P. Babu

1

THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

PRESENT: P.BABU

VII ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-VII ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARM (FULL

ADDITIONAL CHARGE) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA

Tuesday, this the 29th day of April, 2025

Calendar Case No.85 of 2021

(Cr.No.48/2018 of Rajavommangi Police Station)

Between: The State-Representedby its Sub

Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi Police … Complainant Station.

AND

1. Poosam Chandra Sekhar,S/o

Satyanarayana, A/26 years, C/Koya,

Lagarayi Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

2. Kanchem Ramayamma, W/o Baburao,

A/39years,C/KondaKammara,

Kammarapeta, Rajavommangi village and

Mandal.

3. Kunjam Anand @ Poosam Anand, S/o

Prabhudas, A/21 years, C/Koya, Kondapalli

Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

4.Miriyala Lakshmi, W/o Veera Narayana,

A/50 years, C/Konda Kammara, Sainagar,

Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

5. Miriyala Chinna Thalli @ Kalimkota

2

Chinatalli, W/o Raju, A/23 years, C/Konda

Kammara, Sainagar, Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

6. Miriyala Adi Lakshmi,D/o Veera

Narayana, A//20 years, C/Konda Kammara,

Sainagar, Rajavommangi Village and

Mandal.

7. Kalimikota Atchiyyamma @ Siyadula

Atchiyamma, D/o Bennayya, A/25 years,

C/KondaKammara,Kammarapeta,

Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

8. Suloju Krishna Veni, D/o Apparao, A/25 years, C/Konda Kammara, Kammarapeta,

Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

9. Pappula Apparao, S/o Rambabu, A/40 years, C/Konda Kammara, Kammarapeta,

Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

10. Pappula Durga Bhavani, W/o Sathibabu,

A/29years,C/KondaKammara,

Kannayammapeta,Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

11. Pujari Aparna, D/o Seshgirirao,A/23 years,

C/KondaReddy,Appalarajupeta,

Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

12. Miriyala Shiva Rama krishna @ Siva

Krishna, S/o Satyanarayana, A/30 years,

C/KondaKammara,Kammarapeta,

Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

3

13. Bhumula Appalakonad W/o Ganga Raju,

A/50years,C/KondaKammara,

Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

14. Miriyala Rajalamma, W/o Apparao,A/45 years, C/Konda Kammara, Sainagar,

Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

15. Annika Veerayamma, W/o late Chinnarao,

A/40years,C/KondaKammara,

Kammarapeta, Rajavommangi Village and

Mandal.

16. Miriyala Simhachalam, W/o late Kannarao,

A/35years,C/KondaKammara,

Kammarapeta, Rajavommangi Village and

Mandal.

17. Kunjam Naresh, S/o Tammanna Dora,

A/29 years, C/Koya, Kondapalli Village,

Rajavommangi Mandal.

18. Kancham Narendra Naveen Niraj Kumar,

S/o Baburao,A/21 years, C/Konda

Kammara, Kammarapeta, Rajavommangi

Village and Mandal.

19. Bhumula Lovababu @ Tarunkumar, S/o

Gangaraju,A/20 years, C/Konda Kammara,

Kammarapeta, Rajavommangi Village and

Mandal.

20. Poosam Venkata Ramana, S/o Abbai

Dora, A/30 years, C/Koya, Lagarayi Village,

Rajavommangi Mandal.

4

21. Panda Naresh, S/o Naganna Dora, A/35 years,C/Koya,LagarayiVillage,

Rajavommangi Mandal.

22. Poosam Gopi, S/o Arjunarao,A/39 years,

C/Koya, Lagarayi Village, Rajavommangi

Mandal.

23. Kakara Jogiraju, S/o Simhachalam, A/28 years, C/Kondareddy, Munjavarappadu

Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

24. Kunjam Satyanarayana Dora,S/o

Apparao,C/Koya, Kondapalli Village,

Rajavommangi Mandal. ……Accused No.2 to 21 and 23 to 26

This case was coming on 25.03.2025 for final hearing before me, in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri Sridhar, learned counsel for the Accused No.2 to 21 and 23 to 26; upon hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.48/2018 against the Accused No.2 to 21 and 23 to 26 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 342, 353, 384, 427 r/w 149, 109 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC for brevity).

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused No.2 to 21 and 23 to 26 for the offence under sections 143, 147, 447, 342, 353, 384, 427 r/w 149, 109

5

IPC alleging that on 15.10.2018 at about 10.00 AM where in the accused noted in the margin i.e., A1 to A25 and with the strong abatement of A26 who are the all type of tribal community except the

Valmiki Community people of Rajavommangi Mandal formed unlawful assembly in front of Tahsildar Office with the chilly powder packets, criminally trespassed into the office room of LW2/Jana Srinivasarao,

Rajavommangi by giving slogans against LW2 down and down, wrongfully confined LW2 about 18 hours from 10.00 AM of 15.10.2018 to 04.00 AM of 16.10.2018, assaulted the LW2/Jana Srinivasarao, by using criminal force by sprinkling chilly powder over and beat LW2 with their hands and kicked with their legs indiscriminately, pulled LW2 from his chair, forcibly extracted the mobile phone of LW2/Jana Srinivasarao, and LW.1/Chittabattula Satish and also damaged the one computer and furniture of the office with a grouse alleging that the LW2 used to issuing Valmiki (ST) caste certificates to non tribes. In this regard the

LW2 has sustained with hues mental tension and painful injuries over his person thereby all the accused with their common object assaulted the public servant while he was discharging his legitimate duties and damaged the public property.

3.Basing on the statement of L.W.1/Chittabathula Satish, the

L.W.19/S.Ravi Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police of Rajavommangi Police

Station, registered the same as case in Cr.No.48/2018 under Sections 447,427, 353, 384, 323 r/w 34 IPC on 16.10.2018 at 12.30 AM and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, L.W.19/S.Ravi Kumar, Sub-

Inspector of Police of Rajavommangi Police Station, examined the LW1, the Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi Circle brought the Tahsildar from his office to Police Station after posting a police picket at the

6

Tahsildar Office. Then LW.19 secured the presence of marginally noted

LW2, examined as LW2 and recorded his statement in detailed in my part-II CD U/Sec.161(3) of Cr.P.C.

During the course of investigation, L.W.19/S.Ravi Kumar, Sub-

Inspector of Police of Rajavommangi Police Station, visited the scene of offence has been examined in the presence of LW17/Mulawadi

Bharathi and LW18/Biccavole Simhadri Rama Srinivasa Rao got drafted scene observation, prepared a rough sketch, later he seized following damaged properties i.e., 1) Damaged yellow and blue coloured two plastic chairs, 2) Damaged Lenova Company’s Monitor, 20 Damaged

Lenova Company’s Key board, 4) Two Damaged iron easy chairs, 50

Used Saipriya Company’s Chilly Powder packet and 6) Damaged light doom in the presence of LW.17 and LW.18 and examined the LW3 to

LW8 and recorded their statements in detailed in Part-II CD

U/Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C.

During the course of investigation, on 17.08.2019, LW.19 and examined the LW9 to LW16 and recorded their statement in detailed in

Part-II CD U/Sec.16193) Cr.P.C. and LW.19 collected some videos and photos about incident.

During the course of investigation, LW.20/B.Vinod, Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi Police Station resumed charge of the PS vide

D.o.No.378/2019 and C.No.751/A1/2019 dated 09.05.2019 of the

Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada and took up further investigation in this case. During the course of investigation on 30.07.2019, LW.20/B.Vinod, Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi

Police Station served U/Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notices to A1, A2, A3, A5,

A6, A7, A8. At the time LW.20 questioned to the A8 about mobile phone

7

which was forcibly extorted from LW.5. A8 said that in that confirmation the mobile phone fell somewhere thus the mobile not recovered from the A8. During the course of investigation on 31.07.2019,

LW17/Mulawadi Bharathi served U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notices to A4, A9 to A19, A21 to A23 at the time LW/20 questioned to the A15 about mobile phone which was forcibly extorted from the LW2. A15 said that in that confirmation the mobile phone fell somewhere thus the mobile not recovered from the A15. During the course of investigation on 24.08.2019 the LW.20 served U/Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notices to A20, A24 and A25. On 26.08.2019 LW.20 served U/Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to

A26 and instructions to appear before the SHO, Rajavommangi PS or

Hon’ble Court whenever required. The accused persons acknowledged

the notice. After completion of investigation, L.W.20/B.Vinod, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi Police Station filed charge sheet against Accused No.2 to 21 and 23 to 26. Therefore, the accused No.2 to 21 and 23 to 26 are liable for punishment under Sections 143, 147, 447, 342, 353, 384, 427 r/w 149, 109 IPC.

4. After perusing the material on record, as prima facie case is made out against the Accused No.2 to 21 and 23 to 26 and the case was taken on file against the Accused No.2 to 21 and 23 to 26 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 342, 353, 384, 427 r/w 149, 109 of Indian Penal Code.

