Smt P.Sri Satya Devi

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

Present:- Smt. P.Sri Satya Devi, III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Wednesday, this the 30th day of March, 2022.

Calendar Case No. 524-2015 Between: The State rep. by its Sub Inspector of Police, Governorpet Police Station, Vijayawada City. Defacto …. Complainant.

AND 1)Ramisetti Sai Vineel, S/o.Gopala Rao, 25 years, Kapu, D.No.77-15-14, near Santosh Theatre, Santhinagar, Singh Nagar, Vijayawada. 2)Chinnam Ashok Babu @ Sastry, S/o.Mohana Rao, 35 years, Kapu, D.No.14-7-17, Namburi Gopala Rao Street, Hanumanpet, Vijayawada. …. Accused.

This case coming before me on 25-3-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.T.Sasikala, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/Prosecution, and of Sri K.Koteswara Rao, Advocate for Accused No.1, Sri B.Jawaharlal David, Advocate for Accused No.2, and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The State, represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Governorpet

Police Station, Vijayawada City, laid charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.106/2015 of Governorpet Police Station for the offence punishable

U/Secs.471,474 & 420 of I.P.C.

2.The brief facts of the case are, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are friends.

Accused No.1 is the friend of one Kranthi Kumar, the younger brother of

Accused No.1. Accused No.1 informed Accused No.2 that he has no driving license. Accused No.2 prepared fake Driving Lincese on the name of Accused

No.1, by using Driving License of Kranthi Kumar and Passport Photograph of

Accused No.1 by using Photo Shop Software in an internet cafe by name Sky 2

Deelz Internet Cafe. On 28-04-2015, while L.W.1-G.Alluraiah, S.I of Police,

L.W.2-P.Suneel Kumar, Inspector of Police, L.W.3-V.Rajesh Kumar, Police

Constable of Traffic II P.S., Vijayawada, were conducting vehicle checking near Hotel Grand Residency, Governorpet, Vijayawada, at about 11.00 hours,

L.W.1 found that Driving License produced by Accused No.1 was found fake one through E.V.R.C Machine. When question Accused No.1, he confessed the preparation of fake Driving License through Accused No.2.

On the report given by L.W.1 on 28-4-2015 at 11.30 hours,

L.W.10-S.V.V.L.Narayana, S.I of Police, Governorpet P.S., registered a case in

Crime No.106/2015, U/Secs.468, 471, 474, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C, took up the matter, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, arrested Accused

No.1 on 28-4-2015, seized the fake Driving License No.AP01620110009565,

Hero Hemples Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 16 CD 6384 in the presence of mediators, under the cover of mediators report, sent Accused No.1 for judicial remand, arrested Accused No.2 on 24-6-2015, sent Accused No.2 for judicial remand, deleted the section of law 468 I.P.C as both the accused not forged the signature of any one and filed the Charge Sheet.

3.The cognizance of offence was taken against Accused Nos.1 and 2

U/Secs.468, 471, 474 and 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C, by my learned Predecessor in office.

4. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2, the case copies were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

3

5. Accused Nos.1 & 2 are examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C for the said offence stating the substance of accusation leveled against them in the Charge

Sheet, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the accusation and claimed to be tried. Thereupon charges U/Secs.468, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C against Accused Nos.1 and 2; Charges U/Secs.471,474 of I.P.C against

Accused No.1 are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu.

6.Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and M.Os.1 and 2.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied. When Accused No.1 and 2 were called upon to enter their defense, they reported no defense evidence.

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

9. The point that arises for determination is;

1) Whether prosecution could prove that A1 with the help of A2 fabricated a forged document with an intention to cheat the government autorities punishable U/Sec.468 and 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C, or not ?

2) Whether Accused No.1 found possession of forged document and produced the same as genuine while riding motor cycle No.AP 16 CD 6384 punishable U/Secs.471 and 474 I.P.C, or not?

3) Whether the prosecution could bring home guilt of Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the charges levelled against them, beyond reasonable doubt or not?

4

10.In order to substantiate its case against Accused Nos.1 and 2, the prosecution got examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8 and got exhibited 5 documents under Exs.P1 to P5 and two material objects under M.Os.1 and 2.

Out of them, P.Ws.1 to 3 and 8 are Police Officials whereas P.Ws.4 to 7 are independent witnesses.

On the other hand, the specific defense of Accused No.1 is, he was falsely implicated in this case when he gave a reply to the Traffic Police in a serious manner, while going on the motor cycle of his brother as a pillion rider. The defense of Accused No.2 is total denial of prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. To the extent of their defense, accused 1 and 2 cross examined the prosecution witnesses.

11.Point Nos.1 & 2:

P.W.1-G.Alluraiah is the then S.I of Police, Traffic II P.S. He being a defacto complainant submitted Ex.P1-Report to the Governorpet Police by handing over the Accused No.1 to them, for taking necessary action as he found Accused No.1 while proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 16

CD 6384 with a fake driving license bearing No.AP0162011009565. His evidence in chief goes to show that on verification of said driving license through E.V.R.C Machine, he noticed that it is a fake document and as per the reference number mentioned on said fake driving license, the original license with such number was issued on the name of one Ravi Teja Sivakoti.

He was subjected to cross examination by Accused Nos.1 and 2.

