Sri P. Ramana Reddy

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Sri. P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Friday, this the 1 stday of December, 2023.

Sessions Case No.405/2023

Between:

State: Inspector of Police, Kothapet Police Station, Guntur Urban District. . . . Complainant

And

1. Allu Subbaratnam, S/o. Nagaiah, aged 65 years, Kamma, R/o. 7th Lane, Sri Nagar, Guntur Town. Owner of Prasanthi Lodge, Old Club Road, Kothapet, Guntur Town.

2. Buraga Ravi, S/o. Tirupal, aged 30 years, Kamma, R/o. Chaowdepalle Village, Udayagiri Mandal, Nellore District, Room Boy at Prasanthi Lodge, Old Club Road, Kothapet, Guntur Town. … Accused.

This case has come up on30.11.2023 for arguments before me in the presence of Sri B. Sagar, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and

Sri K. Sriramulu and Sri K. Harsha, Learned counsels for Accused No.1 and A2 and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Kothapet Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Sections 370 (3) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Act in Cr.No.326/2021 of

Kothapet Police Station on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special

Mobile Court, Guntur and the same is committed to Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court in PRC No.56/2021. The same is taken on file by the

Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge as SC No.405/2023 and made

over the same to this Court for trial as per law.

2.The contents of the charge sheet in brief are that:

The Station House Officer, Kothapet Police Station, Guntur Urban

District filed charge sheet in this case alleging that on credible information on 22.06.2021, P.W.5 secure the presence of other police staff and also mediators 2 and rushed to the scene of offence which was situated at Old Club Road,

Kothapet. The scene of offence is Prasanthi Lodge. After reaching the scene of offence, P.W.5 found two persons i.e., A1 and A2 in the said lodge. On seeing the police party, they tried to skulk away from that place. On suspicion, P.W.5 retained the said persons with the help of staff members and interrogated them in the presence of mediators. During the course of interrogation, the said two persons disclosed their identity as A1 and A2, A1 being the owner of the said

Prasanthi Lodge and A2 is the room boy. They also further confessed that they used to procure female persons in the nearby bus stand and conducting prostitution in the said lodge. Then, P.W.5 arrested the persons who came for do prostitution i.e., A3 and A4 along with A1 and A2 in the presence of mediators under a cover of mediator report under Ex.P5 and also seized M.O.1 to M.O.4 in their presence. Then, he arrested the said persons and brought them to the police station and registered Ex.P5 as a case in Cr.No.326/2021 under Sections 370 (3) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, P.W.5 and P.W.6 examined all the charge sheet witnesses by visiting the scene of offence and also prepared the rough sketch of scene of offence. A1 was produced before the Court for judicial remand and A2 to A4 are released by serving Section 41-A of Cr.P.C notice. After completion of the further investigation, P.W.6 laid charge sheet against the accused No.1 and A2 for the offence under Sections 370 (3) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Act. P.W.6 also sent the victim girls for rescue home.

3.After receiving summons issued by this Court, the Accused No.1 and A2 appeared before this Court and engaged Sri K. Sriramulu and Sri K. Harsha,

Advocates. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, and having considered the material available on record, this Court framed charges under Section 370 (3) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of

Immoral Traffic Act against the accused No.1 and A2, read over and explained 3 the same to them, for which, accused No.1 and A2 pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

4.The prosecution examined L.W.1 K. Kumari, Women Assistant Sub-

Inspector of Police, Kothapet Police Station as P.W.1, L.W.5 Tadigiri Anasuya as P.W.2, L.W.8 Kotra Sivanadakumar as P.W.3, L.W.7 Mallemudi Satish

Kumar as P.W.4, L.W.1 S. Srinivasa Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothapet

Police Station as P.W.5 and L.W.9 S. Srinivasa Reddy, Inspector of Police,

Kothapet Police Station as P.W.6 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and M.O.1 to M.O.4 are marked on behalf of the prosecution.

5.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

L.W.3 S. Naga Poornma, Women Police Constable, Kothapet Police Station,

L.W.4 V. Suneel Kumar, Police Constable, Kothapet Police Station and L.W.6

Kumbha Lavanya.

6.The accused No.1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, with regard to the incriminating evidence available on record against them, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard both sides.

