Smt. N. Reddy Prasanna

Page 1 of 14 C.C.17 of 2019 1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :

BHIMADOLE.

PRESENT : - SMT. N.REDDY PRASANNA

I ADDL., JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-I ADDL.,JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ELURU. FAC/JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BHIMADOLE.

Monday, this the 23rd day of March, 2020

C.C.No.17 of 2019

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station.

... Complainant

And

Karlapudi Chandra Mouli, S/o. Subbarao, 35 Years, Kamma, Driver of School Bus No.AP 37 W 8026 of Bharathi Vidya Niketan School, G.Kothapalli, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming before me on 19-03-2020 for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for Prosecution and of Sri S.Gopala Krishna, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration on this day and this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused Cr.No.196/2018 for the offence under Sec 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

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

On 29.08.2018, deceased Reddi Lokesh Manikanta aged 6 years went to his school in the morning and after the school hours he along with other students and teachers stood in front of the school and waiting for the bus.

At that time, the driver of school bus AP 37 8026 noted in Col. No.3 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased resulting which he fell down and the front wheel of the bus run over on his head as a result the boy sustained crush head injury and died at the spot.

Page 2 of 14 C.C.17 of 2019 2

The driver of the bus is responsible for the death of the deceased. Basing on the report given by the P.W.1 a case in Cr.No.196/2018 u/Sec.304-A IPC was registered at Dwaraka Tirumala PS on 29.09.2018 at 9.30 PM by P.W.9 and investigated into. On 29.09.2018, he visited the scene of offence, and shifted the dead body to Area Hospital, Jangareddigudem for safe guard the same in

PM shed. He also shifted the crime vehicle from the scene of offence to

Dwaraka Tirumala PS. On 30.09.2018, he visited the scene of offence, examined the same before the mediators i.e., P.W.6 and L.W.11-Allamsetti

Satyanarayana and he prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. A detailed scene observation report was got drafted by the mediators. P.W.9 examined P.Ws.2,3 and 5 at the scene of offence who are eye witnesses and recorded their statements u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. On 30.09.2018. He visited PM shed of Area Hospital, Jangareddigudem and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 9 AM to 11 AM before the inquest Panchayatdars P.W.6,

L.W.11-Allamsetti Satyanrayana and L.W.12-Allamsetti Sreenubabu and blood relatives i.e., P.W.1, P.W.4, L.W.6-Reddi Narayana Swami, L.W.7-Reddi Venkata

Rao, L.W.8- Reddi Mangamani and L.W.9-Dusanapudi Kali Prasad and sent the body for PM examination. ON 30.09.2018, he issued notice to the accused u/Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C and the accused submitted his explanation on 05.10.2018.

P.W.8 who is the medical officer, Area Hospital, Jangareddigudem conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued P.M certificate. P.W.7 who inspected the crime vehicle issued MVI report. After completion of entire investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3. After perusal of charge sheet and other connected documents, this case was taken on file against accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Page 3 of 14 C.C.17 of 2019 3

4. Copies of documents are furnished to the accused u/s 207 Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973. The accused examined under section 251 of Criminal

Procedure Code 1973. The substance of accusation for the offence u/s 304(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is explained in Telugu to the accused. For which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5. Hence the case is posted for trial.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9.

Exhibits P.1 to P.7 were marked. The evidence of L.W.6-Reddi Narayana

Swami, L.W.7-Reddi Venkata Rao, L.W.8-Reddi Mangamani, L.W.9-Dusanapudi

Kali Prasad, L.W.11-Allamsetti Satyanrayana and L.W.12-Allamsetti

Sreenubabu are given up by the learned A.P.P.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused has examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. For which he denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A of Indian

Penal Code,1860 beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.9. and Exs. P1 to P7 were marked. P.W.1 is the complainant in the present case. P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased boy. P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 are the direct eye witness to the alleged incident. P.W.6 is the witness who present at the time of drafting Ex.P.2 scene observation report and Ex.P.3 inquest report. P.W.7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. P.W.8 is the Medical officer. P.W.9 is the investigation officer.

Page 4 of 14 C.C.17 of 2019 4

10. In order to prove the offence U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish the following aspects:

1) The involvement of the crime vehicle i.e., School Bus bearing No.AP 37 W 8026 in the present accident.

2) The accused to be the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident.

3) The rash/negligent driving on the part of the accused in causing the death of deceased i.e., Reddi Lokesh Manikanta.

11. As per the contents of Ex.P.1 report, on 29-09-2018, the complainant received a phone call from the school where the deceased boy was studying and it was informed that, the deceased met with an accident at the School.

On such, he rushed to the scene of offence and he came to know that the driver of the school bus i.e., Swaraz Bus bearing No.AP 37 W 8026 drove it rash and negligently and dashed the deceased boy. Due to that, the head of the deceased boy fell under the front wheel and the head was crushed and died on the spot. Hence the report.

12. According to P.W.1, the deceased boy is his son and he studied at

Bharathi Vidya Nikethan, G.Kothapalli Village. His son used to go to school in the school bus bearing No.AP 37 W 8026 (Swaraz Mazda). On 29.09.2018, he received a phone call from his friend and he informed that, his son met with an accident at the school and that his son fell under the front tire of the school van and at that relevant time the driver was in a drunken state. On such, he rushed to the scene of offence and noticed his sons head was crushed and he died. The driver of the school van was escaped from the place. Hence he lodged Ex.P.1 report.

13.P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased boy. According to her, on 29.09.2018, at 5.00 P.M or 5.15 P.M, she received a phone call from the school and it was informed that, her son met with an accident at the school.

Page 5 of 14 C.C.17 of 2019 5

On such, she rushed to the scene of offence and noticed the dead body of the deceased boy. On enquiry, the teachers informed that, the bus bearing

No.AP 37 W 8026 proceeded in a high speed and dashed the deceased boy.

14. P.W.2 is the Teacher working at Bharathi Vidya Nikethan, G.Kothapalli.

According to her, the deceased boy is their student. On 29.09.2018, at 4.30

P.M or 5.00 P.M herself along with P.W.3, P.W.5 and other teacher came out of the school and getting the children in to the school bus. Mean while, the accused who is the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 37 W 8026 proceeded in a high speed and dashed the deceased. Due to that, the deceased boy died on the spot.

15. P.W.3 is also a teacher working at Bharathi Vidya Nikethan. According to her, on 29.09.2018, at 4.30 P.M or 5.00 P.M, herself along with P.W.2, P.W.5 and other teacher came out of the school and getting the children in to the school bus. Mean while, the accused who is the driver of the bus bearing

No.AP 37 W 8026 proceeded in a high speed and dashed the deceased. Due to that, the deceased boy died on the spot. Later, the matter was intimated to the parents of the deceased.

16. P.W.5 is the teacher, working at Bharathiya Vidya Bhavanam.

According to her, on 29.09.2018, after the school hours when she present at the out side the school premises i.e., on the road with a view to board the students in to the school bus. Mean while, the accused who is the driver of the school bus bearing No.AP 37 W 8026 proceeded in a high speed and dashed the deceased boy. Due to that, the deceased boy died on the spot.

17. P.W.6 is the witness who present at the time of drafting Ex.P.2 scene observation report and Ex.P.3 inquest report. According to him, on 13.09.2018, at about 6.00 A.M the S.I of police, Dwaraka Tirumala P.S requested him he acted as a mediator. Accordingly, he acted as a mediator.

Page 6 of 14 C.C.17 of 2019 6

He proceeded to the scene of offene. The SI of police taken photos at the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P.7 rough sketch. He drafted Ex.P.2 scene observation report. Later, they proceed to Government Hospital,

Jangareddigudem and inquest proceedings were conducted and prepared

Ex.P.3 inquest report.

18. P.W.7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Eluru. According to him, on 26.10.2018, he received a requisition from the SHO, Dwaraka Tirumala P.S, by requesting him to inspect the crime vehicle i.e., School Bus bearing NO.AP 37 8026. On such, he proceeded to the police station and inspected the crime vehicle. He has not found any damages. He conducted road test and found the breaks are working in condition. Accordingly, he issued Ex.P.4 MVI report by opining that, the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect.

19. P.W.8 is the Medical officer. According to him, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased boy i.e., Reddi Lokesh Manikanta and noticed following injuries,

1. Fracture of right frontal, paretal and temporal bone with diffusion of facial sysmmetry over right side.

2. Right eye is sinked in to right orbit.

3. Fracture of right maxilla with distortion of dentition.

4. Right orbit, right nasal, right auril cavity crushed.

Accordingly, he issued Ex.P.5 P.M certificate, by opining that the deceased boy died due to head injury.

20. P.W.9 is the investigation officer in the present case. According to him, he received Ex.P.1 report from P.W.1. Based on Ex.P.1 report, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.196/2018 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal

Page 7 of 14 C.C.17 of 2019 7

Code, 1860 and issued Ex.P.6 F.I.R. He took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined P.W.1 and recorded his statements. On 30.09.2018, he secured the presence of mediators i.e., P.W.6 and L.W.11-

Allamsetti Satyanarayana and visited the scene of offence and observed the same and prepared Ex.P.7 rough sketch and Ex.P.2 scene observation report.

