contacted door and fell down on road and in the mean time opposite coming lorry hit and run over upon deceased/motor cyclsit as he died on spot. Such statements of A1 &

A2 furthemore divulges that A1 & A2 after such accident, absconded from scene. Thus confessions of A1 & A2 respectively under Ex.P9 & Ex.P10 disclosed that they were rash and negligent and consequently the deceased/motor cyclist met with fatal road accident and fell down on road and run over by lorry and died on spot. Apparently, such confession statements made by A1 & A2 under Ex.P9 & Ex.P10 respectively made before the police officer/investigating officer/P.W.9. Ex.P9 & Ex.P10 containing the signatures of

A1 & A2 respectively and also the signature of P.W.9. No mediators found on such

Ex.P9 & Ex.P10. If it is so, such confession statements madeby A1 & A2 before

P.W.9/I.O hit by Sec. 25 of Indian Evidence Act. Sec. 25 of Indian Evidence Act laid down as “the confession made before a police officer inadmissable in evidence”. If it is so, the alleged confessions madeby A1 & A2 under Ex.P9 & Ex.P10 documents not admissable in evidence. Hence, Ex.P9 & Ex.10 documents discarded as it has no 11 sanctity in the eye of law. Furthermore I.O/P.W.9 deposed that he collected driving licenses and vehicle records of alleged tanker lorry and car and also recorded the statements of P.W.6 & P.W.7 but prosecution could not exhibit such driving licenses of

A1 & A2 and also vehicle documents of crime vehicles i.e, tanker lorry and car.

P.W.9/IO did not collect trip sheet of tanker lorry of alleged A1 or P.W.6 for the reasons better known to him. Moreover, utter surprise and dismay P.W.6 & P.W.7 did not incriminate A1 & A2 in to alleged offence in any manner and turn down the prosecution case in its entirety. Although the learned APP cross examined P.W.6 &

P.W.7 but no incriminating material or inculpating material elicited against A1 & A2 from their mouth. If it is so, the evidence of P.W.6 & P.W.7 would no way helpful to prosecution case. Thus I.O/P.W.9 did shoddy investiagation in to the matter. Hence, this Court is of considered view that the evidence adduced both oral and documentary not inspiring the confidence of this Court to arrive at a just decision that A1 & A2 were rash or negligent and committed accident against deceased and became the reason for death of deceased. Therefore A1 & A2 entitled to get benefit of doubt and consequential acquittal from this case.

20. In view of foregoing discussios and inconsistent evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court is of considered view that prosecution hopelessly failed to bring home the guilt of A1 & A2 for the offence charged. Accordingly, A1 & A2 are entitled to be acquitted.

21. In the result, this court foundA1 & A2 not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 304-A IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 & A2 if any on record shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. In this case no property was produced, hence, no property order passed.

Typed to my dictation directly by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- N.Rajasekhar

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For Prosecution: - P.W.1: Ch.Kishore Yadav P.W.2: N.Vijay Kumar P.W.3: K.Rakesh P.W.4: G.Sudheer Babu P.W.5: Ch.Ratna Kumari P.W.6: V.Srinivasulu P.W.7: V.Brahmaiah P.W.8: M.Anjaneyulu P.W.9: K.Subbarao/SI For Defence: - - None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: - Ex.P1: Report of P.W.1, dt: 08.02.2017 Ex.P2: 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 Ex.P3: 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7 Ex.P4: scene observation report, dt: 08.02.2017 Ex.P5: inquest report, dt: 08.02.2017 Ex.P6: FIR in Cr.No. 70/2017 Ex.P7: rough sketch Ex.P8: inquest report Ex.P9: accident report pertains to tanker lorry bearing Regd No. AP 20 T 4275 Ex.P10: accident report pertains to crime car bearing Regd No. AP 20 AQ 5657 Ex.P11: post mortem report of deceased, dt: 08.02.2017 Ex.P12: photos depicting deceased and also scene of offence total eight in number For Defence: - Ex.D1: part of 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.D2: part of 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Material Objects:- - Nil -

Sd/- N.Rajasekhar

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada.

//True Copy//

III ACMM, VJA

13

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

C.C. No. 190/2017

1Offence: 08.02.2017 2Apprehension of Accused: 09.02.2017 3Commencement of Trial: 21.02.2023 4Close of Trial: 13.09.2023 5Judgment: 17.11.2023 6Offence: U/Sec. 304-A IPC 7Name of Complainant: The State, Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, II-Town P.S, Vijayawada City 8Names of A1 & A2: 1) Chandaluri Venkata Renu, S/o. Rama Subbayya, A/40 years, C/Vysya, R/o. D.No. 14-42-21, Marispet, beside Krishna Temple, Tenali, Guntur District. (Driver of Tanker Lorry bearing No. AP 20 T 4275)

2) Budigi Srinivasa rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, A/38 years, C/Mudirajulu, R/o. D.No. 7-80/3, Satram Bazar, Opp. Panchayat Office, Wyra, Wyra Mandal, Khammam District. (Driver of car bearing No. AP 20 AQ 5657) 9Plea of Accused: Not Guilty 10Finding:ACQUITTAL 11Result:In the result, this court found A1 & A2 not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 & A2 if any on record shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. In this case no property was produced, hence, no property order passed. 12Explanation for delay:This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC against the A1 & A2 on 16.11.2017 and numbered as C.C.No. 190/2017. On 13.11.2018 case copies furnished to A1 & A2. On 04.01.2023 A1 & A2 are examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C., On 21.02.2023 P.W.1 was examined, on 19.04.2023 P.W.2 was examined, on 10.05.2023 P.W.3 & P.W.4 are examined, on 02.08.2023 P.W.5 was examined, on 17.08.2023 P.W.6 to P.W.8, on 13.09.2023 P.W.9 was examined. A1 & A2 are examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C on 11.10.2023. Heard the arguments on 26.10.2023. Judgment is pronounced on 17.11.2023. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- N.Rajasekhar

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

//True Copy//

III ACMM, VJA

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE:VIJAYAWADA

Wednesday, the 8th day of November, 2023 -:PRE.SENT:-

Sri N. Rajasekhar

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

@@@

Calendar Case No. 386/2017

The State, Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police,

KrishnalankaP.S, Vijayawada City....... Complainant

Vs.

Laveti Durga Rao, S/o. Varadachari, A/23 years, C/Viswa Brahmin, R/o. D.No. 12-252, N.T.R Colony, Tadepalli village, Guntur District. Driver of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 16 Z 0095

........Accused

This case is coming on 08.11.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri Y.David Raj, Advocate for the accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka Police Station of Vijayawada City laid charge sheet in Crime No. 94/2017, U/Sec. 304-A Indian Penal Code (in short

IPC) & Sec. 134(a) & (b) r/w 187, Sec. 181 r/w 3 of Motor Vehicles Act against sole accused.

02. The Prosecution case in nutshell,

One Bhukya Rajesh (P.W.1), M.Samabiah/P.W.2 are the employees of

A.P.S.R.T.C and working at P.N.B.S, R.T.C Garrage, Vijayawada. One Akusetty

Satyanarayana (deceased) is also mechanic at P.N.B.S, R.T.C Garrage. The accused is apprentice worker at R.T.C garrage, Vijayawada. On 04.02.2017 at 10:00 p.m,

P.W.1 and deceased commenced night duty at R.T.C garrage. Later at about 5:45 a.m on 05.02.2017, the deceased instructed his apprentice i.e, accused to keep aside the bus bearing No. AP 16 Z 0095 from pit-point as accused being the driver of said bus handled bus in rash and negligent manner and raised bus all of sudden and hit the deceased who was standing by the side of bus as he fell down and sustained injury and blood oozed from mouth and nose. The accident occured

2

witnessed by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and called 108 ambulance and then the staff of amublance found dead of deceased at scene. Hence, P.W.1 lodged repot. Based on the report of P.W.1, S.I of Police, Krishnalanka (P.W.8)/M.S.K.Arjun registered a case in Cr.No. 94/2017, u/sec. 304-A I.P.C and took up investigation, inspected scene of offence, drew rough sketch and scene observation report and recorded the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and other witnessses and held inquest over dead body of deceased, prepared inquest report and then complied Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C against accused and later collected post mortem report of deceased and accident report from concerned officials and thus completed investigation and laid charge sheet.

