Nishad Naaz Shaik

Spl.Mobile Court Judge Nellore

Principal District and Sessions Court, Nellore · Nellore · Andhra Pradesh

Nishad Naaz Shaik, Spl.Mobile Court Judge Nellore, is posted at Principal District and Sessions Court, Nellore, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. 107 court orders on record since 2025. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC cases.

107

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/769/2022 Acquitted

AP State Sub Inspector of POlice Indukurpet P.S vs Mutluru Ramanaiah

30 Mar 2026

APNE0A0008752022

Presented on : 30-03-2022 Registered on : 30-03-2022 Decided on : 30-03-2026 Duration : 4 years, 0 months, 0 days

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, NELLORE.

Present: Ms. Nishad Naaz Shaik, IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2026

Calendar Case No.769 of 2022 Between:

The State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Indukurpeta P.S.

…Complainant

And

Mutluru Ramanaiah, S/o. Chinnaiah, aged 58 years, SC-Madiga by caste, Nallaladibba, Mixed Colony, Jagadevipeta Village, Indukurupeta Mandal, Badge No: E514091, Driver of RTC Bus No.AP 29 Z 2700 … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11.03.2026 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/ Complainant and of Sri. Eduru Bhaskaraiah, learned Counsel for the Accused, upon perusal of record, upon hearing both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

CC No.769/2022, Dt. 30.03.2026

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Indukurpeta P.S. filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.21/2020 of Indukurpeta P.S. for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:-

(i) On 12.02.2020 at about 12.30 hrs the Deceased/ Eluru Dilip

Kumar Reddy, who is the younger father of L.W.1/Yeluru Venkata Reddy, went to Gangapatnam Village, in mean while at about 2.45 PM, L.W. 2/ Y.

Prudhuvi Reddy cousin brother of L.W.1/Yeluru Venkata Reddy by name

Eluri Prudvireddy, who is the son of Deceased phoned up L.W.1/Yeluru

Venkata Reddy from Hyderabad and informed that the deceased younger father of L.W.1/Yeluru Venkata Reddy and father of L.W. 2/ Y. Prudhuvi

Reddy met with an road accident in between Ramudupalem to

Kudithipalem Village and sustained bleeding injuries over head and blood came from nose, ears and mouth and died. On receiving the information immediately L.W.1/Yeluru Venkata Reddy rushed to the spot along with

L.W.3/ Yeluru Vasantha kumar Reddy and L.W.4/ Yeluru Madhusudhan

Reddy, and found that the deceased younger father was found died. LWS- 1 to 4 (L.W.1/Yeluru Venkata Reddy, L.W. 2/ Y. Prudhuvi Reddy, L.W.3/

Yeluru Vasantha kumar Reddy, L.W.4/ Yeluru Madhusudhan Reddy), are 3

CC No.769/2022, Dt. 30.03.2026

learnt the occurrence through L.W.5/ Metta Davakar Reddy and L.W.6/

Gummadi Parandamaiah), who are direct witnesses including L.W.7/

Oruvuru Murali, who is conductor of RTC bus, as the RTC bus AP 29 7 2700 was coming from Ramudupalem, accused driver of the bus by name

M. Ramanaiah drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and dashed motor cycle of the deceased, caused the deceased fell down on the road and sustained multiple bleeding injuries on head, and blood has came from nose, ears, and mouth and died instantaneously, the motor cycle badly damaged. L.W.1/Yeluru Venkata

Reddy reported the matter to police.

(ii) On the report of L.W.1/Yeluru Venkata Reddy as a case in

Cr.No: 21/2020, U/Sec: 304(A) IPC of Indukurpeta Police Station on 12.02.2020 at 18.00 hrs has been registered and investigated it by L.W.13 /N.Sridhar Rao, ASI. On the same day L.W .13 /N.Sridhar Rao, ASI recorded the statement of L.W.1/Yeluru Venkata Reddy and visited the scene of offence by securing the mediators L.W.8/ Arava Jadsan, and

L.W.10/ Aramadaka Venu Gopal Reddy, drafted the scene observation report. The observation report was commenced at 06.30 p.m the same was concluded at 7.15 p.m in the presence of L.W.8/ Arava Jadsan, and

L.W.10/ Aramadaka Venu Gopal Reddy, which was duly attested by them. On 13.02.2020, L.W .13 /N.Sridhar Rao, ASI secured the LWs-1 to 4

CC No.769/2022, Dt. 30.03.2026

7 (L.W.1/Yeluru Venkata Reddy, L.W. 2/ Y. Prudhuvi Reddy, L.W.3/ Yeluru

Vasantha kumar Reddy, L.W.4/ Yeluru Madhusudhan Reddy, L.W.5/

Metta Davakar Reddy, L.W.6/ Gummadi Parandamaiah, L.W.7/ Oruvuru

Murali), re-examined the L.W.1/Yeluru Venkata Reddy and examined the

LWs-2 to 7 (L.W. 2/ Y. Prudhuvi Reddy, L.W.3/ Yeluru Vasantha kumar

Reddy, L.W.4/ Yeluru Madhusudhan Reddy, L.W.5/ Metta Davakar Reddy,

L.W.6/ Gummadi Parandamaiah, L.W.7/ Oruvuru Murali), and recorded their statements. Later commenced inquest over the corpse of the deceased at 09.00 a.m. The same was concluded at 11.30 a.m in the presence of LWs-8 to 10 (L.W.8/ Arava Jadsan, L.W.9/ Nagireddy

Vijayakumar Reddy, L.W.10/ Aramadaka Venu Gopal Reddy). The inquest was duly attested by the LWs-8 to 10 (L.W.8/ Arava Jadsan, L.W.9/

Nagireddy Vijayakumar Reddy, L.W.10/ Aramadaka Venu Gopal Reddy).

On 14.02.2020 the entire investigation of L.W.13 /N.Sridhar Rao, ASI verified by the L.W.14/ P. Naresh, Sub-Inspector of Police, and obtained

M.V.I report of crime vehicle and P.M. Certificate of the deceased.

(iii) L.W.11/ Y. Sudhakar Reddy, MVI inspected the crime vehicle and issuing of M.V.I. report, he opined that the above said accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle.