As admitted by him, he did not submit his attendance certificate to the 5

Governorpet Police along with Ex.P1 or subsequently, to show that he was on duty on 28-4-2015. This admission is noway helpful to Accused No.1 as he did not deny the presence of P.W.1 on duty on that day near Hotel Grand

Residency, Governorpet,Vijayawada. According to his defense, he was stopped by P.W.1 when he was going on his brother’s motor cycle as pillion rider and he questioned them in a harassing manner; on that he gave a reply in a serious manner. Due to which, P.W.1 bore grudge against him and gave a false report. As such, non submission of the attendance certificate of P.W.1 to the Governorpet Police is no way affect the prosecution’s case. As further deposed by P.W.1 in the cross examination, he handed over E.V.R.C slip to the police at the time of submitting the report. His evidence was contradicted by the Investigation Officer who was examined as P.W.8. As clearly admitted by P.W.8-S.V.V.L.Narayana, S.I of Police, he did not file E.V.R.C slip into the

Court along with Charge Sheet. In addition to that, as deposed by P.W.1, on that day along with him, L.W.2 by name P.Suneel Kumar, Inspector of Police,

Traffic II P.S and three more Constables were present, at the time of stopping

Accused No.1 during the course of vehicle checking. L.W.2 was not examined by the prosecution as witness in this case. Out of three Constables, two were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. Their evidence in chief completely stood on same lines with that of the evidence of P.W.1. But during the cross examination,

P.W.2 deposed that he did not personally take out E.V.R.C slip and he is not aware about said slip, whereas P.W.3 deposed that P.W.1 did not take out the print of E.V.R.C slip and he just checked with slip. So, the evidence of

P.W.1 that he handed over E.V.R.C Slip along with Ex.P1, to P.W.8 remained 6 incorrect, in the light of clear evidence of P.W.3. Since P.W.8 did not choose to file any such material document along with the Charge Sheet, it can be inferred that no such document was handed over to him by P.W.1 along with

Ex.P1.

12.According to prosecution version, the driving license bearing

No.AP0162011009565 was seized from Accused No.1 since it is a fake document, created by Accused No.2 by taking the help of driving license of one Kranthi Kumar bearing No.AP01620110009564 which was furnished by

Accused No.1 to him. The other contention of the prosecution is, infact the license bearing no.AP0162011009565 was issued on the name of Raviteja

Sivakoti as per the records. The further contention of the prosecution is said fake document was seized under the cover of mediators report in the presence of Jasvani Manoj Kumar and Bobbala Malyadri who are examined as P.Ws.5 and 7. P.W.5-J.Manoj Kumar deposed in chief that on 28-4-2015 himself and

L.W.8 were called by the Governorpet Police to the police station to be a witnesses while recording the statement of one person and in their presence, police interrogated one person by name Vineet and his statement was reduced into writing by the police as he clearly said that with the assistance of one person by name Sastry, he fabricated a fake driving license. Upon reducing his statement into writing, police obtained their signatures on such statement and police seized such diving license from said Vineeth. The Mediators Report was drafted by one police official and it was marked under Ex.P3. The seized driving license was marked under M.O.1. As could be seen from the contents 7 of Ex.P3, this Court did not find the alleged driving license

No.AP01620110009565 and reference No.AP01620110009564 in it. Further, the material object which is marked under M.O.1 is not the referred fake document and in fact, it is the original driving license of K.Kranthi Kumar bearing No.AP01620110009564. Absolutely, there is no document produced by the prosecution to prove that a fake driving license was seized under the cover of Ex.P3-Mediators Report. In addition to that the so called license holder by name Raviteja Sivakoti was not examined by the Investigation

Officer to prove that original driving license bearing No.AP01620110009565 was issued in his favour. In addition to that to prove the alleged relationship between Kranthi Kumar (licence holder of M.O.1) and Accused No.1, said material witness was not examined by the investigation agency. As such, the allegations of Ex.P1-Report that Accused No.1 gave the original driving license of his cousin by name K.Kranthi Kumar to Accused No.2 in order to fabricate a fake driving license on his name, remained doubtful. There is no whisper in the prosecution evidence or there is no explanation by P.W.8 as to how and when he seized M.O.1. So, the theory of the prosecution that a fake driving license bearing No.AP0162011009565 seized from Accused No.1 basing on his confession under Ex.P3, could not be proved by the prosecution without any ambiguity.

13. The further contention of the prosecution is, having created a fake driving license on the name of Accused No.1, by using the details of 8 original driving license bearing No.AP0162011009564 by Accused No.2, it was forwarded to the email of Accused No.1 and inturn Accused No.1 took print out of said fake document and used the same as genuine. No such material electronic documentary evidence seized by the Investigation Officer to prove such email correspondence between Accused Nos.1 and 2. Likewise, except the alleged confession of Accused No.2 under Ex.P5, no material things used for creating a fake document, seized from his possession. In these circumstances, the evidence of P.W.5 that on 24-6-2015, police interrogated one person by name Sastry in his presence, remained doubtful. Infact P.W.5 did not identify Accused Nos.1 and 2 as Sai Vineel and Sastry as they confessed before the police in his presence. Moreover, P.W.5 did not sign on

Ex.P5 as witness.

14.Coming to P.W.7-B.Malyadri evidence. As deposed by him, on 28-4-2015 himself and P.W.5 attended at Governorpet Police Station to be witnesses for recording the statement of one person. The statement of Accused

No.1 was reduced into writing in his presence and later on, police seized fake driving license from him. He did not depose anything about the interrogation of Accused No.2 in his presence subsequently, under the cover of Mediators

Report marked under Ex.P5. As already discussed above, the seizure of fake driving license from the possession of Accused No.1 not proved by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the oral testimonies of P.Ws.5 and 7 not suffice to prove the contents of Ex.P5 against Accused No.2.