03. Cognizance of offence was taken U/Sec. 304-A IPC & Sec. 134(a) & (b) r/ w 187, Sec. 181 r/w 3 of Motor Vehicles Act.

04. On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to him as contemplated

U/Sec.207 Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C)

05. Accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C, stated substance of accusation, explained and read over its contents to him in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

06. To prove their case, prosecution examined P.W’s.1 to P.W.8 and exhibited

Exs.P1 to 8.

07. After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 (1) (b) Cr.P.Cfor the incriminating material lying in prosecution witnesses evidence for which he stated everything as false and incorrect and reported no defence evidence.

08. I have heard arguments of learned APP and learned defence Counsel for accused.

09. The learned APP for State argued that the evidence both oral and documentary adduced on record established the guilt of accused for the offence charged, hence, prayed to convict accused.

10. Per contra, the learned Advocate appearing for accused vehemently argued that accused was innocent and he did not commit alleged offence and he was falsely implicated in to this case and that R.T.C management and P.W.1 & P.W.2 colluded

3

together and foisted accused in to this case and the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2 is inconsistent regarding the incidient happened and there is no documentary proof on record to show accused was the person handled the bus either in rash manner or negligent manner and no document to the effect that accused was working as apprentice and I.O failed to examine the managerial staff of R.T.C and elicit true facts and thus prosecution failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, prayed, to acquit accused.

11. Now, the point for determination is that;

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence

punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC & Sec. 134(a) & (b) r/w 187, Sec. 181 r/w 3 of

Motor Vehicles Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

12. It is the case of prosecution that on 05.02.2017 at around 5:45 a.m, accused being the driver (apprentice diesel mechanic) of bus bearing No. AP 16 Z 0095 drove it in rash manner as he raised bus all of sudden which resulted hit against deceased as he sustained grievous injury and died on spot and which of accused not amounts to cuplable homicide but punishable u/sec. 304-A I.P.C for his rash and negligent act; furthermore accused handled the bus (drove the bus) without having any valid license and which act of accused punishable u/sec. 181 r/w Sec. 3 of Motor Vehicles Act; further accused failed to render first aid to injured after committing accident and also failed to give information to local police about accident occured and which acts of accused punishable u/sec. 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of Motor Vehicles Act.

13. To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses P.W’s.1 to 8. P.W.1 is eye witness/defacto complainant, P.W.2 is eye witness, P.W.3 is hearsay witness(wife of deceased), P.W.4 is scene observation mediator, P.W.5 is medical officer who conducted post mortem over dead body of deceased, P.W.6 is Motor Vehicle Inspector, P.W.7 is inquest mediator and P.W. 8 is investigating officer.

14. This Court keenly perused the oral evidence of P.W.1 who set criminal law in to motion deposed that he knew deceased/A.Satyanarayana who was mechanic at 4

A.P.S.R.T.C at Vijayawada depot and also knew accused who was apprentice and at about five years ago on one day at night hours, deceased, accused, himself discharging their respective duties at APSRTC mechanic shed, Vijayawada, whileso at around 5:45 a.m, he is checking bus No.138, whielso he heard a big noise and then found deceased was lying down on the right side of bus bearing No. 0095 and accused was also present near to the bus. P.W.1 deposed that since accused present near to the said bus, he felt that accused handled the bus. P.W.1 deposed the deceased died on spot and he noticed blood oozing from the ears of deceased. P.W.1 deposed that he gave report to police.

P.W.8 who said to be investigating officer corroborated the fact that P.W.1 lodged report under Ex.P1. This Court keenly perused Ex.P1 contents which go to show that at elarly hours on 05.02.2017, accused being driver handled the bus bearing No. AP 16

Z 0095 in rash manner and rasied it all of sudden as the deceased who stood at pit- point was contacted to bus and sustained injury and fell down and later died. But

P.W.1 no where in his evidence stated that accused drove the said bus and handled it in rash manner and contacted the deceased who was under pit-point in garrage.

Whereas P.W.2/eye witness and colleague of deceased corroborated the version of

P.W.1 that on 05.02.2017 when he attended duty at Vijayawada A.P.S.R.T.C depot garrage at 6:00 a.m, deceased greeted him and left by talking over his mobile and in the mean time, he went to change clothes, whileso heard big cry as he came back to the place where deceased greeted him and found that deceased lying dead on ground.

P.W.2 further deposed, in the mean time P.W.1 brought accused and informed that accused was the person driven crime bus bearing No. 0095 and at that time he was under utter shock and confusion and even unable to understand what happened. P.W.2 deposed that the said bus moved away from pit and the alleged incident happened on ground only. But the evidence of P.W.2 is very clear and specific that deceased died on spot. P.W.3 wife of deceased got information from R.T.C depot about incident happened corroborated the death of her husband due to injury and such injury caused 5 in an accident and the said accident caused by accused. Although the evidence of

P.W.3 discloses accused as the driver of crime bus and drove it in rash manner and hit her husband as her husband died but P.W.3 is not eye witness to the accident occured.

If it is so, the evidence of P.W.3 is relevant to prove the factum of death of her husband due to injury and such injury caused in a fatal accident. P.W.5 being the medical officer conducted post mortem over dead body of deceased found external and internal injuries and thereby opined that deceased appeared to have died of injuries.

Ex.P3/post mortem report unchallenged on record proved the factum of death of deceased due to injuries. P.W.7 who said to be inquest mediator deposed that police have conducted inquest over dead body of deceased and at that time he found crush injuries upon the chest portion of deceased. Ex.P5/inquest report also revealed such injuries. Ex.P8/digital photos discloses that such injuries upon the dead body of deceased besides oozing of blood from mouth and nose. Such evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, P.W.5 & P.W.7 coupled with Ex.P1, Ex.P3 , Ex.P5 & Ex.P8 made it clear about the death of deceased due to injuries sustained in an accident. Thus prosecution is able to prove the factum of death of deceased occured due to injuries in an accident with cogent evidence.

15. P.W.1 & P.W.2 being the employees of R.T.C deposed that such accident occured at R.T.C garrage, Vijayawada bus station. P.W.4 who said to be scene observation mediator categorically stated that police concerned inspected scene situated at R.T.C depot garrage, Vijayawada city in his presence and prepared detailed scene observation report/Ex.P2. The oral evidence of P.W.4 coupled with Ex.P2/scene observation report neither denied nor challenged nor rebutted by defence in any manner. This Court keenly scrutinized Ex.P2 document and found the accident occured infront of main mechanic shed of R.T.C depot garrage. Ex.P7/rough sketch also correlated with that of Ex.P2/scene observation report contents and depitcted scene of offence located infront of main mechanic shed. Ex.P1 contents go to show that the 6 deceased asked the diesel mechanic cum apprentice i.e, accused to keep aside the bus from pit-point. But neither the rough sketch/Ex.P7 nor the contents of scene obseravtion report disclose where such pit-point at garrage located. The investigating officer/P.W.8 did not clarify where such pit-point was located. P.W.1 alone is the direct eye witness to the incident happened. P.W.2 heard noise of accident and rushed to scene. But neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 in their evidence whispered about such pit-point at garrage. P.W.1 deposed he heard big noise while he checking bus No.138 and then he verified scene and found deceased was lying down on the right side of the bus bearing

No. 0095. P.W.1 deposed accused presesnt near to the bus. P.W.1 in his evidence no where stated specifically that accused was the person drove said bus either in rash manner or in negligent manner or moved bus from pit-point to other place. Ex.P1 contents only disclose accused handled the bus in rash manner. Thus P.W.1 omitted to depose such crucial point in his evidence which goes to the root of prosecution case.

P.W.2 deposed that he heard big cry as he rushed to the scene where deceased greeted him earlier and there found deceased lying dead on ground and in the mean-time P.W.1 brought accused and informed that accused was the person driven crime bus bearing No.

