Sri P. Jagannadharao

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

C.C. 220/2015

Date of offence : 18-05-2012

Date of report/Complaint : 18-05-2012

Date of apprehension of accused : 19-05-2012 (by Police) Date of appearance of the accused : 16-05-2013

Date of commencement of trial : 16-02-2016

Date of close of trial : 04-10-2016

Date of sentence on order : 05-10-2016

Explanation for delay/Remarks : Due to Non-production of accused and witness from time to time by police, as such there is a delay.

Name of the Complainant : State, Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Anandapuram Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the Accused: Peram Veerayya, S/o.late Bhikslu, age 56 yrs, Gowda by caste,

R/o.Bavulapadu, Hanuman Jn., Vijayawada,

Krishna Dist.

Offence:-

Sec 304-A of IPC: Caused death due to rash and negligent 134 A&B M.V.Act driving.

Sentence:-

In the result, both the accused acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

for the offence under section 304-A of IPC 134 A&B M.V.Act. The accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and that of his sureties shall stands canceled.

Spl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

2

IN THE COURT OF SPL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE'S COURT, BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Present: Sri P.Jagannadha Rao., M.Com.,B.L.,

C.C No.220/2015

Friday, the 5th day of October - 2016.

Between: State, Represented by Sub Inspector of

Police, Anandapuram Traffic Police Station,

Visakhapatnam City.

... Complainant.

And

Peram Veerayya, S/o.late Bhikslu, age 56 yrs, Gowda by caste,

R/o.Bavulapadu, Hanuman Jn., Vijayawada,

Krishna Dist.

... Accused.

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of

Smt. S.Ramanamma, Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. K.Murali

Krishna, advocate for the accused and of 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, Anandapuram Police station, filed charge sheet on the file of learned IV MM Court, Bheemili for the offence under section 304-A of IPC in Cr.No.61/13, submitting that on 18-05-2012 morning the deceased (D1) Sagi Krishna Murthy Raju left Cheepurupalli to go to Nadhyala for business by car AP-31-BE-6867 along with car driver and another known person and they proceeding on SH-38 Ananadapuram – Sontyam road and when reached

Mamidilova Kunchalamma, Bangaramma temples, in their opposite direction the lorry bearing No.AP-TV-0547 driven by accused driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car AP-31-BE-6867 resulted the car fell into left side low gradient slope, later the crime vehicle lorry fallen over the car with speed as a result the driver of the car Buthala Chinna Rao (D2) and the inmate of car

Pathivada Laxmana Rao (D3) died at the spot with injuries and the remaining 3 inmate of car Sagi Krishnamurthy Raju (D1) sustained grievous head injury and died on the way to Hospital, while shifting by 108 Ambulance. The accused driver of lorry AP-16-TV-0547 is responsible for the death of the deceased (D1 to D3) and etc. On 18-05-2012 at 11.30 hours,

Basing on the report to PW-1 by PW-9 who registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.79/12 for the offence under section 304-A of IPC of Anandapuram P.S and

U.Sekhar Babu (LW-35) took up personal investigation.

My learned predecessor taken on file for the offence under section 304-A of

IPC .

After apprehension of the accused, copies of documents on which the prosecution relied on, were furnished to the accused, as required under sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

In the meanwhile, this case was transferred from learned IV Metropolitan

Magistrate's Court, Bheemunipatnam to this Court as per the proceedings of

Hon'ble District Judge, Visakhapatnam in Dis No. 10222, dated 31-12-2014, for

disposal according to law.

After apperance of the accused in this court, the accused was examined u/sec 251 Cr.P.C He denied the truth of prosecution case and claims to be tried.

The prosecution examined PW1 to 28 and marked Ex.P1 to P11.

Prosecution evidence is closed. Examination of accused u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the truth of prosecution evidence. Reported no defence. Defence side evidence is closed.

Heard arguments of both sides. Posted for Judgment.

Now, the point for consideration arises is “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sec.304-A of IPC.

To establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PWs 1 to PW28.

PW-1 S.Appalanarasimha Raju states that the deceased Kirshna Murthy

Raju was his father, met with an accident occurred at Ananadapuram to Sontayam 4 road, near Kunchalamma, Bangaramma temples. His father informed him over phone that they started at Cheepurupalli, by the time they reached Anandapuram road. They told him that he was proceeding to Nandyala on timber work, by the time they reached Sontayam he met with an accident. One Mutyalu informed him over phone about the accident. That one lorry trailer came at high speed, rash and negligently and dashed his father. His father along with two persons died. Car driver Chinnarao, his father's assistant died on the spot. He saw the accused at the time of his visit to scene of offence. Accused is driver of crime vehicle lorry. He saw the accused for fifteen minutes. He was not present at the time of accident. He gave Ex.P1 report to police. He was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of his father S.Krishna Murthy Raju. I signed Ex.P2 inquest report after knowing its contents. He had not mentioned about the presence of accused in the scene of offence by the time of his visit, in Ex.P1 or also 161 statement. He visited the scene of offence. As such his evidence is inconsistence, untrustworthy.

PW-2 S.Srinivasa Raju states that he was not present at the time of accident occurred to his uncle S.Krishna murthy Raju. He along with PW-1 met him at Anandapuram. Within fifteen minutes thereafter, PW-1 received phone call about the accident. PW-1 informed him about the accident. His uncle and another two persons died in the accident.

PW-3 D.Mutyalu states that he saw the accused on the date of accident.

One lorry and car colluded together. He was at his village, at the time of accident. He noticed car and lorry fallen in the river and two persons died on the spot. Another person died on the way to hospital. He never saw the lorry driver.

Car driver died on the spot.

PW-4 K.Appalasuryanarayana states that he was present at the time of observation of scene. One lorry dashed car, and both vehicles are there at the scene of offence. One person died, another person died on the way to hospital.

Car is in gedda, lorry was on the open place. Scene of observation report. He 5 signed Ex.P3 observation report after knowing its contents.

PW-5 B.Narayana Swami states that he was in Cheepurupalli. He never saw the accident. One lorry came at high speed, rash and negligently and dashed the car, as a result three persons died in the accident. Immediately he rushed to the scene of offence. His brother was died in the spot.

