Smt. P. Bhanu Sai

CC No.70 of 2018

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: PALAKOL

Present:- Smt P. Bhanu Sai,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Palakol

Tuesday, this the 18th day of April, 2023

C.C.No.70/2018

State, Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakol Rural Police Station. ….Complainant

Vs.

Koppineedi Varadharaju, S/o Lakshmi Narayana, 28 yrs, Kapu, Thillapudi Village of Palakol Mandal, Rider of Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing No. AP 37 BG 3233 ….Accused

This case is coming on 11.04.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri V. Ananda Raju, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakol Rural Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused herein in Cr.No.167/2017 for the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.182, 196 of M.V. Act, 1988.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that LW.1/defacto- complainant/father of the deceased by name Chinta Nagaraju is resident of

Y.V.Lanka Village of Elamanchili Mandal. On 11.12.2017 morning the deceased and his friend i.e. the accused who is rider of the crime vehicle

Bajal Pulsar motorcycle bearing No. AP 37 BG 3233 went to Mallavaram village for coolie works and after completion of work they returned to

Tillapudi Village on their motorcycle and when they reached Nadapana

Narayana Murthy cattle shed of Tillapudi Village area, at about 11.00 PM,

CC No.70 of 2018

2 one dog was crossing the road, on seeing the same the accused applied sudden brake then the pillion rider of the crime vehicle i.e. the deceased and the accused were fell down on the road along with motorcycle, resulting which the deceased sustained severe bleeding head injury and the accused sustained multiple bleeding injuries. On seeing the accident, some persons who were passing on the same road, stopped their vehicles and identified them and informed the same to the village elder and he came to the spot and called 108 Ambulance and after a few minutes 108 Ambulance came to the spot and examined the deceased and declared that he was died and the accused was shifted to the Government Hospital, Palakol for treatment.

Basing on the report given by LW.1, LW.14 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.167/2017 U/Secs. 304-A, 337 of IPC on 12.12.2017 and took up investigation into this case.

During the course of investigation, LW.14 secured LW.1, examined him and recorded his statement. Later he visited the scene of offence along with LW.1 and secured the mediators on the way and examined the scene, prepared rough sketch and drafted the scene observation report in the presence of mediators. He photographed the scene of offence. He examined direct witnesses and blood relatives of the deceased and recorded their statements. He secured the inquest panchayatdars and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and got drafted Inquest Report. After completion of inquest, he sent the dead body of the deceased to Government Hospital,

Palakol for post mortem examination. After completion of post mortem, he handed over the dead body to the blood relatives of the deceased.

CC No.70 of 2018

3

LW.14 served notice U/Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused on 28.12.2017. The accused has no driving license and the crime vehicle has no valid insurance policy then LW.14 added Sec. 182 and 196 of Motor Vehicles

Act. After completion of investigation, LW.14 filed charge sheet U/Sec. 304-

A of IPC and Sec. 182, 196 of MV Act against the accused.

3. The case was taken on cognizance for the offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC, Sec. 182, 196 of M.V.Act, 1988 against sole accused.

4. After the appearance of accused, the copies of the documents as required u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to him.

5. Accused was examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC, Sec.182, 196 of M.V.Act, 1988 against accused is put to him, read over and explained to him in

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

6. In pursuance of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17. No material objects are marked.

7. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating evidence by the prosecution witnesses was put to him. He had denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. For better appreciation of evidence I would like to reiterate the evidence of PWs. 1 to 14 on material aspects.

CC No.70 of 2018

4

PW.1/Ch. Challa Rao deposed that the deceased is his son. While he was present at YV Lanka in the year 2017, he received a phone call from

LW.5 that his son met with an accident, when accused and deceased were going on Pulsar motor cycle from Mallavaram to Chikkala, a dog was came across to their bike on that both accused and deceased fell from the bike, the accused not sustained any injuries but his son sustained head injury,

LW.4 called to LW.5 and informed the same to him, then LW.5 called the ambulance while his son was shifting into the ambulance he was died. He went to the Scene of offence at about 12.00 AM, by that time he was died and they shifted him to Government Hospital, Palakol in an ambulance.

Police examined him and recorded his statement. Police came to the hospital and recorded his statement in the hospital. He gave report to the police i.e. Ex P1. The bike number is 3233. He did not know how the accident was occurred as he had not seen it personally.

PWs.2 to 6, 8, 13/Inti Sriramulu, S. Satyanarayana, B.Prasad, N.

Venkata Krishna, N. Srinivasa Rao, N. Bhaskara Rao and Chinta Srinivas deposed that they do not know the facts of the case. They further deposed that they were not examined by the police and they were not stated as in their Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements i.e. Exs. P2 to P7 and P13.