5. On appearance of the Accused No.2 to 21 and 23 to 26, the copies of the case documents furnished on them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter he was examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 342, 353, 384, 427 r/w 149, 109 of Indian Penal Code, for which the Accused 2 to 21 and

8

23 to 26 denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and the documents such as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and the material objects such as MO.1 to MO.5 got marked. The evidence of L.W7 closed as he died. The evidence of LW.10, 13, 15, 16 and 18 were given up by the prosecution.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused 2 to 21 and 23 to 26 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are read over and explained to the Accused 2 to 21 and 23 to 26 in their vernacular, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the Accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused

No. 2 to 21 and 23 to 26 beyond all reasonable doubt for the

offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 342, 353,

384, 427 r/w 149, 109 of Indian Penal Code?

10.As could be seen, it is evident from the record that PW1 to PW8,

PW10 and PW11 are the Revenue Employees working in the office of

Tahsildar, Rajavommangi at relevant point of time. As could be seen, the entire testimonies of PW1 to PW8, PW10 and PW11 it is categorically evident that some miscreants had gained entry into the office of Tahsildar, Rajavommangi/PW9 on 15.10.2018 and made galata in the said office and then the said miscreants had restrained

9

PW1 to PW8 and PW10 and there upon they also restrained PW9 who was working as Tahsildar by then and later the said miscreants had put

PW1 to PW8 and PW10 into one room and locked it and then the proceeded to the chambers of PW9 and made galata with him and then the said miscreants had wrongfully confined PW9 in his chambers on the date of incident and thereby the said miscreants had restricted the movements not only for PW9 but also for PW1 to PW8 and PW10.

11.It is further evident from the testimony of PW1 so also the other witnesses, the said miscreants made protest against PW9 in view of issuing fake caste certificates to the non eligible persons of Schedule

Tribe Community and that the entire galata was commenced from 09.30

AM on 15.10.2018 and continued till early hours of 16.10.2018 and during that time, the said miscreants and pW9 were remained present at the scene of offence itself. But as could be seen, the entire testimony of PW1, it is evident that he failed to identified the accused persons except deceased A1 to show that the existing accused persons in the record of that of the said miscreants who committed offence against

PW9 in his office on 15.10.2018. That apart, PW9 had categorically failed to identified A10 in dock by his name. Further in the cross examination of PW1, he categorically admitted that certain allegations leveled against PW9 in respect of issuance of alleged fake caste certificates to the non eligible persons and that the other witnesses i.e.,

PW2 to PW8 and PW10 were also had categorically admitted in their respective cross examinations that certain allegations leveled against

PW9 in respect of issuance of alleged fake caste certificates to the non eligible persons during tenure as Tahsildar.

12.Here it is to be noted that even according to the case of prosecution so also the testimonies of PW1 to PW10, the accused

10

persons alleged to have made protest against PW9 as he alleged to have issued fake caste certificates to the non eligible tribal community people. If such is the case, even presume for a while it can be said that the accused persons were alleged to have raised their voices against

PW9 as he involved in issuance of alleged fake caste certificates to the non eligible persons. For this, PW9 also categorically deposed in his cross examination that some disciplinary proceedings had initiated against him by his superior officers in respect of issuance of alleged fake caste certificates to the non tribal persons, during his tenure and that the officers who appointed by the superior officers of pW9 were submitted a detailed report to the then District collector, East Godavari

District against PW9 that he had issued as many as 348 fake caste certificates to the non tribal community people during his tenure as

Tahsildar at Rajavommangi. That apart, though according to the case of the prosecution so also the version of PW9, PW9 was the victim in the present case but for the reasons best known to him, he did not prefer any report against the members of the mob who alleged to have confined him at his chambers on 15.10.2018 and that PW1 who presented report against the accused is not the real victim in this case.

Even it is not the case of the prosecution so also the version of PW9 that he instructed PW1 to present the report under Ex.P1 against the accused for the commission of alleged offence.

13.As stated above though PW2 to PW8, PW10 and PW9 were deposed their respective evidences before this court as they being revenue officials who were working in the office of pW9 at relevant point of time but they PW2, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW10 had not identified the accused persons before this court while giving their evidence as they are that of the members of the mob who committed the offence in this case. As seen PW2, PW4 to PW7 and PW10 had

11

stated the name of deceased A1 as he was that of one of the members of the said mob but in view of death of A1 even prior to the evidence of the said witnesses, their so called identification made against deceased

D1 could not be taken in to consideration on account of death of A1.

Though, PW3 had identified A2, A5, A9 to A11, A16 and A24, while giving his evidence before this court, as they are that of the some of the members of the mob who alleged to have attacked on PW9 on the date of incident but his identification of A2, A5, A9 to A11, A16 and A24 has not supported and corroborated with the testimonies of PW2, PW4 to

PW8 and PW10.

14.Therefore, it can be said the sole testimony of PW3 is only available on record in respect of the identification of A2, A5, A9 to A11,

A16 and A24 as they are that of the some of the members of the mob who committed the offence against PW9 at his office on 15.10.2018 but for the reasons stated above and since the testimony of PW3 has not corroborated by other prosecution witnesses so also not supported by any other material available on record, this court is of the opinion that the identification of A2, A5, A9 to A11, A16 and A24 made by PW3 cannot be relied on. That apart, to corroborate the testimony of PW3 in respect of his identification against A2, A5, A9 to A11, A16 and A24,

PW13 or PW14 did not conduct any test identification parade over the above said accused persons with the assistance of PW3 or with the assistance of other witnesses including PW9. Therefore, viewed from any corner, the testimony of PW3 in respect of his identification against

A2, A5, A9 to A11, A16 and A24 cannot be found trustworthy which can be used against the said accused persons to bring them to home into the offence in this case.

12

15.Coming to the testimony of PW9 who was working as Tahsildar for Rajavommangi Mandal by the time of the offence in this case, as could be seen he himself deposed in his chief examination itself that some of the persons are formed as mob at his office on 15.10.2018 and made slogans against him as MRO Down Down. But as stated above even according to the testimonies of PW1 to PW8, PW10, the said members of the mob were alleged to have created galata at the office of

PW9 on the date of incident as PW9 alleged to have issued fake caste certificates to the none tribal community people by violating the rules in vogue. Though PW9 deposed in his chief examination that he could identified the persons who gained entry into his office on the date of incident and who confined him at his chambers but even after breath,

PW9 failed to identify the accused persons int his case as that of the persons who alleged to have attacked on him on the date of incident. As stated above, PW9 is said to have the real victim in this case but for the reasons best known to him, even he failed to identify any one of accused persons who were present in the dock on the date of giving his evidence before this court, as they are that of the members of the mob.

16.Therefore, it can be said that the testimony of PW9 cannot be found to be trustworthiness to be relied upon it in order to come to conclusion that they accused persons are the members of the mob who attacked on PW9 on the date of incident. As stated above PW9 categorically admitted in his cross examination that some disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by his superior officer as he alleged to have involved in issuance of fake caste certificates to the non tribal community people during his tenure as Tahsildar for Rajavommangi

Mandal. Further though PW9 deposed that he remains present in his chambers for about 18 hours as the accused persons alleged to have confined him and though the accused persons had sprinkled the chilly

13

powder over his face but for the reasons best known to PW9 he has not got any medical treatment. Therefore, for the above state reasons and on careful and keen perusal of the entire testimony of PW9, this court is of the considered opinion that it is highly unsafe to rely on the testimony of PW9 to convict the accused persons for the charges leveled against them as none of the other witnesses examined by the prosecution were not fully corroborated PW9.

17.As could be seen the testimony of PW13 it is evident that he received the information about the case on 15.10.2018 itself but he got registered the case against the accused persons on 16.10.2018.

Further either PW13 or PW14 did not conduct test identification parade over the accused persons with the assistance of witnesses in order to prove the physical identification of the accused persons before this court as they are that of persons who committed the offence against

PW9. Further as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the accused, there is a delay in issuing Ex.P3 by PW13 but no such valid reasons assigned to it in order to condone the same. Nevertheless to say here that there is a popular saying in english language that raising a voice

before evil is not an offence at all. Even according to the prosecution

case, the accused were made slogans against PW9 as they found him in issuance of fake caste certificates to the non tribal community people and that even by accepting the case of the prosecution, for the reasons stated above the accused persons might have raised their voices against the PW9 as they had some grievance against PW9 since he alleged to have issued as many as 348 fake caste certificates to the non tribal community people during his tenure as Tahsildar at

Rajavommangi, by violating the rules in vogue and as such he faced the disciplinary proceedings initiated by his superior officer. Therefore, it can be said that the above referred saying is aptly applies to the present

14

case on hand as the accused persons might have raised their voices against PW9 since he said to have indulged in the issuance of fake caste certificates to the non tribal community people.