PW-6 K.Shankar states that the accident occurred at in between Sontyam and Anandapuram. One lorry came and dashed the car, as a result the car fell in to ditch. Three persons died at various stage. Immediately he rushed to the scene of offence. By the time he reached the scene three persons taken to hospital, on the way, they died. He never saw the driver.

PW-7 M.Lakshmanarao states that the two persons died on the spot. As a result two persons died lorry and car accident.

PW-8 M.G.Rama Krishna states that he was present at the time of observation of scene situated at Mamidilova, Kunchalamma, Bangaramma temples. Two dead bodies were there in the car, they were picked up. He signed

Ex.P3 scene of observation report after knowing its contents.

PW-9 Ch.Lakshmanarao states that he registered the same as FIR in

Cr.No.79/12 for the offence under section 304-A of IPC. Original FIR Ex.P4.

submitted to Hon'ble IV MM Court, Bheemili. He observed the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P5 Rough Sketch. That the deceased died due to lorry and car accident. Inspector of Police, took up further investigation.

PW-10 U.Suryanarayana states that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of S.Krishna Murthy raju, the son of deceased Appala narasinga Raju informed him over phone about the accident. He along with others were present at the time of inquest. He opinioned that the deceased as a result of lorry accident. He signed Ex.P2 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-11 D.Srinivasa Raju states that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of S.Krishna Murthy Raju. He along with others were present 6 at the time of inquest. That the deceased died as a result of lorry accident. He signed Ex.P2 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-12 P.Tatayyalu states that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of S.Krishna Murthy Raju. He along with others were present at the time of inquest. That the deceased Krishna Murthy Raju died as a result of lorry accident. He signed Ex.P2 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-13 P.Manmada Rao states that the deceased was his younger brother died in the acident. He was not present at the time of accident. Immediately he reached the scene of offence. By the time he reached the scene of offence his brother is no more. Later the dead body of his brother was brought to

Govt.Hospital, CHC, Bheemili. He was present at the time of inquest along with others. His brother died as a result of lorry accident.

PW-14 S.Pydithalli states that he was present at the time of accident. He was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of Laxman Rao. As a result of lorry accident.

PW-15 K.Appanna states that he was present the time of inquest over the dead body of Ramakrishna Raju. He along with others were present at the time of inquest. That the deceased died as a result of lorry accident. He signed Ex.P2 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-16 M.Yellaji states that one S.Krishna Murthy Raju died in the accident.

He was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of S.Krishna Murthy

Raju. He along with PW-10,PW-12 others were present at the time of inquest.

That the deceased Krishna Murthy Raju died as a result of car accident.

PW-17 G.Srinu states that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of B.Chinna. He along with K.Kasi, Prakash others were present at the time of inquest. That the deceased China died as a result of car and lorry accident.He signed Ex.P4 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-18 B.Prakash states that he present at the time of inquest over the dead body of B.Chinna. He along with PW-17, M.Kasi others were present at the 7 time of inquest. That the deceased Chinna died as a result of car and container lorry accident. He signed Ex.P4 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-19 M.Kasivieswara Rao states that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of B.Chinna. He along with PW-17,PW-18 others were present at the time of inquest. He signed Ex.P4 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-20 J.Ravi Raju states that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of deceased Laxmanarao. He along with J.Appala Naidu,

J.Adinarayana others were present at the time of inquest That the deceased died as result of lorry accident. He signed Ex.P3 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-21 J.Appalanaidu states that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of deceased Laxmanarao. He along with PW-20,J.adinarayana,

Srinu others were present at the time of inquest. He signed Ex.P3 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-22 J.Adinarayana states that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of deceased Laxmanarao. He along with PW-20, PW-21, Srinu others were present at the time of inquest. He signed Ex.P3 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-23 G.Srinu states that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of deceased Laxmanarao. He along with PW-20, PW-21 others were present at the time inquest. That the deceased died as a result of car accident.

He signed Ex.P3 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-24 A.H.Khan states that he inspected the crime vehicle at the scene of offence, crime vehicle number is AP-16-TV-0547 (HGV) and another vehicle AP- 31-BE-6867 car and he founds the HGV vehicle five damages and car vehicle eleven damages. He verified the break conditions of both the vehicles and found break system is good condition. He opinioned that the accident was due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. He issued Ex.P6 inspection report.

PW-25 Dr.P.V.V.Yogitha Bala states that he conducted PME over the dead body of P.Laxmanarao and found three injures. He opinioned that the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. He issued Ex.P7 PME report. That he conducted PME over the dead body of S.Krishna Murthy Raju and found the three injures. He opinioned that the deceased died of shock and hemmorahage due to multiple injuries. He issued Ex.P8 PME report. The dead body of B.Chinnarao and found two injuries. He opinioned that the deceased died of shock of hemmorrahage due to multiple injuries. He issued Ex.P9 PME report.

PW-26 P.Raja Rao states that he was present at the time of inquest over 8 the dead body of B.Chinna Rao. He along with others were present at the time of inquest. That the deceased Chinnarao died as a result of car accident. He signed

Ex.P4 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-27 G.Kanaka Raju states that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of Chinnarao. He along with others were present at the time of inquest. That the deceased died as a result of car accident. He signed Ex.P2 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-28 G.Venkatarao states that he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in their present. That the deceased Laxmanarao died as a result of lorry accident. After receipt of PME report and other material, SI filed charge sheet.

It is a summary in nature, detailed discussion not necessary.

As seen from the above evidence, t is very clear that accident occurred to three persons and died in the accident at Kunchalamma, Bangaramma temples.

One car and lorry fallen in the river and two persons died on the spot. Another person died on the way to hospital. As a result of lorry accident. None of the witnesses stated about the rash and negligent driving on the part of accused and commission of the offence. Accused drove the vehicle came at high speed, rash and negligently and caused the accident. It is for the prosecution to produce evidence which must be clear, consistent, inspiring, cogent and reliable. It is for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. As the prosecution fails to bring home the guilt of the accused.

It is very clear that the prosecution fails establish the guilt of accused. As the prosecution fails to bring material witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such the accused is entitled for clean acquittal.