(iv) L.W.12/ Dr. M. Helen Smiles, who is the medical officer C.H.C.,

Indukurpeta conducted the autopsy over the corpse of the deceased at 5

CC No.769/2022, Dt. 30.03.2026

A.C.S.R. Government Hospital, Nellore and issuing of P.M. Certificate and opined that the deceased death due to shock and haemorrhage by the head injury and multiple injuries to the best of her knowledge.

(v) After completion of investigation, L.W.14/ P. Naresh, SI of

Police, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 304-A IPC. Hence Charge Sheet.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 304-A of IPC. Summons were served to him.

4.On appearance of the accused before this Court, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207

Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the substance of accusation found against him for the offence punishable u/s. 304-A of

IPC, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P8 were got marked. The evidence of other Prosecution witnesses was given up by the learned A.P.P. Accordingly, prosecution side evidence is closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence against him and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his 6

CC No.769/2022, Dt. 30.03.2026

behalf.

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

(A) The learned APP submitted his arguments on behalf of prosecution that PW1 to PW9 are examined Exs. P1 to P8 are marked.

The evidence of PW.1 to P.W.9 corroborating with each other, is enough to prove the guilt of the accused and prays the Court to punish the accused according law.

(B) The learned Defence counsel submitted his arguments on behalf of the Accused that prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and requested to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt.

9.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused for the offence punishable u/s. 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubts ? POINT :

10.The main case of the prosecution is that the accused committed the offence punishable u/s. 304-A of IPC and hence liable for punishment for the same.

CC No.769/2022, Dt. 30.03.2026

not being an intention or knowledge of death (meaning it does not amount to culpable homicide), and (4) A direct link between the negligent act and the death.

11. In order to prove the above said ingredients, the prosecution has cited as many as '16' witnesses. Out of which, L.Ws.1, 2, 5, 6, 8,12, 11, 13, 14 are examined as PWs.1 to P.W.9 respectively and Exs.P1 to P8 viz., Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is the Scene Observation Report. Ex.P3 is the Inquest Report. Ex.P4 is Postmortem Certificate of deceased. Ex.P5 is the MVI report. Ex.P6 is F.I.R. in Cr.No.21/2020. Ex.P7 is Rough Sketch.

Ex.P8 is statistical ticket accountal Record, were got marked.

(i) PW1 and PW2 are relatives of the deceased, and they are hearsay witnesses, as they came to know about the accident only through PW3.

(ii) PW3 deposed that on 12-02-2021 at about 1:30 p.m., the deceased, after chit-chatting with him, left towards the fields situated near

Gangapatnam on his Pulsar bike. Thereafter, PW3 also proceeded towards

Gangapatnam on his own bike. When he reached near Chinnachiruvu, he observed from a distance that an RTC bus came at a high speed and hit a biker. On noticing the same, he went near the spot and found that the person was none other than the Deceased/ Eluru Dilip Kumar Reddy.

Immediately, he made a phone call to PW2 and informed about the incident.

He further deposed that the deceased died on the spot due to the injuries sustained. However, he admitted that he observed the bus only from a 8

CC No.769/2022, Dt. 30.03.2026

distance of about 30 feet and could not state the exact manner in which the accident occurred.

(iii) PW4, who is alleged as an eyewitness by the prosecution, deposed that on 13-02-2020, while he was proceeding from his village towards Indukurpet, the deceased was travelling ahead of him on a bike, and PW3 was also travelling on the same bike along with the deceased. He stated that near the turning at Chinnacheruvuru village, an RTC bus coming from Indukurpet hit the bike of the deceased, resulting in his death on the spot. He further deposed that a mob gathered at the scene and that the RTC bus driver fled from the spot. According to him, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver.

However, in his cross-examination, PW3 admitted that there was a gap of about 10 minutes between his travel and that of the deceased, indicating that he was travelling approximately 10 minutes behind the deceased. He further admitted that there is no possibility of driving at high speed near the curved turnings.

(iv) P.W. 5 / Arava Judson, mediator deposed that he know the deceased/E.Dilip Kumar. On 12.02.2020 at evening hours on the request of

SI of police, Indukurpet himself, Lw.9 and Lw.10 went to the police station.

There police requested to act as panch witnesses, then from there to went to the scene of offence situated in between Ramudupalem village and

Kudithipalem Village. where police examined scene in their presence and 9

CC No.769/2022, Dt. 30.03.2026

prepared report. He put his signature in it. Ex.p.2 is the Scene Observation

Report. On the next day they went to the government hospital, Nellore on the request of police, where police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and prepared report. He put his signature in it.

Ex.P3 is the Inquest Report. He came to know that the deceased was died in bus accident.

In his cross-examination, he admitted that he affixed his signature on

Exhibit P2 at the police station and on Exhibit P3 at the hospital. He further admitted that he did nor receive any written summons from the police to act as a mediator.

(v)PW6 is the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued the post- mortem report.

(vi) PW7 is the RTO Officer who inspected the crime vehicle and issued the Motor Vehicle Inspection (MVI) report. In his cross-examination,

PW7 stated that there was a delay of three days between the date of the accident and the inspection of the crime vehicle.

(vii)P.W .8 /N.Sridhar Rao, ASI / Investigating Officer deposed that on 12.02.2020 at about 06.00 PM PW1 came to the Police station along with written report. Basing on the it, he registered a case in Cr.No.21/2020 under section 304-A IPC of Indukurpeta P.S. Ex.P6 is F.I.R. in Cr.No.21/2020.

He submitted the original case copies to all the concerned. He examined 10

CC No.769/2022, Dt. 30.03.2026

PW1 at Police station and recorded his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Immediately, he rushed to the scene of offence along with mediators Pw.5, Lw.9 situated in between Ramudupalem and Kudithipalem, near Chinna Cheruvu, where he observed the scene and prepared scene observation report in the presence of mediators and also draw rough sketch. Ex.P.7 is Rough Sketch and shifted the crime vehicle bearing number AP.29.Z.2700 and also the bike bearing number AP.26.AR.3993 to the police station and shifted the dead body of deceased/E.Dilip Kumar Reddy to the Government

Hospital,Nellore. On the next day he went to Government Hospital, Nellore where he examined PW.1 to Pw.4 and Lw.3 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C.

statements. On the same day, he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of Pw.5,Lw.9 and Lw.10. Later, he went to the bus depot and examined the bus conductor/Lw.7 and recorded his statement and obtained statistical ticket accountal record. Ex.P8 is statistical ticket accountal Record. Later, he handed over CD file to Lw.14.