He also taken photos at scene of offence. At the scene of offence, he examined P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 and recorded their statements. Later, he visited the Government Hospital, Jangareddigudem along with mediators I.e.., P.W.6,

L.W.11-Allam Setti Satyanarayana and L.W.12-Alla Setti Srinu Babu and conducted inquest proceedinds and prepared Ex.P.3 inquest report. He examined P.W.4, L.W.6-Reddi Narayana Swami, L.W.7-Reddi Venkata Rao,

L.W.8-Reddi Mangamani, L.W.9-Dusanapudi Kali Prasad and recorded their statements. Later, he forwarded dead body of the deceased before a medical officer for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and received Ex.P.5 Postmortem certificate. He send the crime vehicle to MVI inspector for inspection and received Ex.P.4 MVI report. He served Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C Notice to the accused. After completion of entire investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

21. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the accused herein drove the crime vehicle i.e., School Bus Bearing No.AP 37 W 8026 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. Due to that, the deceased head fell under the front tire of the bus and it was crushed and he died on the spot. The learned A.P.P contended that, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to

P.W.9 and Ex.P.1 to P.7 were marked. All the prosecution witnesses deposed evidence against the accused. Further, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 who are the direct eye witness to the alleged incident deposed in one voice that, the accused herein drove the crime vehicle in a speed manner and dashed the deceased boy. Due to that, the alleged accident took place. Further, the

Page 8 of 14 C.C.17 of 2019 8 accused has taken defence that, he was not present near the crime vehicle at the relevant time of alleged accident. Therefore, the burden heavily lies on the accused to prove his case. However, there is no material placed by the accused to prover that, he was present at another place at the time of accident. Further, if the accused would have taken precautionary steps he may prevent the accident. However, the accused did not take any such precautionary steps and drove the crime vehicle rashly and negligently.

Hence prays the court to convict the accused without showing any mercy towards the accused. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused contended that, the crime vehicle was stationed at the scene of offence and the accused has not present near the crime vehicle and the crime vehicle itself moved towards the back and dashed the deceased boy. The accused is no way connected to the alleged offence. However, the school management involved the accused in the present case in order to escape from liability.

Further, the school management gave compensation an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- to the parents of the deceased boy. Hence prays the Court to acquit the accused.

22. As said earlier in order to prove the guilt against the accused for the offence u/Sec. 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1908 the prosecution has established following three ingredients,

Ingredient No.1 : “The involvement of the crime vehicle i.e., School Bus bearing No.AP 37 W 8026 in the present accident.”

In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the place of accident and the involvement of the crime vehicle i.e., School bus.

Admittedly, the school bus involved in the alleged accident. Further, Ex.D.1 to D.4 photos which are relating to the scene of offence and crime vehicle are produced by the accused himself and marked the same through the

Page 9 of 14 C.C.17 of 2019 9 prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.3. Ex.D.1 photo contains the picture of the school bus. From the admission of the accused it clearly establishes the involvement of the crime vehicle in the present case. Further, P.W.1 clearly deposed that, the school bus bearing No.AP 37 W 8026 was present at the scene of offence and he also stated about the bearing Number of the crime vehicle in Ex.P.1 report. P.W.4 who is the mother of the deceased boy also deposed about the bearing Number of the crime vehicle. Further,

P.Ws.2,3 and 5 who are the direct eye witnesses to the alleged accident, they deposed the bearing number of the crime vehicle i.e., school bus as AP 37 W 8026. Further, P.W.7 who is the Motor Vehicle Inspector has deposed that, on 26.10.2018, he received requisition from SHO Dwaraka Tirumala P.S and he inspected the crime vehicle i.e., bearing No. AP 37 W 8026 and issued Ex.P.4

MVI report. Ex.P.4 MVI report contains the bearing Number of the crime vehicle. P.W.9 is the Investigation officer who received Ex.P.1 report from

P.W.1 and based on Ex.P.1 report he registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.196/2018 and issued Ex.P.6 FIR. Ex.P.1 report and Ex.P.6 FIR contain the bearing number of the crime vehicle. From the admission of the accused and from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, P.Ws.7 and 9 and Exs.P.1, 4 and 7 it clearly establishes the involvement of the crime vehicle.

23. Ingredient No.2:

“The accused to be the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident.”

It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident. While on the other hand, it is the case of the accused that, he did not drive the crime vehicle at the relevant time of alleged accident and the crime vehicle stationed at the school and it itself moved back and hit the deceased boy.

However, there is no material placed by the accused to prove his case.

Page 10 of 14 C.C.17 of 2019 10

P.Ws.2,3 and 5 are the direct eye witness to the alleged accident and they are the relevant person to depose about the identification of the accused.

They deposed in one voice that, the accused drove the crime vehicle at the relevant time of alleged accident. Further, they also identified the accused in the open court and deposed that, he was the person who drove the crime vehicle. From the evidence of P.Ws.2,3 and 5 it clearly establishes that, the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of alleged accident.

24.Ingredient No.3:

“The rash/negligent driving on the part of the accused in causing the death of deceased i.e., Reddi Lokesh Manikanta.”

In the present case, the prosecution established the involvement of the crime vehicle as well as the identification of the accused and that establishing the above said two ingredients that are not sufficient and the burden heavily lies on the prosecution to establish the third serious ingredient to attract the offence u/Sec. 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 with regard to the manner of accident. The prosecution has to established the rash and negligent on part of the accused at the relevant time of alleged accident. Now it has to be seen whether, the prosecution has placed sufficient material to establish the manner of accident. P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 who are the direct eye witness to the alleged incident are the relevant persons to depose about the manner of the accident. P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 in one voice they deposed that, on the alleged date of accident i.e., on 29.09.2018 during evening hours at 4.30 P.M or 5.00 P.M they came out of the school and getting the students into the a bus, meanwhile the crime vehicle proceeded in a high speed and dashed the deceased. During the cross examination of

P.Ws.3 and 5 they deposed that, their school has one school bus. From the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 it clearly shows that, the crime vehicle is the only bus to the school. From the evidence of P.Ws.2,3 and 5 it shows that, when

Page 11 of 14 C.C.17 of 2019 11 they were boarding the students in to the crime vehicle, the accused drove it rashly and negligently and dashed the deceased. P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 cannot boarded the children in a running vehicle. The crime vehicle may be stationed at the time when the teachers boarding the children in to the bus.

Therefore the crime vehicle cannot proceed in such high speed as deposed by P.Ws.2,3 and 5. Further,the evidence of P.Ws. 2,3 and 5 are not corroborated by P.Ws.9. P.W.9 who is the investigation officer, he categorically deposed that, P.Ws.2,3 and 5 have not stated before him that, the accused drove the crime vehicle in a speed manner. The evidence of P.Ws. 2,3 and 5 are inconsistent with regard to the manner of accident. From the inconsistency statements of P.Ws.2,3 and 5 it creates a doubt about the manner of the accident and rash and negligent on part of the accused. The evidence of P.Ws.1,6 to 9 are not corroborated by any independent witnesses.

From the evidence of P.W.6-inquestdar, P.W.9-MVI, P.W.8-Medical officer and

P.W.9-Investigation officer and Ex.P.1 report, Ex.P.2 scene observation report,

Ex.P.3 inquest report, Ex.P.4 MVI report and Ex.P.5 PM certificate it shows that, the deceased boy died in the fatal accident. However, there is no positive material placed by the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The prosecution failed to establish the third serious ingredient with regard to the manner of accident and rash and negligent on part of the accused at the relevant time of alleged accident. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused herein drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the alleged accident.

25. In the light of above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence under sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubts.

Accordingly, he is entitled for acquitted.

Page 12 of 14 C.C.17 of 2019 12

26.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sec 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Sec 255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. No property order is passed since no property seized and produced.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno on computer system, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 23 rd day of March, 2020.

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna/

I Addl., Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl., Judl., I Class Magistrate Court, Eluru, FAC/Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1: Reddy Krishna Balaji -None- PW.2: Boda Swarna Latha PW.3: Panthagani Jyothi PW.4: Reddy Naga Durga PW.5: Simhadri Roja PW.6: K.Babu Rao PW.7: G.Naga Murali PW.8: Dr.E.Hema Kumar PW.9: I.Veerraju

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Report Ex.P.2: Scene observation report Ex.P.3: Inquest report Ex.P4: MVI report Ex.P.5: PM Certificate Ex.P.6: F.I.R Ex.P.7: Rough sketch

DEFENCE:

Ex.D1: One Photograph Ex.D2: One Photograph Ex.D3: One Photograph Ex.D4: Two Photographs

Page 13 of 14 C.C.17 of 2019 13

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

NIL

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna/

I AJCJ-cum-I AJFCM., Eluru FAC/JCJ-cum-JFCM., Bhimadole.

Page 1 of 1 C.C.17 of 2019

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDI CIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS : BHIMADOLE.

CALENDER CASE NO.17/2019

1. Date of offence: 29-09-2018

2. Date of complaint or report: 29-09-2018

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 41-A Cr.P.C

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : --

5. Date of commencement of trial: 26-07-2019

6. Date of close of trial: 19-03-2020

7. Date of sentence or Order: 23-03-2020

8. Explanation of delay if any: No such voidable delay.

COMPLAINANT:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station, in Cr.No.196/2018.

ACCUSED:

Karlapudi Chandra Mouli, S/o. Subbarao, 35 Years, Kamma, Driver of School Bus No.AP 37 W 8026 of Bharathi Vidya Niketan School, G.Kothapalli, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal.