PW.7/Ch. George, the then VRO, Thillapudi deposed that on 11- 12-2017 at about 11-30 PM police informed him that an accident taken place at Chikkala to Mallavaram road, outskirts of Thillapudi and requested himself and LW.10 to conduct inquest over the body of the deceased who met with the accident. On that police had taken them to the scene of offence. There they observed the body of the deceased by name Chinta Nagaraju, the deceased body fell on the Western side, injuries on head and neck. He came

CC No.70 of 2018

5 to know subsequently that accused drove the vehicle and the deceased was the pillion rider, due to sudden break when a dog moved in front of their vehicle, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries Police shifted the body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Palakol. Except that they had not done anything at the scene.

PW.9/N. Ramakrishna, VRA, Thillapudi deposed that he do not know anything about this case. At the request of police, he signed on the scene observation report and inquest. Exs.P8 and P9 are his signatures. He do not know the contents in scene observation report and inquest. Police not examined him and not recorded his statement.

PW.10/B.S.Srinivasa Naik, the then Motor Vehicles Inspector,

Palakol deposed that on 28-12-2017 he received requisition from Palakol

Rural P.S. to inspect the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 37 BG 3233

Motorcycle. On 29.12.2017 he visited Palakol Rural Police Station and inspected the crime vehicle and found two damages, the vehicle was put to road test and found the breaking system was intact and in order. Basing on which he is of the opinion that the accident was not occurred due to any prior mechanical defects of the vehicle involved in the accident. Ex.P10 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector report.

PW.11/K.Veeraiah deposed that from 2013 to 2018 he worked as

Sarpunch of Thillapudi Village. He came to know that the deceased and accused were going on one bike after completion of their work, while they return and when they reached Mallavarapu road, Thillapudi, a dog suddenly crossed their bike, they both fell on the road. Then the deceased sustained head injury and died. He was present at the time of inquest and he had

CC No.70 of 2018

6 signed on the same. Ex.P11 is the inquest, himslef, VRO, VRA of Thillapudi had signed on it.

PW.12/Dr.V.Venkata Rao, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon,

Community Health Centre, Palakol deposed that on 12-12-2017 he had conducted Post Mortem over the body of the deceased by name Chinta

Nagaraju, S/o Challarao, aged 23 years, and he found the following external and internal injuries over the body of the deceased. External Injuries: 1)

One major head injury on the back of the head in the occipital region 2) One abrasion in the middle of frontal region 3) One deep abrasion on the right elbow joint 4) One abrasion on the right hip joint. 5) One deep cut injury on the left ankle joint. Internal Examination: 1) Neck structures are congested hyoid and thyroid are normal in nature 2) chest-no free fluid in the plural cavity. Both right and left lungs are normal and they are pale. 3) Heart is normal in size and pale. All chambers are in empty. 4) Abdomen is no free fluid in peritoneal cavity. 5) Liver, Spleen and Kidneys are pale. 6) Head-the skull bone was fractures, multiple fractures over the vertex of the head. 7)

Nose and ears- bleeding from the nose and both ears are seen 8) the skull bone in the occipital region was also fractured. There are multiple blood clots are seen over the brain tissues under the fractures bones. Basing on the above he is of the opinion that the patient died due to hemorrhaged shock due to severe head injury i.e. Ex.P12 is the Post Mortem report of the deceased.

PW.14/B. Adi Prasad, the then SI of Police, Palakol Rural P.S.

deposed that on 12-12-2017 at about 5.00 AM, while he was in police station, PW1 came to their police station and presented Ex.P1 report. Basing on which he registered FIR in Cr.NO.167/2017 U/Sec. 304-A IPC against

CC No.70 of 2018

7 accused herein i.e. Ex.P14. Later he issued FIR to all concerned officials. He examined PW.1 at police station and recorded his statement. Later he visited the scene of offence. There he prepared rough sketch and photographed the scene. Ex.P15 is the rough sketch. Ex.P16 is photographs along with CD (7 in number) and he drafted scene observation report i.e. Ex.P17. There he secured the presence of PWs.2 to 6, 8 and 13, examined them and recorded their statements, PW.2 to 6, 8 and 13 stated before him as in Exs.P2 to 7 and 13. He found one motorcycle bearing NO.AP 37 BG 3233. He sent the vehicle to the police station. On the same day he visited the Government

Hospital, Palakol along with PW.7,9,11. There he secured the blood relatives of the deceased. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased i.e. Ex.P11 in the presence of PWs.7,9, 11 and blood relatives of the deceased. He sent the dead body of the deceased to postmortem and after completion of postmortem, he handed over the dead body to the blood relatives of the deceased. On 28.12.2017 accused came to their police station. He identified the accused and issued Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and he complied the same. On the same day, he sent requisition to the Motor Vehicle Inspector i.e. PW.10 to inspect the crime vehicle. He received the Motor Vehicle Inspector Report and postmortem report i.e. Exs.

P10 and P12 from PW.10 and PW.12 examined them and recorded their statements. According to his investigation, accused had not having any valid driving license and no vehicle insurance to the crime vehicle. On that he added Sec. 182 and 196 of M.V. Act against the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

10. Now the point that germane for determination is:

1) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused under Sec. 304-A of IPC?