However, in his cross-examination, PW8 admitted that none of the witnesses examined in this case stated that they could identify the accused.

He further admitted that a police constable shifted the crime vehicle to the police station. He also admitted that only the RTC bus was inspected by

PW7 and not the bike involved in the accident. Additionally, he stated that the scene of the accident is a single road with several turnings. Importantly, he admitted that he did not secure any documentary proof to establish that 11

CC No.769/2022, Dt. 30.03.2026

the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle or that he was on duty on the alleged date.

(viii) PW9 is the subsequent Investigating Officer who took up further investigation after verifying the investigation conducted by PW8 and filed the charge sheet against the accused. In his cross-examination, PW9 admitted that there was a delay of three days in sending the requisition to PW7 nor crime vehicle inspection. He also admitted that only the RTC bus was inspected in this case and not the bike.

12. From the evidence available on record, it is evident that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in a road accident. However, for an offence to be brought within the ambit of Section 304-A of IPC, the prosecution must establish that the death was the direct result of rash and negligent act of the accused, and that such act was done without intention to cause death or knowledge that is likely to cause death.

13. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:

(i) On a careful appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, it is evident that PW1 and PW2 are merely hearsay witnesses, as their knowledge regarding the accident is based on what was informed to them by PW3. The case of the prosecution thus substantially rests upon the evidence of PW3 and PW4, who are projected as eyewitnesses. However, their evidence suffers from material contradictions.

(ii) PW3 deposed that he witnessed the accident from a distance of 12

CC No.769/2022, Dt. 30.03.2026

about 30 feet; however, he categorically admitted that he could not speak about the manner in which the accident occurred. On the other hand, PW4 stated that PW3 and the deceased were travelling on the same bike, which is in direct contradiction to the version of PW3, who clearly stated that he was travelling on a separate bike. Further, PW4 admitted that there was a time gap of about 10 minutes between his vehicle and that of the deceased.

In view of such a significant time gap, particularly on a road with several curves, as admitted by the witnesses themselves, it is highly improbable that

PW4 could have witnessed the accident in the manner alleged. This creates serious doubt regarding his presence at the scene and the reliability of his testimony.

(iii) The evidence of PW5 and PW6 does not in any way establish the identity of the accused.

(iv) The evidence of PW7 discloses that there was a delay of three days in inspecting the vehicle. The Investigating Officers, PW8 and PW9, have also admitted that no independent witnesses were examined, that the scene of offence is a single road with multiple curves, and that there was a delay in sending requisition for vehicle inspection.

(v) Moreover, PW8 admitted that no witness has stated that they could identify the accused. He also admitted that no documentary evidence was secured to establish that the accused was the driver of the RTC bus or that he was on duty on the alleged date. Though the prosecution relies heavily 13

CC No.769/2022, Dt. 30.03.2026

on Ex.P8, the statistical ticket accountal record allegedly obtained from LW7 (bus conductor), the said LW7 was not examined before the Court, as the prosecution reported that he was bedridden and unable to attend. Thus,

Ex.P8 remains uncorroborated. The prosecution has failed to examine any of the passengers who were travelling in the RTC bus at the time of the alleged accident. As per the prosecution version, the driver of the RTC bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bike near the curved turnings of Chinnachiruvu. However, except for PW3 and PW4, no independent or co-passenger witnesses from the RTC bus have been examined to substantiate this allegation.

(vi) Except for Ex.P8, no other material evidence was collected from the bus depot or any competent authority to establish that the accused was driving the said RTC bus at the relevant time. In the absence of such crucial evidence, the non-examination of material witnesses, particularly the co- passengers of the RTC bus, the identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle remains unproved.

14. Thus, in view of the above inconsistencies, contradictions, and lapses in investigation, the essential ingredients of Section 304-A of IPC, namely rash and negligence on the part of the accused leading to the death of the deceased, have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s.304-A of IPC and the benefit of 14

CC No.769/2022, Dt. 30.03.2026

doubt must be given to the accused. Therefore, this Point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

15. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as provided u/s. 437-A of Cr.P.C. As no property is produced in this case, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30th day of March, 2026

Sd/- (Ms. Nishad Naaz Shaik),

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // -:WITNESSES EXAMINED:- FOR DEFENCE : None FOR PROSECUTION :

P.W.1/ E. Venkata Reddy, defacto complainant P.W.2/ Y. Prudhuvi Reddy P.W.3 / M. Dayakar Reddy P.W.4 / G. Parandamaiah P.W.5 / Arava Judson P.W.6 / Dr. M. Helen Smiles, the then CAS P.W.7 / Y. Sudhakar Reddy, the then MVI P.W.8 / N.Sridhar Rao, the then ASI P.W.9 / P. Naresh, the then SI of Police // DOCUMENTS MARKED // FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL Ex.P1/ Report of P.W.1 given to Police. Ex.P2/ Scene Observation Report. Ex.P3/ Inquest Report. Ex.P4/ Postmortem Certificate of deceased. Ex.P5/ MVI report.

CC No.769/2022, Dt. 30.03.2026

Ex.P6/ F.I.R. in Cr.No.21/2020 of Indukurupeta PS. Ex.P7/ Rough Sketch Ex.P8/ Statistical ticket accountal record.

// MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED // -NIL-

Sd/- (Ms. Nishad Naaz Shaik),

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

// True Copy //

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, NELLORE.