Offence :- Under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code

Finding of Court :- Found not guilty

Sentence/Order:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sec 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Sec 255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. No property order is passed since no property seized and produced.

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna/

I Addl., Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl., Judl., I Class Magistrate Court, Eluru, FAC/Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Page 1 of 14 C.C.131 of 2019 1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :

BHIMADOLE.

PRESENT : - SMT. N.REDDY PRASANNA

I ADDL., JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-I ADDL.,JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ELURU. FAC/JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BHIMADOLE.

Monday, this the 23rd day of March, 2020

C.C.No.131 of 2019

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Bhimadole Police Station. ... Complainant

And

Mullapudi Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. Satyanarayana, 55 years, Kapu, Door No.3-13-10, Near Saibaba Temple, Kothibomma Center, Tadepalligudem, Driver of Ashok Leyland Van No.AP 07 TN 2898. … Accused

This case is coming before me on 19-03-2020 for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for Prosecution and of Sri B.Ram Babu, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration on this day and this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimadole Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused Cr.No.50/2019 for the offence under Sec 304-A of

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

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

On 04.02.2019 Pasupukumkuma meeting and pension distribution was arranged by Government near High School, Pulla. The deceased

K.Ramudamma came to the meeting and after taking her pension, she reached Pulla Center in order to go to Chebrole to the house of her daughter.

When she is crossing the road, in order to go to Chebrole Bus stop on the northern side of the road, and at that time i.e., at 1.45 PM the accused driver of Ashok Leyland Van No.AP 07 TN 2898 proceeding from Tadepalligudem

Page 2 of 14 C.C.131 of 2019 2 towards Eluru drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Ramudamma resulting. Which, she sustained severed head injury and injuries on her person and died at the spot. Basing on the report given by the

P.W.1 a case in Cr.No.50/2019 u/Sec.304-A IPC was registered at Bhimadole

PS by P.W.8 at 5.30 P.M on 04.02.2019 the SI of Police and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence on 04.02.2019 and shifted the dead body to the GGH, Eluru for keeping the same in PM shed, and crime vehicle to Bhimadole PS from the scene of offence due to heavy floating of vehicular traffic on NH 16. He also examined

P.Ws.1,2,4 and L.W.4-Paidi Apparao on 04.02.2019 and recorded their statements u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. On 05.02.2019, he visited the scene of offence and examined the scene of offence from 6.00 AM before the mediators i.e.,

L.W.9-Bhimavarapu Nageswara Rao and L.W.10-Boddu Vijayakumar and to that effect a rough sketch was prepared and detailed scene observation report was got drafted by them. On 05.02.2019 he visited PM shed of GGH,

Eluru and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased before the inquest panchayatdars i.e., L.W.9-Bhimavarapu Nageswara Rao and L.W.11-

Ogirala Falesu and blood relatives and other eye witness i.e., P.W.8, L.W.5-

Kurmalazaru, L.W.7-Konagala Naresh and L.W.8-Singarapu Solman Raju and sent body for PM examination. On 14.02.2019 the accused surrendered

before the P.W.8 and submitted records of the vehicle. He issued notice to the

accused u/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C on 14.02.2019 and the accused gave his undertaking on 16.02.2019 that he will attend the Hon’ble court as and when he was summoned. P.W.7 who is the medical officer, Government Hospital,

Eluru conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued P.M certificate. P.W.6 who inspected the crime vehicle issued MVI report. After

Page 3 of 14 C.C.131 of 2019 3 completion of entire investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3. After perusal of charge sheet and other connected documents, this case was taken on file against accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. Copies of documents are furnished to the accused U/s 207 Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973. The accused examined under section 251 of Criminal

Procedure Code 1973. The substance of accusation for the offence u/s 304(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is explained in Telugu to the accused. For which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5. Hence the case is posted for trial.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8.

Exhibits P.1 to P.8 were marked. The evidence of L.W.4-Paidi Apparao, L.W.5-

Kurma Lazaru, L.W.7-Konagala Naresh, L.W.8-Singarapu Solman Raju, L.W.10-

Boddu Vijaya Kumar and L.W.11-Ogirala Falesu are given up by the learned

A.P.P.

7 After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused has examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. For which he denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A of Indian

Penal Code,1860 beyond all reasonable doubt”?

Page 4 of 14 C.C.131 of 2019 4

POINT:

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to

P.W.8. and Exs. P1 to P8 were marked. P.W.1 is the complainant in the present case. P.W.3 is the daughter of the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 4 are the direct eye witness to the alleged incident. P.W.5 is the witness who present at the time of drafting Ex.P.2 scene observation report and Ex.P.3 inquest report. P.W.6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. P.W.7 is the Medical officer. P.W.8 is the investigation officer.

10. In order to prove the offence U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish the following aspects:

1) The involvement of the crime vehicle i.e., Ashok Leyland Van bearing

No.AP 07 TN 2898 in the present accident.

2) The accused to be the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident.

3) The rash/negligent driving on the part of the accused in causing the death of deceased i.e., Kurma Ramudamma.

11. As per the contents of Ex.P.1 report, on 04-02-2019, Pasupukunkuma meeting and Pension distribution arranged by the Government near the High

School, Pulla. The deceased attend the meeting and taken pension. After receiving the pension she reached Pulla Centre with a view to go to Chebrolu to visit her daughters house. When she was crossing the road, the accused who is driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Ashok Layland Van bearing No.AP 07

TN 2898 which was proceeding from Tadepalligudem drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. Due to that, she sustained severe injury on her head and died on the spot. The complainant came to know about the accident through a phone call and reached the scene of

Page 5 of 14 C.C.131 of 2019 5 offence and found the dead body of the deceased which is laying on the road.

Hence the report.

12. According to P.W.1, the deceased is his mother. On 04.02.2019, at about 10.00 A.M the deceased went to Pulla Village to receive old age pension. On the same day at about 1.00 P.M he came to know that, the deceased met with an accident at Pulla bridge. On such, he rushed to the scene of offence and noticed the dead body of the deceased. On enquiry, he came to know that, one van bearing No.2898 which was proceeding from

Tadepalligudem dashed the deceased. Hence he lodged Ex.P.1 report.

13. P.W.3 is the daughter of deceased. According to her, on 14.02.2019, she received a phone call from her nephew and he informed that, one van bearing No.2898 proceeded in a high speed and dashed her mother. Due to that, she sustained injuries and died. On such, she rushed to the scene of offence and noticed the dead body of the deceased.

14. P.W.2 is the direct eye witness to the alleged incident. According to him, at about 1 ½ year back on one day at about 11.30 A.M, a meeting was held at High School, Pulla for distributing old age pensions. When he was present at auto stand he noticed that, the deceased was crossing the road along with pension books. Mean while, the accused who is the driver of Ashok

Layland van bearing No.2898 proceeded in a high speed and dashed the deceased. Due to that, the deceased fell on the road and sustained severe injury on her head. On such, he approached the deceased and noticed the deceased was died. Later, he informed about the accident to his villagers.

15. P.W.4 is the direct eye witness to the alleged incident. At about six months back, on one day at about 2.00 P.M when he was present at his shop which is adjacent to the Pulla bridge, he noticed one old lady was crossing the road and the accused who is the driver of one Benz proceeded in a high

Page 6 of 14 C.C.131 of 2019 6 speed and dashed the old lady. Due to that, the said lady fell on the ground and died on the spot.

16. P.W.5 is the witness who present at the time of drafting Ex.P.2 scene observation report and Ex.P.3 inquest report. According to him, on 05.02.2019, at about 5.30 A.M the S.I of police , Bhimadole P.S requested him he acted as a mediator. Accordingly, he acted as a mediator. He proceeded to the scene of offence. The SI of police taken Ex.P.8 photos at the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P.7 rough sketch and also prepared Ex.P.2 scene observation report. Later, they proceed to Government Hospital, Eluru and inquest proceedings were conducted and prepared Ex.P.3 inquest report.

17. P.W.6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Eluru. According to him, on 15.02.2019, he received a requisition from the SHO, Bhimadole P.S, by requesting him to inspect the crime vehicle i.e., Ashok Layland bearing No.AP 07 TL 2898. On such, he proceeded to the police station and inspected the crime vehicle and found no damages. He conducted road test and found the breaking system is intact in order. Accordingly, he issued EX.P.4 MVI report by opining that, the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects.

18. P.W.7 is the Medical officer. According to him, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased i.e., K.Ramudamma and noticed following injuries, i. Head injury frontal bone fracture with exttrucded bleeding through nose.

ii. Contusion nose.

iii. Abrasion over right popliteal area and left side 2nd and 3rd toe and over bilateral anterior aspect of knee.

iv. Chest injury deep penetrating wound on right side of chest area with bilateral rib fractures with hemothorax bilateral lung injuries.

Page 7 of 14 C.C.131 of 2019 7

Accordingly, he issued Ex.P.5 P.M certificate, by opining that the deceased died due to injuries to head, chest, internal brain and lungs.