9

15.P.W.8-S.V.V.L.Narayana deposed in chief that on receipt of report from P.W.1 at about 11.00 hours, he registered a case in Crime No.106/2015 and issued a registered F.I.R, under Ex.P4, for the offences U/Secs.420, 468, 471 and 474 r/w 34 of I.P.C. He has examined P.W.1 and L.W.2 in the police station and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of offence and secured the presence of mediators i.e., P.Ws.5 and 7.

Later, he examined P.Ws.2 to 4, P.W.6 and L.W.5 and recorded their statements. In the presence of P.Ws.5 and 7, he seized M.O.1 from Accused

No.1 under the cover of Mediators Report i.e., Ex.P3 and he also seized a motor cycle bearing No.AP 16 CD 6384 under the cover of Ex.P3 from

Accused No.1. The photographs of said seized motor cycle marked under

M.O.2. Thus, the evidence of P.W.8 goes to show that he recorded the confession statement of Accused No.1 at the scene of offence, but not in the police station as deposed by P.Ws.5 and 7 and his evidence is contrary to the contents of Ex.P3. P.W.1 did not depose anything before this Court that he handed over Accused No.1 along with Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 16CD 6384 and the fake documents, to P.W.8. It is not the case of the prosecution that without having any proper record, the said motor cycle covered under M.O.2 was used by the Accused No.1 or 2. As such, what was the necessity for seizure of said motor cycle covered under M.O.2 not properly explained by the prosecution. According to Accused No.1 version, he was proceeding on the motor cycle belongs to his brother, by the time of the alleged incident.

Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that to whom the motor cycle bearing No.AP 16 CD 6384 belongs to. The so called eye witnesses who are 10 examined as P.W.4-K.Anil Kumar and P.W.6-B.Syamala Rao did not depose anything as Accused No.1 was driving the said motor cycle at the time of vehicle checking by P.W.1. According to P.W.4 version, in the year 2015 at about 10.30 a.m, Governorpet Police brought 2 or 3 persons in front of his shop and informed that they were caught hold by the police. He further clearly deposed that police did not interrogate said persons in his presence.

Whereas P.W.6 deposed that he was working as Manager in Johnson and

House Tile Bazaar by 28-4-2015. On that day at about 10.30 a.m police found one vehicle bearing No.6384 driven by one male person with fake license, but he did not identify said person. During the cross examination, he clearly deposed that subsequent to the said incident, police not examined him. So, the evidence of P.W.8 that he examined P.Ws.4 and 6 at the scene of offence, not corroborated by such witnesses. Hence, the oral testimony of P.W.1 that he caught hold Accused No.1 with a fake driving license during the course of vehicle checking at Hotel Grand Residency in the presence of respectable inhabitants of that area, could not be proved by the prosecution with sufficient corroboration.

16.The evidence elicited from P.W.8 during his cross examination, clearly shows the latches on the part of his investigation. As clearly admitted by him, he did not cite the two mediators of Ex.P5, as witnesses in the

Charge Sheet. Hence, it is crystal clear that Accused No.2 was not interrogated in the presence of P.W.5 or P.W.7. As further admitted by P.W.8, he did not seize any documents or material used for fabrication of M.O.1.

11

Infact M.O.1 is not a fake document and, it is the original driving license of one K.Kranthi Kumar. As clearly admitted by P.W.8, said Kranthi Kumar was not examined by him. With the insufficient evidence said to be collected by

P.W.8, during his course of investigation, the prosecution cannot succeed to seek for conviction of Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the charges levelled against them. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that accused could throw a reasonable doubts to probabilise the alleged moto behind implicating them in this case. To prove the plea of forgery and fabrication of documents, the prosecution required a complete technical evidence but no such material placed by the prosecution, except relying upon the alleged confession of Accused Nos.1 and 2, covered under Exs.P3 and P5.

The so called extra judicial confession of Accused Nos.1 and 2 in the presence of P.Ws.5 and 7 also could not be proved by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of producing a fake document said to be created by Accused Nos.1 and 2 with a common intention to cheat the government authorities, the case of the prosecution cannot be well accepted.

17.For the reasons stated supra, this Court has no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that this case is a classic example, where a less amount of material evidence placed by the prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused. Quite unfortunately, the prosecution tried to harp upon the oral testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 alone, to prove the guilt of the accused, but their evidence intoto is not consistent and not inspired any confidence in the mind of this Court, since the same was suffered with lack of corroboration. Hence, 12 with the insufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution, it cannot be held that Accused No.1 with the help of Accused No.2 fabricated a fake driving license on his name and used the same as genuine for the purpose of cheating the government authorities. Hence, this point can be answered against the prosecution as they failed to prove none of the allegations against Accused

Nos.1 and 2, beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus it is a fit case to extend benefit of doubt to the accused. Accordingly this point answered against the prosecution.

18. Point No.3:

In the light of above discussing oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and for the reasons given by this Court, while appreciating the same, it can be held that prosecution failed to prove guilt of

Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Secs.468 and 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C and guilt of Accused No.1 for the offences punishable U/Secs.471 and 474 of I.P.C, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

19.In the result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.468 and 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C; Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.471 and 474 of I.P.C and they are acquitted there U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused

Nos.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.