Calendar in C.C. No.769 of 2022 Date of offence : 12.02.2020 Date of report: 12.02.2020 Date of apprehension of accused:--- Date of release of accused:--- Date of commencement of trial: 08.09.2025 Date of closure of trial: 11.03.2026 Date of Judgment: 30.03.2026

The STATE: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Indukurpeta P.S.…Complainant

And

Mutluru Ramanaiah, S/o. Chinnaiah, aged 58 years, SC-Madiga by caste, Nallaladibba, Mixed Colony, Jagadevipeta Village, Indukurupeta Mandal, Badge No: E514091, Driver of RTC Bus

... Accused

No.AP 29 Z 2700

Offence : U/Sec.304-A of IPC Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court: Found not guilty Sentence or Order :

CC No.769/2022, Dt. 30.03.2026

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as provided u/s. 437-A of Cr.P.C. As no property is produced in this case, no property order is passed. Explanation for delay:- This case was taken on file against the Accused for the offence u/Sec. 304-A of IPC. On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were furnished to the accused. Accused was examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the offence u/Sec. 304-A of IPC for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial was commenced on 08.09.2025 and concluded on 11.03.2026 and during trial PW.1 to P.W.9 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Heard the arguments on both the sides on 11.03.2026. On 30.03.2026 Judgment was pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- (Ms. Nishad Naaz Shaik),

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

// True Copy //

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

CC/2903/2019 Acquitted

The SHO V.Satram P.S vs Polidasu Pullaiah

17 Mar 2026

APNE0A0047932019

Presented on : 24-10-2019 Registered on : 31-10-2019 Decided on : 17-03-2026 Duration : 6 years, 4 months, 24 days

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, NELLORE.

Present: Ms. Nishad Naaz Shaik, IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

Dated this the 17th day of March, 2026

Calendar Case No.2903 of 2019 Between:

The State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, V. Satram P.S. …Complainant

And

Polidasu Pullaiah, S/o. Late Munikrishnaiah, aged 41 years, Balija by caste, R/o. D.No.25-9-339, Near Rajarajeswari Temple, ZP Colony, Nellore City, Driver of Car bearing Registration No.AP07CN6963 … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11.03.2026 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/

Complainant and of Sri. G. Dayakar, learned Counsel for the Accused, upon perusal of record, upon hearing both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

CC No.2903/2019, Dt. 17.03.2026

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, V. Satram P.S. filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.346/2018 of V. Satram P.S. for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:-

(i) On the evening of 17.11.2018 at about 17.30 hours the deceased/Yamala Srinivasulu left from his house in his Bajaj Pulsar motor-cycle bearing No. AP 26 AE 2483 to go to Venkatagiri on his personal work and at about 18.45 hours, when he reached on NH-16 near

Buranpur village cross road, an unknown vehicle driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the motor-cycle of the deceased from its back and went away without stopping. Due to which the deceased sustained bleeding injuries over his head, left hand and on that he informed about the incident to his wife through phone, taken first aid from RMP doctor nearby and went to his house, taken the pills preferred by the doctor and slept and as he went un-conscious on the morning of 18.11.2018, his wife (L.W.1/Yamala Kameswari) with the assistance of his kith and kin admitted him in Narayana Hospital, Nellore for treatment where he succumbed to the injuries on 19.11.2018 at 21.50 hours.

CC No.2903/2019, Dt. 17.03.2026

(ii) Basing on the statement of L.W.1/Yamala Kameswari, recorded by LW-14/ Sk. Babjan, HC. 1920, the case in Cr.No.346/2018 u/s. 337 IPC of V.Satram PS was registered on 19.11.2018 at 10:00 hours by LW-15/ A. Sivakrishna Reddy, the then SI of Police, V.Satram PS. and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW-15/ A.

Sivakrishna Reddy, the then SI of Police, V.Satram PS, visited the scene of offence and examined the witnesses.

(iii) On the receipt of death intimation of the deceased, LW-15/ A.

Sivakrishna Reddy, the then SI of Police, V.Satram PS. altered the section of law from Sec.337 IPC to Sec.304(A) IPC on 20.11.2018 at 07.30 hours, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars LWs.9 to 11 (LW-9/ Bellamkonda Srinivasulu, LW-10/

Kunchala Ankaiah, L.W.11/Pallapu Jayachandraiah) and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. Examined all the relevant witnesses

LWs.1 to 8 (L.W.1/Yamals Kameswari, LW2/ Yamala Srivani, L.W.3/ Avula

Srinivasulu, LW.4/ Avula Sridhar, LW.5/ Avula Venkaiah, LW6/ Gunji

China Penchalaiah, L.W.7/ Madduru Rajeshkumar, LW-8/ Bellamkonda

Balavenkateswarlu), and started efforts to arrest the accused.

(iv) After assuming the charge of V.Satram PS by LW-16/Sk.

Kareemulla, SI of Police in place of LW-15/ A. Sivakrishna Reddy, the then

SI of Police, V.Satram PS., he also started efforts to arrest the accused accordingly on 25.05.2019, LW-16/Sk. Kareemulla, SI of Police arrested 4

CC No.2903/2019, Dt. 17.03.2026

the accused after verifying the records of the crime vehicle and driving license of the accused. Then, LW-16/Sk. Kareemulla, SI of Police served notice u/s. 41(A) Cr.P.C., against the accused and LW-16/Sk. Kareemulla,

SI of Police released the accused on station bail by obtaining his explanation with instructions to attend the Hon’ble Court soon after receipt of summons.

(v)LW-13/ V. Jayaprakash, Motor Vehicle Inspector, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased furnished his

Post Mortem Certificate with a opinion that the cause of death of the deceased is due to "Head Injury".

(vi) LW-14/ Sk. Babjan, HC. 1920 , The Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected crime vehicle furnished his report with a opinion that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle"

(vii) After completion of investigation, LW-16/Sk. Kareemulla, SI of

Police, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 304-A IPC. Hence Charge Sheet.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 304-A of IPC. Summons were served to him.

4.On appearance of the accused before this Court, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207

Cr.P.C.

CC No.2903/2019, Dt. 17.03.2026

5.Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the substance of accusation found against him for the offence punishable u/s. 304-A of

IPC, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P11 were got marked. The evidence of other Prosecution witnesses was given up by the learned A.P.P. Accordingly, prosecution side evidence is closed.