CC No.70 of 2018

8

2) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused under Sec. 182 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

3) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused under Sec. 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

4) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused under Sec. 304-A IPC and Sec. 182, 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT NO.1: To attract the offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:

i)There must be the death of the person in question; ii)The accused must have caused such death; iii)That such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide as opined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs.

Balwinder Singh (2012) 2 SCC 182.

To establish the same, the prosecution got examined PWs. 1 to 14 and Exs.P1 to P17 got marked, wherein PWs. 2 to 6, 8 and 13/ independent witnesses turned hostile and their evidence is no way useful to the prosecution case except marking of Exs. P2 to P7 and P13.

PW.1/the father of the deceased stated in his chief examination that he received a phone call from LW.5 that his son met with an accident and the accused was not sustained any injuries but his son sustained head injury. He went to the scene of offence at about 12-00 AM, by that time his son was died and they shifted him to the Government Hospital. He does not know how the accident was occurred as he had not seen it personally. In his cross examination by the defence counsel, he admitted that at the intervention of the elders, they compromised the case with the accused and he does not know the manner of the accident personally and he came to know about the registration of the present case recently.

CC No.70 of 2018

9

PW.7/the VRO stated in his chief examination that police taken him to the scene of offence there he observed the dead body of the deceased and found injuries on his head and neck. He came to know subsequently that the accused drove the crime vehicle and the deceased was the pillion rider due to sudden break when a dog moved in front of their vehicle, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. Police shifted the body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Palakol, except that he had not done anything at the scene.

PW.9/VRA deposed in his chief examination that he did not know anything in this case. At the request of the police, he signed on the scene observation report and inquest report. He do not know the contents of the scene observation report and inquest report and police not examined him and recorded his statement.

PW.10/MVI explained about the examination of the crime vehicle upon the receipt of requisition from Palakol Rural P.S., issuance of

Ex.P10/MVI report in his chief examination whereas in his cross examination by the defence counsel he stated that he examined the vehicle at the Palakol

Rural P.S. only but not at the scene of offence. It might true if there are any mechanical defects to the crime vehicle it can be rectified prior to his inspection.

PW.12/the doctor explained about the injuries over the body of the deceased and issuance of Ex.P12 in his chief examination, in his cross examination he denied that when a person fell down from a bike due to over speed, the said injuries might possible.

CC No.70 of 2018

10

As per the evidence of PW.12 the description of injuries over the body of the deceased was corroborated with Ex.P12 and with the evidence of

PW.1 to prove the death of the injured, but not established that the accused herein is responsible for the death of the deceased.

PW.14/CI of Police, explained the chronology of case as per receipt of Ex.P1, registering FIR under Ex.P14, visiting the scene, drafting rough sketch under Ex.P15 and taken photographs at scene under Ex.P16, preparation of scene observation report under Ex.P17 and inquest through mediators, issuance of notice to the accused, sent requisition for MVI report, obtaining of MVI report, postmortem report in his chief examination.

Whereas in his cross examination PW.14 he stated that he collected the copy of the vehicle registration to show that the crime vehicle belongs to the accused. He admitted that in the rough sketch it was not reflected that there are street lights at the scene of offence.

On careful scrutiny of evidence of prosecution witnesses the series of the death of the deceased to filing of charge sheet was explained but none of them whispered that the accused herein committed the accident. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1, though he stated that the accused and deceased went together on the date of incident, but he had not stated that the accused herein is the driver of the crime vehicle and he admitted that he do not know the manner of the accident. Even-though PWs.14 conducted investigation he had not filed any report as to the crime vehicle that the accused was running crime vehicle at the time of accident. In such a case this Court hesitates to believe that accused with rash and negligent manner committed the accident with an intention to cause death of the deceased.

CC No.70 of 2018

11

In view of my above discussion though the prosecution had proved the death of the deceased under Ex.P12 but failed to establish that the accused herein caused said death due to rash and negligent act. Here this

Court relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nanjundappa and another Vs. State of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (SC) 489 “Sec. 304-A-

Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu would not apply to a criminal case.

For bringing him the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim”. On perusal of the record relied that out of various witnesses arrayed by the prosecution there are no eye witnesses who had seen that the accused herein committed the accident.

Thereby the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt when there is no corroboration in between the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the accused.

POINT NO.2: To prove the offence against the accused under Sec. 182 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the prosecution has to prove that accused does not possess valid driving license. Here it is pertinent to mention that the prosecution failed to prove the very presence of the accused in the scene of offence and investigating officer not placed and got marked any evidence that the accused having no valid driving license. In such a case the prosecution also failed to prove the offence under Sec. 181 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 against accused. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of accused.