19. P.W.9 is the investigation officer in the present case. According to him, he received Ex.P.1 report from P.W.1. Based on Ex.P.1 report, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.50/2019 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 and issued Ex.P.6 F.I.R. He took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined P.Ws.1,2,4 and L.W.4-Pydi Apparao and recorded their statements. On 05.02.2019, he secured the presence of mediators i.e., P.Ws.5 and L.W.10- Boddu Vijaya Kumar and visited the scene of offence and observed the same and prepared Ex.P.7 rough sketch and

Ex.P.2 scene observation report and also taken Ex.P.8 photos at scene of offence. Later, he visited the Government Hospital, Eluru along with mediators I.e.., P.W.5, L.W.10-Boddu Pydi Raju and L.W.11-Ogirala Falesu and conducted inquest proceedings and prepared Ex.P.3 inquest report. He examined P.W.3, L.W.5-Kurma Lazaru, L.W.7-Konagalla Naresh and L.W.8-

Singarapu Solman Raju and recorded their statements. Later, he forwarded dead body of the deceased before a medical officer for conducting Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and received Ex.P.5 Postmortem certificate. He send the crime vehicle to MVI inspector for inspection and received Ex.P.4 MVI report. He served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C Notice to the accused.

After completion of entire investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

20. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the accused herein drove the crime vehicle i.e., Ashok Layland Van Bearing No.AP 07 TN 2898 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. Due to that, the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The learned A.P.P contended that, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and Ex.P.1 to P.8

Page 8 of 14 C.C.131 of 2019 8 were marked. All the prosecution witnesses deposed evidence against the accused. Further, P.W.2 and P.W.4 who are the direct eye witness to the alleged incident deposed in one voice that, the accused herein drove the crime vehicle in a speed manner and dashed the deceased. Due to that, the alleged accident took place. The prosecution established all the ingredients to attract the offence u/Sec.304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and prays the court to convict the accused without showing any mercy towards the accused. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused contended that, in the present case, there are no direct eye witness who witnessed the alleged incident. Further, the proceeded failed to examine the witnesses who are present near the scene of offence. Further, the shop owners who were present under the Pulla bridge has no possibility to view the things on the bridge. The deceased who is aged person she herself fell on the road due to traffic and sustained injuries and died. The accused is no way connected to the alleged accident and prays the Court to acquit the accused.

21. To prove the guilt against the accused for the offence u/Sec. 304-A of

Indian Penal Code, 1908 the prosecution has to establish following three ingredients.

Ingredient No.1 :“The involvement of the crime vehicle i.e., Ashok Layland

Van bearing No.AP 07 TN 2898 in the present accident.”

In the present case, P.W.1 who is the complainant deposed that, a Van bearing No.2898 which was proceeding from Tadepalligudem dashed the deceased. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated with Ex.P.1 report. Ex.P1 report contains the bearing number of the crime vehicle. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 is also corroborated by P.W.2. P.W.2 is the direct eye witness to the alleged accident and he is the relevant person to depose about the

Page 9 of 14 C.C.131 of 2019 9 involvement of the crime vehicle in the present accident. He deposed the bearing Number of crime vehicle as 2898.

22. P.W.4 who is another direct eye witness to the alleged accident has deposed that, on the alleged date of accident when he was present at a shop which is adjacent to the Pulla bridge, he noticed one Benz van proceeded in a high speed and dashed one old lady. Due to that she fell on the road and died on the spot. He does not know about the deceased. He does not know bearing number of the van. The accused was the driver of the said van. P.W.4 has not deposed about the deceased and bearing number of the crime vehicle. Therefore, his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecutions case.

23. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are corroborated by P.W.6 who is the

Motor Vehicle Inspector. According to him, at the request of the SHO,

Bhimadole P.S he inspected the crime vehicle and issue Ex.P.4 MVI report.

Ex.P.4 MVI report contains the bearing number of the crime vehicle. P.W.8 is the Investigation officer who received Ex.P.1 report from P.W.1 and based on

Ex.P.1 report he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.50/2019 and issued

Ex.P.6 FIR. Ex.P.1 report and Ex.P.6 FIR contain the bearing number of the crime vehicle. From the evidence of P.Ws,1,2, 6 and 8 and Ex.P.1 report,

Ex.P.4 MVI report and Ex.P.6 FIR it clearly shows that, the crime vehicle i.e.,

Ashok Layland van bearing No. AP 07 TN 2898 involved in the accident.

24.Ingredient No.2: “The accused to be the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident.”

It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident. P.W.2 is the direct eye witness to the alleged accident and he is the relevant person to depose about the identification of the accused. He deposed that, the accused drove the crime vehicle at the relevant time of alleged accident. He also identified

Page 10 of 14 C.C.131 of 2019 10 the accused in the open court and deposed that, he was the person who drove the crime vehicle. From the evidence of P.W.2 it clearly establishes that, the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of alleged accident.

25.Ingredient No.3: “The rash/negligent driving on the part of the accused in causing the death of deceased i.e., K.Ramudamma.”

It is the specific case of the prosecution that, on 04.02.2019 the deceased attended Pasupukunkuma meeting conducted at High School, Pulla and received pension. After receiving the pension, she reached the Pulla centre and crossing the road. Mean while, the accused who is the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Ashok Layland Van bearing No.AP 07 TN 2898 proceeded in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. Due to that, the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. In the present case, the prosecution has established the involvement of the crime vehicle as well as identification of the accused. While coming to the third serious ingredient to attract the offence u/Sec. 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 with regard to the manner of accident, the burden heavily lies on the prosecution to establish the rash and negligent on part of the accused at the relevant time of alleged accident. Now it has to be seen whether, the prosecution has placed sufficient material to establish the manner of accident. P.W.2 is the direct eye witness to the alleged incident. He categorically deposed that, on the alleged date of accident when he was present at auto stand he noticed that the deceased was crossing a road and the accused who is the driver of the crime vehicle proceeded in a high speed and dashed the deceased. P.W.2 is the relevant person to depose about the manner of the accident. From the evidence of P.W.2 it clearly shows that, the accused drove the crime vehicle in a high speed at the relevant time of

Page 11 of 14 C.C.131 of 2019 11 accident and caused the accident. If the accused controlled the speed of the vehicle, he would have been prevented the accident. However, he did not drive the crime vehicle in a slow manner and drove the same negligently and caused the alleged accident. From the evidence of P.W.2 it clearly shows that, the accused drove the crime vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of relevant accident and dashed the deceased. Due to that, she sustained injuries and died on the spot. From the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.5 to P.W.8 and Ex.P.1 to P.8 it clearly establishes that, the accused herein drove the crime vehicle i.e., Ashok Layland Van bearing No.AP 07 TN 2898 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased i.e., Kurma

Ramudamma.

26.In the light of above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution established the guilt against the accused for the offence under sections 304-

A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

27.In the result, the accused found guilty for the offence under Sec 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, accordingly, the accused is convicted under Sec 255 (2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Typed to my dictation by the steno of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23 rd day of March, 2020.

I Addl., Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl., Judl., I Class Magistrate Court, Eluru, FAC/Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Bhimadole.

When the accused is questioned regarding the quantum of sentence, he stated that, his wife suffering from paralysis and she is not feeling well and he has to look after her and prays the Court to impose lesser punishable.

Page 12 of 14 C.C.131 of 2019 12

Considering the nature of offence and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to invoke the benevolent provisions of Prohibition of Offenders Act. Considering the mitigating circumstances put forth by the accused and facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the ends of justice, the accused is convicted for the offence u/Sec.304-A of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The remand period, if any shall be set off u/Sec.428 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. No property order is passed as no property seized and produced.

Typed to my dictation by the steno of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23 rd day of March, 2020.

Sd/- N.Reddy Prasanna/

I Addl., Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl., Judl., I Class Magistrate Court, Eluru, FAC/Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Bhimadole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1: Kurma Peda Chitti Babu @ Raju -None- PW.2: Boddu Chinnababu PW.3: Matangi Eligebeth PW.4: Annepu Satyanarayana PW.5: Bhimavarapu Nageswara Rao PW.6: K.Chaitanya Suma PW.7: P.V.L.Ravindra PW.8: I.Veerraju

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Report Ex.P.2: Scene observation report Ex.P.3: Inquest report Ex.P4: MVI report Ex.P.5: PM Certificate Ex.P.6: F.I.R Ex.P.7: Rough sketch Ex.P.8: Photos and CD

DEFENCE:

NILL.

Page 13 of 14 C.C.131 of 2019 13

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

NIL

Sd/- N.Reddy Prasanna/

I AJCJ-cum-I AJFCM., Eluru FAC/JCJ-cum-JFCM., Bhimadole.

Page 1 of 1 C.C.131 of 2019

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDI CIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS : BHIMADOLE.

CALENDER CASE NO.131/2019

1. Date of offence: 04-02-2019

2. Date of complaint or report: 04-02-2019

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 41-A Cr.P.C

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : --

5. Date of commencement of trial: 08-08-2019

6. Date of close of trial: 19-03-2020

7. Date of sentence or Order: 23-03-2020

8. Explanation of delay if any: No such voidable delay.

COMPLAINANT: The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimadole Police

Station, in Cr.No.50/2019.

ACCUSED:

Mullapudi Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. Satyanarayana, 55 years, Kapu, Door NO.3- 13-10, Near Saibaba Temple,Kothibomma Center, Tadepalligudem, Driver of Ashok Leyland Van No.AP 07 TN 2898.