In the result the accused is acquitted u/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence under section 304-A, of IPC and the accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands canceled.

Dictated to IInd Typist, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the Open Court, this the 5th day of October – 2016.

Spl. J.F.C.Magistrate,

Bheemunipatnam.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:-

PW1/ S.Appalanarasimha raju PW2/ S.Srinivasu Raju PW3/ D.Mutyalu PW4/ K.Appalasuryanarayana PW5/ B.Narayanaswamy PW6/ K.Shakar PW7/ M.Lakshman Rao PW8/ M.G.Rama Krishna PW9/ Ch.Laxmana Rao PW10/U.Suryanarayana PW11/D.Srinivas Rao PW12/ P.Tatayalu PW13/P.Manmada Rao PW14/S.Padithalli PW15/K.Appanna PW16/M.Yellaji PW17/G.Srinu PW18/B.Prakash PW19/M.Kasi PW20/J.Ravi Raju PW21/J.Appala Naidu PW22/J.Adinarayana PW23/G.Srinu PW24/A.H.Khan PW25/Dr.P.V.V.N.Yogitha Bala PW26/P.Raja Rao PW27/G.Kanaka Raju PW28/G.Venkata Rao

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE; NONE. EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1/ Report by PW-1 Ex.P2/ Inquest by PW-1 Ex.P3/ Scene of observation by PW-4 Ex.P4/ FIR by PW-9 Ex.P5/ Rough Sketch by PW-9 Ex.P6/ M.V.I report by PW-24 Ex.P7/ P.M.E report D3 by PW-25 Ex.P8/ P.M.E report D1 by PW-25 Ex.P9/ P.M.E report D2 by PW-25

Spl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

10

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

C.C. 274/2015

Date of offence : 07-03-2013

Date of report/Complaint : 08-03-2011

Date of apprehension of accused : 12-03-2013 (by Police) Date of appearance of the accused : 13-09-2013

Date of commencement of trial : 07-04-2016

Date of close of trial : 27-09-2016

Date of sentence on order : 03-10-2016

Explanation for delay/Remarks : Due to Non-production of accused and witness from time to time by police, as such there is a delay.

Name of the Complainant : State, Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, P.M Palem Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the Accused: Dalli Raju, S/o.Somulu, age 22 yrs, Reddy,

R/O Thotagaruvu, B.N.R.Nagar, Arilova,

Visakhapatnam City.

Offence:-

Sec 304-A of IPC: Caused death due to rash and negligent driving.

Sentence:-

In the result, both the accused acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

for the offence under section 304-A of IPC. The accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and that of his sureties shall stands canceled.

Spl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

2

IN THE COURT OF SPL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE'S COURT, BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Present: Sri P.Jagannadha Rao., M.Com.,B.L.,

C.C No.274/2015

Friday, the 3rd day of October - 2016.

Between: State, Represented by Sub Inspector of

Police, P.M.Palem Traffic Police Station,

Visakhapatnam City.

... Complainant.

And

Dalli Raju, S/o.Somulu, age 22 yrs, Reddy,

R/O Thotagaruvu, B.N.R.Nagar, Arilova,

Visakhapatnam City.

... Accused.

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of

Smt. S.Ramanamma, Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. K.Murali

Krishna advocate for the accused and of 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, P.M. Palem Police station, filed charge sheet on the file of learned IV MM Court, Bheemili for the offence under section 304-A of

IPC in Cr.No.87/13, submitting that on 07-03-2013 evening at about 6.50p.m, the deceased Gorusu Narisinga Rao, along with PW-1, being rider and pillion rider of a

Hero Glamour Motorbike AP-31-CC-6683, proceeding from Veldurthi village of

Pusapatirega to Visakhapatnam on NH-16 road and when reached opposite to cricket Stadium at P.M.Palem, the accused being driver of a Car AP-31-AC-0036 drove the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, while proceeding on same direction and dashed the motorbike from its behind, for which both the rider and pillion rider fell on the road along with their motorbike, resulted the deceased rider of motorbike has sustained head injury, while PW-1 survived from no injures. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to KGH, where he was succumbed to his injuries on 08-03-2013 at 20.30 hours, while undergoing 3 medical treatment and thereby the accused committed the above offence.

Basing on the report PW-1 who registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.87/13 for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and investigated into.

My learned predecessor taken on file for the offence under section 304-A, of IPC .

After apprehension of the accused, copies of documents on which the prosecution relied on, were furnished to the accused, as required under sec. 207 of Cr.P.C, he was examined u/sec 251 Cr.P.C He denied the truth of prosecution case and claims to be tried.

In the meanwhile, this case was transferred from learned IV Metropolitan

Magistrate's Court, Bheemunipatnam to this Court as per the proceedings of

Hon'ble District Judge, Visakhapatnam in Dis No. 10222, dated 31-12-2014, for

disposal according to law.

After apperance of the accused in this court, the accused was examined u/sec 251 Cr.P.C He denied the truth of prosecution case and claims to be tried.

The prosecution examined PW1 to 11 and marked Ex.P1 to P8. Prosecution evidence is closed. Examination of accused u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C he denied the truth of prosecution evidence. Reported no defence. Defence side evidence is closed.

Heard arguments of both sides. Posted for Judgment.

Now, the point for consideration arises is “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sec.304-A of IPC.

To establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PWs 1 to PW11.

PW-1 Gorusu Kondamma states that she was present at the time of accident. She know the accused who is the driver of accident vehicle. Herself and her husband proceeding on a motor cycle, the accused came in a car on her behind and dashed their vehicle. Her husband received head injury. Her husband pushed about 8 feet, later he died. The accused came at high speed, rash and negligently and caused the accident. The accused stopped the car at the instance 4 of persons who gathered there. She saw the accused for five minutes, later she became semi conscious and reached her husband after five minutes, by then he was alive. She gave Ex.P1 report to police. After death of her husband she gave

Ex.P2 report to police. She was present at the time of inquest and signed Ex.P2 inquest report after knowing its contents.

During the course of cross she gave Ex.P1 report on the same day night.