M.O.1-Original Driving License bearing No.AP01620110009564 shall be ordered to return to the original License Holder by name K.Kranthi 13

Kumar and M.O.2-Hero Hempls Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 16 CD 6384 shall be handed over to the registered owner by duly identifying him, after expiry of appeal time, under due process of law.

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

and pronounced by me, on this the 30th day of March, 2022.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Appendix of evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:-For Accused: P.W.1: G.Alluraiah -None- P.W.2: V.Rajesh Kumar P.W.3: J.Narasimha Rao P.W.4: K.Anil Kumar P.W.5: J.Manoj Kumar P.W.6: B.Symala Rao P.W.7: B.Malyadri P.W.8: S.V.V.L.Narayana, S.I of Police.

Documents Marked For Prosecution:- Ex.P1: Report dated 28-4-15 of P.W.1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 Ex.P3: Mediators Report dated 28-4-2015 Ex.P4: F.I.R in Cr.No.106/15,U/Secs.420,468,471 & 474 r/w 34 IPC of Governorpet P.S. Ex.P5: Mediators Report dated 24-06-2015

For Accused:

-None-

Material Objects: M.O.1 : Driving License bearing No.AP01620110009564 M.O.2 : Photograph of Motor Cycle (2 Nos.).

III Addl. C.M.M, Vijayawada.

14

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA.

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Date of Report orApprehen-ReleasedCommencClose ofSentence or OffenceComplainsion ofon baile-ment oftrialOrder -antaccusedtrial 28-04-1528-04-15––07-11-1925-03-2230-03-22

Name of the Court III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Calendar Case No.524-2015

ComplainantThe State rep. by its Sub Inspector of Police, Governorpet Police Station, Vijayawada City.

Particulars of the accused1)Ramisetti Sai Vineel, S/o.Gopala Rao,Vijayawada. 2)Chinnam Ashok Babu @ Sastry, S/o.Mohana Rao, Vijayawada.

OffenceU/Secs.468 and 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C against A1 and A2 and U/Sec.471 and 474 of I.P.C against A1. FindingNOT GUILTY Sentence: In the result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.468 and 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C; Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.471 and 474 of I.P.C and they are acquitted there U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.

Explanation for delay:- This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Secs.468, 471, 474 and 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C against Accused Nos.1 and 2 on 25-7-2015 and numbered as C.C No.524/2015. On appearance of Accused Nos.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C on 6-1-16. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are examined Under Section 239 of Cr.P.C on 19-8-19. P.W.1 is examined on 7-11-19, P.W.2 is examined on 30-12-19, P.W.3 is examined on 11-2-20, P.W.4 is examined on 3-3-20, P.W.5 is examined on 3-11-20, P.W.6 is examined on 15-11-21, P.W.7 is examined on 3-3-22 and P.W.8 is examined on 7-3-22. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C on 9-3-2022. Heard the arguments of A1 Counsel on 16-3-22. Heard the arguments of A2 Counsel on 25-3-2022. Judgment is pronounced on 30-3-22. Hence the delay.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

Present:- Smt. P.Sri Satya Devi, III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 8th day of April, 2022.

Calendar Case No. 330-2016 Between: The State rep. by its Sub Inspector of Police, Ajith Singh Nagar Police Station, Vijayawada City. …. Complainant.

AND

Ganji Veladri, S/o. Sambayya, 45 years, Padmasali, P.No.2477, Kandrika, Vijayawada – Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 30 X 4918…. Accused.

This case coming before me on 6-4-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.T.Sasikala, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/ Prosecution, and of Sri B.David Ratna Kumar, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The State, represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Ajith Singh

Nagar Police Station, Vijayawada City, laid charge sheet against the Accused, in Crime No.107/2016 of Ajith Singh Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable U/Sec.304A of I.P.C, Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act and

Sec.182 of M.V Act.

2.The brief facts of the case are, one Vinakoti Papayamma, resident of Prajasakthinagar, Payakapuram, Vijayawada, used to work as coolie and residing with her younger son. On 19-03-2016 at 6.00 p.m, when Papayamma was stood at Pipula Road, Singh Nagar, Vijayawada for auto rickshaw to go to house from the work, the lorry bearing No.AP 30 X 4918, being driven by 2 the accused, came from Vambay Colony side and going towards Y.S.R Colony, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, dashed her. Due to which she sutained injuries on her both legs, waist and other bleeding injuries, two legs were broken. She was shifted in 108 ambulance to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment.

On receipt of admission intimation, L.W.18-P.Ezra, Head

Constable, proceeded to there, recorded the statement of injured/V.Papayamma and sent the same to L.W.19-Krishna Mohan, Head Constable, Ajith Singh

Nagar P.S. On receipt of the same, said L.W.19 registered a case in Crime

No.107/2016, U/Sec.337 of I.P.C on 19-03-2016 at 21.30 hours, visited the scene of offence and observed the same, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, altered the section of law from 337 of I.P.C to 304A of I.P.C on receipt of death intimation of injured/V.Papayamma on 20-3-2016 at 7.00 a.m., held inquest over the dead body of deceased on 20-3-2016 at 11.30 hours in the presence of inquest panchayatdars. L.W.20-K.Vijaya Kumar, A.S.I of Police, took up investigation, examined and recorded the statements of some more witnesses, arrested the accused on 23-3-2015 at 10.30 hours when he surrendered before him, released him on bail upon obtaining sufficient sureties and sent requisitions to L.Ws.16 & 17 for inspecting the crime vehicle and for conducting post mortem examination. L.W.16-S.Balendu Sekhar, Motor

Vehicles Inspector, inspected the crime vehicle, issued Accident Report by opining that the accident is not due to any mechanical defects. L.W.17- 3

Dr.B.Srinu Naik, conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased, issued

Post Mortem Report and opined that the cause of death of deceased is due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. L.W.21-G.Phaneendra,S.I of

Police, took up investigation and verified the investigation done by L.Ws.19 and 20, found it on correct lines and filed the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs.304A of I.P.C and Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act.