18.Therefore, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire testimonies of PW1 to PW14 so also the material available on record and for the detailed discussion made supra, this court is of the conclusive opinion that though the prosecution placed the testimonies of PW1 to PW14 besides to the documents such as Ex.P1 to P5 but it is not sufficient to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons and that the prosecution failed to place absolute, cogent and coherent and also sufficient material before this court to prove the case against the accused persons, beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused persons are certainly entitled for acquittal for the charges leveled against them.

Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

19. In the result, the Accused No.2 to 21 and 23 to 26 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 353, 384, 427, 109 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and thereby they are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure. The bail bonds of Accused No.2 to 21 and 23 to 26 and their sureties shall remain in force for period of six months as per section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. MO.1 i.e., Damaged Yellow and

Blue Coloured Plastic Chairs; MO.4 isUsed Saipriya Company Chilly

Powder Packet are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

MO.2 i.e., Damaged Lenovo Company keyboard; MO.3 i.e., One

Damaged iron easy chair and MO.5i.e.,Damaged light doom are ordered to be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time. The case against A1 and A22 are abated as they died.

15

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-P.BABU

(FAC) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

Appendix of Evidence &

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution

P.W.1/25.06.2024:Ch.Sateesh

P.W.2/08.10.2024:B.Siva Prasad

P.W.3/03.12.2024:K.Drakshayani Rao

P.W.4/04.02.2025:P.Satish Lova Kiran Kumar

P.W.5/04.02.2025:Ch.Devudu

P.W.6/18.02.2025:P.H.Tulasi

P.W.7/18.02.2025:K.Bulakshmi

P.W.8/18.02.2025:M.Bharathi

P.W.9/25.02.2025:Jana Srinivas

P.W.10/25.02.2025:P.Varalakshmi

P.W.11/11.03.2025:P.Rajubabu

P.W.12/11.03.2025:V.Govinda Rajulu

P.W.13/25.03.2025:S.Ravi Kumar

P.W.14/25.03.2025:B.Vinod

For Defence: - None -

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution

Ex.P1:Report dated 16.10.2018

Ex.P2:Scene observation report dated 16.10.2018

Ex.P3:FIR in Cr.No.48/2018 of Rajavommangi P.S. dated 16.10.2018

Ex.P4:Rough sketch

Ex.P5 :Bunch of Photographs

16

For Defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1 :Damaged Yellow and Blue Coloured Plastic Chairs

MO.2 :Damaged Lenovo Company keyboard

MO.3 :OneDamaged iron easy chair

MO.4 :Used Saipriya Company Chilly Powder Packet

MO.5 :Damaged light doom

Sd/-P.BABU

(FAC) JMFC,

ADDL.

17

CALEN DAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

PRESENT: P.BABU

VII ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-VII ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM (FAC)

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ADDATEEGALA

Dated Tuesday, the 29 th day of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.85/2021

(Cr.No.48/2018 of Rajavommangi Police Station)

1.Date of Offence:15.10.2018

2.Date of Complaint:16.10.2018

3.Apprehension of Accused:30.07.2019, 31.07.2019, 24.08.2019, 26.08.2019

4.Released on Bail:30.07.2019, 31.07.2019, 24.08.2019, 26.08.2019

5.Commencement of Trial:25.06.2024

6.Close of Trial:25.03.2025

7.Date of order:29.04.2025

8.Complainant :The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Rajavommangi Police Station.

9.Accused:1. Poosam Chandra Sekhar, S/o

Satyanarayana, A/26 years, C/Koya,

Lagarayi Village, Rajavommangi

Mandal.

2. Kanchem Ramayamma,W/o

Baburao, A/39 years, C/Konda

Kammara,Kammarapeta,

Rajavommangi village and Mandal.

3. Kunjam Anand @ Poosam

Anand, S/o Prabhudas, A/21 years,

C/Koya,KondapalliVillage,

18

Rajavommangi Mandal.

4. Miriyala Lakshmi, W/o Veera

Narayana, A/50 years, C/Konda

Kammara, Sainagar, Rajavommangi

Village and Mandal.

5. Miriyala Chinna Thalli @

Kalimkota Chinatalli, W/o Raju,

A/23 years, C/Konda Kammara,

Sainagar, Rajavommangi Village and

Mandal.

6. Miriyala Adi Lakshmi, D/o Veera

Narayana, A//20 years, C/Konda

Kammara, Sainagar, Rajavommangi

Village and Mandal.

7. Kalimikota Atchiyyamma @

Siyadula Atchiyamma,D/o

Bennayya, A/25 years, C/Konda

Kammara,Kammarapeta,

Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

8. Suloju Krishna Veni,D/o

Apparao, A/25 years, C/Konda

Kammara,Kammarapeta,

Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

9. Pappula Apparao, S/o Rambabu,

A/40 years, C/Konda Kammara,

Kammarapeta, Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

10. Pappula Durga Bhavani, W/o

19

Sathibabu, A/29 years, C/Konda

Kammara,Kannayammapeta,

Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

11. Pujari Aparna, D/o Seshgirirao,

A/23 years, C/Konda Reddy,

Appalarajupeta,Rajavommangi

Village and Mandal.

12. Miriyala Shiva Rama krishna @

Siva Krishna, S/o Satyanarayana,

A/30 years, C/Konda Kammara,

Kammarapeta, Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

13. Bhumula Appalakonad W/o

Ganga Raju, A/50 years, C/Konda

Kammara, Rajavommangi Village and

Mandal.

14. Miriyala Rajalamma,W/o

Apparao,A/45 years, C/Konda

Kammara, Sainagar, Rajavommangi

Village and Mandal.

15. Annika Veerayamma, W/o late

Chinnarao, A/40 years, C/Konda

Kammara,Kammarapeta,

Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

16. Miriyala Simhachalam, W/o late

Kannarao,A/35 years, C/Konda

Kammara,Kammarapeta,

Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

20

17. Kunjam Naresh, S/o Tammanna

Dora,A/29 years, C/Koya,

Kondapalli Village, Rajavommangi

Mandal.

18. Kancham Narendra Naveen

Niraj Kumar, S/o Baburao,A/21 years,C/KondaKammara,

Kammarapeta, Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

19. Bhumula Lovababu @

Tarunkumar, S/o Gangaraju,A/20 years,C/KondaKammara,

Kammarapeta, Rajavommangi Village and Mandal.

20. Poosam Venkata Ramana, S/o

Abbai Dora, A/30 years, C/Koya,

Lagarayi Village, Rajavommangi

Mandal.

21. Panda Naresh, S/o Naganna

Dora, A/35 years, C/Koya, Lagarayi

Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

22. Poosam Gopi, S/o Arjunarao,

A/39 years, C/Koya, Lagarayi Village,

Rajavommangi Mandal.

23.Kakara Jogiraju,S/o

Simhachalam,A/28years,

C/Kondareddy,Munjavarappadu

Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

21

24. Kunjam Satyanarayana Dora,

S/o Apparao,C/Koya, Kondapalli

Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

10. Offence:Under Sections 143, 147, 447, 342, 353, 384, 427 r/w 149, 109 of Indian Penal Code

11. Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty.

12. Finding:Not guilty

13. Order/Sentence:

In the result, the Accused No.2 to 21 and 23 to 26 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 353, 384, 427, 109 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and thereby they are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of Accused No.2 to 21 and 23 to 26 and their sureties shall remain in force for period of six months as per section 437- A of Code of Criminal Procedure. MO.1 i.e., Damaged Yellow and Blue Coloured Plastic Chairs; MO.4 isUsed Saipriya Company Chilly Powder Packet are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO.2 i.e., Damaged Lenovo Company keyboard; MO.3 i.e., OneDamaged iron easy chair and MO.5 i.e.,Damaged light doom are ordered to be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time. The case against A1 and A22 are abated as they died.

14. Remarks : Nil.

Sd/-P.BABU

VII ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

(FAC)JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

Copy submitted to: Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram for favour of information.

1

THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA

PRESENT: P.BABU

VII ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-VII ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARM (FULL

ADDITIONAL CHARGE) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA

Wednesday, this the 30th day of April, 2025

Calendar Case No.205 of 2024

( Cr.No.79/2019 of Addateegala Police Station)

Between: The State-Representedby its Sub Inspector of Police, Addateegala Police Station.

.. Complainant

AND

Made Ramachandra Rao, S/o Vemaliyya, A/56 years, C/SC-Mala, R/o Near Sridevi Kalyana Mandapam, Rampachodavaram, Working as Junior Assistant in APTWR School Boys, Addateegala.

… Accused

This case was coming on 22.04.2025 for final hearing before me, in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri M.V.R.Prakash, learned counsel for the Accused; upon hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Addateegala Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.79/2019 against the Accused for the offences 2 punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC for brevity).