Offence :- Under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code

Finding of Court :- Found guilty

Sentence/Order:

In the result, the accused found guilty for the offence under Sec 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, accordingly, the accused is convicted under Sec 255 (2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year u/Sec.304-A of Indian Penal

Code, 1860. The remand period, if any shall be set off u/Sec.428 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973. No property order is passed as no property seized and produced.

Sd/- N.Reddy Prasanna/

I Addl., Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl., Judl., I Class Magistrate Court, Eluru, FAC/Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Page 1 of 12 C.C.18 of 2019 1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :

BHIMADOLE.

PRESENT : - SMT. N.REDDY PRASANNA

I ADDL., JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-I ADDL.,JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ELURU. FAC/JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BHIMADOLE.

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020

C.C.No.18 of 2019

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station.

... Complainant

And

Mareedhu Sambhadsivarao, S/o. Subbarao, 26 years, Gowda, Allamcherla Rajupalem Village, T.Narasapuram Mandalam, Driver of Jepisee van bearing No.AP37TG0414. … Accused

This case is coming before me on 19-03-2020 for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for Prosecution and of Sri S.Gopala Krishna, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration on this day and this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.211/2018 for the offence under

Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

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

On 21.10.2018 at about 1.00 AM, the deceased was started from

Pangidigudem Village to Gubbalamangamma temple along with P.Ws.1 to 5 proceeded to Gubbalamangamma goddess on Jepisee van bearing No.AP37

TG0 414. At about 2.00 AM they are reached near mee seva of Dorasanipadu

Village, Dwarka Tirumala Mandal, when the accused driver of Jepisee van bearing No.AP37TG0414, drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner in

Page 2 of 12 C.C.18 of 2019 2 the turning and causing capsized the van. In this accident deceased

Veeranjaeyulu sustained bleeding injuries over his head, nose and chin. P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased sustained fracture injury over her ribs. P.W.5 who is the son-in-law of the deceased sustained bleeding injury over his chin.

Then, the complainant got information through his brother in law and he reached Asram Hospital, Eluru. Then, his brother shifted to Government

Hospital, Guntur for better treatment. The injured P.W.2 and P.W.5 shifted to

Andhra Hospital, Eluru for treatment. The deceased Veeranjaneyulu could not recoup from the accident treatment and demised, while undergoing treatment on 22.10.2018 at about 00.17 AM., at Government Hospital,

Guntur. The accused driver of Jepisee van bearing No.AP37TG0414, drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he is responsible for accident and for the death of the deceased.

P.W.8 registered the statement of the P.W.6 as a case in Cr.NO.211/2018 u/Sec.337, 338, 304-A of IPC of Dwaraka Tirumala P.S on 22.10.2018 at 7.30

AM and took up investigation of this case. During the course of investigation, he examined the scene of offence on 22.10.2018 and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of mediators. During the course of investigation he visited the GGH, Guntur and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Mullapudi Veeranjaneyulu on 22.10.2018 at 12.30 PM on wards before the L.W.8-Vadlapudi Eswara Bhanu Prasad, L.W.9-Vakamudi

Srinivasu, L.W.10-Vadlapudi Surya Chandra Rao (Inquest Panchayatdars) and blood relatives of the deceased and eye witnesses. On 23.10.2018, P.W.9 took up further investigation in this case and verified the investigation made P.W.8 and found it went on correct lines and continued further investigation in this case. Notice has been served to the above accused u/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. Hence the charge.

Page 3 of 12 C.C.18 of 2019 3

3. After perusal of charge sheet and other connected documents, this case was taken on file against accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. Copies of documents are furnished to the accused U/s 207 Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973. The accused examined under section 251 of Criminal

Procedure Code 1973. The substance of accusation for the offence u/s 304(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is explained in Telugu to the accused. For which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5. Hence the case is posted for trial.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9.

Exhibits P.1 to P.19 were marked. The evidence of L.W.8-Vadlapudi Eswara

Bhanu Prasad, L.W.9-Vakamudi Srinivasu, L.W.10-Vadlapudi Surya Chandra

Rao, L.W.11-SK.Kareemulla, L.W.12-Dr.V.Siva Kameswara Rao, L.W.13-

K.Chaitanya Suma and L.W.14-Dr.R.Harsih are given up by the learned A.P.P.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused has examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. For which he denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Sec 304-A of Indian Penal

Code,1860 beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.9. and Exs. P1 to P19 were marked. P.W.6 is the complainant and brother of the deceased. P.W.1 is the injured and wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. P.W.3 is the son of the deceased. P.W.4

Page 4 of 12 C.C.18 of 2019 4 is the daughter of the deceased. P.W.5 is the injured and son-in-law of the deceased. P.W.7 is the direct eye witness to the alleged accident. P.W.8 and

P.W.9 are the investigation officers in the present case.

10. In order to prove the offence U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish the following aspects:

1) The involvement of the crime vehicle i.e., Jepisee bearing No.AP 37 TG 0414 in the present accident.

2) The accused to be the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident.

3) The rash/negligent driving on the part of the accused in causing the death of deceased Mulapudi Veeranjaneyulu.

11.To prove the offence u/Sec.338 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that in this fateful accident, P.W.1 and P.W.5 have received grievous injuries due to the negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the accused herein.

12.As per the contents of Ex.P.10 statement, on 21.10.2018, the deceased along with P.W.1 to P.W.5 proceeded in the crime vehicle i.e.,

Jepisee bearing no.AP 37 TG 0414 with an intent to visit Gubbala Mangamma

Temple. While so, at about 2.00 A.M when they reached near Mee seva centre at Dorasanipadu Villalge, the accused who is the driver of crime vehicle drove in a rash and negligent manner. Due to that, it turn turtile. Due to that, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries on his head, nose and chin. P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased sustained fracture injury over her ribs. P.W.5 who is the son-in-law of the deceased sustained bleeding injury on his chin.

The complainant came to know about the alleged accident and rushed to the

Asram hospital, Eluru. The deceased shifted to the Government Hospital,

Guntur for better treatment. The P.W.1 and P.W.5 are shifted to the Andhra

Page 5 of 12 C.C.18 of 2019 5

Hospital, Eluru for treatment. During the treatment the deceased was died.

Hence the report.

13.P.W.6 is the brother of the deceased and complainant in the present case. According to him, on the intervening night of 20/21.10.2018 the deceased along with P.Ws.1 to 5 were proceeding in the crime vehicle to visit

Gubbala Mangamma temple. At about 12.00 A.M or 1.00 A.M, the crime vehicle turned turtile. Due to that, the deceased died. P.W.1 sustained injury .

At hospital police recorded his statements. Ex.P6 is the signature in the statement. He does not know the contents of his statement. Police neither examined him nor recorded his statement. During the cross examination, he denied suggestion that he has stated before the police as per Ex.P.7 161

Cr.P.C. statements. P.W.6 did not support the prosecutions case and turned hostile. He deposed contrary version to his earlier version. Therefore his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution's case.

14. P.W.1 is the injured in the present case. According to P.W.1, on intervening night of 20.10.2018, herself along with her husband and children proceeded in a Jeep bearing No.0414 with an intent to go to

Gubbalamangamma temple. At about 1.15 A.M, when the reached near Mee

Seva Centre, Dorasanipadu, the Jeep turned turtile. Due to that, she sustained fracture injuries on her right ribs. Her husband sustained injury on his head. P.W.5 also sustained injuries. Later, they were shifted to

Government Hospital, Eluru. On 22.10.2018, while her husband undergoing treatment he died. Police neither examined her neither recorded her statement. During the cross examination, she denied suggestion that she has stated before the police as per Ex.P.1 161 Cr.P.C. statements. P.W.1 did not support the prosecutions case and turned hostile. She deposed contrary

Page 6 of 12 C.C.18 of 2019 6 version to her earlier version. Therefore her evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution's case.

15.P.W.5 is the injured in the present case. According to him, on the intervening night of 20.10.2018, himself along with the deceased and P.W.1 proceeded in a Jeep bearing No.0414 with an intent to go to Gubbala

Mangamma temple. At about 1.15 A.M, when they reached near Mee Seva

Centre, Dorasanipadu, the Jeep turn turtle due to a big pit on the road. Due to that, he sustained injuries on his face and head. Later, they all shifted to

Government Hospital, Eluru. On 22.10.2018, while the deceased undergoing treatment he died. Police neither examined him nor recorded his statement.

During the cross examination, he denied a suggestion that he has stated

before the police as per Ex.P.5 161 Cr.P.C. statements. P.W.5 did not support

the prosecutions case and turned hostile. He deposed contrary version to his earlier version. Therefore his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution's case.

16. P.W.2 is the eye witness to the alleged accident. According to him, on intervening night of 20.10.2018 himself along with the family members of

P.W.1 proceeded in a Jeep bearing No.0414 with an intent to go to

Gubbalamangamma temple. At about 1.15 A.M, when they reached near

Mee Seva Centre, Dorasanipadu, the Jeep turned turtile due to a big pit on the road. Due to that, the husband of P.W.1 sustained injury on his head.

P.W.5 also sustained injuries. Later, they were shifted to Government

Hospital, Eluru. On 22.10.2018, while the deceased undergoing treatment, he died. Police neither examined him nor recorded his statement. During the cross examination, he denied a suggestion that he has stated before the police as per Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C. statements. P.W.2 did not support the prosecutions case and turned hostile. He deposed contrary version to his

Page 7 of 12 C.C.18 of 2019 7 earlier version. Therefore his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution's case.