POINT NO.3: To prove the offence under Sec. 196 of Motor Vehicle

Act 1988 the prosecution has to establish that accused without having valid

CC No.70 of 2018

12 insurance policy to the crime vehicle but to prove the same the prosecution not filed any documentary evidence that crime vehicle insurance is not in force except the ocular evidence of PW.14/Investigating officer which is inadmissible without any corroboration, there by the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of accused.

POINT NO.4: In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court feels that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused U/Sec. 304-A of

IPC and Sec. 182, 196 of Motor Vehicles Act beyond all reasonable doubts.

12. As could be seen from the record, according to the evidence of prosecution witnesses being the alleged direct and indirect witnesses also not stated any incriminating evidence against the accused, PW.1 and other witnesses are pleaded ignorance of facts as such their evidence is in no way useful to the prosecution case. The evidence left on record is PW.14/the

Investigating officer who explained the chronology of investigation which lacks corroboration with any of the prosecution witnesses that the Accused herein committed the accident.

13. As seen from the evidence of PWs.2 to 6, 8 and 13, they pleaded ignorance of the facts of the case in their cross examination and chief examination respectively. Though the prosecution exhibited the statements of PWs.1 to 6,8 and 13, recorded by the police, it has its limitation as the said statements were recorded U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. It is well-settled law that the contents of statements U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. can be used for contradicting a witness by the defence but the contents of

CC No.70 of 2018

13 statements cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. Thus, Exs.P.2 to P.6,

P.7, P13 are no way helpful to the prosecution case.

14. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of prosecution witnesses turned hostile and lack of corroboration in the evidence of official witness, I have hesitation to convict the accused basing on the evidence on record. Any amount of doubt that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be bestowed in favour of the accused. Hence, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt as there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the accused in the commission of the offence. It is well known that the penal statute should be strictly construed and the prosecution needs to prove the alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is lacking in the present case on hand. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

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

U/Secs.304-A of IPC, Sec. 182, 196 of M.V.Act, 1988 and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr. P.C. Since no property is produced and marked before this Court, no property orders could be passed.

Typed by the Stenographer Gr. III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 18 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-Smt.P.Bhanu Sai,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Palakol

CC No.70 of 2018

14

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: Ch. Challa Rao -NONE- PW.2: Inti Sriramulu PW.3: S. Satyanarayana PW.4: B. Prasad PW.5: N. Venkata Krishna PW.6: N. Srinivasa Rao PW.7: Ch.George PW.8: N. Bhaskara Rao PW.9: N. Ramakrishna PW.10: B.S. Srinivasa Naik PW.11: K. Veeraiah PW.12: Dr.V.Venkata Rao PW.13: Chinta Srinivas PW.14: B. Adi Prasad

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Report given by PW.1 to the police - Nil - Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 Ex.P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6 Ex.P7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.8 Ex.P8: Signatures of PW.9 on scene observation report Ex.P9: Signatures of PW.9 on Inquest Report Ex.P10: Motor Vehicle Inspector Report Ex.P11: Inquest Report Ex.P12: Post Mortem Certificate Ex.P13: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.13 Ex.P14: FIR in Cr.No.167/2017 Ex.P15: Rough sketch Ex.P16: Photographs (7 in number) Ex.P17: Scene observation report

MATERIAL OBJECTS: - Nil -

Id/-P.B.S.,

I AJCJ-CUM-I AJFCM,

Palakol.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

Calendar and Judgment tried by the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakol.

Date of Report of ApprehenRelease CommenClose of Sentence Explanation for Offence Complaint sion of on bailcement of trial of Order delay Accused trial Accused examined 28.12.201on 15.12.2021. Trial 28.12.201 7 (Sec. commended on 2 11.12.201712.12.201741-A 5.1.20229.3.202318.4.2023 5.1.2022 and (station Cr.P.C. concluded on bail) notice)9.3.2023. Hence, delay.

The judgment of Calendar Case in C.C.No:70/2018 on the file of I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Palakol.

COMPLAINANT: The SHO of Palakol Rural P.S.

Cr.NO.167/2017 of Palakol Rural P.S.

Name of the accused with Age Religion Residence father's Name. 1234 Koppinedi Varadharaju, 28HinduTillapudi Village of Palakol S/o Lakshmi NarayanaMandal.

Offence: U/Secs.304-A of IPC, Sec. 182, 196 of M.V.Act, 1988

Finding: Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC, and Secs. 182, 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC, Sec. 182, 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.255 (1) Cr. P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr. P.C. Since no property is produced and marked before this Court, no property orders could be passed.