3.The cognizance of offence was taken U/Sec.304A I.P.C and

Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act, by my Predecessor in Office.

4. On appearance of the Accused, the case copies were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused is examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the said offence stating the substance of accusation leveled against him in the Charge Sheet, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the accusation and claimed to be tried.

6.Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P15. However, Exs.D1 & D2 are marked, during the cross examination of

P.W.7.

4

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied. When Accused was called upon to enter his defense, he reported no defense evidence.

8.Perused the material evidence available on record.

9. The point that arises for determination is;

01)Whether the prosecution could bring home guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304A of I.P.C, beyond reasonable doubt or not ?

02)Whether the prosecution could bring home guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of

M.V.Act, beyond reasonable doubt or not ?

10. Point No.1:

It is the case of the prosecution that accused being a driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 30 X 4918, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed the pedestrian by name Vinakoti

Papayamma who stood at Pipula Road, Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, at about 6.00 p.m on 19-03-2016, while waiting for auto rickshaw. Due to such incident, she sustained injuries and lost her breath on the same day. Hence, the charge.

5

11.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 16 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 16 and got exhibited 15 documents under Exs.P1 to

P15. Out of them, P.W.1-V.Ramana and P.W.2-V.Appa Rao are the children of the deceased. Their evidence in chief that their mother met with an accident on 19-03-2016 at about 6.00 p.m, remained unchallenged. The further unchallenged evidence of P.W.2 goes to show that he witnessed the incident as he was also present at the scene of offence by the time of incident. On seeing the same, himself and others gathered to rescue his mother. Soon after the incident, the driver escaped from there after getting down the lorry. Hence, he could not see him. With the help of others, he shifted his mother to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, but she lost her breath at there. His evidence clearly goes to show that the lorry bearing

No.AP 30 X 4918 which was going towards Y.S.R Colony, dashed his mother by coming in high speed. By virtue of this unchallenged evidence of P.W.2, it is crystal clear that prosecution could prove not only the manner of accident but also the involvement of crime vehicle in the alleged accident which resulted death of the deceased, beyond reasonable doubt. However, P.W.2 evidence clinchingly goes to show that he did not observe the driver of crime vehicle who caused the accident. As such, the evidentiary burden is on the prosecution to establish the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle at relevant point of time, beyond reasonable doubt.

6

12.P.W.3-Ch.Mallikharjuna Rao, P.W.4-K.Srinivasa Rao, P.W.5-

A.Venkata Ramana and P.W.6-K.Siva Jaipal are said to be eye witnesses to the alleged incident, but they did not support the prosecution version and pleaded ignorance about the accident met by the deceased. Though, they were cross examined by the learned A.P.P, nothing could be elicited except marking their contradicted statements recorded U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C as Exs.P1 to

P4. Thus, the identification of the accused as driver of crime vehicle could not be proved by the prosecution with the help of these witnesses.

13.P.W.7-K.Naga Pratap is another independent eye witness to the alleged incident. According to his evidence in chief, on 19-3-2016 at about 6.00 p.m, an accident took place near road margin of Anjaneyaswami Temple when 404 lorry driven by the accused hit the deceased. He further deposed that the lorry ran over the leg of the deceased, due to which, she sustained a fracture injury and she was shifted to the hospital by the mob gathered there.

He was informed after 3 days of the incident that she lost her breath. He was subjected to cross examination.

During the cross examination, material contradictions elicited from him, marked under Exs.D1 and D2 which throw a reasonable doubt in the mind of this Court about his alleged presence at the scene of offence, by the time of incident. In addition to that, according to his evidence deceased sustained fracture injury to her leg but the inquest report marked under Ex.P7 and the Post Mortem Report of the deceased marked under Ex.P5, do not 7 show any fracture injury to her leg. As per the statement of injured (deceased) marked under Ex.P9, she sustained bleeding injuries to her legs only, but not fracture injury as deposed by P.W.7. Thus, the presence of

P.W.7 at the scene of offence by the time of incident, remained doubtful. As further admitted by him, he did not state before the police that accused escaped from the scene of offence soon after the incident. No corroboration to the oral testimony of P.W.7 as he being an auto driver, present at the scene of offence by the time of incident.

14.P.W.8-Dr.B.Srinu Naik, is the Medical Officer who issued Ex.P5 by opining that death of the deceased caused due to shock and haemorrhage, due to multiple injuries. His evidence remained unchallenged. Thus, accused did not dispute the death of the deceased.

15.P.W.10-P.Satya Rao is one of the inquest panchayatdars. The original Inquest Report of the deceased marked under Ex.P7, through him. As per his evidence in chief, police held inquest to the dead body of the deceased in their presence and prepared a report therein and he signed on the same as a witness. But during the cross examination, he deposed that the contents of Ex.P7 not read over to him after its preparation. So, the contents of Ex.P7 about the involvement of accused in the alleged accident, cannot be believed basing on the oral testimony of P.W.10.