17. P.W.3 is the eye witness to the alleged accident. According to him, the deceased is his father. On intervening night of 20.10.2018 himself along with his family members proceeded in a Jeep bearing No.0414 with an intent to go to Gubbalamangamma temple. At about 1.15 A.M, when they reached near

Mee Seva Centre, Dorasanipadu, the Jeep turned turtile due to a big pit on the road. Due to that, his father sustained injury on his head. P.W.5 also sustained injuries. Later, they were shifted to Government Hospital, Eluru. On 22.10.2018, while the deceased undergoing treatment, he died. Police neither examined him nor recorded his statement. During the cross examination, he denied suggestion that he has stated before the police as per Ex.P.3 161 Cr.P.C. statements. P.W.3 did not support the prosecutions case and turned hostile. He deposed contrary version to his earlier version.

Therefore his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution's case.

18. P.W.4 is the eye witness to the alleged accident. According to her, the deceased is her father. P.W.3 is her brother. On intervening night of 20.10.2018 herself along with her family members proceeded in a Jeep bearing No.0414 with an intend to go to Gubbalamangamma temple. At about 1.15 A.M, when they reached near Mee Seva Centre, Dorasanipadu, the Jeep turned turtile due to a big pit on the road. Due to that, her father sustained injury on his head. P.W.5 also sustained injuries. Later, they were shifted to Government Hospital, Eluru. On 22.10.2018, while the deceased undergoing treatment, he died. Police neither examined her nor recorded her statement. During the cross examination, she denied suggestion that she has stated before the police as per Ex.P.4 161 Cr.P.C. statements. P.W.4 did not support the prosecutions case and turned hostile. She deposed contrary

Page 8 of 12 C.C.18 of 2019 8 version to her earlier version. Therefore her evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution's case.

19. P.W.7 is the direct eye witness to the alleged accident. According to him, he does not know anything about the case. Police neither examined him nor recorded his statements. During the cross examination, he denied a suggestion that he has stated before the police as per Ex.P.8 161 Cr.P.C.

statements. P.W.7 did not support the prosecutions case and turned hostile.

He deposed contrary version to his earlier version. Therefore his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution's case.

20. P.W8 and P.W.9 are the investigation officer in the present case.

According to P.W.8, on 22.10.2018 he received Ex.P.9 hospital intimation along with Ex.P.10 statement of P.W.6. Based on Ex.P.10 statement, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.211/2018 u/Sec. 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and issued Ex.P.11 F.I.R. he took up investigation. During the course of investigation he secured mediators i.e., L.W.8-V.Eswara Bhanu Prasad and

L.W.9-V.Srinivasu and visited the scene of offence observed the same and prepared Ex.P.12 scene observation report and P.13 rough sketch. He also taken Ex.P.14 photos. Later, he visited GGH, Guntur along with mediators.

L.W.8-V.Eswara Bahnu Prasad and L.W.9-V.Srinivasu and conducted inquest proceedings and prepared Ex.P.15 inquest report. He examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and recorded their statements. Later, he forwarded dead body of the deceased to medical officer for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and received Ex.P.16 P.M Certificate. He examined P.W.7 and recorded his statements. Later, P.W.9 conducted further investigation. P.W.9 took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by P.W.8. He received Ex.P.16 P.M certificate from medical officer and examined him and recorded there statements. He received Ex.P.18 and P.19 wound certificates

Page 9 of 12 C.C.18 of 2019 9 from the medical officer and recorded their evidence. He served section 41-A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused. He received Ex.P.17 M.V.I report. After the completion of entire investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

21.In the present case, it is the specific case of the prosecution that, the accused herein drove the crime vehicle i.e., Jepisee van bearing No. AP 37 TG 0414 in a rash and negligent manner. Due to that, it turned turtile. Due to that the deceased sustained severe injuries on his head, nose and chin. P.W.1 sustained fracture injury over her ribs. P.W.5 sustained bleeding injury on his chin. In the present case, P.W.6 who is the brother of the deceased and complainant in the present case did not support the prosecutions case and turned hostile. Therefore, his evidence in no way helpful to the prosecutions case. P.W.1 and P.W.5 who are the injured in the present case, they also did not support the prosecutions case and turned hostile. Therefore, their evidence are also no way helpful to the prosecutions case. P.W.2 to P.W.4 and

P.W.7 are the direct eye witness to the alleged accident did not support the prosecutions case and they turned hostile. They did not depose anything about the accused. It is a fatal to the prosecutions case. The evidence of

P.W.8 and 9 are not corroborated by any independent witness. From the material available on the record it shows that the deceased died in the fatal accident and P.W.1 and P.W.5 sustained grievous injuries. However there is no positive material placed by the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged accident. Absolutely there is no material placed by the prosecution to establish that the accused herein drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the alleged accident. There is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence under sections 304-A and 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Page 10 of 12 C.C.18 of 2019 10

22. In the light of above discussion, this Court holds that, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against the accused for the offences under sec 304-A and Sec 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

23.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under

Sec 304-A and Sec 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as contemplated under

Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. No property order is passed since no property seized and produced.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno on computer system, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 20 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna/

I Addl., Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl., Judl., I Class Magistrate Court, Eluru, FAC/Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1: Mullapudi Vani -None- PW.2: K.Naga Veerababu PW.3: Mullapudi Rajendra PW.4: N.Suvarchala PW.5: N.Jayakrishna PW.6: Mullapudi Naga Venkata Rayudu PW.7: M.Venkateswara Rao PW.8: Mallelli Jayaraju PW.9: I.Veerraju

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: 161 statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: 161 statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.3: 161 statement of P.W.3 Ex.P4: 161 statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.5: 161 statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.6: Signature of P.W.6 in the statement Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6

Page 11 of 12 C.C.18 of 2019 11

Ex.P.8: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7 Ex.P9: Hospital Intimation Ex.P.10: Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.11: F.I.R Ex.P.12: Scene observation report Ex.P.13: Rough sketch. Ex.P.14: Photos and C.D Ex.P.15: Inquest report Ex.P.16: P.M Certificate Ex.P.17: MVI reported Ex.P.18: Wound certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P.19: Wound certificate of P.W.5

DEFENCE:

NILL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

NIL

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna/

I AJCJ-cum-I AJFCM., Eluru FAC/JCJ-cum-JFCM., Bhimadole.

Page 1 of 1 C.C.18 of 2019

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDI CIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS : BHIMADOLE.

CALENDER CASE NO.18/2019

1. Date of offence: 21-10-2018

2. Date of complaint or report: 22-10-2018

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 41-A Cr.P.C

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : --

5. Date of commencement of trial: 22-11-2019

6. Date of close of trial: 19-03-2020

7. Date of sentence or Order: 20-03-2020

8. Explanation of delay if any: No such voidable delay.

COMPLAINANT:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Dwarka Tirumala Police Station, in Cr.No.211/2018. ACCUSED:

Mareedhu Sambhadsivarao, S/o. Subbarao, 26 years, Gowda, Allamcherla Rajupalem Village, T.Narasapuram Mandalam, Driver of Jepisee van bearing No.AP37TG0414. Offence :- Under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code

Finding of Court :- Found not guilty

Sentence/Order:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under

Sec 304-A and Sec 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as contemplated under

Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. No property order is passed since no property seized and produced.

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna/

I Addl., Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl., Judl., I Class Magistrate Court, Eluru, FAC/Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Page 1 of 9 C.C.130 of 2019 1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :

BHIMADOLE.

PRESENT : - SMT. N.REDDY PRASANNA

I ADDL., JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-I ADDL.,JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ELURU. FAC/JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BHIMADOLE.

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020

C.C.No.130 of 2019

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Bhimadole Police Station. ... Complainant

And

Palleti Rajesh, S/o. Yadayya, 29 years, SC/Madiga, Tirumalagiri Village, Nampalli Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana State. Driver of Lorry No.AP 16 TX 9837. … Accused

This case is coming before me on 19-03-2020 for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for Prosecution and of Sri B.Ram Babu, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration on this day and this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimadole Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused Cr.No.39/2018 for the offence under Sec 304-A of

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

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

The deceased is a resident of Nuzvid and he is working in a Citi Cable work in Nuzvid which is running by his elder brother Ramesh. The younger brother Sobhankishore two daughters are studying at Vizag and in connection with the festival Sankranthi they came to the house and after completed their leave the deceased started on 21.01.2019 morning and went to vizag to dropped them at Vizag and while returning to Nuzvid he boarded Rayagada Vijayawada Train and due to heavy rush of the train he

Page 2 of 9 C.C.130 of 2019 2 informed the same to his wife over phone on 21.01.2019 early hours and he got down the train at Bhimadole Railway Station and came to Bus shelter and stood on NH 16 road, by the side of Eluru side road, then the driver of

Lorry AP 16 TX 9837 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed while proceeding from Tadepalligudem side with cement Mixter lorry and dashed to the deceased and he sustained severe injuries and died on the spot.