8.The Learned APP argued that all the police officials categorically deposed with regard to the things happened at the scene of offence on the date of offence in this case. The accused managed the mediators and made them to turned hostile. Though the mediators turned hostile, the prosecution able to establish the offence committed by the accused by placing cogent and convincing evidence before the Court. Hence, the accused are liable for punishment for the offences leveled against them. Per contra the counsel for accused argued that, the accused are purposefully impleaded in this case without committing any offence by them. Except, the evidence of police officials there is no other evidence on record, to corroborate the same, to prove the allegations leveled against the accused. For statistical purpose only, the police 4 filed this case against the accused. Hence, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

10.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 and

A2 for the charges leveled against them under Sections 370(3) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

11.Prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and

M.O.1 to M.O.4.

12.In this case, the victims and the mediators turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Only the evidence available before the Court is pertaining to the police officials. The very allegation of prosecution is that, on credible information P.W.5 being the Sub-Inspector of Police secured the presence of mediators and rushed to the scene of offence along with his office staff. When they reached the scene of offence two persons who were already present there tried to skulk away from that place. Then, he retained the said persons and interrogated them in the presence of mediators. To that effect, he also prepared Ex.P5 mediator report by incorporating all the events happened in his presence. He also seized M.Os.1 to 4 under the cover of Ex.P5 mediators report. As such, the prosecution has to establish the seizure of M.Os.1 to 4 from the possession of accused in the presence of mediators. But, the mediators who alleged to have present at the time of preparation of Ex.P5 did not support the version of prosecution. During the course of evidence, they turned hostile and did not support the preparation of Ex.P5 mediator report and seizure of

M.Os.1 to 4. As such, it is quite essential to establish the seizure of M.Os.1 to 4 from the possession of accused through the police officials. Generally, the mediator reports used to scribe by the mediators who were present at the time of seizure of M.Os.1 to 4. But in this case, the situation is entirely different. As per the evidence of P.W.5, Ex.P5 mediator report was prepared by P.W.5 on 5 his own laptop. But the said mediator report is silent with regard to the bringing of the said laptop to the scene of offence. Moreover, P.W.5 is not competent to prepare the said mediator report. At the same time, the scene of offence was situated in a busy locality. The said aspect was admitted by all the prosecution witnesses during the course of evidence. When the scene of offence was situated in a busy locality what made P.W.5 to bring the mediators from the police station itself. The above said aspect creates a doubt in the mind of Court with regard to the preparation of Ex.P5 mediators report at the scene of offence as contended by the prosecution witnesses. As per the evidence of P.W.5, the other staff members in the police station were also accompanied him to the scene of offence. But the signature of any of the staff members was not obtained on Ex.P5. The said aspect is contra to the evidence of P.W.1 who is a

Women Assistant Sub-Inspector. If really, P.W.1 accompanied the Sub-

Inspector of Police, there is every possibility for him to obtain her signature on

Ex.P5 to establish her visit. The above referred circumstances, clearly goes to show that Ex.P5 mediator report was prepared in the police station itself as argued by the counsel for the accused.

13.The other important aspect to be considered in this case is, as per

Ex.P5, P.W.5 arrested A1 to A4 at the scene of offence and also seized M.Os.1 to 4. Subsequently, the case against A3 and A4 was quashed by the Hon’ble

High Court of AP. But, during the course of evidence, P.Ws.1, 5 and 6 did not speak anything about the presence of A3 and A4 and their alleged arrest by

P.W.5. It clearly shows that P.W.5 was not visited the scene of offence along with the mediators and staff as stated before the Court. There is no convincing evidence before the Court, to establish the arrest and seizure by the police to punish the accused for the offences leveled against them. As per the case of prosecution, the alleged offence in this case took place on 22.06.2021.

Whereas, as seen from the search proceedings marked under Ex.P4, that the said proceedings were issued on 20.06.2021. There is no proper explanation 6 from the side of prosecution with regard to the obtaining of search proceedings prior to alleged offence in this case. There is every possibility for the police, to obtain the said proceedings as per their wishes. At the same time, the said proceedings were not served on A1. As such, this is also one of lacuna on the part of prosecution.