8

16. P.W.11-K.Venkatappaiah is the mediator for the scene observation report. The original Scene Observation Report marked through him, under

Ex.P8. As deposed by him, police observed the scene of offence in his presence at 11.30 p.m on 19-03-2016. Though he was cross examined by the defense counsel, nothing contrary could be elicited to deny his evidence in chief. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to rely upon his oral testimony coupled with Ex.P3 to hold that police visited the scene of offence soon after the incident and observed the same in the presence of P.W.11. From this document the manner of accident can be visualised as the same was supported by the occular evidence.

17.P.W.12-P.Ezra is the then Head Constable of O.P.P.S., G.G.H.,

Vijayawada as on 19-03-2016. As deposed by him, he recorded the statement of deceased under Ex.P9 when she was admitted in the Government Hospital.

Later, he forwarded the same to Ajithsingh Nagar Police Station along with hospital intimation on the point of jurisdiction. The original hospital intimation marked under Ex.P10. During the cross examination, he admitted that it was not specifically mentioned in the body of Ex.P9-statement. The said statement was read over to the deponent. No vested interest can be attributed to P.W.12 to deny the correctness of Ex.P9 for the reason, the manner of accident clearly deposed by P.W.2 being an eye witness to the incident. As such, the contents of Ex.P9 can be accepted in toto to hold that 9 the crime vehicle driven by its driver hit the deceased at the scene of offence by driving the same in a rash and negligent manner.

18.P.W.13-P.Krishna Mohan is the Investigation Officer. His evidence in chief goes to show that on 19-03-2016 at about 21.30 hours, he received Ex.P10 along with the statement of injured under Ex.P9, from

Government General Hosital Out Post P.S, Vijayawada and registered the same as a case in Crime No.107/2016, U/Sec.337 of I.P.C and issued Ex.P11-F.I.R.

Later, he proceded to the scene of offence and observed the same in the presence of mediators and prepared the Scene Observation Report under Ex.P8 and rough sketch of the same under Ex.P12. On the next day morning, at about 7.00 a.m., he received death intimation of injured under Ex.P13 from

Government Hospital. Then he altered the section of law U/Sec.304A of I.P.C and issued altered F.I.R under Ex.P14. He examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 and held inquest to the dead body of the deceased at Government General Hospital, Vijayawada in the presence of her blood relatives and inquest panchayatdars. On the same day, he sent requisition for conducting autopsy to the dead body of deceased and after completion of autopsy, they handed over the dead body to her blood relatives.

As admitted by him during the cross examination, none of the witnesses stated before him that they can identify the driver of the crime vehicle, if shown to them. As such, the theory of the prosecution that P.Ws.2 10 to 4 stated that accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident to the deceased, remained incorrect.

19.P.W.14-K.Vijay Kumar is the then Asst. Sub Inspector of Police,

Singh Nagar P.S., who deposed that he continued investigation of Crime No.

107/2016 on 20-03-2016 and he examined P.Ws.5,6 and L.W.11-G.Nagi Reddy and recorded their statements. On 23-03-2015 at about 10.30 a.m, accused himself surrendered before him and he examined owner of crime vehicle i.e.,

P.W.9 on the same day. Upon confirmation of identity of the accused, he arrested and released him upon obtaining sufficient solvencies. Thereafter, he sent a requisition to Motor Vehicles Inspector for inspecting the crime vehicle.

As deposed by him in the cross examination, P.W.9 is the owner of the crime vehicle and he seized the record of crime vehicle from him. His further admission shows contrary i.e as per the record of crime vehicle, one

Ravula Rama Sita is the registered owner of crime vehicle bearing No.AP 13 X 4918 and he did not examine her. Thus, it is crystal clear that K.Naga Raju who was examined as P.W.9 is not the owner of lorry bearing No.AP 30 X 4918 (crime vehicle). Hence, his evidence in chief that he is not the owner of said vehicle is completely true and correct in the light of clear admission made by P.W.14. Then, what was the necessity for P.W.14 to examine

P.W.9, remained unanswered. The non-examination of registered owner of crime vehicle is certainly fatal to the prosecution case as she is the material witness to depose as to who was engaged by her on the crime vehicle as on 11 the date of incident. As further admitted by P.W.14, he did not collect any documentary evidence to show that accused was engaged as driver of crime vehicle as on the date of incident. This evidence of P.W.14 clearly shows the latches on the part of the investigation agency in collecting the incriminating evidence against the accused.

20.P.W.15-S.Balendu Sekhar is the Motor Vehicles Inspector whose evidence remained unchallenged. As already held above, the involvement of crime vehicle could be established by the prosecution with sufficient ocular evidence. Hence, the oral testimony of P.W.15 coupled with Ex.P15 which remained unchallenged, can be accepted in toto, to believe the prosecution version with regard to the involvement of crime vehicle in the alleged incident.

21.P.W.16-G.Phanindra is the Investigation Officer who filed the

Charge Sheet against the accused upon finalizing the investigation. As admitted by him during the cross examination, P.W.9 is not the registered owner of crime vehicle and he also did not examine the actual owner of the crime vehicle to confirm the identity of the accused as driver of said vehicle by the time of incident.