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows: The

Sub-Inspector of Police, Addateegala Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC alleging that LW1/Simbothula Leelavathi is working as I/C

Superintendent in Gurukulam Cell, ITDA, Rampachodavaram. The accused/Made Ramachandrarao was worked as Record Assistant in

APTWR Girls School, Rampachodavaram and he was transferred to

APTWR School boys, Addateegala as Promotion as Junior Assistant on 06.11.2015 and later it was reported through RTI Act by LW.8/Kappala

Venkata Rao who is the president, Republican Party of India that the accused/Made Ramachandra Rao produced forged BA (English)

Degree Certificate as genuine certificate and got promotion. On receipt of the complaint from LW.8, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy

Director (Tribal Welfare), ITDA, Rampachodavaram and in the enquiry it is revealed that the accused created forged BA (English) Degree

Certificate on the name of EIILM University, Jorethang, Sikkim and as per the certificate, he has attended exams during the Pongal holidays in 2010, 2011 and 2012. But on enquiry it is revealed that the EIILM

University, Jorethang, Sikkim was runs up to 2009 and later it was shut down for violated the acts and rules of UGC by running courses which is was not entitled to conduct the courses and in this connection a case in

Cr.No.51/2012 U/Sec.406, 420, 467, 120-B IPC has been registered at

Jorethang Police Station against the management of EIILM University,

Jorethang, Sikkim and since from then there is no university run in the name of EIILM University in Jorethang, Sikkim State. Hence it is crystal clear that the said EIILM University, Jorethang, Sikkim was shut down in the year 2009, but as per the Degree Certificate, produced by the accused, it is clearly revealed that the accused created forged Degree 3

Certificate by stating that he had attended exams during the Pongal holidays in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 and submitted the same as genuine certificate and got promotion as Junior Assistant and thereby cheated the Government with dishonest intention.

3.Basing on the report of L.W.1– Simbothula Leelavathi, the L.W.12 –

Sri. S.Nageswara Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police of Addateegala Police

Station, registered the same as case in Cr.No.79/2019 under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471of IPC of Addateegala P.S. on 19.07.2019 at 18.30 hours and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, L.W.12 – Sri. S.Nageswara Rao,

Sub-Inspector of Police of Addateegala Police Station secured LW1 at

Addateegala P.S. and recorded her statements in detail in Part-II C.D.

Later LW.12 visited the scene of offences-I and II and also prepared

Rough Sketches I and II. LW.12 secured the witnesses LW2 to LW7, examined them and recorded their statements in detail in Part-II C.D.

During the course of investigation, the accused appeared before

LW.12 and produced the copy of Anticipatory Bail order granted by the

Hon’ble Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at

Rajamahendravaram vide Crl.M.P.No.963/2019 dated 07.08.2019 and then the accused has offered the sufficient sureties namely Made

Venkata Lakshmi, W/o Ramachandrarao, A/45 years, C/SC-Mala,

Rampachodavaram village and Dondipudi Swamy, S/o Apparao, A/58 years, C/SC-Mala, D.No.6-135, Kondevari Street, Annadevarapeta,

Visakhapatnam District with their solvency certificates, LW.12 satisfied with the sureties and released the accused on bail after taking bail bond from the accused. During the course of investigation, later

LW.13/G.Appala Raju took up further investigation as LW.12 was transferred out from Addateegala P.S.

4

During the course of investigation, LW.12/S.Nageswara Rao sent a requisition to the kind Superintendent of Police, ASR District, Paderu with a request to issue Interstate Pass port to visit Sikkim State verify the genuineness of the certificate produced by the accused and obtained the Interstate passport. LW.13 deputed LW.11 and PC-3851 to caused enquiries about the EIILM University, Jorethang, Sikkim State and accordingly LW.11 caused enquiries about the offence and he returned to the police submitted his enquiry report stating that he met

Sri Saloni Pradhan, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jorethang, Namchi

District, Sikkim State, stated and came to know that the EIILM

University, Jorethang, Sikkim was established in Jorethang and it runs till the year 2009 and later having some issue the University was closed down, now there is no university named EIILM University since 2009 to till date established in Jorethang, Namchi District, State of Sikkim and she issued reply letter vide memo.No.100/SDM/JORT(S)/2023, dated 05.07.2023 and herewith enclosed. She is official witness so LW.11 did not record her part-II Statement.

During the course of investigation, LW.11/S.Suryanarayana examined LW.10 and recorded his detailed statement in Part-II CD.

During the course of investigation, LW.11/S.Suryanarayana visited

Jorethang Police Station and met the SHO Jorethang Police Station and came to know that management of EIILM University, Jorethang, Sikkim violated the acts and rules of UGC by running courses which is was not entitled to conduct and a case vide Cr.No.51/2012 U/Sec.406, 420, 467, 120-B IPC has been registered at Jorethang Police Station and the case is under trial before the Ld.High Court, Sikkim and SHO Jorethang police station issued a reply letter vide memo No.1382/SHO/JPS/2023,

dated 02.07.2022 and attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.51/2012

U/Sec.406, 420, 467, 120-B IPC of Jorethang Police Station.

5

During the course of investigation, LW.13/G.Appala Raju, perused the documents obtained by LW.11 and statement of LW.10 recorded by

LW.11 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under

Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.

4. After perusing the material on record, as prima facie case is made out against the Accused and the case was taken on file against the

Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.

5. On appearance of the Accused, the copies of the case documents furnished on him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter he was examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under

Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, for which the

Accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and the documents such as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 got marked. The evidence of LW10 given up by prosecution.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are read over and explained to the Accused in his vernacular, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the Accused. Perused the material available on record.

6

9. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable

under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code?

10.As seen PW1 to PW8 were turned hostile towards the prosecution without deposing any incriminating material against the accused. Though it is allegations of the prosecution against the accused that he had produced false graduation certificate for getting promotion in his employment but either of witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW8 had not deposed before this court that the accused had produced the false graduation certificate in order to get promotion in his employment.

Though PW1 to PW8 were subjected to cross examination by the prosecution but nothing was elicited to incriminate the accused for the alleged offence. Further in the cross of PW1 she categorically deposed that as per the instructions of Project Director, she had presented report against the accused and that she had no personal knowledge about this case. PW2 also admitted that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the accused got suspended by Hon’ble High Court as the accused got filed writ petitions numbers 3698/2019 and 8661/2019.

Therefore, in view of the hostility of PW1 to PW8 and in view of no incriminating material found in their testimonies, it cannot be said that the testimonies of PW1 to PW8 can be sufficient to prove the case against the accused.

11.Coming to the evidence of PW9 who was deputed to visit Sikkim

State to conduct the investigation of this case and who got secured

Ex.P9 and P10 documents from the concerned authorities, he deposed in his evidence that as per the instructions of his superior officers, he went to Sikkim state and visited EILM University to find out that whether 7 the said university is in existence or not for which he got obtained Ex.P9 and P10 documents stating that the said university is not in existence after the year 2009. PW10 who worked as Deputy Director in Tribal

Welfare in ITDA, Rampachodavaram at relevant point of time, according to her she received compliant from PW7 against the accused alleging that the accused had submitted fake degree certificate and based on it he got promotion in his employment and then she made correspondence with the above said university and later she had issued show cause notice to the accused.

12.According to PW10 she had initiated the disciplinary enquiry at the behest of Project Officer, ITDA Rampachodavaram and then one

PVS Naidu appointed as Enquiry Officer to cause the enquiry against the accused but he did not complete the said enquiry so also not submitted his final enquiry report against the accused. According to her without there being any findings in enquiry made against accused, she was instructed to launch criminal prosecution against the accused. But she categorically admitted in her cross that she had not received any written instructions to initiate the legal action against the accused and that PW7 did not approach her personally and not presented any complaint to her against the accused. As could be seen, the entire testimony of PW10, it is evident that without conducting the internal departmental enquiry against the accused without finding fault him, a report was given by PW1 against the accused which said the law into motion in this case. Therefore, viewed from all corners, it can be said that the evidence of PW10 is not at all sufficient to prove the charges leveled against the accused. Hence, the evidence of PW10 cannot be taken into consideration.

13.Coming to the evidence of PW11 and PW12 who registered the case against the accused, investigated the matter and filed charge 8 sheet, as seen they did not collect any relevant material to show that the degree certificate produced by the accused is found to be fake in order to prove the offence against the accused. As the main and material witnesses were not corroborated with the testimonies of PW10 to PW12, the evidence of PW11 and PW12. Therefore, the evidence of

PW11 and PW12 cannot be taken into consideration.

14.Therefore, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after careful and keen perusal of the testimonies of PW1 to

PW12 so also the documents placed by the prosecution and for the above state reasons, this court is of the conclusive opinion that the testimonies of PW1 to PW12 not sufficient to prove the charges leveled against the accused and that the prosecution failed to place the sufficient, convincing and coherent material to prove the offence against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and view of the these circumstances, this court is of the conclusive opinion that certainly the accused is entitled for acquittal for all the charges leveled against the accused.

Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

15. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and thereby he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of

Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall be in force for a further period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

9

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-P.BABU

(FAC) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

Appendix of Evidence &

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution

P.W.1/11.03.2025:S.Leelavathi

P.W.2/11.03.2025:M.Nagireddy

P.W.3/11.03.2025:M.Prasad

P.W.4/25.03.2025:A.Lakshminarayana

P.W.5/25.03.2025:Y.Kanakadurga

P.W.6/25.03.2025:M.Nagaratnam

P.W.7/25.03.2025:K.Venkatarao

P.W.8/01.04.2025:B.Gangaraju

P.W.9/01.04.2025:S.Suryanarayana

P.W.10/15.04.2025:M.Saraswathi

P.W.11/15.04.2025:G.Appalaraju

P.W.12/22.04.2025:S.Nageswara Rao

For Defence: - None -

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution

Ex.P1 :Report

Ex.P2 :Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement dated 20.07.2019

Ex.P3 :Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement dated 20.07.2019

Ex.P4 :Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement dated 20.07.2019

Ex.P5 :Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement dated 21.07.2019

Ex.P6 :Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement dated 21.07.2019

Ex.P7 :Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement dated 05.02.2022

Ex.P8 :Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement dated 16.04.2022 10

Ex.P9 :Letter issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate Jorethang, Namchi District of Sikkim State dated 05.07.2023

Ex.P10 :Letter issued by Station House Officer, Jorethang Police Station, Namchi District of Sikkim State dated 05.07.2023 with memo No.1382/SHO/JPS/2023

Ex.P11 :Copy of Attendance Registrar for the month of January 2012, counter signed by Y.Kanaka Durga, Principal AP TribalWelfareResidentialSchool(Girls), Rampachodavaram

Ex.P12 :FIR in Cr.No.79/2019 of Addateegala Police Station dated 19.07.2019

Ex.P13 :Rough Sketch

Ex.P14 :Rough Sketch prepared at Rampachodavaram

Ex.P15 :Letter addressed to the Project Officer, ITDA Rampachodavaram

Ex.P16 :Letter addressed to the Deputy Director, Tribal Welfare ITDA, Rampachodavaram

Ex.P17 :Letter addressed to the Chairman University Grants Commission New Delhi dated 13.12.2019

For Defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- Nil -

Sd/-P.BABU

(FAC) JMFC,

ADDL.

11

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

PRESENT: P.BABU

VII ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-VII ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM (FAC)

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ADDATEEGALA

Dated Wednesday, the 30 th day of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.205/2024

(Cr.No.79/2019 of Addateegala Police Station)

1.Date of Offence:19.07.2019

2.Date of Complaint:19.07.2019

3.Apprehension of Accused:07.08.2019

4.Released on Bail:07.08.2019

5.Commencement of Trial:11.03.2025

6.Close of Trial:22.04.2025

7.Date of order:30.04.2025

8.Complainant :The State represented by its Sub- Inspector of Police, Addateegala Police Station.

9.Accused:Made Ramachandra Rao,S/o Vemaliyya, A/56 years, C/SC-Mala, R/o Near Sridevi Kalyana Mandapam, Rampachodavaram, Working as Junior Assistant in APTWR School Boys, Addateegala.

10. Offence:Under Section 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.

11. Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty.

12. Finding:Not guilty

13. Order/Sentence:

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and thereby he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of

Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall be in force for a further period of 6 months as contemplated 12 under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

14. Remarks : Nil.

Sd/-P.BABU

VII ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

(FAC)JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

Copy submitted to: Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram for favour of information.

1

THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

PRESENT: P.BABU

VII ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-VII ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARM (FULL

ADDITIONAL CHARGE) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA

Tuesday, this the 15th day of April, 2025

Calendar Case No.43 of 2021

(Cr.No.29/2018 of Addateegala Police Station)

Between: The State-Representedby its Sub

Inspector of Police, Addateegala Police … Complainant Station.

AND

Yerra Gangadhar, S/o Satyanarayana,

A/30 years, C/Kapu, Kothapeta Colony,

ManyamvaripalemPanchayath,

Jaggampeta Mandal, Now at Marriveedu

Village, Eleswaram Mandal. … Accused

This case was coming on 25.03.2025 for final hearing before me, in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri K.N.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the Accused; upon hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Addateegala Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.29/2018 against the Accused for the offence

2

punishable under Section 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC for brevity).

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Addateegala Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 304-A, 337 IPC alleging that on 12.04.2018 at about 06.00 AM, the deceased/Thadi Raju, his wife i.e., LW1/Thadi Parvathi along with their grandson Kanda Prasad aged about 5 years, went to Nukalammatalli

Temple, Kandrakota village. After getting goddess visualisation, the deceased and LW1 along with their grandson returned to Thimmapuram village and reached to Eleswaram. There they get into an auto bearing registration No.AP05TB6403 and some other passengers also get into to that auto. While the auto moving towards Thimmapuram side when they reached bricks factor near forest check post, Gontivanipalem village, the tractor with It’s trailer travelling in the same direction, the accused river of Tractor bearing registration No.AP05TD5218 and it’s trailer bearing Registration No.AP05DG 7245 drove his tractor in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden breaks, due to which the auto driver dashed the tractor trail as a result the deceased sustained grievous injury on chest and the bone comes out from chest, bleeding injury on left eye brow, cut injury on left thigh, rubbing injury on left lower leg, rubbing injury on left palm, contusion on left side ribs and the deceased wife i.e., LW1 sustained bleeding injury on right side forehead and contusion on right side of nose. Immediately LW4, LW5 and others shifted the deceased and LW1 to Government Hospital, Eleswaram with the assistance of 108 ambulance and admitted for treatment.

3.Basing on the Hospital intimation and statement of L.W.1 – Thadi

Parvathi, the L.W.16/Sri. Y.Ganesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police of

3

Addateegala Police Station, registered the same as case in

Cr.No.29/2018 under Sections 304-A, 337 IPC on 12.04.2018 at 06.30

PM and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, on 13.04.2018, L.W.16/Sri.

Y.Ganesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police of Addateegala Police

Station, visited the scene of offence, examined and got drafted scene observation report in the presence of mediators LW.10 and LW.11, photographed the scene of offence in various angles by his service camera and also examined LW2 to LW5 and recorded their detail statement in this part-II CD. On the same day LW.16 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 10.00 AM to 12.00 PM, in the presence of blood relatives, direct witnesses and got drafted an inquest report by LW.10 to LW.12. L.W.16/Sri. Y.Ganesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police of Addateegala Police Station, examined LW.1, 6 to 9 and recorded their detail statement in his part-II CD.

During the course of investigation, L.W.16/Sri. Y.Ganesh Kumar,

Sub-Inspector of Police of Addateegala Police Station, sent the dead body of the deceased to the LW.14/Dr.A.V.Ramana for autopsy.

During the course of investigation, on 21.04.2018, LW.13 inspected the crime vehicles i.e., Tractor bearing Registration

No.AP05TD5218, Truck No.AP05DG7245, auto bearing registration

No.AP05TB6403 and he opined that the accident was not due to any part of mechanical defects of crime vehicles. During the course of investigation, L.W.16/Sri. Y.Ganesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police of

Addateegala Police Station, did not record his detail statement in his part- II CD as he stated the same facts in MVI report.

4

During the course of investigation, LW.14/Dr.A.V.Ramana conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PM

Certificate and he opined that the cause of the death to best of her knowledge is vital organ and bore injuries induces hemorrhage and shack. LW.16 did not record his detail statement in his part II CD as he stated the same facts in PM Certificate.

During the course of investigation, LW.15/Dr.L.Ramalakshmi,

Medical officer, gave treatment to the LW1 and issued wound certificate and he opined that the injuries of LW1 are simple in nature. LW.16 did not record his detail statement in his part-II CD as he stated the same facts in Wound Certificate.

During the course of investigation, on 22.04.2018, the accused surrendered before L.W.16/Sri. Y.Ganesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of

Police of Addateegala Police Station, on that LW.16 served notice to accused U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. with instructions to appear before the

Hon’ble JFCM Court, Addateegala whenever the court required and

obtained acknowledge from him. After completion of investigation,

L.W.16/Sri.Y.Ganesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Addateegala

Police Station filed charge sheet against Accused. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 304-A, 337 IPC.

4. After perusing the material on record, as prima facie case is made out against the Accused and the case was taken on file against the

Accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 337 of Indian

Penal Code.

5. On appearance of the Accused, the copies of the case documents furnished on him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter he was examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under

5

Section 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code, for which the Accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and the documents such as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 got marked. The evidence of L.Ws.2, 6, 9 to 15 were given up by the prosecution.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are read over and explained to the Accused in his vernacular, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the Accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable

under Section 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code?