14.As per the version of prosecution, A1 is the owner of the said lodge and

A2 is room boy. Except the oral testimony there is no piece of document before the Court to establish the same. During the course of cross examination P.W.5 and P.W.6 categorically admitted with regard to the non seizure of any document to establish the identity of A1 and A2. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be said that A1 is the owner of the said lodge and A2 was working under him. During the course of cross examination P.W.5 and P.W.6 categorically admitted the said lodge was situated in a busy locality and some other rooms are also situated in the said lodge. But, P.W.5 or P.W.6 did not examine any of the neighbouring people in that vicinity or the co-occupants in the lodge to establish their visit and arrest of all the accused. At the same time,

M.O.s1 to 4 are easily available in the open market. There is every possibility for the police to file this case against the accused by using Mos.1 to 4. In the absence of any independent corroborative evidence this Court is not inclined to believe the evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 and 6. As such, the prosecution measurably, failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favour of them. Accordingly, point is answered.

15.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 370 (3) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Act and accused is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Section 437-

A Cr.P.C.

7

M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed. M.Os.2 to 4 shall be confiscated to the

State after the appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 1 st day of December, 2023.

Sd/- P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Defence: NONE

P.W.1 : K. Kumari.

P.W.2 : Tadigiri Anasuya.

P.W.3 : Kotra Sivanadakumar.

P.W.4 : Mallemudi Satish Kumar.

P.W.5 : S. Srinivasa Rao.

P.W.6 : S. Srinivasa Reddy.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P2 is the signature of P.W.2 on mediatiornama, dt.22.06.2021.

Ex.P3 is the Signature of P.W.3 on mediatornama, dt.22.06.2021.

Ex.P4 is the Search Warrant from SDPO, Guntur vide 19/spdo-east/2021, dt.22.06.2021.

Ex.P5 is the Mediatornama.

Ex.P6 is the First Information Report.

Ex.P7 is the Rough Sketch.

Material Objects

For Complainant: For Defence: NIL

M.O.1 : Kamasuthra Condome Packet.

M.O.2 : Cash of Rs.500/- seized from Shaik Subhani.

M.O.3 : Cash of Rs.500/- seized from Janardhan.

M.O.4 : Cash of Rs.2,000/- from A1 is deposited in the bank and the FDR.

Sd/- P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.

8

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Sri. P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Friday, this the 1 stday of December, 2023.

Sessions Case No.405/2023

(PRC No.56/2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur relating to Crime No.326/2021 of Kothapet Police Station) 1.Name of the CaseSessions Case No.405/2023

2. Name of the committing Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur

Magistrate

3. Name of the complainant State: Inspector of Police, Kothapet Police Station, Guntur Urban District.

4. Names of the Accused 1. Allu Subbaratnam, S/o. Nagaiah, aged 65 years, Kamma, R/o. 7th Lane, Sri Nagar, Guntur Town. Owner of Prasanthi Lodge, Old Club Road, Kothapet, Guntur Town.

2. Buraga Ravi, S/o. Tirupal, aged 30 years, Kamma, R/o. Chaowdepalle Village, Udayagiri Mandal, Nellore District, Room Boy at Prasanthi Lodge, Old Club Road, Kothapet, Guntur Town. 5.Date of

i) Offence 22.06.2021 ii)Committal22.06.2023 iii)Appearance of Accused07.08.2023 iv)Commencement of trial 14.11.2023

v)Closure of trial30.11.2023 vi)Pronouncement of 01.12.2023 Judgment 6.Nature of Offence370(3) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Act. 7.Plea of Accused Not Guilty 8.Finding of the CourtNot Guilty

EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY: This case was received from the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Guntur on 17.07.2023. On 03.10.2023, accused No.1 and A2 were examined U/Sec.228(2)

Cr.P.C and charges under 370(3) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral

Traffic Act were framed against them. To substantiate its case, the prosecution 9 examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and M.O.1 to M.O.4 on its behalf. On 30.11.2023, Section 313 Cr.PC examination was held and heard both side arguments and on 01.12.2023, Judgment pronounced. Hence, there is no avoidable delay in this case.

RESULT:

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 370 (3) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Act and accused is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Section 437-

A Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed. M.Os.2 to 4 shall be confiscated to the

State after the appeal time is over.