22.In the light of above discussed oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clear no direct or circumstantial evidence 12 adduced by the prosecution pointing the accused that he drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on 19-03-2016 at about 6.00 p.m at the scene of offence and dashed the deceased who stood by the side of the road, while waiting to board an auto. The accused was not confronted to the alleged eye witnesses by the investigation agency to confirm his identity. In the absence of such material evidence, accused cannot be held responsible for the death of the deceased even though it was established by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to extend benefit of doubt to the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

23. Point No.2:

The further accusation of the prosecution is accused failed to secure medical attention for the injured and failed to report the circumstances of the offence to the nearest police station within time frame. Since the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused as driver of crime vehicle at relevant point of time, it cannot be held that accused escaped from the scene of offence soon after the incident without securing medical attention to the injured and without reporting the circumstances of the incident to the nearby police. Though P.W.2 deposed that driver of crime vehicle got down from the lorry and escaped from the scene of offence, soon after the incident, it cannot be attributed to the accused, in the absence of establishing his identity. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

13

24.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304A of I.P.C, Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act and he is acquitted there U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this 8th day of April, 2022.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: -For Accused: P.W.1: V.Ramana -None- P.W.2: V.Appa Rao P.W.3: Ch.Mallikharjuna Rao P.W.4: K.Srinivasa Rao P.W.5: A.Venkata Ramana P.W.6: K.Siva Jaipal P.W.7: K.Naga Pratap P.W.8: Dr.B.Srinu Naik, Medical Officer. P.W.9: K.Naga Raju P.W.10: P.Satya Rao P.W.11: K.Venkatappaiah P.W.12: P.Ezra, Head Constable P.W.13: P.Krishna Mohan, Head Constable. P.W.14: K.Vijaya Kumar, A.S.I of Police. P.W.15: S.Balendu Sekhar, M.V.I. P.W.16: G.Phaneendra, S.I of Police.

Documents Marked For Prosecution:- Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 Ex.P5: Post Mortem Report Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.9 Ex.P7: Inquest Report 14

Ex.P8: Scene Observation Report Ex.P9: Statement of deceased/V.Papayamma Ex.P10: Hospital Intimation Ex.P11: F.I.R in Cr.No.107/16, U/Sec.337 of I.P.C of Ajithsingh Nagar P.S. Ex.P12: Rough Sketch Ex.P13: death intimation Ex.P14: Altered F.I.R Ex.P15: Accident Report

For Accused:

Ex.D1 : Some portion of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.7 Ex.D2 : Some portion of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.7

Material Objects: -Nil-

III Addl. C.M.M, Vijayawada.

15

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA.

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Date of Report orApprehen-ReleasedCommenceClose ofSentence OffenceComplain-sion ofon bail-ment oftrialor Order antaccusedtrial 19-03-1619-03-16––24-02-2006-04-2208-04-22

Name of the Court III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Calendar Case No.330-2016

ComplainantThe State rep. by its Sub Inspector of Police, Ajith Singh Nagar Police Station, Vijayawada City.

Particulars of theGanji Veladri, S/o. Sambayya, 45 years, Padmasali, accusedP.No.2477, Kandrika, Vijayawada – Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 30 X 4918

OffenceU/Sec.304A of IPC, Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act

FindingNOT GUILTY Sentence: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304A of I.P.C, Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act and he is acquitted there U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.

Explanation for delay:- This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.304A of I.P.C and Sec.134(a) &(b) r/w 187 of M.V Act against the accused on 26-05-2016 and numbered as C.C.No.330-2016. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C on 14-09-2016. Accused is examined Under Section 251 of Cr.P.C on 25-10-2019. P.Ws.1 & 2 are examined on 24-02-20, P.Ws.3 & 4 are examined on 23-09-21, P.Ws.5 & 6 are examined on 07-10-21, P.W.7 is examined on 11-01-21, P.W.8 is examined on 12-11-21, P.W.9 is examined on 25-11-21, P.Ws.10 & 11 are examined on 27-12-21, P.W.12 is examined on 03- 03-22, P.Ws.13 & 14 are examined on 21-03-22, P.W.15 is examined on 25- 03-22 and P.W.16 is examined on 04-04-22. Accused is examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C on 06-04-22. Heard the arguments of defense counsel on 06-04-22. Judgment is pronounced on 08-04-22. Hence the delay.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

Present:- Smt. P.Sri Satya Devi, III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Thursday, this the 31st day of March, 2022.

Calendar Case No.416-2015 Between: The State rep. by its Sub Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada City. …. Complainant.

AND

Chodisetti Surya Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Sridhar, 38 years, Kapu, D.No.3-85, Narsayyapet, Kirlampudi Mandal,East Godavari District – Driver of TATA Ace (Ashok Leyland Dost) bearing No. AP 05 TD 1737…. Accused.

This case coming before me on 28-3-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.T.Sasikala, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/ Prosecution, and of Sri K.Arun Kumar, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The State, represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam

Police Station, Vijayawada City, laid charge sheet against the Accused, in

Crime No.91/2015 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station for the offences punishable

U/Sec.304A, 338 of I.P.C and Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act.