Immediately after dash, she had fallen on one side, her husband fallen on another side, then she came to know about the accident. After the accident. She saw the accident. Several vehicles stopped there after the accident. One P.Ravi

LW-2 was not friend of her husband. Her husband was having driving license.

She hand over vehicle license and other papers to police. She signed Ex.P2 after drafted by police. She does not know the contents of Ex.P1,P2. The distance between Sivajipalem to Pusapatirega is about 60 kilometers. Accident occurred at Cricket Stadium, P.M.Palem. There is one shop at the scene of offence. As a result her husband could not control the vehicle.

PW-2 B.Guruvulu states that he never saw the accused at any time. His son-in-law Narasingarao met with an accident and died. PW-1 informed him over phone about the accident. He visited KGH and saw his son-in-law Narasingarao.

He was not present at the time of accident. He was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of his son-in-law, but he had not signed Ex.P3 inquest report. He along with Meesala Nookaraju and others were present at the time of inquest. The deceased his son-in-law died as a result of car accident.

PW-3 Dr.V.Chandra Sekhar states that he conducted PME over the dead body of Narasingarao, and found 18 anti mortum injuries mentioned in Ex.P4 PME report. Injuries 5 to 8 are grievous in nature. He opinioned that the deceased died due to head injury associated with other injuries.

PW-4 B.Nageswara Rao states that he was not present at the time of observation of scene. He signed Ex.P5 observation report.

PW-5 M.Rama Rao states that he was not present at the time of observation 5 of scene of offence. He signed Ex.P5 observation report. He signed Ex.P3 observation report at KGH.

PW-6 A.Gopal Krishna states that he was not present at the time of accident. The accused joined in their mechanical work shop. He left for Kakinada on the date of accident, he cannot say on which date he left for Kakinada. His vehicle was involved in the accident. His vehicle I.e, Indica car number is AP-31-

AC-36.

PW-7 M.Nooka Raju states that he had no acquaintance with the accused.

He had no knowledge about the accident. He was not present at the time of accident. One Narasingarao died in the accident.

PW-8 P.Seshuvulu states that he had no acquaintance with the accused. He was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of Narasingarao. He signed Ex.P3 inquest report after knowing its contents. He along with others were present at the time of inquest. The deceased Narasingarao died as a result of accident.

PW-9 G.Venkateswara Rao states that he never saw the accused at any time. He was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of Narasingarao.

He signed Ex.P3 inquest report after knowing its contents. He along with others were present at the time of inquest over the dead body of Narasinga Rao. The deceased died as a result of car accident.

PW-10 R.Srinivasa Rao states that he registered the same as FIR in

Cr.No.87/13 for the offence under section 304-Aof IPC. Original FIR submitted to

Hon'ble IV MM Court, Bheemili. He observed the scene of offence and prepared

Ex.P6 Printed F.I.R, Ex.P7 Rough Sketch in the presence of the above mediators.

PW-11 R.Ch.Srinivas states that he inspected the crime vehicle bearing

No.AP-31-AC-0036 and found one damage i.e., rear mud guard damaged. He conducted upon road test and found break system are efficient and even action.

He opinioned that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. He issued Ex.P8 inspection report.

6

On perusal of evidence except PW-1 none were stated about the accident.

She stated in chief examination, she saw the accused at the time of accident. But she stated in cross examination. The deceased died as a result of car accident.

By the time she reached the scene of offence the accused came at high speed, rash and negligently and caused the accident. The accused stopped the car at the instance of persons who gathered there. She saw the accused for five minutes, later she became semi conscious and reached her husband after five minutes, by then he was alive. Hence, her evidence can't be relied upon. As such prosecution not established the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution fails to bring home the guilt of the accused by producing clear, consistent, trustworthy, cogent, inspiring evidence. As such the accused is entitled for clean acquittal.

It is a summary in nature, detailed discussion not necessary.

In the result the accused is acquitted u/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and the accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands canceled.

Dictated to II nd Typist, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the Open Court, this the 3rd day of October – 2016.

Spl.J.F.C.Magistrate Bheemunipatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:- PW1/ G.Kondamma PW2/ Guruvulu PW3/ Dr.V.Ch.Sekhar PW4/ B.Nageswara Rao PW5/ M.Rama Rao PW6/ A.Gopala Krishna PW7/ M.Nooka Raju PW8/ P.Seshavulu PW9/ G.Venkatswarao PW10/ R.Srinivasa Rao PW11/ R.Ch.Srinivas WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE; NONE. EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1/ Report by PW-1 Ex.P2/ Report by PW-1 Ex.P3/ Inquest report by PW-2 Ex.P4/ PME by PW-3 Ex.P5/ Scene observation by PW-4 Ex.P6/ F.I.R by PW-11 Ex.P7/ Rough Sketch by PW-10 Ex.P8/ M.V.I by PW-11

Spl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

7

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

C.C. 274/2015

Date of offence : 07-03-2013

Date of report/Complaint : 08-03-2011

Date of apprehension of accused : 12-03-2013 (by Police) Date of appearance of the accused : 13-09-2013

Date of commencement of trial : 07-04-2016

Date of close of trial : 27-09-2016

Date of sentence on order : 03-10-2016

Explanation for delay/Remarks : Due to Non-production of accused and witness from time to time by police, as such there is a delay.

Name of the Complainant : State, Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, P.M Palem Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the Accused: Dalli Raju, S/o.Somulu, age 22 yrs, Reddy,

R/O Thotagaruvu, B.N.R.Nagar, Arilova,

Visakhapatnam City.

Offence:-

Sec 304-A of IPC: Caused death due to rash and negligent driving.

Sentence:-

In the result, both the accused acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

for the offence under section 304-A of IPC. The accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and that of his sureties shall stands canceled.

Spl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

2

IN THE COURT OF SPL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE'S COURT, BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Present: Sri P.Jagannadha Rao., M.Com.,B.L.,

C.C No.274/2015

Friday, the 3rd day of October - 2016.

Between: State, Represented by Sub Inspector of

Police, P.M.Palem Traffic Police Station,

Visakhapatnam City.

... Complainant.