10.PW.1 who is the wife of deceased, deposed in her testimony that at about five years back, herself and her husband boarded in one Auto in noon hours at Eleswaram to go her house. The other inmates were also present in said auto along with us. She do not know the said auto bearing number. While we were proceeding in said auto and by the time we reached Gonthuvanipalem village, an accident was occurred to her auto but she does not know the exact reason and cause of death of her husband. By deposing the same, PW.1 turned hostile towards the prosecution and though the prosecution had conducted the cross examination over PW.1 but nothing was elicited from her mouth to prove the due to the rash or negligent acts of the accused the alleged accident was occurred and deceased died. As seen, PW.2 who is auto

6

driver, deposed that in his testimony that he have beeing working as

Auto Driver for the last 10 years and he rushed to attend his driving work towards Eleswaram route and his auto bearing number

AP05TB6403. At about six years back so of the persons were boarded in his auto at Eleswaram to go Addateegala and while we were proceeding in auto and by the time we reached Gonthuvanipalem village and his auto was turned tortile due to ditches on the road, as such the inmates of the auto fell down on road due to which they sustained injuries. Later we shifted the injured persons to Government

Hospital, Eleswaram through an Ambulance and later one of the injured persons died due to his injuries. By deposing the same, PW2 turned hostile towards the prosecution and though he prosecution had conducted the cross examination over PW2 but nothing was elicited from his mouth to prove the due to the rash and negligent acts of the accused the alleged accident was occurred and deceased died. Coming to the evidence of PW.3, PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6 who said to have witnessed the alleged accident in this case, as seen, it is found that they deposed that they does not know anything about the facts of the case including the deceased. They further deposed that they never witnessed the accident in this case and that police never examined them. By deposing the same, they also turned hostile towards prosecution and though the prosecution had cross examined them but nothing was elicited from their months which incriminate the accused for the alleged offence. But it can be said that when the main and material witnessed does not support the case of prosecution, in such circumstances, it is safe for this court to rely on the testimonies of PW.3 to PW.6 to convict the accused. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the testimonies of PW.3 to PW.6 cannot be taken into consideration.

7

11.Coming to the testimony of PW.7 who is official witness i.e., Sub-

Inspector of Police, who got participated in preparation of scene observation report and Investigating Officer who conducted the entire investigation in this case from the inception of FIR, as seen, they deposed in their evidence as the same lines of contents of charge sheet. To support the case of the prosecution. But it can be said that when the main and material witnessed does not support the case of prosecution, in such circumstances, it is safe for this court to rely on the testimony of PW.7 to convict the accused. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the testimony of PW.7 cannot be taken into consideration.

12.It is burden on the part of the Prosecution to prove the nexus between the accused and the accident and also to prove that the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash or negligent manner at the scene of offence and hit the deceased and as a result the deceased got sustained with fatal injuries and succumbed to injures at later point of time due to negligent acts of the accused. But, in this case none of the witnesses deposed that they have specifically seen the accused at the scene of offence who is the driver of the crime vehicle car, which involved in this case and due to his negligent acts, the deceased got sustained fatal injuries due to which he died. As stated above, though the Prosecution had examined PW.3 to PW.6 who said to have eye witnesses in this case to prove that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle and due to his negligent acts, the deceased died, they failed to state the actual facts before this Court, which hit to the case of the

Prosecution.

13.Therefore, after considering the facts and circumstances of this case and after careful and keen perusal of the material available on record and also on perusal of the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 7 and the for

8

the reason stated above, this court is of opinion that though it is a burden on the part of the Prosecution to prove the nexus between the accused and the alleged accident that was occurred at the scene of offence in which the deceased died due to injuries, the Prosecution failed to prove such nexus and that though it is not in a dispute that the deceased was not died in a road accident, but the Prosecution failed to prove the circumstances which leads to cause the death of deceased in a road accident including the identification of accused as that of driver of crime vehicle as on the date of accident. Hence, in view of the above, this Court is of the conclusive opinion that the Prosecution is failed to prove the case against the accused that he was the drive of crime vehicle car and due to his rash or negligent acts, the accident was occurred at the scene of offence and deceased died, beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, in view of these circumstances, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the charge leveled against him for the offence under Section 304-A, 337 IPC.

Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

14. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code and thereby he is acquitted for the same under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure

Code. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for a further period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Criminal

Procedure Code. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-P.BABU

(FAC) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

9

Appendix of Evidence &

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution

P.W.1/19.11.2024 :Tadi Parvathi

P.W.2/19.11.2024 :G.Veerababu

P.W.3/19.11.2024 :R.Singarayya

P.W.4/19.11.2024 :M.Adhinarayana

P.W.5/03.12.2024 :P.Venkatesh

P.W.6/03.12.2024 :P.Apparao

P.W.7/25.03.2025 :Y.Ganesh Kumar

For Defence: - None -

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution

Ex.P1:Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement dated 13.04.2018

Ex.P2:Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement dated 13.04.2018

Ex.P3:Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement dated 13.04.2018

Ex.P4:Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement dated 13.04.2018

Ex.P5: Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement dated 13.04.2018

Ex.P6:Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement dated 13.04.2018

Ex.P7:MLC intimation copy dated 12.04.2018

Ex.P8:Statement of PW1 dated 12.04.2018

Ex.P9:FIR in Cr.No.29/2018 for the offence U/Sec.304-A and 337 IPC dated 12.04.2018

Ex.P10 :Rough sketch

Ex.P11 :Scene observation report dated 13.04.2018

Ex.P12 :Three Positive photographes

Ex.P13 :Inquest report of deceased named T.Raju dated 13.04.2018

Ex.P14 :Wound Certificate of PW1 issued by LW.15

Ex.P15 :PME report deceased named T.Raju issued by LW.14

Ex.P16 :Three positive photographs of deceased

Ex.P17 :MVI report issued by LW.13

10

For Defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Sd/-P.BABU

(FAC) JMFC,

ADDL.

11

CALEN DAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

PRESENT: P.BABU

VII ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-VII ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM (FAC)

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ADDATEEGALA

Dated Tuesday, the 15 th day of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.43/2021

(Cr.No.29/2018 of Addateegala Police Station)

1.Date of Offence:12.04.2018

2.Date of Complaint:12.04.2018

3.Apprehension of Accused:22.04.2018

4.Released on Bail:22.04.2018

5.Commencement of Trial:19.11.2024

6.Close of Trial:25.03.2025

7.Date of order:15.04.2025

8.Complainant :The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Addateegala Police Station.

9.Accused:Yerra Gangadhar,S/o

Satyanarayana, A/30 years, C/Kapu,

Kothapeta Colony, Manyamvaripalem

Panchayath, Jaggampeta Mandal,

NowatMarriveeduVillage,

Eleswaram Mandal.

10. Offence:Under Sections. 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code

11. Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty.

12. Finding:Not guilty

13. Order/Sentence:

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code and thereby

12

he is acquitted for the same under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure

Code. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for a further period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure

Code. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

14. Remarks : Nil.

Sd/-P.BABU

VII ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

(FAC)JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

Copy submitted to: Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram for favour of information.

C.C.No.1193/2023 1 VII AJMFC, RJVM

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII

ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: P.BABU

VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Dated Friday, this the 22nd day of September, 2023

Calendar Case No.1193/2023

( Cr.No.135/2018 of Prohibition and Excise Station (South), Rajamahendravaram)

Between: The State-Represented by the Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station (South), … Complainant Rajamahendravaram.

AND

Komali Rama Krishna, S/o.Satyanarayana, A/29 years, C/Gowda, R/o.Palacherla Village, … Accused Rajanagaram Mandal.

This case was coming on 19.09.2023 for final hearing before me, in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri M.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the Accused; upon hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station (South), Rajamahendravaram filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.135/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995.

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as follows: On 09.02.2018 at about 11.30 A.M., the L.W.1 – I.D.Nageswara Rao, P&E Sub-Inspector, ESTF, Kakinada along with his staff L.W.2 – K.Apparao, P&E Constable while conducting patrolling for excise offences, reached at Palacherla Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, found the accused in possession of 06 liters of ID liquor packed in one polythene cover.On enquiry the accused confessed that he purchased the said liquor from unknown person and on that the L.W.1 explained the offence committed by the accused and arrested him and intimated the same to his family members and drawn one sample bottle with 300 ml of ID liquor and seized the remaining property under cover of special report.

C.C.No.1193/2023 2 VII AJMFC, RJVM

3.Basing on the special report prepared by L.W.1, the L.W.3/R.Kranthi Kiran, the then Sub-Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station South, Rajamahendravaram has registered a case as in Crime No.135/2018 against the accused for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 and took up the investigation and during the course of investigation, the L.W.3 produced the accused before the

Court for remand. Later the L.W.4 – P.Surya Kumari, the then Sub-Inspector,

Prohibition and Excise Station South, Rajamahendravaram sent the sample bottle to the Government Chemical Examiner, Kakinada for getting the opinion and that the said lab had issued the report that the sample is ID liquor, unfit for human consumption and injuries to health. Later the L.W.4 handed over the case record to the L.W.5/P.Chittibabu, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram for further investigation.

4.On receipt of the Charge sheet, this Court took cognizance for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 against the Accused and issued summons to him.

5.On appearance of Accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter refer to as Cr.P.C. for brevity).