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

(A) The learned APP submitted his arguments on behalf of prosecution that PW1 to PW6 are examined Exs. P1 to P11 are marked.

The evidence of PW.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.6 corroborating with each other, is enough to prove the guilt of the accused and prays the Court to punish the accused according law.

(B) The learned Defence counsel submitted his arguments on behalf of the Accused that P.W.3 and P.W.5 did not support the version of the prosecution and prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and requested to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt.

CC No.2903/2019, Dt. 17.03.2026

9.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused for the offence punishable u/s. 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubts ? POINT :

10.The main case of the prosecution is that the accused committed the offence punishable u/s. 304-A of IPC and hence liable for punishment for the same.

(A) To attract the offence under Sec.304-A of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients: (1) Death of a person, (2) Caused by the accused's rash or negligent act, (3) That act not being an intention or knowledge of death (meaning it does not amount to culpable homicide), and (4) A direct link between the negligent act and the death.

11. In order to prove the above said ingredients, the prosecution has cited as many as '16' witnesses. Out of which, L.Ws.1, 2, 7, 10, 8, and 15 are examined as PWs.1 to P.W.6 respectively and Exs.P1 to P11 viz., Ex.P1 is the statement of P.W.1 recorded by the Police. Ex.P2 is the 161 CrPC statement of P.W.3. Ex.P3 is the Inquest Report. Ex.P4 is the 161 CrPC statement of P.W.5. Ex.P5 is the Hospital Intimation, Ex.P.6 is

F.I.R. in Cr.No.346/2018. Ex.P.7 is Rough Sketch. Ex.P8 is the Death

Intimation from Narayana Hospital, Nellore. Ex.P9 is the Section Alteration

Memo. Ex.P10 is the MVI Report. Ex.P11 is the PMC Report, were got 7

CC No.2903/2019, Dt. 17.03.2026

marked.

(i) P.W. 1 / Yamala Kameswari deposed that the deceased is her husband. On 17.11.2018 at about 05.30 PM her husband left home for

Venkatagiri on some work. At about 06.45 PM she received phone call from unknown person stating that her husband met with an accident at

Bhuranpur, National High Way. At about 07.30 PM her husband returned to the house with head injury and left hand injury after taking First Aid treatment at RMP Hospital. On the next day morning when she tried to wake up him he did not respond, on that he shifted her husband to

Ramachandra Reddy Hospital, Nellore with the help of her family members, they denied to admit him, on that they shifted her husband to the Narayana Hospital, Nellore. There doctors intimated them that blood was clotted in his brain. On the same day at evening hours an operation was done. On the next day morning her husband was died. There police came and took her statement. Ex.P1 is her statement. She was examined by the police.

In the cross examination by the learned defence counsel, P.W.1 admitted that she was not examined by the police.

(ii) P.W. 2 / Sree Vani deposed that Pw.1 is her mother. The deceased is her Father. On 17.11.2018 at about 05.30PM her father left home for Venkatagiri on some work. At about 06.45 PM they received phone call from unknown person stating that her father met with an 8

CC No.2903/2019, Dt. 17.03.2026

accident at Bhuranpur, National High Way. At about 07.30 PM her father returned to the house with head injury and left hand injury after taking First

Aid treatment at RMP Hospital. On the next day morning when they tried to wake up him he did not respond, on that they shifted his father to

Ramachandra Reddy Hospital, Nellore with the help of her family members, they denied to admit him, on that they shifted her father to the

Narayana Hospital, Nellore. There doctors intimated them that blood was clotted in his brain. On the same day at evening hours an operation was done. On the next day morning her father was died. She was examined by the police.

In the cross examination by the learned defence counsel, P.W.2 admitted that she was not examined by the police.

(iii) PW-3, who is alleged eye-witness to the accident, did not support the version of the prosecution. The learned APP did not elicit anything against the accused in his cross examination, except marking his 161 CrPC statement as Ex.P2. Hence his evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

(iv) P.W.4 /K. Ankaiah deposed that he knew the deceased. On 20.11.20218 at about 09.00 AM he received information about the deceased died in Narayana Hospital, on that he went to the hospital, there police requested him to act as mediator for conducting inquest over the dead body of deceased along with Lw.9 and Lw.11. Police conducted 9

CC No.2903/2019, Dt. 17.03.2026

inquest over the dead body of the deceased in their presence and prepared report. They put their signatures in it. Ex.P3 is the Inquest

Report. He came to know that the deceased died in an accident.

In the cross examination by the learned defence counsel, P.W.4 admitted that he did not receive any written summons from the police to act as mediator.

(v) PW-5, who is alleged eye-witness to the accident, did not support the version of the prosecution. The learned APP did not elicit anything against the accused in his cross examination, except marking his 161 CrPC statement as Ex.P4. Hence his evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

(vi) P.W.6 / A. Siva Krishna Reddy, the then S.I of Police, deposed that on 19.11.2018 at about 09.45 hours he received hospital intimation and statement of Pw.1 from Narayana Hospital, Nellore. Basing on that he registered a case in Cr.No.346/2018 under section 337 IPC of

V.Satram P.S. Ex.P5 is the Hospital Intimation, Ex.P.6 is F.I.R. in

Cr.No.346/2018. He submitted the original case copies to all the concerned. Immediately, he rushed to the Narayana Hospital, where he secured Lw.1 and Lw.2 and examined them, recorded their sec.161 CrPC statements. From there he went to scene of offence situated near

Buranpur Village cross road, Chemdugunta village, V.Satram Mandal and draw rough sketch. Ex.P.7 is Rough Sketch. On 20.11.2018 he received 10

CC No.2903/2019, Dt. 17.03.2026

death intimation of injured person from Narayana Hospital, Nellore. Ex.P8 is the Death Intimation from Narayana Hospital, Nellore. On that he altered the section of law from Sec.337 IPC to Sec.304-A IPC. Ex.P9 is the

Section Alteration Memo. On the same day he visited the mortuary of

Narayana Hospital, Nellore. Where he secured Pw.4, Lw.9 and Lw.11 as mediators and conducted the inquest over the dead body of deceased.