In this connection on a report from P.W.1, P.W.7 (SI) registered a case in

Cr.No.39/2018 u/Sec.304-A IPC at Bhimadole P.S and investigated into. During the course of investigation,he visited the scene of offence got drafted scene observation report and prepared rough sketch and examined the witnesses and received MVI report. He served the notice to the accused u/Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C and informed that a case is registered against him and the same is being charged and file charge sheet in the court of Honorable JFCM,

Bhmadole. P.W.5 who is the medical officer, Government Hospital, Eluru conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued P.M certificate. P.W.4 who inspected the crime vehicle issued MVI report. After completion of entire investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3. After perusal of charge sheet and other connected documents, this case was taken on file against accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. Copies of documents are furnished to the accused U/s 207 Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973. The accused examined under section 251 of Criminal

Procedure Code 1973. The substance of accusation for the offence u/s 304(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is explained in Telugu to the accused. For which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

Page 3 of 9 C.C.130 of 2019 3

5. Hence the case is posted for trial.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7.

Exhibits P.1 to P.10 were marked. The evidence of L.W.3-Vakamudi Puja

Krishna, L.W.4-Vakamudi Veera Venkata Ramesh and L.W.5- Vakamdudi

Sobhana Kishore, L.W.8-Boddu Suresh and L.W.9-Pullepu Srinivasu are given up by the learned A.P.P.

7 After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused has examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. For which he denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A of Indian

Penal Code,1860 beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.7. and Exs. P1 to P10 were marked. P.W.1 is the complainant in the present case. P.W.2 is the M.V.I. P.W.3 is the relative of the deceased. P.W.4 is the direct eye witness to the alleged incident. P.W.5 is the medical officer who issued P.M Certificate. P.W.6 is the witness who present at the time of drafting scene observation report and inquest report. P.W.7 is the investigation officer.

10.In order to prove the offence U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish the following aspects:

1) The involvement of the crime vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TX 9837 in the present accident.

Page 4 of 9 C.C.130 of 2019 4

2) The accused to be the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident.

3) The rash/negligent driving on the part of the accused in causing the death of deceased i.e.,Vakamudi Veera Venkata Venu Narasimha Rao.

11.As per the contents of Ex.P.1 report, on 21-01-2019 during morning hours, the husband of the complainant went to Vizag to drop his relatives daughter. While returning to Nuziveedu he boarded a train at Vijayawada. He informed to the complainant that, the train was heavy with passengers. On 22.01.2019, at about morning hours, she came to know that, the deceased met with an accident at Railway gate, Bhimadole. A lorry bearing No.AP 16 TX 9837 drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. Due to that he sustained severe injuries and died.

12.According to P.W.1, the deceased is her husband. On 21.01.2019, her husband went to Vizag to drop their relatives daughter. On the same day he return back and boarded a passenger train. He informed to her that, the train was over loaded and he boarded down at Bhimadole with a view to board a bus. On 22.01.2019 at about 5.00 A.M, she came to know that, her husband met with an accident at Bhimadole and a lorry bearing No.AP 16 E 9837 dashed the deceased. Due to that, he sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. On such, she rushed to the Government Hospital, Eluru and found the dead body of her husband. Therefore, she lodged Ex.P.1 report.

13.P.W.3 is the relative of the deceased. According to him, he does not know anything about the case. Police neither examined him nor recorded his statements. During the cross examination, he denied a suggestion that he has stated before the police as per Ex.P.3 161 Cr.P.C. statements. P.W.3 did not support the prosecutions case and turned hostile. He deposed contrary

Page 5 of 9 C.C.130 of 2019 5 version to his earlier version. Therefore his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution's case.

14.P.W.4 is the direct eye witness to the alleged accident. According to him, he does not know anything about the case. Police neither examined him nor recorded his statements. During the cross examination, he denied a suggestion that he has stated before the police as per Ex.P.4 161 Cr.P.C.

statements. P.W.4 did not support the prosecutions case and turned hostile.

He deposed contrary version to his earlier version. Therefore his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution's case.

15.P.W.2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Eluru. According to him, on 23.01.2019, he received a requisition from the SHO, Bhimadole P.S. On the same day at 11.30 A.M, he inspected the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 16 TX 9837 at station premises, Bhimadole and found one damage and noted the same at column No.8. He put the vehicle for road test and found that the breaks are in working condition. Accordingly, he issued Ex.P2 MVI report by opining that, the above accident was not due to any mechanical defects to the vehicle involved in the accident.

16.P.W.5 is the Medical officer. According to him, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Vakamudi Veera Venkata Venu

Narasimha Rao and noticed following injuries,

1. Crush Injury skull with loss of brain tissue,

2. Crush Injury facial bones with deformed face,

3. Fracture right clavicle and

4. Minor abrasions over left loin.

Accordingly he issued Ex.P.5 P.M certificate, by opining that the deceased died due to head injury.

Page 6 of 9 C.C.130 of 2019 6

17.P.W.6 is the witness who present at the time of scene observeation report and also at the time of inquest proceedings. According to him, on 22.01.2019, at about 7.00 A.M, at the request of S.I of police himself along with L.W.8-Boddu Suresh acted as a mediator and proceeded to the scene of offence and observed the same and prepared Ex.P.6 scene observation report. On the same day they proceeded to the Government hospoital, Eluru and conducted inquest proceedings and prepared Ex.P.7 inquest report.

18. P.W.7 is the investigation officer in the present case. According to him, he received Ex.P.1 report from P.W.1. Based on Ex.P.1 report, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.39/2019 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 and issued Ex.P.8 F.I.R. He took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence along with mediators i.e., P.W.6 and L.W.8-Boddu Suresh and observed the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P.9 rough sketch. He has taken Ex.P.10 photos at scene of offence. At the scene of offence, he examined P.W.3 and recorded his statements. Later, he visited the Government Hospital, Eluru along with mediators I.e.., P.W.6, L.W.8-Boddu Suresh and L.W.9-Pullepu Srinivasu and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased namely Vakamudi

Veera Venkata Venu Nrasimha Rao and prepared Ex.P.7 inquest report. He examined P.W.4, L.W.3 -V.Puja Krishna, L.W.4-V.Veera Venkata Ramesh and

L.W.5-V.Shobana Kishore and recorded their statements. Later, he forwarded dead body of the deceased before a medical officer for conduct Autopsy and received Ex.P.5 Postmortem certificate. He send the crime vehicle to MVI inspector for inspection and received Ex.P.2 MVI report. He served Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C Notice to the accused. After completion of entire investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

Page 7 of 9 C.C.130 of 2019 7

19.In the present case, it is the specific case of the prosecution that, the accused herein drove the crime vehicle i.e., Lorry Bearing No.AP 16 TX 9837 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. Due to that, he sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. P.W.3 who is none other than the close relative of the deceased did not support the prosecutions case and turned hostile. P.W.4 who is the direct eye witness to the alleged incident and relevant person to depose about the manner of the accident, did not support the prosecutions case and turned hostile. It is a fatal to the prosecutions case. The evidence of P.W.2, P.W.5 to P.W.7 are not corroborated by any independent witnesses. From the material available on the record it shows that, the deceased died in the fatal accident. However there is no positive material placed by the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged accident. There is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to established that, the accused herein drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the alleged accident. There is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

20.In the light of above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence under sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubts.

Accordingly, he is acquitted.

21.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sec 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Sec 255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as contemplated under Section 437-A

Page 8 of 9 C.C.130 of 2019 8 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. No property order is passed since no property seized and produced.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno on computer system, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 20 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna/

I Addl., Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl., Judl., I Class Magistrate Court, Eluru, FAC/Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1: Vakamuri Sirisha -None- PW.2: G.Naga Murali PW.3: Pullipati Lazar PW.4: Ramakurthi Pattabhi PW.5: Dr.Ch.Praveen Kumar PW.6: V.V.N.Venkata Satya Krishna Prasad PW.7: I.Veerraju

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Report Ex.P.2: MVI Report Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.5: PM Certificate Ex.P.6: Scene observation report Ex.P.7: Inquest report Ex.P.8: FIR Ex.P9: Rough sketch Ex.P.10: Photos and CD.

DEFENCE:

NILL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

NIL

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna/

I AJCJ-cum-I AJFCM., Eluru FAC/JCJ-cum-JFCM., Bhimadole.

Page 1 of 1 C.C.130 of 2018

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDI CIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS : BHIMADOLE.

CALENDER CASE NO.130/2018

1. Date of offence: 22-01-2019

2. Date of complaint or report: 22-01-2019

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 41-A Cr.P.C

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : --

5. Date of commencement of trial: 25-07-2019

6. Date of close of trial: 19-03-2020

7. Date of sentence or Order: 20-03-2020

8. Explanation of delay if any: No such voidable delay.

COMPLAINANT:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimadole Police Station, in Cr.No.39/2019.

ACCUSED:

Palleti Rajesh, S/o. Yadayya, 29 years, SC/Madiga, Tirumalagiri Village, Nampalli Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana State. Driver of Lorry No.AP 16 TX 9837.

Offence :- Under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code

Finding of Court :- Found not guilty

Sentence/Order:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sec 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Sec 255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. No property order is passed since no property seized and produced.

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna/

I Addl., Junior Civil Judge-cum I Addl., Judl., I Class Magistrate Court, Eluru, FAC/Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Page 1 of 7 C.C.981 of 2015

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

ELURU.

Present: Smt.N. Reddy Prasanna, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

(FAC)II ADDL., JUDL., MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

ELURU Friday, this the 30th day of November, 2018

C.C.No.981 of 2015

Between:

The State - Sub-Inspector of Police,

I Town Police Station, Eluru. ... Complainant

And

A1. Kallepalli Dali Raju, S/o.Lakshmayya, Age 30 years, Carpender near burial ground, Maruthi Nagar Colony, Venkatapuram panchayat, Eluru Mandal, W.G.Dist.