0095. But P.W.1 no where stated that he informed P.W.2 as accused was the person driven said bus. P.W.2 inconsistently stated that he was utter shock and confusion and even unable to understand what happened at scene. Thus the evidence of P.W.1 &

P.W.2 is not in consonance with that of prosecution story. P.W.1 & P.W.2 did not corroborate either actual place of accident or manner of the accident. As per prosecution case, except P.W.1 & P.W.2 there are no other employees working at scene of offence. The I.O/P.W.8 did not collect any documentary proof to show who were on night duty on 04.02.2017 and whether P.W.2 attended duty at early hours on 05.02.2017. P.W.8 in his evidence admitted that “I did not examine any official of

APSRTC, Krishnalanka depot. What prevented P.W.8 to examine other employees at garage and also managerial staff of A.P.S.R.T.C. Further the learned Advocate for 7 accused elicited from the mouth of P.W.8 that “It is true that in general if any R.T.C bus have had any repairs, its employees only attend to effect the repair. In general

R.T.C drivers used to park buses at garage after completion of duty on a given day and later such drivers alone used to take buses for plying. It is true that in general R.T.C drivers-cum-employees alone take the buses out of garage. I did not inspect the log-book of drivers maintained at garage in connection with accident. I did not examine depot manager or any other employee at APSRTC, Krishnalanka depot. In general department mechanics used to attend for effecting repairs in R.T.C buses. The apprentice workers is under the control of R.T.C depot manager concerned”. P.W.1 also in his cross examination stated that “It is true the senior and regular employees only attend the repairs connected to buses. It is true that the apprentices will assist the regular mechanics while rectifying repairs in buses”. Further it is elicited from the mouth of

P.W.1 that “It is true that duty of apprentice is only handing over tools to the mechanic. I do not know whether accused had any valid driving license as on the date of alleged accident”. P.W.2 in his chief-examination itself inconsistently stated that “to my opinion the deceased died as he was fell down under bus, but I cannot say whose fault or negligence said accident happened. Thus the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 coupled with I.O/P.W.8 were not clear, specific and consistent about the manner of accident and also about the person who handled the bus. Such evidence on record discloses apprentices only for assisting regular employees and they cannot be engaged in any major work. The deceased being mechanic took the assistance of accused. As per prosecution case, the accused handled the bus as per the instructions of deceased only but deceased appeared to have negligently acted and asked accused to handle the bus.

The accused is only diesel mechanic. If it is so, the deceased ought not to have entrusted such driving works to accused/apprentice. If it is so, it appears that the deceased also liable for contributory negligence. Be that as it may. There is no direct evidence on record to show accused drove the bus in rash or negligent manner and hit 8 the deceased. The I.O/P.W.8 did not collect any piece of documentary evidence to show that accused attended night duty on 04.02.2017 at R.T.C garage, Vijayawada.

Furthermore the evidence on record did not disclose specifically at which place in garage accident occured. Although, the Motor Vehicle Inspector/P.W.6 and his report on record made it clear that there is no mechanical defect in crime vehicle but unfortunately there is no reliable piece of evidence on record to show accused has handled the bus or driven it in rash manner. Thus such evidence adduced by prosecution is very inconsistent and creating doubtful circumstances over the case set up by the prosecution. If it is so, extending benefit of doubt in favour of accused is sustainable.

16. Since prosecution failed to prove accused as driver of driver of crime bus bearing Regd No. AP 16 Z 0095, question of accused possessing a valid driving license and rendering first aid to injured and giving information to police by him does not arise at all.

17. In view of foregoing discussion and inconsistent evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court is of considered view that prosecution hopelessly failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence charged. Accordingly, accused is entitled to be acquitted.

18. In the result, this court found accused not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC & Sec. 134(a) & (b) r/w 187, Sec. 181 r/w 3 of

Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any on record shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. In this case no property was produced, hence, no property order passed.

Typed to my dictation directly to Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- N.Rajasekhar

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined For Prosecution: - P.W.1: B.Rajesh P.W.2: M.Sambaiah P.W.3: A.Jhansi Lakshmi P.W.4: B.Naga Raju P.W.5: Dr.Siva Rami Reddy P.W.6: Y.V.N.Murthy/Motor Vehicle Inspector P.W.7: V.Badari Narayana P.W.8: M.S.K.Arjun/S.I For Defence: - - None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: - Ex.P1: Report of P.W.1, dt: 05.02.2017 Ex.P2: scene observation report Ex.P3: post mortem report, dt: 05.02.2017 Ex.P4: accident report, dt: 09.06.2017 Ex.P5: inquest report, dt: 05.02.2017 Ex.P6: F.I.R in Cr.No. 94/2017 Ex.P7: rough sketch Ex.P8: digital photos four in number corresponding C.D depicting crime bus and deceased.

For Defence: - - Nil Material Objects:- - Nil -

Sd/- N.Rajasekhar

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

Vijayawada.

//True Copy//

III ACMM, VJA

10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

C.C. No. 386/2017

1Offence: 05.02.2017 2Apprehension of Accused: 16.02.2017 3Commencement of Trial: 04.11.2022 4Close of Trial: 26.10.2023 5Judgment: 15.11.2023 6Offence: U/Sec. 304-A IPC & Sec. 134(a) & (b) r/w 187, Sec. 181 r/w 3 of Motor Vehicles Act 7Name of Complainant: The State, Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka P.S, Vijayawada City 8Name of Accused: Laveti Durga Rao, S/o. Varadachari, A/23 years, C/Viswa Brahmin, R/o. D.No. 12-252, N.T.R Colony, Tadepalli village, Guntur District. Driver of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 16 Z 0095 9Plea of Accused: Not Guilty 10Finding:ACQUITTAL 11Result:In the result, this court found accused not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC & Sec. 134(a) & (b) r/w 187, Sec. 181 r/w 3 of Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any on record shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. In this case no property was produced, hence, no property order passed. 12Explanation for delay:This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC & Sec. 134(a) & (b) r/w 187, Sec. 181 r/w 3 of Motor Vehicles Act against the accused on 29.07.2017 and numbered as C.C.No. 386/2017. On 15.12.2017 case copies furnished to accused. On 11.05.2022 accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C., On 04.11.2022 P.W.1 was examined, on 16.02.2023 P.W.2 was examined, on 12.04.2023 P.W.3 was examined, on 09.08.2023 P.W.4 was examined, on 28.08.2023 P.W.5 to P.W.7 are examined and on 26.10.2023 P.W.10 was examined. 3 P.W.8 was examined, on 28.06.2023 P.W.9 was Accused is examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C on 06.11.2023. Heard the arguments on 06.11.2023. Judgment is pronounced on 15.11.2023. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- N.Rajasekhar

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada

//True Copy//

III ACMM, VJA

1

CALENDAR EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE – CUM – MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

C.C.No.1342/2020

01. Date of Offence : Prior to 10.11.2019

02. Date of complaint or report : 10.11.2019

03. Date of filing of charge sheet : 11.02.2020

04. Date of commencement of trial : 05.09.2023

05. Date of close of trial: 01.11.2023

06. Date of sentence or Order : 16.11.2023

07. Name of the Complainant:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City.

08. Name of the Accused :

1.Gedela Venkat, S/o. Vasu, Aged about 31 years, Velama, D.No.7-92-1, Rajeev Colony, Gannavaram Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

2.Gondi Puneeth, S/o. Purna Chandra Rao, Aged about 23 years, Kamma, D.No.3-71, Gandhinagar, Buddavaram Village, Gannavaram Mandal.

09. OFFENCE: Under Sections 354-D, 509, 506 of IPC.

10. FINDING: Accused 1 and 2 found not guilty.

11. RESULT: IN THE RESULT, this court found A1, A2 not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.354-D, 509, 506 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1, A2 if any on record shall remain in-force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. In this case no property was produced, hence no property order passed.

12. Explanation for delay: This case was taken on file under sections 354-D, 509, 506 of IPC on 20.02.2020. On 16.02.2023 copies of documents were furnished to the accused persons. On 22.08.2023 A1, A2 were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. On 05.09.2023 PW.1 was examined in chief and Ex.P1 marked. On 19.09.2023 PW.1 cross examined. On 04.10.2023 PW.2, PW.3 were examined and Ex.P2, Ex.P3 marked. On 17.10.2023 PW.4 examined and Ex.P4 marked. On 30.10.2023 PW.5 examined and Ex.P5 marked. On 01.11.2023 PW.6 examined and Ex.P6, Ex.P7 marked and on the same day prosecution side evidence is closed. On 06.11.2023 A1, A2 were examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. On 09.11.2023 heard arguments. On 16.11.2023 Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- N.Rajasekhar

III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/ II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Submitted to:

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

2

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE –CUM

– MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

-: PRESENT :-

Sri N.Rajasekhar,

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC/II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate- cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 16th day of November, 2023

C.C.No. 1342 /2020

Between :

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City.