6.The Accused is examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and the sum and substance of the accusation as alleged in the charge for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 read over and explained to him in his vernacular, for which, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the documents such as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and the material object such as MO.1 got marked. The evidence of L.W.2 was given up by the prosecution.

8.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are read over and explained to the Accused in his vernacular, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel

for the Accused. Perused the material available on record.

C.C.No.1193/2023 3 VII AJMFC, RJVM

10. Now the Point for determination is: “Whether the Prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt”?

11. In the present case on hand, the P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the Excise Police

Officials. Ex.P1 is the Special Report; Ex.P2 is the FIR; Ex.P3 is the letter of advice;

Ex.P4 is the Chemical analysis report; Ex.P5 is the copy of mediator report for destruction report and the MO.1 is unspent sample bottle.

12.Coming to the evidence of P.W.1/I.D.Nageswara Rao, who previously worked as

Sub Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Kakinada, who said to have caught the accused at the scene and who prepared the contents of Ex.P1/Special Report, has reiterated the averments of the charge sheet in his evidence. He further deposed that he found the accused in possession of 06 liters of ID liquor and then he deputed his staff to secure the mediators but in vain; that he seized the contraband under the cover of Ex.P1 from the possession of accused; that accused confessed

before him that he got purchased the said contraband from one unknown person to

sell the same on higher price. He further deposed that he had handed over the accused and contraband to the P.W.2 for registration of case against the accused.

13.In the cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that he has not mentioned in Ex.P1, none were present at the scene of offence, except the accused by the time they reached there; that since no one is available, he has not issue any summons to act as mediators, but same is not mentioned in Ex.P1; that he was not mentioned the descriptive particulars of MO.1 in Ex.P1. According to the prosecution, the alleged raids conducted at Palacherla Village, Rajanagaram Mandal. Hence, it can be said that though P.W.1 was not confronted that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality, but as seen the material on record, it is ruled out that it is situated in

Palacherla Village that means in a residential locality. But as seen from the testimony of P.W.1, it is evident that he has not secured any independent inhabitants of the scene of offence as contemplated under section 100 of Cr.P.C, for the reasons best known to him. Hence, it can be said that the PW.1 did not follow the due procedure for search and seizure in this case. As seen the testimony of PW.1, it is evident that when the scene of offence situated in a residential area, certainly there would be no doubt that the general public or the inhabitants of scene of offence are available and there is every possibility for PW.1 to secure them as mediators for search and seizure in this case. But for this, the P.W.1 was saying that he tried to secure them but in vain. As could be seen from the record, it can be further said that

C.C.No.1193/2023 4 VII AJMFC, RJVM

no attempts were made by PW.1 though he orally stated. Hence, it can be said that the simple statement made by the PW.1 that he did not secure the mediators is not sufficient and it is expected from him that he should put forth reasonable grounds and attempts made by him to secure the mediators and the reasons stated by him for non-securing the mediators would not sound reasonable when the scene of offence is situated in residential area. If anybody refuses to act as mediators, the officials can take action against those persons under section 187 of IPC as contemplated under section 100(8) of Cr.P.C. But no action taken by the PW.1. Hence, for the reasons stated above, this court found no cogent and absolute evidence against the accused that he was in possession and sale of contraband of ID liquor in this case in a illegal manner as alleged by the prosecution.

14.Coming to the evidence of PW.2 by name R.Kranthi Kiran, who previously worked as Sub Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Station (South) at

Rajamahendravaram, who conducted the further investigation in this case including the registration of case against the accused as case in Cr.No.135/2018 and issued

Ex.P2 original FIR, has deposed as the same lines of charge sheet contents in his chief examination. Later he handed over the case record to P.W.3 for further investigation. He also admitted in his cross examination that he has not conducted any further investigation in this case and based on Ex.P1 only he registered a case against the accused under Ex.P2. As seen his testimony, it is evident that he did not conduct any further investigation at the scene of offence. As seen, admittedly, the

P.W.2 did not record the confession said to have given by the accused to him in the presence of any independent mediators and if such is the case, in such circumstances, certainly it would hit by section 24 of Evidence Act since it was recorded before police and accordingly the said confession cannot be any type of evidence. Hence, for the reasons stated above, this court found no cogent and absolute evidence against the accused that he was in possession and sale of contraband of ID liquor in this case in a illegal manner as alleged by the prosecution. As stated above except Ex.P1 report, nothing was there to show that the accused committed the offence.

15.Coming to the evidence of PW.3 by name P.Surya Kumari, who has been working as Sub Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Station (South) at

Rajamahendravaram, who received case diary from P.W.2 to conduct further investigation, and she deposed she forwarded the sample bottle to the Regional

Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada for analysis purpose through Ex.P3 letter of advice and obtained report through Ex.P4 Analysis Report dated 28.03.2018 and later she

C.C.No.1193/2023 5 VII AJMFC, RJVM

destroyed the remaining contraband material in this case on 23.05.2018 under the cover of Ex.P5 destruction mediator report and later she handed over the case diary to L.W.5 for further investigation and after completion of investigation, the L.W.5 filed charge sheet.

16.At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of our Hon’ble High Court in the case of S. BABU SAHEB @ BABU Vs STATE OF AP- 2010(1) ALT(Crl) 32

AP, wherein it was held that “When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under sub section (4) of section 100 of

Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted” 17.In the case of MUDAVATH MOTHIA Vs STATE OF AP-2005(1) ALD (NOC) 52 AP, our Hon’ble High Court held that “Once the Excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence under A.P Excise Act, they become police officials, as such the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under sections 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and section 161 of Criminal

Procedure Code.” 18.In the case of ADAPA RAMBABU @ RAMU Vs STATE OF AP – 2014 (1)

ALD(Crl) 966 AP , our Hon’ble High Court held that “whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of Police officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that. It is only in extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusion on the evidence of the police officials”.

19.Hence, for the forgoing reasons and in view of the decisions made by Hon’ble

High Court and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that except the seizure of contraband, nothing is proved against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no other material to connect the accused in the present case. Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under

C.C.No.1193/2023 6 VII AJMFC, RJVM

section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt and in these circumstances, the accused certainly entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and thereby he is acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. MO.1 i.e. one sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of September, 2023.

Sd/-P.BABU

VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VII ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW.1:I.D.Nageswara Rao. - Nil - PW.2:R.Kranthi Kiran. PW.3:P.Surya Kumari.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Special Report dated 09.02.2018. Ex.P2 : Original FIR dated 09.02.2018. Ex.P3 :Letter of advice dated 09.02.2018. Ex.P4 :Chemical Analysis Report dated 28.03.2018. Ex.P5 :Copy of mediator report for destruction of seized contraband dated 23.052018.

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1: Unspent sample bottle.

Sd/-P.BABU

VII AJCJ/VII AJMFC,

RJVM.

C.C.No.1193/2023 7 VII AJMFC, RJVM

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: P.BABU

VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Dated Friday, this the 22nd day of September, 2023

Calendar Case No.1193/2023

( Cr.No.135/2018 of Prohibition and Excise Station (South), Rajamahendravaram)

1.Date of Offence:09.02.2018

2.Date of Complaint:09.02.2018

3.Apprehension of Accused:09.02.2018

4.Released on Bail:12.02.2018

5.Commencement of Trial:02.08.2023

6.Close of Trial:19.09.2023

7.Date of order:22.09.2023

8.Complainant :The State-Represented by the Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station (South), Rajamahendra- varam.

9.Accused:Komali Rama Krishna, S/o.Satyanarayana, A/29 years, C/Gowda, R/o.Palacherla Village, Rajanagaram Mandal.

10.Offence:Under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act 1995

11.Finding:Not guilty

12.Order/Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and thereby he is acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. MO.1 i.e. one sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

13.Remarks : Nil.

Sd/-P.BABU

VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VII ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl. Senior Civil Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.

C.C.No.1260/2023 1 VII AJMFC, RJVM

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: P.BABU

VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Dated Friday, this the 22nd day of September, 2023

Calendar Case No.1260/2023

( Cr.No.327/2018 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram South)

Between: The State-represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, … Complainant Rajamahendravaram South.

AND

Pedamatla Suseela, W/o.Prasad, A/37 years, … Accused C/SCMadiga,VeerabadraNagar, Rajamahendravaram.

This case was coming on 19.09.2023 for final hearing before me, in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri M.Nagendra, learned counsel for the Accused; upon hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Enforcement Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station South,

Rajamahendravaram filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.327/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995.

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as follows: On 20.04.2018 at about 9.00 A.M, while the L.W.1 – P.Surya Kumari, P&E Inspector, Rajamahendravaram along with her staff L.W.2 – S.Rama Krishna, Enforcement Head Constable, patrolling for prohibition and excise offenses at Veerabadra Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, found the accused in possession of 05 liters of ID liquor packed in one polythene cover. On questioning the accused revealed her particulars and confessed that she purchased the said liquor from unknown person at the village outskirts. Then the L.W.1 explained the offence committed by the accused, arrested her, intimated to her relatives and drawn one sample with 300 ml of ID liquor, sealed and affixed identity slips to the entire property under the cover of special report drafted at the scene of offence as nobody come forward to act as mediators.