Sd/-Smt.P.Bhanu Sai,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Palakol

CC No.357/2021

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: PALAKOL

Present:- Smt P. Bhanu Sai,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakol

Monday, this the 17th day of April, 2023

C.C.No.357 of 2021

Between:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Achanta Police Station ….Complainant

And

Veeramallu Chandra Sekhar, S/o Bosu, age 22 yrs C/Gowda, Gamallagudem, Penumanchili Village, Achanta Mandal. ….Accused

This case coming on 10.04.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri P. Durga Rao, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Achanta P.S. has filed charge sheet against the sole accused in Cr.No.242/2021 for the offence u/Sec.34 (a) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on receipt of credible information, LW.9/Sub-Inspector of Police, Achanta P.S. along with his staff and mediators rushed to Door N.4-53, R.C.C. Building, Ramalayam street,

Gavallagudem, Penumanchili Village of Achanta Mandal and on seeing the police party, the accused tried to escape from the clutches of the police, then the police caught hold the accused and on enquiry the accused revealed his identity particulars then LW.9 arrested him. He also confessed that he used

CC No.357/2021

2 to buy liquor bottles from various shops and after closing the wine shops he sell the liquor bottles at high price. Then LW.9 found 6 bottles of “Green

Choice Whisky 180 ml.” When asked about other bottles, the accused gave black colour bag from back side of wooden Almara, on that bag “Green

Choice 180 ml. bottles -24, Royal Street Whisky 180 ml. bottles -8 and Green

Choice 750 ml. bottle-1” were found. LW.9 arrested the accused and seized the total 39 bottles worth of Rs.6,310/-. He separated one bottle from each and sent for chemical analysis and pasted the slips duly attested by mediators. LW.9 registered a case in Cr.No.242/2021 U/Sec. 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

During the course of investigation, it disclosed that the accused was in illegal possession of IMFL bottles with a view to sell the same for wrongful gain. LW.9 produced the accused before the Hon’ble Court for judicial custody.

LW.9 prepared a requisition to SDPO, Narsapuram along with a letter of advice and sent the seized samples for chemical analysis and on 27- 07-2021, he obtained report from Government Chemical Examiner of Proh.

And Excise and he opined that the sample sent by LW.9 is “Indian Made

Liquor” vide his report C.E.No.1767/2021, dt.27-07-2021. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under Sec. 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and newly amended Act No.18 of 2020. After completion of investigation, LW.9 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. Considering the charge sheet and material on record, this Court taken on cognizance for the offence u/Sec. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

CC No.357/2021

3 4. After the appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as required u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to him.

5. The accused was examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the charge for the offence u/Sec. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act against the accused is framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. For which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In pursuance of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. MOs.1 to 3 werealso marked. LWs.2, 5 and 7 were given up by the learned APP, thereby the evidence of LWs.2, 5 and 7 is closed.

7. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material was put to him. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. The learned APP and defence counsel reported as the arguments treated as heard.

9. For better appreciation of evidence, I would like to reiterate the evidence of PWs. 1 to 7 on material aspects.

PW.1/D.N.Venkatachalam, VRO, Penumanchili deposed that on 19- 7-2021 at about 8-00 P.M. he received a phone call from the SI of Achanta

P.S.to come to his police station. On that himself and his VRA i.e. LW.2 went to Achanta P.S. from there SI of Achanta P.S., 4 police constables, himself and LW.2 went on a police jeep proceeded to the house of the accused at

Gavallagudem. By that time on seeing the police, the accused herein in suspicion tried to escape with a bag in his hand. Then the police constables caught him and opened the bag, found 6 Green Choice 180 ml Whisky

CC No.357/2021

4 bottles. On enquiry, the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed the offence. The accused also shown a wooden beeruva on the back side of his house, when they opened the beeruva they found 1) 24

Green Choice Whisky 180 ml bottles, 2) 8 Royal Street 180 ml Whisky bottles, 3) Green Choice Whisky 750 ml. 1 bottle. In total 39 bottles were seized by the police from the accused. Later the police had separated one bottle each from each brand for chemical analysis i.e. MOs. 1 to 3. Later the police pasted the signed slips on the seized property. The bottles were seized under the cover of mediators report scribed by me i.e. Ex.P1. He identified the sample bottles separated for chemical analysis in each brand i.e. MOs. 1 to 3.

PWs.2 & 3/V. Venkateswarlu and A.Sivannarayana, deposed that they do not know anything in this case. Police neither examined them nor recorded their statements. They further deposed that they did not state

before the police as in their Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements which are marked as

Exs. P2 and P3.

PW.4/G. Mohan Kumar, P.C.2671 of Achanta P.S. deposed that on 19-7-2021 while he was present in the police station their SI received credible information at about 10-30 PM. On that himself, PW.1, LWs.2, 5 to 7, their SI proceeded to the house of the accused at Gavallagudem. By that time on seeing the police, the accused herein in suspicion tried to escape with a bag in his hand. Then the police constables caught him and opened the bag, found 7 Green Choice 180 ml. Whisky bottles. On enquiry, the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed the offence. The accused also shown a wooden beeruva on the back side of his house, when

CC No.357/2021

5 they opened the beeruva we found 1) 26 Green Choice Whisky 180 ml.

bottles, 2) Royal Street 180 ml. Whisky bottles, 3) Green Choice Whisky 750 ml. bottle. In total 30 bottles were seized by the police from the accused.