…. Complainant.

And

1.Gedela Venkat, S/o. Vasu, Aged about 31 years, Velama, D.No.7-92- 1, Rajeev Colony, Gannavaram Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

2.Gondi Puneeth, S/o. Purna Chandra Rao, Aged about 23 years, Kamma, D.No.3-71, Gandhinagar, Buddavaram Village, Gannavaram Mandal. …. Accused 1 and 2.

* * *

This case is coming on 09.11.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. R. Geetha, Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri M.A.Gafoor, learned Advocate for A1, Sri V.Sreenivasa Rao, learned Advocate for A2 and this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,GannavaramPolice Station,

Vijayawada City laid charge sheet in Crime No.408/2019 for the offence punishable under sections 354-D, 509, 506 of Indian Penal Code (in short

IPC) against A1, A2.

2.The prosecution case in nutshell.

One Bhimavarapu Harini Kumari (PW.1) was Ex-Surpanch of

Telaprolu Village and having family disputes with her husband and living apart from her husband Y.Rama Krishna since one year. Since PW.1 parted from her husband, her brother sent A1 as driver for the car of PW.1 and also to take the kids of PW.1 from house to school to and fro. Ever since A1 3 used to attend household chores at PW.1’s house. Since PW.1 joined as

Manager on 20.06.2019 at Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, Vijayawada for eking out her livelihood, A1 started to subject her to harassment both physical and mental. When PW.1 reported the same to her husband, he did not take care of her. Further A1 used to call the Regional Manager at the office of PW.1 and instigated him to remove PW.1 from employment or else he will kill her and also used to call her colleagues and propagating badly against her. PW.1 used to record all the conversations of A1 and intended to report the acts of A1 to Commissioner of Police and one Durga known about the same. On coming to know the same from Durga, on 06.08.2019, A1 and A2 stalked PW.1 while she is proceedings towards her office on a scooty and made her to fell down on BRTS road and at the time

A1 forcibly took handbag and collected her mobile phone and format data, in turn PW.1 reported the matter to Machavaram police as police warned

A1 and A2. Later again A1 and A2 stalked PW.1 while she proceedings towards Gannavaram and intimidated her with dire consequences. Further

A1 by inducing PW.1 extracted huge amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards fees of an advocate in connection with pending DVC case against her husband.

Further on 21.08.2019 when PW.1 proceeding towards Vijayawada Courts,

A1 stalked her and intimidated her. Further A1 acting smart misappropriated vehicles, bullets and also other household articles at the house of PW.1. Whenever PW.1 admonishes A1, he used to harass her by saying that he likes her and wanted to marry her. PW.1 used to suspect her husband behind all the acts of A1. A1 further misappropriated the gold ornaments and cash amount of PW.1 while he was worked at the house of

PW.1 and she demand A1 to return such gold and cash amount, A1 bore grudge and installed a secrete camera at bedroom of PW.1 and recorded her nude photos and thereby subjecting to harassment that he will viral her videos and blackmailing her. Hence PW.1 lodged report. Based on the 4 report of PW.1, S.I. of Police, Gannavaram Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.408/2019 under Sec.354-D, 509, 506 IPC against A1, A2 and investigated into the matter and recorded the statements of PW.1 and other witnesses PW.2 to PW.5 and inspected scene, drew rough sketch and found prima-facie case against A1, A2, hence complied Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.

against them and later on completion of investigation, laid charge sheet.

3.Cognizance of offence was taken under Sec.354-D, 509, 506 of

IPC.

4.On appearance of A1 and A2, case copies furnished to them as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5.When examined A1 and A2 U/s.239 Cr.P.C., they denied substance of accusation. Hence upon hearing both sides and on perusing the relevant material on record, a charge U/Sec. Sec.354-D, 509, 506 of

IPC framed, explained and read-over to them in Telugu language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6.To prove their case, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.6 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, this court examined

A1 and A2 under Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material lying in prosecution witnesses for which they stated everything as false and incorrect and reported no defence evidence.

8.I have heard arguments of learned APP and learned advocate for A1, A2.

9.The learned APP for state argued that the evidence both oral and documentary adduced on record proved the case of prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and hence prayed to convict A1, A2 for the offence charged.

10. Per contra, the learned advocate appearing for A1, A2 vehemently argued that A1, A2 were innocents and they were falsely 5 implicated into this case as the maternal aunt of A2 filed a criminal case against PW.1 based on a cheque and to escape from that case, PW.1 implicated A1, A2 into this false case and alleged eye witnesses not supported the case of prosecution and even the evidence of PW.1 is very inconsistent with that of prosecution story and thus prosecution failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence A1, A2 entitled to be acquitted.

11.Now the point for consideration is that:

Whether prosecution has proved guilt of A1, A2 for the

offence punishable U/s.354-D, 509, 506 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

12.It is the case of prosecution that prior to 10.11.2019, A1 and

A2 committed stalking against PW.1 in-spite of her clear indication of disinterest so as to foster her personal interaction while she was proceeding to her office and to her house and which act of A1 and A2 punishable under Sec.354-D of IPC and also at the same time A1 committed criminal intimidation against her and at the same time A1 committed physical harassment by subjecting her to cruel acts and which acts of A1 punishable under Sec.506, 509 IPC.

13.To bring home the guilt of A1 and A2, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses PW.1 to PW.6. PW.1 is victim/defacto complainant,

PW.2 to PW.5 are ocular witnesses for the overt acts of A1 and A2 against

PW.1, PW.6 is Investigating Officer.

14.This court keenly perused the oral evidence of PW.1 who set

Criminal Law into Motion deposed that A1 is her distant relation and A2 is close associate to A1 and that she got misunderstandings with her husband B.Y.Rama Krishna and living apart from year 2008 and hence, her elder brother got engaged A1 for attending household works at her house and also as car driver for dropping her kids to school and also to take her kids from school. PW.1 further deposed that while she was working as 6

Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, Vijayawada and whenever she goes to office, in her absence A1 stolen her cheques, bikes, furniture etc.

things without her consent and further knowing the family disputes, A1 introduced an advocate by name Raj Kumar to her and in that connection,

A1 got pledged her gold ornaments for value of Rs.2,50,000/- and gave said amount to the said counsel towards fee for filing maintenance case.

PW.1 further deposed that when she was working at Reliance Nippon Life

Insurance A1 used to stalk her and subjected her to harassment and even in her absence, A1 used to visit her office and threatened her colleagues to remove her from job or else he will kill her. PW.1 further deposed on one day when her Manager and herself attended duties at BRTS road and later while they were returning towards office, A1 and A2 came there and beat her with stick over her head and cheek and forcibly took her mobile phone without her consent as she gave report to Machavaram police, in turn, police enquired into the matter and called A1 and made A1 to say sorry to her and as per instructions of police, A1 gave her mobile back to her. PW.1 further deposed that on one day when she was returning towards her house from her office on scooty and on the way when she reached

Gannavaram Airport, A1 and A2 wrongfully restrained by following her on a bike and then A1 intimidated her with dire consequences that he will not allow her to live peacefully and also intimidated her to kill. PW.1 furthermore deposed that on 21.08.2019 when she is returning towards

Gannavaram after attending Court adjournment, A1 followed her and hit her scooty as she fell down and sustained bleeding injuries over her legs and got stitched to her wounds and took bed rest for three months and in that connection she reported the matter to Gannavaram Police but they did not respond as her husband influenced the police through local MLA not to register the case, hence she approached D.S.P. Women Protection

Cell, Mangalagiri, in turn D.S.P. directed S.I. Gannavaram to register case 7 as she lodged report under Ex.P1. PW.6 who said to be I.O. corroborated that he registered case in Cr.No.408/2019 under Sec.354-D, 509, 506 IPC based on Ex.P1 report and investigated into the matter and examined and recorded the statements of PW.1 to PW.5 and that PW.2 to PW.5 corroborated the version of PW.1 in material particulars and even he inspected scene of offence and drew rough sketch/Ex.P7 and then found prima-facie case against A1 and A2, hence complied Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. and later on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

15.Thus the evidence of PW.1 on record corroborated by I.O./PW6 but the ocular witnesses PW.2 to PW.5 who said to witnessed the alleged overt acts of A1 and A2 against PW.1, did not support the case of prosecution and even did not support the version of PW.1 at any stretch of imagination and denied the prosecution case in its entirety. PW.2 to PW.5 with one voice stated that they did not know anything about this case and police have never examined them or recorded their respective statements. Although the learned APP cross examined PW.2 to PW.5, no incriminating material elicited against A1 and A2. Hence the evidence of

PW.2 to PW.5 including the manager of PW.1 not helpful to prosecution case.