C.C.No.1260/2023 2 VII AJMFC, RJVM

3.Basing on the special report, the L.W.1/P.Surya Kumari, Sub-Inspector,

Prohibition and Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram South registered a case as in

Crime No.327/2018 against the accused for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 and took up the investigation and during the course of investigation, she sent the accused to this Court for her remand on her arrest and later she sent the sample bottle to the Government Chemical Examiner, Kakinada for getting the opinion and that the said lab had issued the report that the sample is ID liquor, unfit for human consumption and injuries to health. Later the L.W.1 produced the remaining contraband material before the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada for destruction. After completion of investigation, the L.W.3 –

M.Rama Seshaiah, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Rajamahendravaram South filed charge sheet against the Accused.

4.On receipt of the Charge sheet, this Court took cognizance for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 against the Accused and issued summons to her.

5.On appearance of Accused, copies of case documents were furnished to her as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter refer to as Cr.P.C. for brevity).

6.The Accused is examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and the sum and substance of the accusation as alleged in the charge for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 read over and explained to her in her vernacular, for which, she denied the same and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined the P.W.1 and the documents such as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and the material object such as MO.1 got marked.

The evidence of L.W.2 and L.W.3 were given up by the prosecution.

8.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are read over and explained to the Accused in her vernacular, for which she denied the same and reported no defence evidence on her behalf.

9.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel

for the Accused. Perused the material available on record.

C.C.No.1260/2023 3 VII AJMFC, RJVM

10. Now the Point for determination is: “Whether the Prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt”?

11. In the present case on hand, the P.W.1 is the Excise Police Official. Ex.P1 is the

Special report dated 20.04.2018, Ex.P2 is the FIR in Cr.No.327/2018 dated 20.04.2018 of P&E Station, Rajamahendravaram South; Ex.P3 is the letter of advice

dated 20.04.2018; Ex.P4 is the Chemical analysis report dated 11.05.2018 and Ex.P5

is the Copy of destruction mediator report dated 31.08.2018 and MO.1 is the unspent sample bottle.

12.The P.W.1/P.Surya Kumari, who previously worked as Enforcement Inspector of

Police at Rajamahendravaram, who said to have caught the accused at the scene and who prepared the contents of Ex.P1/Special Report, has reiterated the averments of the charge sheet in her evidence. She further deposed that she found the accused in possession of 05 liters of ID liquor and then she deputed her staff to secure the mediators but in vain; that she seized the contraband under the cover of Ex.P1 from the possession of accused and drawn 300 ml as sample under MO.1 for sending the same to the chemical analysis report; that the accused confessed before her that he got purchased the said contraband from unknown person to sell the same on higher price. Basing on the Ex.P1 Special Report, she registered a case as in Crime

No.327/2018 against the accused for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP

Prohibition Act, 1995 and issued copies of Ex.P2 FIR to the Court and the concerned officials. Thereafter, she produced the accused to this Court for his remand on his arrest and later she sent the sample bottle to the Government Chemical Examiner,

Kakinada under Ex.P3 letter of advice for getting the opinion and that the said lab had issued Ex.P4 analysis report that the sample is ID liquor, unfit for human consumption and injuries to health. Later she produced the remaining contraband material before the Deputy Commissioner, Excise Department, Kakinada for destruction and received destruction proceedings and destroyed the case property of this case vide Ex.P5 mediator report dated 31.08.2018. Later she handed over the case record to L.W.3 and he filed charge sheet against the Accused.

13.In the cross-examination, the P.W.1 admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality; that she has not issued any summons to the local officials to secure them for mediators; that nearby the scene of offence, a Village Secretariat is there, that she tried to secure the mediators, but in vain; that she has not mentioned the details of

C.C.No.1260/2023 4 VII AJMFC, RJVM

the persons, who informed her about the mica bag which found at the scene of offence, belongs to the accused in Ex.P1; that she has not prepared any rough sketch at the scene of offence; that she has not prepared any mediator report for the arrest of accused. As seen, the P.W.1 deposed that the scene of offence is situated in a residential area and busy locality, but as seen the testimony of P.W.1, it is evident that she has not secured any independent inhabitants of the scene of offence or any independent witnesses as contemplated under section 100 of Cr.P.C, for the reasons best known to her. Hence, it can be said that the PW.1 was not followed the due procedure for search and seizure in this case. As seen the testimony of PW.1, it is evident that when the scene of offence situated in a residential area and busy locality, certainly there would be no doubt that the general public or the inhabitants of scene of offence are available and there is every possibility for PW.1 to secure them as mediators for search and seizure in this case. But for this, the P.W.1 was saying that she tried to secure them but in vain. As could be seen from the record, it can be further said that no attempts were made by PW.1 though she orally stated.

Hence, it can be said that the simple statement made by the PW.1 that she did not secure the mediators is not sufficient and it is expected from her that she should put forth reasonable grounds and attempts made by her to secure the mediators and the reasons stated by her for non-securing the mediators would not sound reasonable when the scene of offence is situated in residential area. If anybody refuses to act as mediators, the officials can take action against those persons under section 187 of

IPC as contemplated under section 100(8) of Cr.P.C. But no action taken by the PW.1.

Hence, for the reasons stated above, this court found no cogent and absolute evidence against the accused that she was in possession and sale of contraband of

ID liquor in this case in a illegal manner as alleged by the prosecution.

14.As seen his testimony, it is evident that she did not conduct any further investigation at the scene of offence. As seen, admittedly, the P.W.1 did not record the confession said to have given by the accused to her in the presence of any independent mediators and if such is the case, in such circumstances, certainly it would hit by section 24 of Evidence Act since it was recorded before police and accordingly the said confession cannot be any type of evidence. Hence, for the reasons stated above, this court found no cogent and absolute evidence against the accused that she was in possession and sale of contraband of ID liquor in this case in a illegal manner as alleged by the prosecution. As stated above except Ex.P1/Special

Report, nothing was there to show that the accused committed the offence.

C.C.No.1260/2023 5 VII AJMFC, RJVM

15.At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of our Hon’ble High Court in the case of S. BABU SAHEB @ BABU Vs STATE OF AP- 2010(1) ALT(Crl) 32

AP, wherein it was held that “When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under sub section (4) of section 100 of

Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted”.

16.In the case of MUDAVATH MOTHIA Vs STATE OF AP-2005(1) ALD (NOC) 52 AP, our Hon’ble High Court held that “Once the Excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence under A.P Excise Act, they become police officials, as such the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under sections 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and section 161 of Criminal

Procedure Code.” 17.In the case of ADAPA RAMBABU @ RAMU Vs STATE OF AP – 2014 (1)

ALD(Crl) 966 AP , our Hon’ble High Court held that “whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of Police officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that. It is only in extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusion on the evidence of the police officials”.

18.Hence, for the forgoing reasons and in view of the decisions made by Hon’ble

High Court and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that except the seizure of contraband, nothing is proved against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no other material to connect the accused in the present case. Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt and in these circumstances, the accused certainly entitled for acquittal.

C.C.No.1260/2023 6 VII AJMFC, RJVM

19.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and thereby she is acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused and her sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. MO.1 i.e. unspent sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of September, 2023.

Sd/-P.BABU

VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VII ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1/15.09.2023:P.Surya Kumari - Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Special report dated 20.04.2018. Ex.P2:FIR in Cr.No.327/2018 dated 20.04.2018 of P&E Station South, Rajamahendravaram. Ex.P3:Letter of advice dated 20.04.2018. Ex.P4:Chemical analysis report dated 11.05.2018. Ex.P5:Copy of destruction mediator report dated 31.08.2018.

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1: Unspent sample bottle.

Sd/-P.BABU

VII AJCJ/VII AJMFC,

RJVM.

C.C.No.1260/2023 7 VII AJMFC, RJVM

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: P.BABU

VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Dated Friday, this the 22nd day of September, 2023

Calendar Case No.1260/2023

( Cr.No.327/2018 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram South)

1.Date of Offence:20.04.2018

2.Date of Complaint:20.04.2018

3.Apprehension of Accused:20.04.2018

4.Released on Bail:23.04.2018

5.Commencement of Trial:15.09.2023

6.Close of Trial:19.09.2023

7.Date of order:22.09.2023

8.Complainant :The State-representedby Enforcement Inspector, Prohibition andExciseStation, Rajamahendravaram South.

9.Accused: Pedamatla Suseela, W/o.Prasad, A/37 years, C/SC Madiga, VeerabadraNagar, Rajamahendravaram

10.Offence:Under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act 1995

11.Finding:Not guilty

12.Order/Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and thereby she is acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused and her sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. MO.1 i.e. unspent sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

13.Remarks : Nil.

Sd/-P.BABU

VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VII ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl. Senior Civil Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.