There he examined Lw.3 to Lw.6 and recorded their sec.161 CrPC statements. On 22.11.2018 he examined Pw.3 and Pw.5 at the police station and recorded their sec.161 CrPC statements. After that Lw.16 served 41-A CrPC notice to the accused and after receiving MVI report,

PMC report, Lw.16 laid charge sheet against accused. Ex.P10 is the MVI

Report and Ex.P11 is the PMC Report. He can identify the signature of his successor/Lw.16. Pw.3 and Pw.5 stated before him as in Ex.P2 and Ex.P4 respectively.

13. In the present case, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the wife and daughter of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 discloses 11

CC No.2903/2019, Dt. 17.03.2026

that the deceased died due to an accident. P.W.3 is the eye-witness and he did not support the version of the prosecution. P.W.4 is the mahazar witness and his evidence discloses about the facts that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in an accident, but his evidence is silent whether the said accident was caused due to the negligent act of the accused. P.W.5 is the eye-witness and he did not support the version of the prosecution. P.W.6 is the Investigation Officer in this case and his evidence is not corroborating with P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4. There is also no material evidence to prove that the said crime vehicle was in fact driven by the accused at the relevant point of time.

14. Thus, the essential ingredients of Section 304-A of IPC, namely rash and negligence on the part of the accused leading to the death of the deceased, have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s.304-A of IPC and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Therefore, this Point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

CC No.2903/2019, Dt. 17.03.2026

in this case, no property order is passed. 13

CC No.2903/2019, Dt. 17.03.2026

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17th day of March, 2026

Sd/- (Ms. Nishad Naaz Shaik),

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // -:WITNESSES EXAMINED:- FOR DEFENCE : None FOR PROSECUTION :

P.W.1/Yamals Kameswari,

P.W.2/ Yamala Srivani,

P.W.3/ Madduru Rajeshkumar,

P.W-4/ Kunchala Ankaiah,

P.W-5/ Bellamkonda Balavenkateswarlu,

P.W-6/ A. Sivakrishna Reddy, the then SI of Police, V.Satram PS.

// DOCUMENTS MARKED // FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL Ex.P1/ Statement of P.W.1 recorded by the Police.

Ex.P2/ 161 CrPC statement of P.W.3

Ex.P3/ Inquest Report.

Ex.P4/ 161 CrPC statement of P.W.5

Ex.P5/ Hospital Intimation,

Ex.P.6/ F.I.R. in Cr.No.346/2018.

Ex.P.7/ Rough Sketch.

Ex.P8/ Death Intimation from Narayana Hospital, Nellore.

Ex.P9/ Section Alteration Memo.

Ex.P10/ MVI Report

Ex.P11/ PMC Report.

CC No.2903/2019, Dt. 17.03.2026

// MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED // -NIL-

Sd/- (Ms. Nishad Naaz Shaik),

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

// True Copy //

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

CC No.2903/2019, Dt. 17.03.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, NELLORE.

Calendar in C.C. No.2903 of 2019

Date of offence : Prior to 19.11.2018 Date of report: 19.11.2018 Date of apprehension of accused:---

Date of release of accused:---

Date of commencement of trial: 12.01.2026 Date of closure of trial: 11.03.2026 Date of Judgment: 17.03.2026

The STATE: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, V. Satram P.S.…Complainant

And

Polidasu Pullaiah, S/o. Late Munikrishnaiah, aged 41 years, Balija by caste, R/o. D.No.25-9-339, Near Rajarajeswari Temple, ZP Colony, Nellore City, Driver of Car bearing

... Accused

Registration No.AP07CN6963

Offence : U/Sec.304-A of IPC Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :

CC No.2903/2019, Dt. 17.03.2026

Explanation for delay:-

This case was taken on file against the Accused for the offence u/Sec. 304-A of IPC. On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were furnished to the accused. Accused was examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the offence u/Sec. 304-A of IPC for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial was commenced on 12.01.2026 and concluded on 11.03.2026 and during trial PW.1 to P.W.6 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Heard the arguments on both the sides on 11.03.2026. On 17.03.2026 Judgment was pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- (Ms. Nishad Naaz Shaik),

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

// True Copy //

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

CC/3729/2025 Acquitted

SHO P.S Indukurpet vs Ingilela Venkatesh

30 Mar 2026

APNE0A0051262025

Presented on : 29-07-2025 Registered on : 29-07-2025 Decided on : 30-03-2026 Duration : 0 years, 8 months, 1 days

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, NELLORE.

Present: Ms. Nishad Naaz Shaik, IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2026

Calendar Case No.3729 of 2025 Between:

The State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Indukurupet P.S.

…Complainant

And

1) Ingilela Venkatesh, S/o. Govindaiah, aged 33 years, Caste by SC Mala, R/o. Harijanawada, Isakapalem village, TP Gudur mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2) Shaik Jabbar Saheb, S/o. Khadar Basha, aged 60 yearn, Muslim, R/o. Gangapatnam village, Indukurpet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 26.03.2026 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/

Complainant and of Sri. P. Mahendra, learned Counsel for the Accused, 2

CC No.3729/2025, Dt. 30.03.2026

upon perusal of record, upon hearing both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Indukurupet P.S. filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.97/2025 of Indukurupet P.S. for the offence punishable U/sec.106(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’ for short).

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:-

(i) The Deceased/ Puli Murali, and the same colony persons informed to the accused A.1 Lineman about the power cut in their colony due to heavy winds. Then the A.I sent his assistant accused A.2 resident of Gangapatnam who is working privately. The accused Al and A.2 not taking proper precautions, negligently without taking LC insisted the deceased to climb up the current pole to fix the issue of Jumper, on that the deceased believing the words of the accused and climbed up the electrical pole and while fixing the jumper, he touched live electric wire as a result, the deceased got electrocuted and fallen to the ground and sustained burning injuries over finger tips and back. Then the neighbours called to L.W-5/ Eluru Chandrasekhar, who is the relative of the deceased, with the help of him they shifted the deceased to CHC

Government Hospital, Indukurpet through auto. Meanwhile duty doctor 3

CC No.3729/2025, Dt. 30.03.2026

came and examined the deceased and declared him brought to dead. On knowing the facts through L.W-5/ Eluru Chandrasekhar, the wife of the deceased cum L.W.1/ Puli Manoj Kumari, turned up to Indukurupet police station and presented a report for seeking justice. L.ws 2 to 4 (L.W.2/Eega

Krishna, LW3/Potluru Lakshmaiah, L.W.4/ Menati Sankaraiah), witnessed the occurrence.