16.PW.1 in her evidence stated several instances how A1 subjected her by committed stalking, intimidation. But the evidence of

PW.1 not supported with any oral or documentary evidence. PW.1 deposed at one instance, on 21.08.2019 while she proceedings towards

Gannavaram, A1 followed her and hit her scooty as she fell down and sustained bleeding injuries over her legs and took bed rest for three months. If it is so, PW.1 certainly underwent treatment to that effect, but neither PW.1 nor I.O./PW.6 collected any piece of medical evidence to that effect. Furthermore, PW.1 deposed that A1 committed misappropriation of her valuable articles, furnitures, vehicles etc. while A1 attended her house 8 for doing household chores but PW.1 did not make any report to any police at that time. PW.1 even alleged that A1 stolen her valuable documents including cheques etc. but to that effect also PW.1 never reported the matter to police or any authority. PW.1 deposed at one instance A1 and A2 followed her while she going towards office and wrongfully restrained her scooty and at that time A1 forcibly took her handbag and the collected mobile phone and format the data relates to the conversation of her and

A1. PW.1 deposed that she gave report to Machavaram police to that effect, in turn Machavaram police called and admonished A1. To that effect no Machavaram police were examined by I.O. herein. PW.1 further stated to police that A1 installed secrete camera at her bedroom and snapped her nude photos while she taking bath and recorded those things with app technology and subjected her to mental harassment by blackmailing her but PW.1 omitted to depose such fact in her evidence.

PW.1 deposed her husband B.Y. Rama Krishna behind all these acts and assisting A1, A2 in committing such acts against her but I.O./PW.6 did not examine said B.Y. Rama Krishna for the reasons better known to him. Thus the evidence of PW.1 on record not in consonance with that of report contents nor her statement to police. PW.1 appeared to have exaggerated and embellished the facts at her whims and fancies. PW.1 did not whisper any alleged acts of A2 against her. PW.1 omitted to depose a specific dates when A1 and A2 alleged to have committed such acts. Even her office colleagues on record did not support her alleged version and turned hostile. If it is so, believing the sole testimony of PW.1 on record and concluding A1 and A2 committed such acts against PW.1 cannot be acceptable. The evidence both oral and documentary on record not inspired the confidence of this court. Thus extending benefit of doubt in favour of A1 and A2 is justifiable.

9

17.In view of foregoing discussions and inconsistent evidence of prosecution witnesses this court has no hesitation to hold the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of A1, A2 for the offence charged.

Hence A1 and A2 entitled to be acquitted.

18.IN THE RESULT, this court found A1, A2 not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.354-D, 509, 506 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1, A2 if any on record shall remain in-force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. In this case no property was produced, hence no property order passed.

Typed to my dictation directly by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- N.Rajasekhar

III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, –CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

For Complainant : For Defence :

PW.1: B.Harini Kumari. --- None --- PW.2: N.Venkatramayya. PW.3: K.Ravi Kumar. PW.4: G.Gnana Sai Sri Durga. PW.5: V.Jaya Kumar. PW.6: V.Srinu. SI of police, Gannavaram.

Documents marked

For Complainant : For Defence :

Ex.P1: Report of PW.1 dated.07.11.2019. --- NIL --- Ex.P2: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2. Ex.P3: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P4: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P5: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5. Ex.P6: Fir in Cr.No.408/2019. Ex.P7: Rough sketch.

Material Objects

Nil

Sd/- N.Rajasekhar

III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, –CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE:VIJAYAWADA

Tuesday, the 21st day of November, 2023 -:PRESENT:-

Sri N. Rajasekhar

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

@@@

Calendar Case N o. 287/2017

The State, Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, II-Town P.S,

Vijayawada City....... Complainant

Vs.

Bantu Venkaa Narayana, S/o. Mohana Rao, A/39 years, C/Mala, R/ o. Guduru Village and Mandal, Krishna district. Driver of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5929

........Accused

This case is coming on 21.11.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri V.Raja Ratnam, Advocate for the accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub-Inspector of Police, II-Town Police Station of Vijayawada City laid charge sheet in Crime No.137/2017, U/sec. 304-A Indan Penal Code (in short IPC) against sole accused.

02. The Prosecution case in nutshell,

One Vemula Srinivasa rao son of Venkateswarao (P.W.1) is resident of Koduru

Village and Mandal and doing masonry works. The deceased one B.Nageswarao is also a mason. On 24.03.2017, at afternoon hours, the deceased without informing

P.W.1 took the motor bike (of P.W.1) bearing Regd No. AP 16 CM 3886 and visited

Raja Rajeswaripeta where his wife (B.Sowjanya/P.W.3) is staying at her parental house due to her pregnancy. Later at around 7:00 p.m, the deceased being rider of motor cycle left R.R.Peta and proceeding towards Y.S.R colony and on the way, he was met with a fatal road accident as the accused being the driver of an over- speeding APSRTC bus bearing Regd No. AP 11 Z 5929 hit the deceased/motor cyclist in rash manner as deceased fell down and sustained bleeding injuries. The accident occurred witnessed by one B.Ramakoteswara rao/P.W.4 (conductor of said bus), P.W.5/B.Benny. Later injured/deceased shifted to GGH, Vijayawada. On

2

information, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 rushed to hospital and found the deceased with bleeding injuries. Hence P.W.1 lodged report. Based on the report of P.W.1, S.I of

Police, II-Town/K.Subbarao/P.W.8 registered a case in Cr.No. 137/2017, u/sec. 337

IPC. Pending investigation the injured died on 28.03.2017 at 7:20 a.m. Hence on death intimation P.W.8 altered section of law from Sec. 337 IPC to Sec. 304-A IPC and tookup further investigation, inspected scene of offence, drew rough sketch, scene observation report and recorded the statements of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and other witnesses and held inquest over dead body of deceased and sent dead body for autopsy. Pending investigation on 30.03.2017, accused himself surrendered before

P.W.8, hence P.W.8 collected STAR EXTRACT, driving license from accused and complied Sec. 41- A Cr.P.C and dispensed with the arrest of accused. Later P.W.8 collected post mortem report of deceased and accident report from concerned officilas and thus completed investigation and filed charge sheet.

03. Cognizance of offence was taken U/sec. 304-A I.P.C.

04. On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to him as contemplated

U/Sec.207 Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C)

05. Accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C, stated substance of accusation, explained and read over its contents to him in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

06. To prove their case, prosecution examined P.W’s.1 to P.W.8 and exhibited

Exs.P1 to P12.

07. After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 (1) (b) Cr.P.Cfor the incriminating material lying in P.Ws evidence for which he stated everything as false and incorrect and reported no defence evidence.

08. I have heard arguments of learned APP and learned defence Counsel for accused.

09. The learned APP for State argued that the evidence both oral and documentary adduced on record established the guilt of accused for the offence charged, hence, prayed to convict accused.

3

10. Per contra, the learned Advocate appearing for accused vehemently argued that accused was innocent and he did not commit alleged offence and he was falsely implicated in to this case for the purpose of claiming insurance by the deceased family members and no eye witnesses on record supported the case of prosecution and implicated accused without any basis and infact the deceased himself rode his motor cycle with high speed and came from wrong route and hit the

RTC bus and there was no fault on the part of driver of bus and thus prosecution failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt, hence prayed to extend benefit of doubt and acquit accused from the offence charged.