Sd/- P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Copies submitted to: 1.The Hon’ble Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of A.P. Amaravathi, through The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

2. The Hon'ble District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Copy to:

3. The Director of Prosecution, Vijayawada,

4. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban,

5. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur.

6. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, II Addl. Assistant Sessions Court, (FTC), Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Sri. P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Friday, this the 22 ndday of March, 2024.

Sessions Case No.878/2023

Between:

State: Inspector of Police, Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District.

. . . Complainant.

And

Sk. Islamuddin, S/o. Syed Ahmad, aged 31 years, R/o. Door No.15-06-110, Vinoba Nagar, Guntur. Driver of Car bearing No. AP 05 BX 4536. … Accused.

This case has come up on22.03.2024 for arguments before me in the presence of Sri B. Sagar, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and

Sri B. Venkata Ramana, Learned counsel for Accused and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec.185(A) of MV Act in Cr.No.173/2023 of Kothapet Police Station on the file of IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur and the same is committed to

Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court in PRC No.94/2023. The same is

taken on file by the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge as SC

No.878/2023 and made over the same to this Court for trial as per law.

2.The contents of the charge sheet in brief are that:

The Station House Officer, Kothapet Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that on 27.05.2023 at 11.30 pm., while deceased was sleeping on the road margin at Manipuram under pass, the accused being the driver of car bearing No. AP 05 BX 4536 proceeding from Aditya Bar side, drove the same with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, ran over him under the influence of alcohol. The deceased was also struck under the car and dragged his body from Manipuram under pass to the end of bridge. P.W.3 and L.W.6 Maram Puran Chendra Rao followed the 2 car and shouted loudly. Then, the accused stop the car. The neighbouring people who gathered there, removed the deceased body from the car. After receiving information, L.W.9 visited the scene of offence and shifted the dead body of the deceased to mortuary, Government General Hospital, Guntur.

L.W.18 Md. Nisar Basha, Inspector of Police, Kothapet Police Station, Guntur

District visited East Traffic Station and conducted drunken test of accused. On 28.05.2023 at 10.00 am., L.W.18 registered the report given by P.W.1 as a case in Cr.No.173/2023 U/sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.185(A) of MV Act of East

Traffic Police Station. During the course of investigation, he examined all the charge sheeted witnesses and also visited the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch. He also conducted inquest over the dead body fo the deceased and sent for autopsy. Thereafter, basing on the strength of investigation, L.W.18 transferred the entire case file to SHO, Kothapet Police

Station on the point of jurisdiction by altering Section of law U/Sec.304-A of IPC to Sec.304(II) of IPC. After receiving the case file, L.W.19 Sk. Md Meeraj, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District again re-registered the case and handed over the same to P.W.5 to conduct further investigation.

During the course of further investigation, P.W.5 re-examined all the witnesses examined by L.W.18 and again visited the scene of offence and observed the scene and prepared rough sketch. He also examined some more witnesses and arrested the accused and produced him before the Court for judicial remand.

P.W.5 also made requisition to MVI to inspect the crime vehicle. After receipt of all necessary certificates, P.W.5 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/sec.304-II of IPC and Sec.185(A) of MV Act.

3.After receiving summons issued by this Court, the Accused appeared

before this Court and engaged Sri B. Venkata Ramana, Advocate. After hearing

the Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, and having considered the material available on record, this Court framed charges

U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec.185(A) of MV Act of IPC against the accused, read over and explained the same to him, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

4.The prosecution examined L.W.1 Annapureddy Ramana as P.W.1,

L.W.2 Annapureddy Vasu as P.W.2, L.W.5 Rayapati Prabhu as P.W.3,

L.W.7 Kotta Siva as P.W.4, L.W.20 Sk. Anwar Basha, Inspector of Police,

Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District as P.W.5 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 are marked on behalf of the prosecution.

3

5.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

L.W.3 Annapureddy Sankar, L.W.4 Annapureddy Srinu, L.W.6 Maram Purna

Chendra Rao, L.W.8 Kanala Sheshamma, L.W.9 HC 1573, K. Srinivasa Rao of

East Traffic Police Station, L.W.10 Madikattu Srinivasa Reddy, L.W.11 Patan

Akbar, L.W.12 Govind Vinay Sai, L.W.13 Annapureddy Nagababu, L.W.14

Mallemudi Satish Kumar, L.W.15 Madduluri Srikanth, L.W.16 Dr. V. Krishna

Murthy, L.W.17 DLBG Prasad, MVI, Guntur, L.W.18 Md. Nisar Basha, Inspector of Police, Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District and L.W.19 Sk. Md. Meeraj,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District.