(ii)On receipt of the report from L.W.1/ Puli Manoj Kumari, dated 26-05-2025 at 06.00 hours, L.W.10/ K.Nagarjuna Reddy, Sub Inspector of

Police, registered the report as a case in Cr. No. 97/2025 U/s. 106(1)

BNS of Indukurupet PS and Submitted original FIR to the Hon'ble Court and copies of the FIRs submitted to all the concerned officers and took up

Investigation in this case.

(iii)During the course of investigation L.W.10/ K.Nagarjuna Reddy,

Sub Inspector of Police, secured as many as 5 witnesses, and also examined and recorded their detailed statements and also inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators LW-6/ Arava Murali, and

L.W.7/Venumbaka Mahidhar Reddy and prepared scene observation report duly attested by themselves, accordingly a rough sketch was also prepared to that effect there itself.

(iv) On 26-05-2025 at 09.00 hours, L.W.10/ K.Nagarjuna Reddy,

Sub Inspector of Police, secured the Panchayathidars, L.w's 6 to 8 (LW-6/ 4

CC No.3729/2025, Dt. 30.03.2026

Arava Murali, L.W.7/Venumbaka Mahidhar Reddy, L.W.8/ Koduru Venkata

Ramana Reddy), and the blood relatives summoned them and held the inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the mortuary room of

ACSR Government hospital, Nellore in their presence. The inquest was commenced on 04-02-2025 at 09.00 hours and concluded at 11.00 hours duly attested by the Panchayathidars. After completion of autopsy, the body was handed over to the blood relatives. The Panchayathidars unanimously opined that the death of the deceased occurred due to

Shock due to Electrocution.

(v)Then L.W.10/ K.Nagarjuna Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, have prepared a requisition to the professor, ACSR Government hospital,

Nellore and requested to conduct Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issue PMC report. Then L.W.10/ K.Nagarjuna Reddy,

Sub Inspector of Police, have directed PC2685 to hand over the dead body to the blood relatives after completion of Autopsy while taking proper acknowledgment for their funeral rights.

(vi) L.W.9/ Dr.M. Venkateswarlu, the Associate Professor, ACSR

Government Hospital. Nellore who conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased issued PMC and opined that the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief died due to Shock due to Electrocution".

(vii) On 01.06.2025 at 10.00 hours the accused A.1 & A.2 came to 5

CC No.3729/2025, Dt. 30.03.2026

police station and surrendered before L.W.10/ K.Nagarjuna Reddy, Sub

Inspector of Police, while admitting the guilty of offence. Then L.W.10/

K.Nagarjuna Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, have served 35(3) BNSS notices to the accused A.1 & A.2 and directed them to appear before the

Hon'ble court when the court is required their presence.

(viii) After completion of investigation, L.W.10/ K.Nagarjuna Reddy,

SI of Police, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.106(1) of BNS. Hence the Charge Sheet.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.106(1) of BNS. Summons were served to him.

4.On appearance of the accused before this Court, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207

Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the substance of accusation found against him for the offence punishable U/sec.106(1) of BNS, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P10 were got marked. The evidence of other Prosecution witnesses was given up by the learned A.P.P. Accordingly, prosecution side evidence is closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused 6

CC No.3729/2025, Dt. 30.03.2026

was examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence against him and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

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

(A) The learned APP submitted his arguments on behalf of prosecution that PW1 to PW6 are examined Exs. P1 to P10 are marked.

The evidence of PW.4 and P.W.6 corroborating with each other, is enough to prove the guilt of the accused and prays the Court to punish the accused according law.

(B) The learned Defence counsel submitted his arguments on behalf of the Accused that P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.5 did not support the version of the prosecution and prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and requested to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt.

9.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused for the offence punishable U/sec.106(1) of BNS beyond all reasonable doubts ? POINT :

10.The main case of the prosecution is that the accused committed the offence punishable U/sec.106(1) of BNS and hence liable for punishment for the same.

(A) To attract the offence U/sec.106(1) of BNS, the prosecution has 7

CC No.3729/2025, Dt. 30.03.2026

to prove the following essential ingredients: (1) Death of a person, (2)

Caused by the accused's rash or negligent act, (3) That act not being an intention or knowledge of death (meaning it does not amount to culpable homicide), and (4) A direct link between the negligent act and the death.

11. In order to prove the above said ingredients, the prosecution has cited as many as '10' witnesses. Out of which, L.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6, 4, and 10 are examined as PWs.1 to P.W.6 respectively and Exs.P1 to P10 viz., P.W.1 is the defacto complainant-cum-wife of the deceased, P.W.2,

P.W.3, P.W.5 are the witnesses to the occurrence. They all did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 is the mahazar witness only.

P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer. Ex.P1/ Signature of P.W.1 on the report given to police, Ex.P2/ 161 CrPC statement of P.W.1, Ex.P3/ 161 CrPC statement of P.W.2, Ex.P4/ 161 CrPC statement of P.W.3, Ex.P5/ Scene

Observation Report. Ex.P6/ Inquest Report. Ex.P7/ 161 CrPC statement of

P.W.5. Ex.P8/ F.I.R. in Cr.No.97/2025 of Indukurpet PS. Ex.P.9/ Rough

Sketch. Ex.P10/ P.M.C report, were got marked.

(i)P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant-cum-wife of the deceased, did not support the case of the prosecution. Her signature on the report is marked as Ex.P1. Her 161 CrPC statement is marked as

Ex.P2. In spite of her cross examination by the learned APP, nothing is elicited in support of the case of prosecution. Hence her evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution.

CC No.3729/2025, Dt. 30.03.2026

(ii) P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5, alleged witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution. Their 161 CrPC statements are marked as

Exs.P3, P4, P7 respectively. In spite of their cross examination by the learned APP, nothing is elicited in support of the case of prosecution.