11. Now, the point for determination is;

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence

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

12. It is the case of prosecution that on 24.03.2017 at about 6:30 p.m at

YSR colony entrance road of Jakkampudi Panchayat, accused being driver of over speeding RTC bus bearing Regd No. AP 11 Z 5929 drove it in rash manner and hit a motor cyclist/B.Nageswara rao as he fell down and sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed while undergoing treatment and which act of accused not amounts to culpable homicide, but punishable u/sec. 304- A IPC for his rash or negligent act.

13. To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses P.W’s.1 to 8. P.W.1 is defacto complainant/hearsay witness, P.W.2 is hearsay witness (close associate to deceased), P.W.3 is the wife of deceased/hearsay witness, P.W.4 is conductor of crime bus, P.W.5 is ocular witness,

P.W.6 is medical officer who conducted post mortem, P.W.7 is inquest and scene observation mediator and P.W.8 is investigating officer.

14. This Court keenly perused the oral evidence of P.W.1 who set criminal law in to motion deposed that he knew deceased as a mason and that on 24.03.2017 at afternoon hours, the deceased took some amount from him and later left workplace and thereafter he came to his room and found deceased took away his motor bike with out consent 4 not come to room inspite of mid-night as he enquired with other mason I.e, P.W.2 and also with the wife of deceased i.e., P.W.3 and came to know that deceased was met with fatal road accident at YSR colony as he was hit by a bus and admitted to GGH,

Vijayawada and on such information, he rushed to GGH and there found deceased with unconscious stage and subsequently deceased succumbed as he give report to police.

P.W.3 who said to be the wife of deceased corroborated the version of P.W.1 that her husband met with a fatal road accident at YSR colony fly over at relevant time. P.W.3 further deposed that her husband died due to injuries sustained in a fatal road accident and she came to know the registered number of said bus which hit her husband as 5929. This Court perused the evidence of P.W.8/I.O who corroborated that P.W.1 lodged report as he registered case in Cr.No. 137/2017, U/Sec. 337 IPC and subsequently altered section of law based on the death intimation of injured/deceased. This Court perused Ex.P1 contents which also made it clear that deceased on 24.03.2017 took the motor bike of P.W.1 and left the room of P.W.1 and later at evening hours, he did not return, as P.W.1 felt pressure and made enquiries about the deceased and later at mid- night hours when P.W.1 called to the family members of deceased, he came to know about accident occurred and later rushed to hospital and found deceased with head- injury and lodged Ex.P1 report to police. Thus the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 coupled with Ex.P1 contents on record go to show that deceased died due to injuries sustained in a fatal road accident at relevant time. The learned Advocate for accused cross examined P.W.1 and elicited the over-writings and interpolations in the report/Ex.P1 regarding the bus which hit the deceased. Be that as it may. P.W.1 & P.W.3 are not ocular witnesses for the accident occurred. They are mere hearsay witnesses got knowledge about the accident and later rushed to hospital and there found deceased/injured with injuries under unconscious state. But the statement of P.W.1 &

P.W.3 that deceased died due to injuries sustained in fatal road accident undenied by defence in any manner. Furthermore P.W.4 who said to be ocular witness and 5 conductor in crime bus deposed that on 24.03.2017, the accused being driver and he being conductor of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5929 plying said bus between

Jakkampudi colony to Autonagar and on the way when they reached outskirts of

Jakkampudi, in the meantime a motor cyclist came with high speed in opposite direction from wrong route and hit a speed braker on road and fell down on road and his motor bike contacted the moving bus as he was shifted to hospital for treatment.

P.W.4 deposed the accident occurred due to over speeding of motor bike by deceased in rash manner. P.W.5 who said to be the ocular witness deposed that on 24.03.2017 at about 9:30 p.m when he being driver of an auto-rickshaw, returning from Jakkampudi, found traffic jam at YSR colony and on enquiry, he came to know a motor cyclist fell down infront of an RTC bus. Thus the evidence of P.W.5 made it clear he is not eye witness for the accident occurred and he is only an hearsay witness. On careful scrutiny of oral evidence of P.W.4 & P.W.5, it is clear the deceased fell down on road and sustained injuries. Furthermore the evidence of P.W.6 who said to be medical officer coupled with post mortem report/Ex.P3 issued by him made it clear the deceased appeared to have died of head-injury. Further the evidence of P.W.7/inquest mediator coupled with EX.p5/inquest report also made it clear that deceased appeared to have died of injuries caused to him in a fatal road accident. The evidence of P.W.6 &

P.W.7 on record undenied and unchallenged by defence in any manner. Furthermore the evidence of PW.7 coupled with Ex.P4/scene observation report which also undenied on record made it clear such an accident took place at YSR colony, Jakkampudi and the deceased met with fatal road accident at relevant time. Thus the evidence of P.W.1,

P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 & P.W.7 coupled with Ex.P3, Ex.P4 & EX.p5 made it clear about accident occurred to deceased at Jakkampudi colony while he riding motor cycle and he sustained head injury and later he died due to said injury. Thus prosecution is able to prove the factum of death of deceased due to a fatal road accident.

6

15. The evidence of P.W.4 on record made it clear accused was the person driven crime bus at the time of alleged incident. The eye witnesses/P.W.2 & P.W.5 on record did not whisper either the manner of accident or any rash act or any negligent act on the part of either accused or deceased. Although the learned APP cross examined P.W.2 but no incriminating material elicited against accused. But the evidence of

P.W.4/conductor made it clear that accused herein as the bus driver. Such statement of

P.W.4 on record undenied and unchallenged by defence in any manner. Furthermore

Ex.P12/STAR ACCOUNT which also discloses accused herein was the person driven crime bus. But either P.W.4 or alleged Ex.P12 no way incriminated accused as either rash or negligent in driving bus. P.W.4 being conductor did not incriminate accused and contra to prosecution case, deposed that accused was ridden his motor bike in rash manner and came to opposite direction from wrong route. Whereas contents of STAR/EX.p12 revealed that the rider of motor bike himself hit the bus under drunken condition. If it is so, the evidence of P.W.4 and Ex.P12 documents noway incriminate accused as he was rash and negligent in driving bus.

16. At last, this Court perused the evidence of investigating officer/P.W.8 who deposed about his investigation aspects over crime viz., registration of case based on

Ex.P1, visiting GGH, recording the statements of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and other witnesses, inspecting scene of offence, preparing rough sketch and scene observation report, altering section of law on receipt of death intimation (of deceased), holding inquest, preparing inquest report, arresting accused on his surrender, sending crime vehicle to the inspection of Motor Vehicle Inspector and collection of accident report and post mortem report and eventually filing of charge sheet. Although the evidence of investigating officer is relevant and trustworthy regarding investigation done but the ocular witness/P.W.2,P.W.4 & P.W.5 did not support the case of prosecution and incriminate accused rash and negligent while driving his RTC Bus. Thus the evidence of

P.W.8/IO on record diluted. The hostility on the part of eye witnesses much fatal and 7 goes to the root of prosecution case. Thus the evidence oral and documentary adduced on record by the prosecution not inspired the confidence of this Court. Therefore, extending benefit of doubt in favour of accused is sustainable.

17. In view of foregoing discussions and inconsistent evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court is of considered view that prosecution hopelessly failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence charged. Accordingly, accused is entitled to be acquitted.

18. In the result, this court found accused not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 304-A IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused if any on record shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. In this case no property was produced, hence, no property order passed.

Typed to my dictation directly by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21st day of November, 2023.

Sd/- N.Rajasekhar

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For Prosecution: - P.W.1: V.Srinivasa rao P.W.2: A.Bala Gopi P.W.3: B.Sowjanya P.W.4: B.Rama Koteswara rao P.W.5: B.Benny P.W.6: Dr.D.Durga Prasad P.W.7: B.Subba rao P.W.8:C.Subba Rao,S.I

For Defence: - - None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: - Ex.P1: Report of P.W.1, dt: 25.03.2017 Ex.P2: 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P3: post mortem report of deceased, dt: 28.03.2017 Ex.P4: scene observation report, dt: 25.03.2017 Ex.P5: inquest report, dt: 28.03.2017 Ex.P6: hospital intimation Ex.P7: F.I.R in Cr.No. 137/2017 Ex.P8: rough sketch Ex.P9: death intimation Ex.P10: altered FIR, Dt: 21.03.2017

8

Ex.P11: accident report Ex.P12: STAR account of crime bus

For Defence: - - Nil - Material Objects:- - Nil -

Sd/- N.Rajasekhar

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada.