Later they had separated one bottle each from each brand for chemical analysis. Later the police pasted the signed slips on the seized property. The bottles were seized under the cover of mediators report scribed by PW.1 i.e.

Ex.P1. Then they brought all the seized property along with accused to the police station. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

PW.5/A. Thimma Raju, H.C.1921 of Achanta P.S. deposed that on 19-7-2021 at about 12-30 A.M. while himself, LW.5, LW.7, PW.4 were present in police station, their SI received a credible information. On that he directed him to secure VRO and VRA then he called to them and they attended before them in the police station. On that himself along with other staff members mentioned above, VRO and VRA and their SI went in their police jeep proceeded to the house of the accused at Gavallagudem. By that time on seeing the police, the accused herein in suspicion tried to escape with a bag in his hand. Then the police constables caught him and opened the bag, found 6 Green Choice 180 ml Whisky bottles. On enquiry, the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed the offence. The accused also shown a wooden beeruva on the back side of his house, when they opened the beeruva we found 1) 24 Green Choice Whisky 180 ml.

bottles, 2) Royal Street 180 ml. Whisky 8 bottles, 3) Green Choice Whisky 750 ml. 1 bottle. In total 39 bottles were seized by the police from the accused. Later they had separated one bottle each from each brand for chemical analysis. Later the police pasted the signed slips on the seized

CC No.357/2021

6 property. The bottles were seized under the cover of mediators report scribed by PW.1 i.e. Ex.P1. Then they brought all the seized property along with accused to the police station. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

PW.6/M.V.Ramana, the then SI of Police, Achanta P.S. deposed that on 19-07-2021 at about 10.30 p.m. while he was present in the police station he received credible information about selling of Arrack on that he secured PW.1 and LW.2/mediators along with my staff proceeded to

Gavallagudem, H/o Penumanchili village at Door No.4-53 RCC building of

Veeramallu Banu. There one person having a bag in his hand in a suspicious manner and on seeing them he tried to escape on that they caught him and on enquiry the person revealed his identity particulars as accused in this case. On verifying, they found 6 bottles of Green Choice Whisky 180 ml.

bottles in his bag. The accused confessed that he is selling the bottles as per the confession under Ex.P1. Basing on his confession, the accused also shown 24 Green Choice Whisky 180 ml. bottles, Royal State Whisky 180 ml.

8 bottles, Green Choice Whisky 750 ml. 1 bottle, then they seized 39 bottles in total from the possession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P1. Then he had taken 1 bottle from each brand as sample for sending chemical analysis i.e. MOs. 1 to 3 under the cover of Ex.P1. Then they arrested and brought the accused along with seized property to the police station. He registered

FIR in Cr.No.242/2021 U/Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act i.e. Ex.P4. He sent the original FIR to all concerned officials. On 20-7-2021 they sent the accused for remand. Again he visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of PWs. 2 and 3, examined them and recorded their statements. PW.2 and 3

CC No.357/2021

7 stated before him as in Exs.P2 and P3. There he draw rough sketch i.e.

Ex.P5. He also examined and recorded the statements of LWs.5, 7 and PWs.

4 and 5. He sent letter of advice through SDPO, Narsapuram i.e. Ex.P6 is the letter of advice and received chemical analysis report i.e. Ex.P7. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

PW.7/B.S.D.R.Prasad, SI of Police, Achanta P.S. deposed that he obtained the destructions orders from S.P., West Godavari on 20.07.2022 i.e.

Ex.P8 (attested copy of destruction proceedings).

10. Now the point that germane for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence u/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT: To attract the offence u/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, the prosecution has to establish that “the accused in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed there under or of any license or permit, granted or issued under this Act:

(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant…..”

To establish the offence, the prosecution got examined PWs. 1 to 7 and got marked Exs. P1 to P8 and MOs.1 to 3.

PWs. 2 and 3/the independent witnesses turned hostile and their evidence is no way useful to the case of the prosecution except marking of

Exs.P2 and P3.

PW.1/the VRO stated that on 19.7.2021 at about 8-00 PM. He received a phone call from the SI of Police, Achanta P.S. to come to the police

CC No.357/2021

8 station, per contra PW.4/the Police Constable who participated in the raid stated that their SI received credible information on 19.7.2021 at about 10- 30 PM, surprisingly PW.5/the Head Constable who participated in the raid stated that their SI received credible information at about 12-30 AM on 19.7.2021, the SI who filed the charge sheet stated that he received credible information about the offence at about 10-30 PM on 19.7.2021 in such a case how PW.1/the VRO received information very much prior to the receipt of information to the SI was not established by the prosecution. Here the counsel for the accused vehemently argued that since no alleged offence had taken place hence there is no corroboration in between the prosecution witnesses as to the very receipt of information of the alleged offence being the official witnesses.