6.The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, with regard to the incriminating evidence available on record against him, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard Learned APP and the counsel for accused.

8.After hearing both Learned APP and the counsel for accused. Now the point for determination before the Court is:

“Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec.185(A) of MV Act beyond all rea- sonable doubt”?

POINT:

9.Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P20.

10.In this case, except the evidence of investigating officer, there is no other positive evidence on record to establish that the accused is the driver of crime vehicle and he drove the same with a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased in this case. The very allegation of prosecution is that the dead body of deceased was dragged to some extent after the crime vehicle ran over him. The persons who present there shouted loudly by running on the back of the crime vehicle. Thereafter, the accused stopped the car. But there is no such evidence before the Court against the accused. The person who gave report before the police turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. At the same time, the alleged eye witnesses also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Except the evidence of investigating officer, there is no other corroborative evidence on record, the accused is the driver of crime vehicle. In this case, two police officials recorded the statements of witnesses and visited the scene of offence twice. But, no incriminating material was seized at the scene of offence. Further, any of the investigating officer did not choose to seize any vehicle record from the 4 possession of accused to show that he is the driver of the crime vehicle.

Without producing any such document, how the police personal can say the accused is the driver of crime vehicle. Admittedly, there is no identification from the side of prosecution witnesses, that the accused is the driver of crime vehicle on that day. No identification parade was conducted by either of the investigating officers. Further, the role of official witnesses i.e., Medical Officer,

Motor Vehicle Inspector and the Investigating Officer came into picture subsequent to the incident. They are not the direct eye witnesses to speak anything about the cause of death of the deceased. In this type of cases, there is no dispute with regard to the death of deceased. But the only question for consideration before the Court is whether the accused is the responsible for the death of deceased. But there is no such evidence before the Court. Without having any corroborative evidence and identification of the accused, it is not possible to convict the accused basing on the evidence of official witnesses.

Further, the other allegation of prosecution is that the driver of the crime vehicle was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident in this case. As could be seen from the averments in the charge sheet, L.W.18 also conducted the medical test and obtained the certificate. But the certificate was not produced

before the Court to convict the accused for the offence U/Sec.185(A) of MV Act.

Viewed from any angle, the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favour of accused. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec.185(A) of MV Act and accused is acquitted for the same U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 22 ndday of March, 2024.

Sd/- P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Defence: NONE

P.W.1 : Annapureddy Ramana.

P.W.2 : Annapureddy Vasu.

P.W.3 : Rayapati Prabhu.

P.W.4 : Kotta Siva.

P.W.5 : Sk. Anwar Basha.

5

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1 is the Signature of P.W.1 on report.

Ex.P2 is the Report.

Ex.P3 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P4 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P5 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P6 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P7 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P8 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P9 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P10 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P11 is the Original First Information Report.

Ex.P12 is the Scene observation report.

Ex.P13 is the Rough sketch.

Ex.P14 is the Inquest report.

Ex.P15 is the Memo.

Ex.P16 is the Original First Information Report.

Ex.P17 is the Scene observation report.

Ex.P18 is the Rough sketch.

Ex.P19 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report.

Ex.P20 is the Postmortem Report.

Material Objects

-NIL-

Sd/- P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.

6

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Sri. P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Friday, this the 22 ndday of March, 2024.

Sessions Case No.878/2023

(PRC No.94/2023 on the file of IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur relating to Crime No.173/2023 of Kothapet Police Station) 1.Name of the CaseSessions Case No.878/2023

2. Name of the committing IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur.

Magistrate

3. Name of the complainant State: Inspector of Police, Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District.

4. Names of the Accused Sk. Islamuddin, S/o. Syed Ahmad, aged 31 years, R/o. Door No.15-06-110, Vinoba Nagar, Guntur. Driver of Car bearing No. AP 05 BX 4536.. 5.Date of

i) Offence 27.05.2023 ii)Committal06.12.2023 iii)Appearance of Accused01.02.2024 iv)Commencement of trial 18.03.2024

v)Closure of trial21.03.2024 vi)Pronouncement of 22.03.2024 Judgment 6.Nature of Offence304 (II) of IPC and Sec.185(A) of MV Act.