And

Dalli Raju, S/o.Somulu, age 22 yrs, Reddy,

R/O Thotagaruvu, B.N.R.Nagar, Arilova,

Visakhapatnam City.

... Accused.

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of

Smt. S.Ramanamma, Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. K.Murali

Krishna advocate for the accused and of 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, P.M. Palem Police station, filed charge sheet on the file of learned IV MM Court, Bheemili for the offence under section 304-A of

IPC in Cr.No.87/13, submitting that on 07-03-2013 evening at about 6.50p.m, the deceased Gorusu Narisinga Rao, along with PW-1, being rider and pillion rider of a

Hero Glamour Motorbike AP-31-CC-6683, proceeding from Veldurthi village of

Pusapatirega to Visakhapatnam on NH-16 road and when reached opposite to cricket Stadium at P.M.Palem, the accused being driver of a Car AP-31-AC-0036 drove the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, while proceeding on same direction and dashed the motorbike from its behind, for which both the rider and pillion rider fell on the road along with their motorbike, resulted the deceased rider of motorbike has sustained head injury, while PW-1 survived from no injures. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to KGH, where he was succumbed to his injuries on 08-03-2013 at 20.30 hours, while undergoing 3 medical treatment and thereby the accused committed the above offence.

Basing on the report PW-1 who registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.87/13 for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and investigated into.

My learned predecessor taken on file for the offence under section 304-A, of IPC .

After apprehension of the accused, copies of documents on which the prosecution relied on, were furnished to the accused, as required under sec. 207 of Cr.P.C, he was examined u/sec 251 Cr.P.C He denied the truth of prosecution case and claims to be tried.

In the meanwhile, this case was transferred from learned IV Metropolitan

Magistrate's Court, Bheemunipatnam to this Court as per the proceedings of

Hon'ble District Judge, Visakhapatnam in Dis No. 10222, dated 31-12-2014, for

disposal according to law.

After apperance of the accused in this court, the accused was examined u/sec 251 Cr.P.C He denied the truth of prosecution case and claims to be tried.

The prosecution examined PW1 to 11 and marked Ex.P1 to P8. Prosecution evidence is closed. Examination of accused u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C he denied the truth of prosecution evidence. Reported no defence. Defence side evidence is closed.

Heard arguments of both sides. Posted for Judgment.

Now, the point for consideration arises is “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sec.304-A of IPC.

To establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PWs 1 to PW11.

PW-1 Gorusu Kondamma states that she was present at the time of accident. She know the accused who is the driver of accident vehicle. Herself and her husband proceeding on a motor cycle, the accused came in a car on her behind and dashed their vehicle. Her husband received head injury. Her husband pushed about 8 feet, later he died. The accused came at high speed, rash and negligently and caused the accident. The accused stopped the car at the instance 4 of persons who gathered there. She saw the accused for five minutes, later she became semi conscious and reached her husband after five minutes, by then he was alive. She gave Ex.P1 report to police. After death of her husband she gave

Ex.P2 report to police. She was present at the time of inquest and signed Ex.P2 inquest report after knowing its contents.

During the course of cross she gave Ex.P1 report on the same day night.

Immediately after dash, she had fallen on one side, her husband fallen on another side, then she came to know about the accident. After the accident. She saw the accident. Several vehicles stopped there after the accident. One P.Ravi

LW-2 was not friend of her husband. Her husband was having driving license.

She hand over vehicle license and other papers to police. She signed Ex.P2 after drafted by police. She does not know the contents of Ex.P1,P2. The distance between Sivajipalem to Pusapatirega is about 60 kilometers. Accident occurred at Cricket Stadium, P.M.Palem. There is one shop at the scene of offence. As a result her husband could not control the vehicle.

PW-2 B.Guruvulu states that he never saw the accused at any time. His son-in-law Narasingarao met with an accident and died. PW-1 informed him over phone about the accident. He visited KGH and saw his son-in-law Narasingarao.

He was not present at the time of accident. He was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of his son-in-law, but he had not signed Ex.P3 inquest report. He along with Meesala Nookaraju and others were present at the time of inquest. The deceased his son-in-law died as a result of car accident.

PW-3 Dr.V.Chandra Sekhar states that he conducted PME over the dead body of Narasingarao, and found 18 anti mortum injuries mentioned in Ex.P4 PME report. Injuries 5 to 8 are grievous in nature. He opinioned that the deceased died due to head injury associated with other injuries.

PW-4 B.Nageswara Rao states that he was not present at the time of observation of scene. He signed Ex.P5 observation report.

PW-5 M.Rama Rao states that he was not present at the time of observation 5 of scene of offence. He signed Ex.P5 observation report. He signed Ex.P3 observation report at KGH.

PW-6 A.Gopal Krishna states that he was not present at the time of accident. The accused joined in their mechanical work shop. He left for Kakinada on the date of accident, he cannot say on which date he left for Kakinada. His vehicle was involved in the accident. His vehicle I.e, Indica car number is AP-31-

AC-36.

PW-7 M.Nooka Raju states that he had no acquaintance with the accused.

He had no knowledge about the accident. He was not present at the time of accident. One Narasingarao died in the accident.

PW-8 P.Seshuvulu states that he had no acquaintance with the accused. He was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of Narasingarao. He signed Ex.P3 inquest report after knowing its contents. He along with others were present at the time of inquest. The deceased Narasingarao died as a result of accident.

PW-9 G.Venkateswara Rao states that he never saw the accused at any time. He was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of Narasingarao.

He signed Ex.P3 inquest report after knowing its contents. He along with others were present at the time of inquest over the dead body of Narasinga Rao. The deceased died as a result of car accident.

PW-10 R.Srinivasa Rao states that he registered the same as FIR in

Cr.No.87/13 for the offence under section 304-Aof IPC. Original FIR submitted to

Hon'ble IV MM Court, Bheemili. He observed the scene of offence and prepared

Ex.P6 Printed F.I.R, Ex.P7 Rough Sketch in the presence of the above mediators.

PW-11 R.Ch.Srinivas states that he inspected the crime vehicle bearing

No.AP-31-AC-0036 and found one damage i.e., rear mud guard damaged. He conducted upon road test and found break system are efficient and even action.