PW.1/the VRO who participated in the raid stated that he cannot say how much quantity of sample taken by the police and in his presence no enquiry made that from where the accused purchased the liquor bottles and in Ex.P1 it was not mentioned that it was scribed by whom, further in Ex.P1 except himself and his VRA none of the witnesses were signed. Thereby the very scribing of Ex.P1 by PW.1 is doubtful.

PWs.4 and 5/the constables who participated in the raid stated that upon the dictation of their SI, PW.1 scribed Ex.P1, thereby it is the contention of the learned defence counsel that the PW.1/VRO had not scribed

Ex.P1 independently and upon the dictation of the SI i.e. PW.6 he scribed the same. In such a case the very seizure of MOs. 1 to 3 under Ex.P1 is doubtful.

PW.6/the Investigating Officer though explained about the chronology of the case as to registering FIR under Ex.P4 basing on

CC No.357/2021

9

Ex.P1/mediators report and visiting the scene, drawn rough sketch under

Ex.P5, sending the sample under Ex.P6, obtaining the report under Ex.P7 in his chief examination whereas in his cross examination he stated that he cannot say the exact time when his staff secured the mediators. He had not obtained the signatures of any local inhabitants in Ex.P1 as already brought mediators with him. He admitted that who scribed Ex.P1 was not reflected in it. He had not collected the samples from all the seized bottles.

As seen from the record, except the evidence of PWs. 1, 4 to 7 who are official witnesses, there is no incriminating evidence of independent witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution.

According to Ex.P4/FIR, the defacto complainant is also the investigating officer of this case. In this context the learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

Here this Court relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

in G. Venkata Satyanarayana Raju Vs. State of A.P. by following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohan Lal’s case held that “a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of a fair trial, necessary postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person and justice must not only be done, must appear to be done also and the possibility of bias or a predetermined conclusion has to be excluded and thereby settled the law and set not the controversy stating that when the informant is the police officer that he cannot be investigating officer and if any investigation is conducted by him, it will be vitiated”.

CC No.357/2021

10

On this aspect the defence counsel rightly pointed that on the sole insufficient evidence of official witnesses, affects the very seizure of property from the possession of the Accused as admitted by PW.4 that even though he mentioned about the bag possessed by the Accused but he failed to seize the same to establish the possession of I.D liquor and it causes prejudice to the

Accused.

Here this court also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in

Bijender alias Mandaar Vs. State of Haryana (2022) 1 SCC 92 held that “in order to sustain the guilt of an accused, the recovery should be unimpeachable and not be shrouded with elements of doubt”. which is lacking in the present case.

11. Under these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish the seizure of MOs.1 to 3 from the possession of the accused as

PWs.2 and 3 who are independent witness turned hostile and the very seizure of MOs.1 to 3 under Ex.P1 which itself is doubtful, this Court hesitates to convict the accused that he committed the offence under Sec. 34

(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt.

12. In the light of my aforesaid discussion and in the light of PWs.1, 4 to 7 being the official witnesses were not convincing and consistent that where the accused exactly possess or sell the alleged Mos.1 to 3 and independent witness i.e. PWs.2 and 3 turned hostile, I have hesitation to hold the accused guilty for the offence u/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, he is acquitted

CC No.357/2021

11 u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MOs.1 to 3 sample liquor bottles (non-valuable) shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-Smt.P.Bhanu Sai,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Palakol.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For defence:

PW.1: D.N.Venkatachalam None PW.2: V.Venkateswarlu PW.3: A. Sivannarayana PW.4: G. Mohan Kumar PW.5: A. Thimma Raju PW.6: M.V.Ramana PW.7: B.S.D.R. Prasad

Documents marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Mediators report

Ex.P.2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Ex.P.3: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3

Ex.P.4: F.I.R. in Cr.No.242/2021

Ex.P.5: Rough sketch

Ex.P.6: Letter of advice to the Laboratory for Chemical Analysis

Ex.P.7: Chemical Analysis report

Ex.P.8: Attested copy of destruction proceedings

For Defence: Nil.

CC No.357/2021

12

Material objects marked

MOs.1 to 3: are the sample liquor bottles.

Id/-P.B.S.,

I AJCJ-CUM-I AJFCM,

Palakol

CC No.357/2021

13

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

Calendar and Judgment tried by the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakol.

Date of Report of ApprehenRelease CommencClosure Sentence Explanation for delay Offence complaint sion of on bailement of of trial of Order Accused trial Charges framed against the accused on 11.3.2022. Trial commenced on 19.7.202119.7.202120.7.2021 27.7.2021 21.3.2022 25.1.202317.4.2023 21.3.2022 trial concluded on 25.1.2023, hence no delay.

Judgment of Calendar Case in C.C.No:357/2021 on the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Palakol.

COMPLAINANT: The SHO of Achanta P.S.

Cr.NO.242/2021 of Achanta P.S.

Name of the accused with Age Religio Residence

father's Name. n 1 2 3 4 Veeramallu Chandra Sekhar, 22 Hindu Gamallagudem, S/o Bosu Penumanchili Village of Achanta Mandal.