Hence their evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution.

(iii) P.W. 4 /A. Mani, alleged mahazar witness, deposed that on 26.05.2025 police came to the village and requested them to show scene of offence, on that himself and other villagers went to the spot and shown the scene of offence. There at the request of police himself and along with

Lw.7 and lw.8 acted as mediators for scene observation. Where police examined scene in their presence and prepared report. He put his signature in it. Ex.P5 is the Scene Observation Report. On the same day they went to the mortuary of government hospital, Nellore at the request of police, where police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and prepared report. He put his signature in it.

Ex.P6 is the Inquest Report. He came to know that the deceased was died in an accident.

(iv) P.W.6 / K. Nagarjuna Reddy, the then S.I. of Police deposed that on 26.05.2025 at about 06.00 hours Lw.1 came to the Police station along with written report. Basing on that he registered a case in

Cr.No.97/2025 under section 106(1) of BNS of Indukurpeta P.S. Ex.P8 is

F.I.R. in Cr.No.97/2025. He submitted the original case copies to all the 9

CC No.3729/2025, Dt. 30.03.2026

concerned. He examined PW1 at the Police station and recorded his 161

Cr.P.C. statement. Immediately, he rushed to the scene of offence situated at Manikala Sudhakar vacant prawn ponds, Venkureddy colony,

Gangapatnam Village and prepared scene observation report in the presence of mediators and also drawn rough sketch. Ex.P.9 is Rough

Sketch. On 26.05.2025 from there, he went to Government Hospital,

Mortuary, Nellore along with mediators, there he examined PW.2, Pw.3,

PW5 and LW.5 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. On the same day, he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of Pw.4, Lw.7 and Lw.8. On 01.06.2025 accused surrendered

before him at the police station, on that he served 35(3) BNSS notice to

accused. After receiving Preliminary Post mortem report of deceased, he laid charge sheet against accused. Ex.P10 is P.M.C report. Pw.1 to

Pw.3 and Pw.5 stated before him as in Exs.P2 to P4 and P7 respectively.

12. From the evidence available on record, it is evident that the deceased died due to electrocution. However, for an offence to be brought within the ambit of Section 106(1) of BNS, the prosecution must establish that the death was the direct result of rash and negligent act of the accused, and that such act was done without intention to cause death or knowledge that is likely to cause death.

13. In the present case, P.W.1 is the defacto complainant-cum- wife of the deceased, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 are the witnesses and they all 10

CC No.3729/2025, Dt. 30.03.2026

did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 is the mahazar witness only. P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer. The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.6 discloses that the deceased died due to electrocution. P.W.4 is the mahazar witness and his evidence discloses about the facts that the deceased died due to electrocution, but his evidence is silent whether the said accident was caused due to the negligent act of the accused.

P.W.6 is the Investigation Officer in this case and his evidence is not corroborating with P.W.4. There is also no material evidence to prove that the said accident was caused by the accused at the relevant point of time due to rash and negligent act of the accused.

14. Thus, the essential ingredients of Section 106(1) of BNS, namely rash and negligence on the part of the accused leading to the death of the deceased, have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.106(1) of BNS and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Therefore, this Point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

15. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.106(1) of BNS and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as provided u/s. 437-A of Cr.P.C. As no property is produced 11

CC No.3729/2025, Dt. 30.03.2026

in this case, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30th day of March, 2026

Sd/- (Ms. Nishad Naaz Shaik),

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // -:WITNESSES EXAMINED:- FOR DEFENCE : None FOR PROSECUTION :

P.W.1/ Puli Manoj Kumari, defacto complainant

P.W.2/ Eega Krishna,

P.W.3/ Potluru Lakshmaiah

P.W.4/ Arava Murali,

P.W.5/ Menati Sankaraiah,

P.W.6/ K.Nagarjuna Reddy, the then SI of Police, // DOCUMENTS MARKED // FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL Ex.P1/ Signature of P.W.1 on the report given to police

Ex.P2/ 161 CrPC statement of P.W.1

Ex.P3/ 161 CrPC statement of P.W.2

Ex.P4/ 161 CrPC statement of P.W.3

Ex.P5/ Scene Observation Report.

Ex.P6/ Inquest Report.

Ex.P7/ 161 CrPC statement of P.W.5

Ex.P8/ F.I.R. in Cr.No.97/2025 of Indukurpet PS PS.

Ex.P.9/ Rough Sketch.

Ex.P10/ P.M.C report.

CC No.3729/2025, Dt. 30.03.2026

// MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED // -NIL-

Sd/- (Ms. Nishad Naaz Shaik),

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. // True Copy //

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

CC No.3729/2025, Dt. 30.03.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, NELLORE.

Calendar in C.C. No.3729 of 2025

Date of offence : 26-05-2025

Date of report: 26-05-2025

Date of apprehension of accused:---

Date of release of accused:---

Date of commencement of trial: 11.02.2026 Date of closure of trial: 26.03.2026 Date of Judgment: 30.03.2026

The STATE: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Indukurupet P.S.…Complainant

And

1) Ingilela Venkatesh, S/o. Govindaiah, aged 33 years, Caste by SC Mala, R/o. Harijanawada, Isakapalem village, TP Gudur mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2) Shaik Jabbar Saheb, S/o. Khadar Basha, aged 60 yearn, Muslim, R/o. Gangapatnam village,

... Accused

Indukurpet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

Offence : U/sec.106(1) of BNS Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.106(1) of BNS and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as provided u/s. 437-A of Cr.P.C. As no property is produced in this case, no property order is passed.

CC No.3729/2025, Dt. 30.03.2026

Explanation for delay:-

This case was taken on file against the Accused for the offence U/sec.106(1) of BNS. On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were furnished to the accused. Accused was examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the offence U/sec.106(1) of BNS for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial was commenced on 11.02.2026 and concluded on 26.03.2026 and during trial PW.1 to P.W.6 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Heard the arguments on both the sides on 26.03.2026. On 30.03.2026 Judgment was pronounced. Hence the delay.