He opinioned that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. He issued Ex.P8 inspection report.

6

On perusal of evidence except PW-1 none were stated about the accident.

She stated in chief examination, she saw the accused at the time of accident. But she stated in cross examination. The deceased died as a result of car accident.

By the time she reached the scene of offence the accused came at high speed, rash and negligently and caused the accident. The accused stopped the car at the instance of persons who gathered there. She saw the accused for five minutes, later she became semi conscious and reached her husband after five minutes, by then he was alive. Hence, her evidence can't be relied upon. As such prosecution not established the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution fails to bring home the guilt of the accused by producing clear, consistent, trustworthy, cogent, inspiring evidence. As such the accused is entitled for clean acquittal.

It is a summary in nature, detailed discussion not necessary.

In the result the accused is acquitted u/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and the accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands canceled.

Dictated to II nd Typist, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the Open Court, this the 3rd day of October – 2016.

Spl.J.F.C.Magistrate Bheemunipatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:- PW1/ G.Kondamma PW2/ Guruvulu PW3/ Dr.V.Ch.Sekhar PW4/ B.Nageswara Rao PW5/ M.Rama Rao PW6/ A.Gopala Krishna PW7/ M.Nooka Raju PW8/ P.Seshavulu PW9/ G.Venkatswarao PW10/ R.Srinivasa Rao PW11/ R.Ch.Srinivas WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE; NONE. EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1/ Report by PW-1 Ex.P2/ Report by PW-1 Ex.P3/ Inquest report by PW-2 Ex.P4/ PME by PW-3 Ex.P5/ Scene observation by PW-4 Ex.P6/ F.I.R by PW-11 Ex.P7/ Rough Sketch by PW-10 Ex.P8/ M.V.I by PW-11

Spl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

7

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

C.C. 211/2015

Date of offence : 05-11-2011

Date of report/Complaint : 06-11-2011

Date of apprehension of accused : 08-11-2011 (by Police) Date of appearance of the accused : 29-07-2013

Date of commencement of trial : 18-02-2016

Date of close of trial : 04-10-2016

Date of sentence on order : 07-10-2016

Explanation for delay/Remarks : Due to Non-production of accused and witness from time to time by police, as such there is a delay.

Name of the Complainant : State, Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the Accused: Thamatapu Laxmi Naga Sanyasi Naidu @

Naidu, S/o.Arasavalli, age 35 yrs, K.Velama by caste, Tanavaram (v), Jami (M),

Vizianagaram Dist.

Offence:-

Sec 304-A of IPC: Caused death due to rash and negligent driving.

Sentence:-

In the result, both the accused acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

for the offence under section 304-A, 337 of IPC. The accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and that of his sureties shall stands canceled.

Spl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

2

IN THE COURT OF SPL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE'S COURT, BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Present: Sri P.Jagannadha Rao., M.Com.,B.L.,

C.C No.211/2015

Friday, the 7th day of October - 2016.

Between: State, Represented by Sub Inspector of

Police, Anandapuram Police Station,

Visakhapatnam City.

... Complainant.

And

Thamatapu Laxmi Naga Sanyasi Naidu @

Naidu, S/o.Arasavalli, age 35 yrs, K.Velama by caste, Tanavaram (v), Jami (M),

Vizianagaram Dist.

... Accused.

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of

Smt. S.Ramanamma, Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. T.Srinivasa

Rao advocate for the accused and of 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, Anandapuram Police station, filed charge sheet on the file of learned IV MM Court, Bheemili for the offence under section 304-

A,338 of IPC in Cr.No.145/11, submitting that on 05-11-2011 night at about 21.30 hours, the son of PW-1 and PW-3 were going to Tagarapuvalasa on motor cycle AP-31-H-4728 of PW-2, and when they reached ply-over bridge,

Anandapuram, the accused driver of APSRTC hire bus AP-35-U-8333 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle AP-31-H-4728 as a result of which the rider of motor cycle Panthala Suresh died at the spot with fatal injuries and the pillion rider PW-3 sustained grievous injuries. PW-3 informed the same to PW-1 and etc.,

Basing on the report to PW-1 by PW-12 who registered the same as a case in Cr.No.145/11 for the offence under section 304-A, 338 of IPC and investigated 3 into.

My learned predecessor taken on file for the offence under section 304-A of

IPC .

After apprehension of the accused, copies of documents on which the prosecution relied on, were furnished to the accused, as required under sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

In the meanwhile, this case was transferred from learned IV Metropolitan

Magistrate's Court, Bheemunipatnam to this Court as per the proceedings of

Hon'ble District Judge, Visakhapatnam in Dis No. 10222, dated 31-12-2014, for

disposal according to law.

After apperance of the accused in this court, the accused was examined u/sec 251 Cr.P.C He denied the truth of prosecution case and claims to be tried.

The prosecution examined PW1 to 12 and marked Ex.P1 to P10.

Prosecution evidence is closed. Examination of accused u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C he denied the truth of prosecution evidence. Reported no defence. Defence side evidence is closed.

Heard arguments of both sides. Posted for Judgment.

Now, the point for consideration arises is “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sec.304-A of IPC.

To establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PWs 1 to PW13.

PW-1 T.Ravanamma states that she know the accused. The deceased was her son Suresh died in an accident. Her son and PW-3 proceeded on motor cycle, from their house to Tagarapuvalasa to purchase articles. One PW-3 informed him over phone that accident occurred and her son died. She informed him that her son died on the spot. Immediately she rushed to the scene of offence, her son was died, and PW-3 received injuries on left hand. By the time she reached the scene of offence accused was also there. She was not present at the time of accident. She gave Ex.P1 report to police. She was present at the time of 4 inquest over the dead body of her son. He signed Ex.P2 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-2 K.Satyanarayana states that he saw the accused on the date of accident. At the time of accident he was at his house. He received phone call from PW-3, that Suresh met with a bus accident and died. Immediately he visited scene of offence at 9.45p.m. PW-3 received injury on hand and leg. PW- 3 was shifted to Sominaidu hospital. He had no prior acquaintance with the accused. By the time he reached the scene of offence about 20 or 30 persons gathered there.