Offence :u/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968

Finding : Accused is found not guilty for the offences u/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

Sentence:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MOs.1 to 3 sample liquor bottles (non-valuable) shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.P.Bhanu Sai,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Palakol.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PALAKOL

Present: Smt. P. Bhanu Sai, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge–cum-I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of IClass, Palakol.

Tuesday this the 18th day of April,2023.

O.S.75/2021

Between.

Nilla Dana Malleswara Rao, S/o Appa Rao, age 60 yrs, Male, Hindu, Retired Employee, Srirampeta, Palakol.

….. Plaintiff

And

1. Jupudi Anasuya, W/o late Jupudi Krishna Suman, 55 yrs, Female, Hindu, Inam, Brodipeta, 2nd Street, D.No.10-3-31,Near Raghavendra Swamy Tempel, Palakol, PPJCJC.

2. Jupudi Anuradha, W/o late Jupudi Krishna Suman, 39 yrs, Female, Hindu, Business, Brodipeta, 2nd Street, D.No.10-3-31,Near Raghavendra Swamy Tempel, Palakol, PPJCJC.

3. Jupudi Mouna Saraswathi, D/o late Jupudi Krishna Suman, 20 yrs, Female, Hindu, Student, Brodipeta, 2nd Street, D.No.10-3-31,Near Raghavendra Swamy Tempel, Palakol, PPJCJC.

….. Defendants

This suit coming on 18-04-2023 before me in the presence of Sri G.K.N.Simha, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri A.T.V.Das, advocate for the defendants 2 and 3 and the claim against D1 is dismissed, and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

PW.1 present and filed memo that matter is settled out of Court and prays to permit him to withdraw the suit and duly identified by his counsel. On considering the memo, the plaintiff is hereby permitted to withdraw the suit in the interest of justice and to save the valuable time of Court.

Accordingly, suit is dismissed as withdrawn by plaintiff.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 18 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-Smt.P.Bhanu Sai,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of IClass Palakol.

(No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side)

Id/-P.B.S., I A.J.C.J-cum-I AJFCM PKL

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-I ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PALAKOL.

Present: Smt. P. Bhanu Sai, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge–Cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of IClass, Palakol. Friday this the 21st day of April, 2023

C.C.99/2019

Between.

Sri Surya Finance, Palakol, Rep.by its Proprietor Repuri Suryanarayana, S/o Mariyya, age 53 yrs, Male, Hindu,

Business, Palakol ….. Complainant.

And

Mallula Sai Baba, S/o Ramakrishna, age 39 yrs, Male, Hindu, Kothapet, Gummaluru,

Poduru Mandal. ….. Accused.

The complainant prays to punish the accused for the offence Under Section 138 and 142 of NI Act.

This petition coming on 21-04-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. M. Venkata Rama Reddy, Advocate for complainant, and Sri B.S.R.Murthy, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Complainant present. Accused present. Copies furnished to the accused.

Later complainant filed petition U/Sec. 257 Cr.P.C. which is identified by his counsel and prays to permit him to withdraw his complaint as accused paid entire cheque amount.

Considering the same as sufficient ground, in the interest of justice, complainant is hereby permitted to withdraw the complaint, accordingly the accused is acquitted.

Pronounced by me in open court on this the 21 st day of April, 2023.

Sd/-Smt.P.Bhanu Sai,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of IClass Palakol.

(No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side)

Id/-P.B.S., I A.J.C.J-cum-I AJFCM, PKL.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PALAKOL

Present: Smt. P. Bhanu Sai, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge–cum-I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of IClass, Palakol.

Tuesday this the 18th day of April,2023.

O.S.21/2023

Between.

Devarapu Venkateswara Rao, S/o Rama Rao, age 54 yrs, Male, Hindu, Business, D.No.33-1-23/9,C/o Mutyala Manikyala Rao, Borravari Street, Atchugatla palem, Palakol, PJCJC.

….. Plaintiff

And

Smt. Ganta Rangaveni, W/o Ravi, age 50 yrs, Hindu, Female, Chit Fund Business, Nearest D.No.23-04-16/3, Adapa Kondayyagari Layout, Side road of Govt. Hospital, Bangaruvari Cheruvugattu, Palakol, PJCJC.

….. Defendant

This suit coming on 18-04-2023 before me in the presence of Sri P.D.S.V.Balaji, Advocate for the Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff is present and filed memo to withdraw the suit in view of case is settled out of Court and prays to permit him to withdraw the suit, hence the plaintiff is hereby permitted to withdraw the suit in the interest of justice and to save the valuable time of Court.

Accordingly, suit is dismissed as withdrawn by plaintiff and identified by his counsel.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 18 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-Smt.P.Bhanu Sai,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of IClass Palakol.

(No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side)

Id/-P.B.S., I A.J.C.J-cum-I AJFCM PKL