//True Copy//

III ACMM, VJA

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

C.C. No. 287/2017

1Offence: 24.03.2017 2Apprehension of Accused: 30.03.2017 3Commencement of Trial: 30.01.2023 4Close of Trial: 16.11.2023 5Judgment: 21.11.2023 6Offence: U/Sec. 304-A IPC 7Name of Complainant: The State, Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, II-Town P.S, Vijayawada City 8Name of Accused: Bantu Venkaa Narayana, S/o. Mohana Rao, A/39 years, C/Mala, R/o. Guduru Village and Mandal, Krishna district. Driver of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5929 9Plea of Accused: Not Guilty 10Finding:ACQUITTAL 11Result:In the result, this court found accused not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any on record shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. In this case no property was produced, hence, no property order passed. 12Explanation for delay:This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC against the accused on 20.06.2017 and numbered as C.C.No. 287/2017. On 25.09.2018 case copies furnished to accused. On 11.11.2022 accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C., On 30.01.2023 P.W.1 was examined, on 02.06.2023 P.W.2 was examined, on 07.08.2023 P.W.3 to P.W.6 are examined, on 06.11.2023 P.W.7 & P.W.8 are examined. Accused is examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C on 21.11.2023. Heard the arguments on 21.11.2023. Judgment is pronounced on 21.11.2023. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- N.Rajasekhar

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada //True Copy//

III ACMM, VJA

1

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Sri N.Rajasekhar Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada. Tuesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2025.

Calendar Case No. 1634 of 2023

BETWEEN:

State: Represented by the Inspector of Police, I-town Police Station, Vijayawada, NTR District. …. Complainant

A N D

1. Peddisetti Kanaka Durga Vara Prasad @ Prasad S/o Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 23 years, C/Kapu, R/o.D.No.C3/3, Sri Durga Malleswara Swamyvarla Devasthanam Quarters, Padavalarevu, Gunadala, Vijayawada.

2. Kancherla Veera Swamy S/o Pamulu, Aged 40 years, C/Mala, R/o.D.No.13-61, Seethanagaram, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. (Formerly worked as Bus conductor (NMR) in Sri Durga Malleswara swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawada)

3. Prakhya Lakshman S/o Raghuram Sarma, Aged 29 years, C/Brahmin, R/o.D.No.76-12-5/2, Dolphin street, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada (Asst. Engineer, Transport Section, Kanaka Durga Temple, Vijayawada). 4.Dhulipala Venkata Venugopal Krishna Prasad @ Venu, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged 40 yrs, C/Brahmin, R/o.DNo.1-3/24-13C, Kamakoti Nagar, Vijayawada (Record Assistant, Kanaka Durga Temple, Vijayawada)

5. Vemulapalli Koteswara Rao, S/o.Ghnanayya (late), Aged 54 years, C/Kamma, R/o.104, Sri Lalitha Sai ram Enclav, Gollapudi, Vijayawada (Deputy Engineer at Sri Durga Malleswara swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawda).

6. Kondaveeti Venkata Sri Rama Koteswara rao, S/o Samba Siva Rao, Aged 52 years, C/Gowda, R/o Prasadampadu. Vijayawada. (Formerly worked as Executive Engineer at Sri Durga Malleswara swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawada).

7. Chigilelipalli Narsinga Rao S/o Narayanappadu, Aged 59 years, C/Kalinga, R/o.Plot no.36, 3rd line, P.N. Colony, Gujarathipeta, Srikakulam. (former EO of Sri Durga Malleswara Swamivarla Devasthanam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada) … Accused No.1 to 7 This case is coming before me on 21.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of K.Bhavanarayana

Ch.Samabasivarao, Dr.GVNRSS Vara Prasad, V.Lakshminarayana, M.Bhavani

Shankar, K.Arun Kumar Advocates for the Accused Nos.1 to 7 and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub-Inspector of Police, I-town Police Station, Vijayawada city laid charge sheet in Cr.No.143/2017 U/secs.420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B r/w.34 of Indian

Penal Code (In short ‘IPC’) against accused nos.1 to 7.

2.The prosecution case in nutshell:

One V.S.K.Chaitanya/PW.1, S/o.Chalamayya is resident of Ramalingeswara peta, Vijayawada and studied up to B-tech and making search to get employment, when PW.1 did his B-tech, he got acquainted with A1 by name Varaprasad. In the

2

month of November, 2015, A1 met PW.1 and informed that he came to know about an existence vacancy (a permanent employment ie., Computer Operator post) at Sri

Kanakadurga Goddess temple, Vijayawada and to get said job one has to spend a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. A1 gave assurance to PW.1 that he will get said job for him, in case, PW.1 will ready to spend such amount. Accordingly, PW.1 talked to his father by name Y.Venkatachalamayya about employment. Later, in the month of

December, 2015 A1 called PW.1 over phone and enquired PW.1 about getting employment, and asked PW.1 and LW.2 to come to Alankar Theater bakery as

PW.1 and his father visited said place and met A1. There, A1 introduced A2 to PW.1 and LW.2 and informed that A2 is the person would provide said computer operator job subject to payment of Rs.2,50,0000/- in turn, LW.2 requested concession in amount as A2 agreed to provide job for Rs.2,00,000/-. Later, on next day PW.1 and

LW.2 met A1 & A2 at same Alankar bakery and gave advance amount of

Rs.50,000/- to A1 & A2. A1 & A2 PW.1 and LW.2 to get ready with remaining amount as early as possible or else getting employment is difficult. Hence, A1 & A2 within a week secured remaining sum of Rs1,50,000/- and gave it to A1 & A2 at same bakery and at that time, A1 & A2 introduced an employee (at the above said temple) by name Satish to PW.1 and his father/LW.2. One week thereafter, A1 & A2 met PW.1 and took him to the office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Sri Durga

Malleswara swamy Devastanam and met A5 who is Executive Engineer for interview and clerk of A5 ie., by name Venu A4 did interview of PW.1 and asked

PW.1 to come to interview one month later again. Accordingly, Pw.1 went to interview at the said temple and there A4 & A5 did interview of PW.1 and informed that he has no knowledge upon Auto Cad and later, three months lapsed. Hence, father of PW.1 ie., LW.2 questioned A1 about causing delay in providing employment to PW.1 in turn, A1 replied to PW.1 that he has no knowledge about computers and informed that his friend Srikanth would give training to PW.1 and accordingly said Srikanth gave 10 days training to Pw.1 at his house itself and then,

A4 & A5 again did interview of PW.1 and informed PW.1 that he got selected, later, in the month of April 2016, A1 called father of PW.1 over phone and informed that

PW.1 got job. Hence, PW.1 and his father visited temple premises and met A1 & A2 and A5 allowed PW.1 to do work in computer section and and fixed a sum of

Rs.14,000/- salary per month. Later, A5 gave salary of Rs.8,000/- to PW.1 per month. Hence, PW.1 questioned A5 about salary, A5 informed that salary will increase slowly. PW.1 attended duty from 9 am to 8 pm. Although A1 to A5 provided job to PW.1 but, they did not give any appointment order or any other papers to

PW.1. Whenever, PW.1 questioned A1 to A5 about the same, they gave a typed appointment letter on letter head of temple. But, father of PW.1 on perusing said letter head found no date and seal and as such, father of PW.1 questioned A5 about the same in turn, A5 replied the orders of temple shall be in the said manner. Later,

3

in the month of June 2016, A1 to A5 demanded one more lakh in addition to the amount paid and gave assurance to PW.1 that they will provide employment A.E to him. Hence, father of PW.1 gave total Rs.1 lakh to A1 in two installments as A1 gave a letter head appointment, dt.04.07.2016 to PW.1 as if PW.1 got job at