PW-3 K.Santhosh states that one RTC bus came in their opposite direction, at high speed and dashed their motor cycle. His nephew suresh died on the spot.

He received fracture to his left hand, on the right fore head and his left leg cap was damaged and operated. He does not remember bus number. Accused was the driver of the bus. He saw the accused about five minutes, later he became unconscious. He gave Ex.P1 report to police and signed it.

During the course of the cross he states that the deceased Suresh was having driving license but after accident it was missing. Ten minutes after accident he became unconscious and he regained conscious after fifteen minutes.

He had no prior acquaintance with the driver accused. Bus came from

Tagarapuvalasa towards Visakhapatnam. PW-1, PW-3 did not against the accused about his rashness and negligence.

PW-4 K.Srinivasa Rao states that he had no acquaintance with the accused. He was not present at the time of observation of scene of offence but he signed Ex.P3 observation report. He does not know the contents of Ex.P3 scene of observation report.

PW-5 K.Naidu Babu states that he was not present at the time of observation of scene by police. He never signed Ex.P3 observation report.

PW-6 P.Apparao states that he had no acquaintance with the accused. He was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of K.Suresh. He along 5 with others were present at the time of inquest. The deceased K.Suresh died as a result of bus accident. He signed Ex.P2 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-7 B.Suryanarayana states that he had no acquaintance with the accused. He was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of Suresh.

He along with others were present at the time of inquest. That the deceased

Suresh died as a result of RTC Bus accident. He signed Ex.P2 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-8 B.Krishnam Naidu states that he had no acquaintance with the accused. He was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of Suresh.

He along with PWs-5 to 7 others were present at the time of inquest. That the deceased Suresh died as a result of RTC Bus accident. He signed Ex.P2 inquest report after knowing its contents.

PW-9 K.Adimurthy states that he had no acquaintance with the accused.

He was not present at the time of inquest. He signed ex.P2 inquest report at the instance of police.

PW-10 K.Nageswara Rao states that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of one Suresh. He along with others were present at the time of inquest. That the deceased Suresh died as a result of RTC bus accident. He signed Ex.P2 inquest report without knowing its contents.

PW-11 Dr.P.V.V.Yogitha Bala states that he conducted PME on the dead body of Suresh and found two injuries. He opinioned that the deceased died of shock and hemorrahage due to multiple injuries. He issued Ex.P4 PM certificate.

PW-12 Ch.Laksmanrao states that he registered the same as FIR in

Cr.No.145/11 for the offence under section 304-A & 338 of IPC. Original FIR submitted to Hon'ble IV MM Court, Bheemili. He observed the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P5 rough sketch, Ex.P6 FIR. After receipt of MVI report, PME report and other material, he filed charge sheet.

PW-13 P.Chinnodu states that he inspected the crime vehicle bearing No.AP- 24-U-8333 RTC Bus and found no damages. He conducted road test at

Anandapuram P.S area and found break system is good condition. He opinioned that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle.

Ex.P5 is inspection report.

6

On perusal of above evidence, it is very clear that, deceased met with an accident and died. one RTC bus came at high speed, rash and negligently and dashed their motor cycle, as a result, he received injuries and pillion rider Suresh died on the spot. The driver drove the bus at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased Suresh died as a result of RTC bus accident. The prosecution fails to produce evidence against the accused about his rashness and negligence.

As the prosecution fails to bring material witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such the accused is entitled for clean acquittal.

It is a summary in nature, detailed discussion not necessary.

In the result the accused is acquitted u/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and the accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands canceled.

Dictated to II nd Typist, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the Open Court, this the 26th day of September – 2016.

Spl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:- PW1/ P.Ramanamm PW2/ K.Satyanarayana PW3/ K.Santhosh PW4/ K.Srinivasa Rao PW5/ K.Naidu babu PW6/ P.Apparao PW7/ B.Suryanarayana PW8/ B.Krishnam Naidu PW9/ K.Adimurthy PW10/ K.Nageswara Rao PW11/ Dr.Yogitha Bala PW12/ Ch.Laxmana rao PW13/ P.Chinnodu WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE; NONE. EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1/ Report by PW-1 Ex.P2/ inquest by PW-1 Ex.P3/ scene observation by PW-4 Ex.P4/ Post mortom report by PW-11 Ex.P5/ Rough Sketch by PW-12 Ex.P6/ F.I.R by PW-12 Ex.P7/ M.V.I report by PW-13

Spl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

7

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

C.C. 310/2015

Date of offence : 14-05-2013

Date of report/Complaint : 20-05-2013

Date of apprehension of accused : 20-05-2013 (by Police) Date of appearance of the accused : 03-02-2014

Date of commencement of trial : 05-07-2016

Date of close of trial : 29-09-2016

Date of sentence on order : 05-10-2016

Explanation for delay/Remarks : Due to Non-production of accused and witness from time to time by police, as such there is a delay.

Name of the Complainant : State, Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Anandapuram Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the Accused: Routhu Murali, S/o.late Sombabu, age 33 yrs, Kapu by caste, D.No.50-15-13,

Seethammapeta, behind Sri Durga

Ganapathi Temple, Visakhapatnam

Offence:-

Sec 304-A of IPC: Caused death due to rash and negligent driving.

Sentence:-

In the result, both the accused acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

for the offence under section 304-A of IPC. The accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and that of his sureties shall stands canceled.

Spl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

2

IN THE COURT OF SPL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE'S COURT, BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Present: Sri P.Jagannadha Rao., M.Com.,B.L.,

C.C No.310/2015

Friday, the 5th day of October - 2016.

Between: State, Represented by Sub Inspector of

Police, Anandapuram Traffic Police Station,

Visakhapatnam City.

... Complainant.

And

Routhu Murali, S/o.late Sombabu, age 33 yrs, Kapu by caste, D.No.50-15-13,

Seethammapeta, behind Sri Durga

Ganapathi Temple, Visakhapatnam

... Accused.