7.Plea of Accused Not Guilty 8.Finding of the CourtNot Guilty

EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY: This case was received from the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Guntur on 27.12.2023. On 13.02.2024, accused was examined U/Sec.228(2) Cr.P.C and charge U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec.185(A) of MV Act were framed against him. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 on its behalf. On 21.03.2024, Section 313 Cr.PC examination was held. On 21.03.2024 heard both side arguments and Judgment

pronounced. Hence, there is no avoidable delay in this case.

7

RESULT:

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec.185(A) of MV Act of IPC and accused is acquitted for the same U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/- P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Copies submitted to: 1.The Hon’ble Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of A.P. Amaravathi, through The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

2. The Hon'ble District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Copy to:

3. The Director of Prosecution, Vijayawada,

4. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban,

5. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur.

6. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, II Addl. Assistant Sessions Court, (FTC), Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (F.T.C) :: GUNTUR.

Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy

II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) (F.T.C), Guntur.

Monday, the 1st day of April, 2024

O.S.NO.90/2017

Between:

1. Shaik John, S/o. Chinameera Saheb, Muslim, aged about 67 years, Cultivation, R/o. Kornepadu Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Shaik Mastan Vali, S/o. Shaik Chinameera Saheb, Muslim, aged about 64 years, Cultivation, R/o. Kornepadu Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District.

… Plaintiffs.

A N D

1. Shaik Khasim (Died)

2. Shaik Tarabi, W/o. Syed Allah Bhaksh, Muslim, aged about 23 years, Cultivation, R/o. Kornepadu Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District. ( The 2nd defendant is added as per order dt.05.09.2022 in IA No.251/2019)

... Defendants.

*****

This suit is coming on 01.04.2024 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Rama Koti Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs, 1st defendant died and Smt A. Jyostna and Sri K. Krishna Kishore, Advocates for the 2nd defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for specific performance of the contract of sale dt.06.06.2015 directing the defendants to execute and register a sale deed regarding the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs and if they fails to do so, the Hon’ble Court may execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs on their behalf and for costs of the suit.

2.Plaintiff called absent. No representation. The matter kept aside till 3.30 pm., for appearance of either the plaintiff or his counsel to represent the matter. But there is no response from the side of plaintiff. As seen from the previous docket, basing on the application made by the plaintiff, this Court sent the Possessory 2

Agreement of Sale dt.06.06.2015 to the Registrar Office for collecting the Stamp duty and Penalty. But till today, the plaintiff did not make an effort to take back the said document after paying the necessary stamp duty and penalty. This case of the year, 2017. This Court also reminded the plaintiff from time to time to get the document from the Registrar Office after paying the necessary stamp duty and penalty. This Court also addressed a letter to authorities of Registration

Department to return the document as there is no response from the side of plaintiff. In the previous adjournment, this Court passed conditional order with a specific direction to the plaintiff to appear before the Court to speak about his difficulty in compounding the document. But he did not turn up before the Court.

Even after passing conditional order, this Court also gave one more opportunity to the plaintiff and posted the matter today. But there is no progress from the side of plaintiff or his counsel. It clearly shows that the plaintiff has no interest to proceed further by getting impounding the document. In those circumstances, it is not proper to adjourn the matter to some other day, except wasting the time of the

Court. In view of afore mentioned reasons, this Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter to some other date.

3.In the result, this suit is dismissed for default for non appearance of plaintiff and for non prosecution and no costs. The office is directed to mix up the possessory agreement of sale in record after receiving the same from Registrar

Office.

Pronounced by this Court, this the 1 stday of April, 2024.

Sd/- P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), (F.T.C), Guntur.

Appendix of evidence:

- Nil on either side-

Sd/- P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division),

(F.T.C), Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (F.T.C) :: GUNTUR.

Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy

II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) (F.T.C), Guntur.