Engineering section. Subsequently, when, PW.,1 questioned A1 about ID card A1 delayed the matter on the pretext something or other. Furthermore, A1 created a document in the style of order copy as if A5 transferred to Penuganchiprolu and in the place of A5 PW.1 appointed as A.E and given said copy of letter of appointment to the father of PW.1. The said letter head contains appointment authority as

Endowment Department, Hyderabad. Despite of that PW.1 got only salary of

Rs.8,000 per month. Since, PW.1 getting meager salary he gave up said job and then, PW.1 and LW.2 demanded A1 about the post of A.E as A1 revealed that they concocted all fake documents as if PW.1 appointed as A.E and A1 returned a sum of Rs.80,000/- to PW.1 and LW.2. Thus, PW.1 and his father realized that A1 to A5 and A6 & A7 colluded together and conspired and cheated PW1. And LW.2 by receiving amount as if that they will provide employment in the said temple. Hence,

PW.1 lodged report. Based on the report, of PW.1, SI of Police, I-town, L.V.Mohan

Kumar/LW.13, registered a case in Cr.No.143/2017, U/secs.420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B r/w.34 of IPC and took up investigation, examined and recorded the statements of Pw.1 and his father and other witnesses and arrested A1 & A2 on 16.05.2017 on execution of PT Warrant as they were already arrested and detained in judicial custody in Cr.No.134/2017 on the file of I-town PS. Later LW.13 got A1 &

A2 into police custody and interrogated them in the presence of mediators namely

MD.Johny Basha and U.Venkateswarao (Lws.11 & 12) and found involvements of remaining accused persons and also seized a watch from the house of A1 and a gold ring from the house of A2 under cover of Mediator report, 25.04.2017, further on 29.05.2017, LW.13 seized a hard disc under cover of mediator report from

LW.4/G.Rambabu owner of Ajantha Graphics. Later, Inspector of Police/

P.Venkateswarlu/LW.15 took up further investigation and seized forged docuemnts from Ajantha Graphics, Arandalpet, and sent it to FSL and later on 22.07.2017, arrested A3 & A4 and on 05.10.2017 arrested A5, whereas, A6 got anticipatory bail from VII ADSJ, Vijayawada on 02.10.2015. Later, LW.15 collected FSL report and found prima-facie case against A1 to A7 thus, completed investigation and filed charge sheet.

3. Cognizance offence was taken U/secs.420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B r/w.34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the A1 to A7, case copies furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short the Cr.P.C).

4

5.When examined A1 to A7, U/s.239 Cr.P.C., they denied substance of accusation. Hence, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the relevant material on record, a charge U/secs.420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B r/w.34 of IPC framed, read-over and explained its contents to A1 to A7 in Telugu language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6. To prove their case prosecution examined PWs.1 and exhibited Exs.P1 & P2.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, this court perused the oral evidence of PW.1//Victim/defacto complainant and found that he being victim cheated in the hands of A1 to A7, did not incriminate them into alleged charge in any manner and turned hostile and thus, prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining listed witnesses as examining them would serve no any purpose. Thus, there is no incriminating material against A1 to A7 from the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Hence, examination of A1 to A7 U/sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

8.I have Heard arguments of the learned APP and Advocate for A1 to A7 respectively.

Now the for the point consideration is that :

Whether prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A7 for the offence

punishable U/secs.420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B r/w.34 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

Point:

10.This court keenly perused the oral evidence of PW.1 who set criminal law into motion deposed that he has been working in a manager in a private company at Hyderabad and Chalaymayya is his father and he has no acquaintance with either A1 to A7 or witnesses shown in charge-sheet and that he did not know anything about this case or its facts and that A1 to A7 never cheated him in connection with any transaction and he has no objection to acquit them from this case and once he visited police station on his personal work whileso, police got obtained his signature/Ex.P1 on a white paper except that he has nothing to do with this case. Thus, it is crystal clear PW.1 turned hostile, hence, Learned APP cross-examined PW.1, but no incriminating material elicited against A1 to A7.

Although the alleged report discloses that A1 to A7 committed cheating and also concocted alleged documents and also conspired together but, PW.1 turned down the case of prosecution in totoand stated he never made any report against A1 to

A7 thus, the evidence of PW.1 is very inconsistent. Hence, his evidence cannot be looked into for any purpose. Since, PW.1 turned hostile, it appears that prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses, as examining them would serve no purpose. Thus, the material on record in-sufficient to conclude that A1 to A7

5

infurthernace of their common intention committed alleged offences as charged.

Therefore, the A1 to A7 entitled to be acquitted from the alleged offence charged.

11.IN THE RESULT, this court found A1 to A7 not guilty for the offence punishable U/secs.420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B r/w.34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any on record shall remain in-force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. In this case no property was produced, hence, no property order passed.

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

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 22 nd day of April, 2025

Sd/-N.Rajasekhar

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF WITNESSES

For Prosecution For Defense.

PW.1 : Y.V.S.K.Chaitayana - None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

For Prosecution. For Defense.

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on report, dt.12.05.2017 - None -

Ex.P2: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Material Objects: --Nil--

Sd/-N.Rajasekhar

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

//TRUE COPY//

Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Vijayawada.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Calendar Case No. 1634 of 2023

1Offence: 12.05.2017 2Apprehension of Accused: A1 & A2: 06.05.2017 A3 & A4: 05.10.2017 3Commencement of Trial: 21.04.2025 4Close of Trial: 21.04.2025 5Judgment: 22.04.2025 6Offence: U/secs.420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B r/w.34 of IPC 7Name of Complainant:State: Represented by the Inspector of Police, I-town Police Station, Vijayawada, NTR District. 8Name of Accused :1. Peddisetti Kanaka Durga Vara Prasad @ Prasad S/o Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 23 years, C/Kapu, R/o.D.No.C3/3, Sri Durga Malleswara Swamyvarla Devasthanam Quarters, Padavalarevu, Gunadala, Vijayawada.

2. Kancherla Veera Swamy S/o Pamulu, Aged 40 years, C/Mala, R/o.D.No.13-61, Seethanagaram, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. (Formerly worked as Bus conductor (NMR) in Sri Durga Malleswara swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawada)

3. Prakhya Lakshman S/o Raghuram Sarma, Aged 29 years, C/Brahmin, R/o.D.No.76-12-5/2, Dolphin street, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada (Asst. Engineer, Transport Section, Kanaka Durga Temple, Vijayawada). 4.Dhulipala Venkata Venugopal Krishna Prasad @ Venu, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged 40 yrs, C/Brahmin, R/o.DNo.1-3/24-13C, Kamakoti Nagar, Vijayawada (Record Assistant, Kanaka Durga Temple, Vijayawada)

5. Vemulapalli Koteswara Rao, S/o.Ghnanayya (late), Aged 54 years, C/Kamma, R/o.104, Sri Lalitha Sai ram Enclav, Gollapudi, Vijayawada (Deputy Engineer at Sri Durga Malleswara swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawda).

6. Kondaveeti Venkata Sri Rama Koteswara rao, S/o Samba Siva Rao, Aged 52 years, C/Gowda, R/o Prasadampadu. Vijayawada. (Formerly worked as Executive Engineer at Sri Durga Malleswara swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawada).

7. Chigilelipalli Narsinga Rao S/o Narayanappadu, Aged 59 years, C/Kalinga, R/o.Plot no.36, 3rd line, P.N. Colony, Gujarathipeta, Srikakulam. (former EO of Sri Durga Malleswara Swamivarla Devasthanam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada) 9Plea of Accused: Not Guilty 10Finding:ACQUITTAL 11Result:IN THE RESULT, this court found A1 to A7 not guilty for the offence punishable U/secs.420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B r/w.34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any on record shall remain in-force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. In this case no property was produced, hence, no property order passed. 12Explanation for delay:This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/secs.420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B r/w.34 of IPC against A1 to A7 and numbered as C.C.No.1634/2023. On 05.05.2025 case copies furnished to A1 to A7 and A1 to A7 were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. On 21.04.2025 PW.1 was examined. Heard the arguments. Judgment is pronounced on 22.04.2025. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-N.Rajasekhar

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada. // TRUE COPY//