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of

Smt. S.Ramanamma, Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. K.Murali

Krishna, advocate for the accused and of 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, Anandapuram Police station, filed charge sheet on the file of learned IV MM Court, Bheemili for the offence under section 304-A of IPC in Cr.No.61/13, submitting that on 14-05-2013 afternoon at about attending duty and on the way in between Pallipeta and B.P.Kallalu, the accused rider of motor cycle AP-31-N-5085 which was proceeding from B.P.Kallalu towards

Pallipeta, drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motor cycle as a result fell on the road and sustained grievous head injury. Immediately he was shifted to Tagarapuvalasa swamy Naidu Hospital and after rendering first aid, shifted to A.N.Beach hospital for better treatment.

Basing on the report PW-1 to PW-6 who registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.61/13 for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and investigated into.

My learned predecessor taken on file for the offence under section 304-A of 3

IPC .

After apprehension of the accused, copies of documents on which the prosecution relied on, were furnished to the accused, as required under sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

In the meanwhile, this case was transferred from learned IV Metropolitan

Magistrate's Court, Bheemunipatnam to this Court as per the proceedings of

Hon'ble District Judge, Visakhapatnam in Dis No. 10222, dated 31-12-2014, for

disposal according to law.

After apperance of the accused in this court, the accused was examined u/sec 251 Cr.P.C He denied the truth of prosecution case and claims to be tried.

The prosecution examined PW1 to 6 and marked Ex.P1 to P10. Prosecution evidence is closed. Examination of accused u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the truth of prosecution evidence. Reported no defence. Defence side evidence is closed.

Heard arguments of both sides. Posted for Judgment.

Now, the point for consideration arises is “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sec.304-A of IPC.

To establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PWs 1 to PW6.

PW-1 Meesala Kanakaraju states that the deceased S.Srinivasarao was his brother-in-law died in the accident. The accused drove two wheeler rash and negligently and dashed his brother-in-law. Immediately after dash. His brother- in-law fallen on the road and received head injury. He was present at the time of accident, on the spot. His brother-in-law proceeding on a motor cycle. Accused motor cycle No. AP-31-N-5085. Accused is the driver of above motor cycle.

Immediately his brother-in-law taken to Dr.Swami Naidu hospital. He gave Ex.P1 report to police.

During the course of cross he states that the distance between his house and his brother-in-law's house is about 70 feet. The distance between their village and Divis Company is about 20 kms. By the time he reached the scene of 4 offece, three persons gathered there. Within 30 minutes after the accident. He gave Ex.P1 report to police. He does not mentioned in Ex.P1 report or 161 statement, that he was present at the time of accident. He never took s

Srinivasarao to ABN hospital & also Dr.Swami Naidu hospital. Ex.P1 was drafted after police came. The deceased on his own accord drove the motor cycle at high speed and dashed electric pole and that due to negligence accident occurred.

PW-2 S.Ramanamma states that the deceased Srinivasarao was her husband who met with an accident and died. At the time of accident, she at their house out side. Her husband proceeding on motor cycle to attend duty from her house, by the time they reached between Matchavanipalem and Pallipeta, accident occurred. Immediately after accident, she reached the scene of offence.

That the accused came at high speed, rash and negligently and dashed her husband. Her husband Srinivasarao received severe head injury. Immediately her husband shifted to Swami Naidu hospital. Her husband died on 20-05-2013.

She also gave Ex.P2 report to police about the accident.

PW-3 B.Srinivasarao states that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of Srinivasarao. He signed Ex.P3 inquest report knowing its contents. He along with others were present at the time of inquest. The deceased Srinivasarao died as a result of accident.

PW-4 S.Adi Raju states that he had no acquaintance with the accused. He was present at the time of observation of scene on 15-05-2013. He along with

Ramana LW-14 were present at the time of observation of scene. Blood stains also there. Photos were taken at the scene of offence. Rough sketch also prepared in his presence. He signed Ex.P4 observation report after knowing its contents. Ex.P5 is rough sketch.

PW-5 S.Ramana states that he was present at the time of observation of scene by police on 15-05-2013. He noticed one bike and blood stains there at the scene of offence. He signed Ex.P4 observation report after knowing its contents.

PW-6 B.Syamlarao states that he registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.61/13 5 for the offence under section 304-A of IPC. Original FIR Ex.P6. submitted to

Hon'ble IV MM Court, Bheemili. He observed the scene of offence and prepared

Ex.P7 alteration memo, Ex.P8 six photos, Ex.P9 PME report and Ex.P10 M.V.I report. After receipt of MVI report, PME report and other material, he filed charge sheet.

It is a summary in nature, detailed discussion not necessary.

On perusal of above evidence, except PW-1 none of witnesses stated about the commission of offence by accused. PW-1 stated in his chief examination he was present at the time of accident accused drove the vehicle came at high speed, rash and negligently and caused the accident. But he stated in his cross examination, the distance between his house and her brother-in-law house is about 70feet. The distance between their village and Divis Company is about 20 kms. The distance between Matchavanipalem and Pllipeta is about 1k.m. By the time he reached the scene of offence, 3 persons gathered there. Within 30 minutes after the accident.Hence, his evidence not trustworthy, truthful evidence.

It is very clear that the prosecution fails establish the guilt of accused. As the prosecution fails to bring material witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such the accused is entitled for clean acquittal.

In the result the accused is acquitted u/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence under section 304-A, of IPC and the accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands canceled.

Dictated to IInd Typist, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the Open Court, this the 5th day of October – 2016.

Spl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:- PW1/ M.Kanakaraju PW2/ S.Ramanamma PW3/ B.Srinivasarao PW4/ S.Adhinarayana PW5/ S.Ramana PW6/ B.Syamala Rao

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE; NONE. EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1/ Report by PW-1 Ex.P2/ Report by PW-2 Ex.P3/ Inquest by PW-3 Ex.P4/ Scene of observation by PW-4 Ex.P5/ Rough Sketch by PW-4 Ex.P6/ FIR by PW-6 Ex.P7/ Alteration memo by PW-6 Ex.P8/ Six photos with CD by PW-6 Ex.P9/ P.M.E report by PW-6 Ex.P10/ M.V.I. report by PW-6

Spl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.