Friday, the 22nd day of March, 2024

A.S.No.229/2024

(Old A.S.No.26/2021)

Between:

1. Babburi Koteswara Rao, S/o. Late Seshaiah, Hindu, aged about 75 years, Agriculture, R/o. China Kondrupadu Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Maddineni Venkateswarlu, S/o. Bapaiah, Hindu, aged about 65 years, Agriculture, R/o. Godavarru Village, Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur District.

… Appellants/Defendant No.2 & 3.

-And-

1. Babburi Shyam Chand, S/o. Late Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged about 29 years, Student, R/o. Kattavaripalam Village, Kondepi Mandal, Prakasam District. Presentlyresiding at Door No.5-4, Room No.27, Hanumantha Rao Complex, Near KSR Towers, Kukkatpally, Hyderabad. … 1 st Respondent/Plaintiff.

2. Kandepu Rajarshi @ Raju, S/o. Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Agriculture, R/o. Chintalapudi Village, Ponnuru Mandal, Guntur District.

… 2 nd Respondent/1 st defendant.

3. Kundakarla Anil, S/o. Govinda Rajulu, Hindu, aged about 38 years, Agriculture, R/o. Godavarru Village, Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur District.

… 3 rd Respondent/4 th defendant.

4. Peddi Basavamma (Died). … 5 th defendant.

On appeal against the decree and judgment dated 14.12.2020 made in

OS.No.448/2015 on the file of II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Between:

Babburi Shyam Chand. … Plaintiff. -And-

1. K. Rajarshi.

2. B. Koteswara Rao.

3. M. Venkateswarlu.

4. K. Anil.

5. P. Basavamma (Died).… Defendants.

2

This appeal is transferred to this court from the Hon’ble II Addl. District Court, Guntur as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Guntur in Dis.No.149 dt.8-1-2024.

This appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants No.2 and 3 against the decree and judgment dated 14.12.2020 made in OS.No.448/2015 on the file of II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. Wherein the said suit filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction was decreed.

This appeal came up before me on this day i.e., 22.03.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri Srinivasa Rao.G.CH, Counsel for appellants who filed memo not pressing Appeal and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following DOCKET:-

J U D G M E N T

Appellant called present. Memo filed by issuing notice to other side, not pressing the appeal filed by me and the same is recorded. In view of the said memo, the appeal is dismissed as not press and no costs.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of March, 2024.

Sd/- P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), (F.T.C), Guntur.

Appendix of evidence:

- Nil on either side-

Sd/- P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division),

(F.T.C), Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (F.T.C) ::

GUNTUR.

Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy

II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) (F.T.C), Guntur.

Wednesday, the 3rd day of April, 2024

A.S.No.267/2024

(Old A.S.No.51/2022)

Between:

Mittapalli Rama Rao, S/o. Veera Swamy, Hindu, aged about 67 years, Retired Employee, R/o. Door No.26-19-186, 2nd Lane, A.T. Agraharam, Guntur. … Appellant/Defendant.

-And-

Shaik Nagul Meera, S/o. Late Abdulla, Muslim, aged about 33 years, R/o. Door No.26-36-11/1, 4th Line, Ankamma Nagar, Guntur. … Respondent/Plaintiff.

On appeal against the decree and judgment dated 20.04.2022 made in OS.No.401/2018 on the file of II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Between:

Shaik Nagul Meera.… Plaintiff. -And-

Mittapalli Rama Rao.… Defendant.

This appeal is transferred to this Court from the Hon’ble II Addl. District Court, Guntur as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Prl. District

Judge, Guntur in Dis.No.149 dt.8-1-2024.

This appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant against the decree and judgment dated 20.04.2022 made in OS.No.401/2018 on the file of II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, wherein the said suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money basing on promissory note was decreed.

This appeal came up before me on this day i.e., 03.04.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri G. Divakar, Counsel for appellant who filed memo not pressing Appeal and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following DOCKET:- 2

J U D G M E N T

Memo filed by the counsel for appellant by not pressing the Appeal and same is received. In view of the said memo, the Appeal is dismissed as not pressed and no costs.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 3rd day of April, 2024.

Sd/- P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division),

(F.T.C), Guntur.

Appendix of evidence:

- Nil on either side-

Sd/- P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division),

(F.T.C), Guntur.