A2. Singavarapu Durga Rao, S/o.Ramana (Late), Age 27 years, Near Anganwadi school, Maruthi Nagar colony, Venkatapuram panchayat, Eluru Mandal, W.G.Dist. ... A1 and A2

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 27-11-2018 in the presence of The Learned Assistant public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.N.V.S.Narasimha Rao and Sri M.Narishmulu, Advocates for the A1 and A2 and after hearing arguments and on a perusal of record and having stood over to this day for consideration, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Eluru filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 457,380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

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

On 17-07-2015 morning -Parvatham Durga Prasad along with his family left for Rajahmundry to have a holy dip in Godavari River in connection with Godavari Puskarams. By locking and the doors of his house. On 21-07-2015 he returned to his house with his family members and found the locks of the doors were broken and doors of iron safe was

Page 2 of 7 C.C.981 of 2015 also opened by broking locks and found lost of 1.Gold Rings-4 2. Gold Ear

Studs-1 pair, 3. Silver Anklets-1 Pair, 4.Silver Kunkuma Barina, 5. Some

Amount, 6. Karbon Mobile Phone vide SIM No.9963826553, All worth of

Rs.35,000/-. Some unknown culprits gained entered into his house during his absence by broke open the locks of doors and committed theft of above property on that he came to police station and present a report to restore his property. Basing on that, L.W.9-T.Bhaskara Rao HC 1423 of Eluru I Town

PS registered same as a case in Cr.No.142/2015 U/s.457, 382 IPC on 21-07- 2015 at 10.30 A.M and investigating into. On 21-07-2015, L.W9- T.Bhaskara

Rao inspected scene of offence in presence of L.W.7Thallapragada Sada

Siva Rao and L.W.8-K.Manohar, VRO Eluru draft rough sketch and got drafted scene observation report. While examination of L.W.2 . It came to light the offenders committed theft of two Silver Holly Light stands along with the stolen property from the house. As well L.W9 examined the L.W.3-

Sk.Gouse, L.W.4-Jangam Ramanamma and L.W.5-Kata Ramesh who are neighbors to the scene of offence and independent witnesses and recorded their statement U/s.161(3) Cr.P.C.

3.The case was taken cognizance against the Accused for the offences

U/S.457,380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. After the appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished to the Accused u/s. 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

5. The Accused were examined U/S. 239 Criminal Procedure Code 1973.

The charge against the accused were read over and explained in Telugu to the accused. For which they denied and pleaded not guilty for the offences

U/S.457,380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Hence, the case is posted for trial.

Page 3 of 7 C.C.981 of 2015

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined all together 6 witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.6 and Exhibits P.1 to P.5 and M.Os.1 to 4 were got marked.

7.After the closer of the Prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s.313 Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The Accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported to no defence of evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/S.420 and 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 or not” ?

10. P O I N T:

To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and M.Os.1 to 4, were marked. P.W.1 is the complainant in the present case. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the mediator. P.W.4 to

P.W.6 are the investigation officers in the present case.

11.According to P.W.1 some unknown offenders taken away one pair of ear studs M.O.2 sivlver anklets, M.O.3 silver Dhevudu Kundelu M.O.4 cell phone at his house. Therefore, he lodged Ex.P.1 report. P.W.2 also deposed that M.O.1 to 4 were theft. P.W.5 also deposed that he received Ex.P.1 report from P.W.1 and he registered the same in a case Cr.No.142/2015 and issued Ex.P.5 F.I.R. During the course of investigation he examined P.W.1 and recorded their statements. Further he visited the scene of offence and observed the same and prepared Ex.P.6 rough sketch. From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 and Ex.P.1 report, shows that M.O.1 to M.O.4 were committed theft. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 are not corroborated by

Page 4 of 7 C.C.981 of 2015 any independent witness. There is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish that the accused here in taken away M.O.1 to

M.O.4 in the house of the P.W.1.

12.Further, it is the case of the prosecution that, P.W.4 got a credible information, on such he secured the presence of P.W.3 and seized M.O.1 to

M.O.4 from the possession of the accused and arrested them under the cover of Ex.P.4 mediator report. In order to establish the alleged seizer of

M.O.1 to M.O.4 the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 and Ex.P.4 mediator report. According to P.W.3 at the request of the police he act as a mediators and his presents the police observed the scene of ofence and prepared Ex.P.3 scene observation report. Further, on 03-09- 2015 he again at as a mediators and accompanied the police officials.

They proceeded towards Anjaneya Swami Temple at Gajelavari Cheruvu in

Eluru and found 2 persons who try to escape from the place. On suspicious

P.W.4 caught hold them and interrogated. On interrogated they revealed their identities and confessed the alleged offence. On such P.W.4 seized

M.O.1 to M.O.4 from the possession and arrested them under the cover of

Ex.P.4 mediator report. The evidence of P.W.3 is corroborated by Ex.P.4 mediator report. Further, the evidence of P.W.3 is corroborated by P.W.4.

13.P.W.4 also deposed that, on credible information he secured the presence of P.W.3 and seized M.O.1 to M.O.4 from the possession of the accused and arrested them under the cover of Ex.P.4 mediator report.

From the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 and exP.4 it clearly shows that P.W.4 seized M.O.1 to M.O.4 from the possession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P.4 mediator report.

14.In the light above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has to placed sufficient material to establish the guilt for the offence under section 411 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Page 5 of 7 C.C.981 of 2015

15.In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found guilty for the offence punishable

U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly they are convicted

U/Sec.248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said offence. The accused is found not guilty for offences punishable Under Sections 457 and 380 of

Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248(1) of

Criminal Procedure Code 1973.

I Addl.,Judl.I Class Magistrate, Eluru. FAC:II Addl.Judl.I Class Magistrate,Eluru

Before awarding sentence, accused are questioned with regard to the

quantum of sentence that can be imposed against him for the offence

U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accused has stated that they have children.

In the present case, accused retained the stolen property i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.4. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to invoke benevolent provision provided under Prohibition of Offender Act. On considering the mitigating circumstances which are put forth by accused, and also by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the ends of the Justice, the accused are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence U/s.411 of Indian

Penal Code 1860. The remand period of accused i.e. from 14-09-2015 to 22-09-2015 shall be set off U/s.428 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The case properties i.e. M.O.1: One pair of ear studs, M.O.2: Silver anklets,

M.O.3: Silver Deepapu Kundulu, M.O.4: Carbon cell phone which was

Page 6 of 7 C.C.981 of 2015 already given to P.W.1, M.O.2: T.V, which were already given to P.W.1 for interim custody shall holds good till expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30 th day of November, 2018.

Sd/-N.Prasanna Reddy

I Addl.,Judl.I Class Magistrate, Eluru.

FAC:II Addl.Judl.I Class Magistrate, Eluru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1: P.Durga Prasad None P.W.2: P.Durga Bhavani P.W.3: T.Sadasiva Rao P.W.4: K.Rama Rao P.W.5: S.Venkateswara Rao P.W.6: K.Nagendra Prasad

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: ReportNIL Ex.P.2: Property identification Ex.P.3: Scene observation report Ex.P.4: Certified copy of mediator reported Ex.P.5: F.I.R Ex.P6: Rough sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

M.O.1: One pair of ear studs NIL M.O.2: Silver anklets M.O.3: Silver deepapu kindulu M.O.4: Carbon cell phone

I.A.J.F.C.M., Eluru. FAC: II A.J.F.C.M., Eluru.

Page 7 of 7 C.C.981 of 2015

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

Calendar Case No.981/2015 tried by the II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

FAC/II Addl Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OffenceReport orFiling ofApprehensiReleaseCommencClose ofSentence complt.complton ofon Bailement oftrialor order accusedtrial 17-07-201521-07-201521-07-201514-09-201822-09-201817-08-201823-11-201830-11-2018 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation of the delay: No such voidable delay. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Complainant: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru I Town P.S. Cr.No.142/2015 of Eluru I Town P.S. A1. Kallepalli Dali Raju, S/o.Lakshmayya,Age 30 years, Carpender near burial ground, Maruthi Nagar Colony, Venkatapuram panchayat, Eluru Mandal, W.G.Dist.

A2. Singavarapu Durga Rao, S/o.Ramana (Late), Age 27 years, Near Anganwadi school, Maruthi Nagar colony, Venkatapuram panchayat, Eluru Mandal, W.G.Dist. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offences : under Section 457,380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code .

Finding: Found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Found not guilty for the punishable Under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code 1860.

Result:In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly they are convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said offence. The accused is found not guilty for offences punishable Under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The accused are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. The remand period of accused i.e. from 14-09-2015 to 22-09-2015 shall be set off U/s.428 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The case properties i.e. M.O.1: One pair of ear studs, M.O.2: Silver anklets, M.O.3: Silver Deepapu Kundulu, M.O.4: Carbon cell phone which were already given to P.W.1, M.O.2: T.V, which was already given to P.W.1 for interim custody shall holds good till expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-N.Prasanna Reddy

I Addl Junior Civil Judge FAC/II Addl.Judl.I Class Magistrate, Eluru