2.The brief facts of the case are, on 28-03-2015 one Munganti

Nagaraju along with L.W.6-D.Yesu went to Tummalapalem Village,

Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, on his T.V.S XL Moped bearing No.AP 16 BU 0175, attended a band programme there. After completion of programme, they were returning home and when they reached Tummalapalem Signal Point and taking U-turn in order to go to Bhavanipuram, the accused being a driver of a 2 goat laden Tata Ace (Ashok Leyland Dost) vehicle bearing No.AP 05 TD 1737, while coming from Hyderabad to Vijayawada side, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn and rammed into the moped. As a result of which, Munganti Nagaraju as well as L.W.6 fell down along with the bike and the crime vehicle ran over through them, Nagaraju sustained severe injuries and died instantaneously whereas L.W.6 suffered with injuries.

The injured/D.Yesu was shifted to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada in 108 ambulance.

On the report given by L.W.1-M.Kanta Rao, L.W.14-P.Krishna, S.I of Police, registered a case in Crime No.91/2015,U/Secs.304A, 337 of I.P.C, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketchs of scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, held inquest over the dead body of deceased at Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, examined and recorded the statements of some more witnesses, arrested the accused on 6-4-2015, released him on station bail and sent requisition for inspecting the crime vehicle. L.W.13-M.V.N.Raju, Motor Vehicles Inspector, inspected the crime vehicle and issued Accident Report, by opining that accident was not due to any mechanical defects. L.W.11-Dr.G.Sivarami Reddy, conducted autopsy to the dead body of deceased, issued Post Mortem Report and opined that the cause of death of deceased was due to multiple injuries. L.W.12-

Dr.K.Radha Krishna, examined and treated L.W.6, issued Wound Certificate by opining that the injuries sustained by him are grievous in nature. After completion of investigation, L.W.14 filed the Charge Sheet against the 3 accused, for the offences punishable U/Secs.304A & 338 of I.P.C and

Secs.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act.

3.The cognizance of offence was taken U/Secs.338,304A I.P.C and

Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act, by my Predecessor in office.

4. On appearance of the Accused, the case copies were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused is examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the said offence stating the substance of accusation leveled against him in the Charge Sheet, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the accusation and claimed to be tried.

6.Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied. When Accused was called upon to enter his defense, he reported no defense evidence.

8.Perused the material evidence available on record.

4

9. The point that arises for determination is;

01)Whether the prosecution could prove identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle bearing No.AP 05 TD 1737, beyond resonable doubt or not ?

02)Whether the prosecution could bring home guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.304A, 338 of I.P.C and

Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act, beyond reasonable doubt or not ?

10. Point No.1:

The very case of the prosecution is, accused being a driver of

Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.AP 05 TD 1737, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at about 7.00 hours on 28-3-2015 at Tummalapalem Signal

Point and dashed the motor cycle i.e.,TVS XL Moped No.AP 16 BU 0175 on which deceased was going on. As a result, the deceased fell on the road and crime vehicle ran over him which caused an instantaneous death to the deceased. Accused having noticed the same, failed to secure medical attention for the pillion rider of said vehicle and failed to report the circumstances of the offence to the nearest police station and escaped from the scene.

In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9 against 14 cited witnesses and got exhibited 10 documents, under Exs.P1 to P10. According to the prosecution version, P.Ws.3 and 4 are eye witnesses to the alleged accident apart from pillion rider of the deceased vehicle who was cited as L.W.6. The prosecution did not choose to 5 examine L.W.6 as his whereabouts not known. P.Ws.3 and 4, being independent witnesses, did not support the prosecution version as they pleaded ignorance about the accident referred in this case. Their contradicted statements recorded U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C, marked under Exs.P2 and P3.

Though the Investigation Officer who was examined as P.W.9 deposed that

P.Ws.3 and 4 stated before him as in Exs.P2 and P3, no legal sanctity can be attached to the same in the absence of eliciting any worthwhile admissions from P.Ws.3 and 4, during their cross examination by the learned A.P.P.

However, to prove the identity of the accused as driver of crime vehicle, the oral testimonies of P.Ws.3 and 4 would not be sufficient in the light of clear evidence deposed by P.W.9, during his cross examination. He clearly admitted that no witness stated before him that they have seen the accused while driving the crime vehicle and they can identify him again. So, neither the cited witnesses nor the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, stated before the Investigation Agency that they saw the accused while driving the crime vehicle at relevant point of time. Though, accused is the owner of the Tata Ace Vehicle bearing No.AP 05 TD 1737, which can be noticed from the Accident Report, marked under Ex.P7 through Motor Vehicles Inspector who was examined as P.W.8, much weight cannot be attached to this document as no one identified him while driving the crime vehicle by the time of accident. According to the evidence of Investigation Officer, after 7 days of the accident, accused himself surrendered before him on 6-4-2015 by admitting his guilt, by which time he obtained a report from accused under 6

Ex.P10. As suggested to P.W.9, the accident was caused when the deceased drove his vehicle in high speed and fell on the road when he could not control its speed, but not due to hit of their vehicle by the crime vehicle.

But, it was denied by him. In view of this suggestion it is clear that accused is not denying the accident met by the deceased on that day, but the motor cycle of the deceased was neither seized nor inspected by the M.V.I, to establish that the alleged damage was caused to the crime vehicle due to hitting the motor cycle of deceased. It is fatal to the prosecution’s case.

11.P.W.1-M.Kantha Rao, being a defacto complainant, deposed that he came to know that accident took place when a van hit the motor cycle of the deceased. He found the dead body of the deceased at the spot and also the motor cycle of the deceased and another injured at there. On that he reported the accident to the police, under Ex.P1. As deposed by him during the cross examination, Ex.P1 was scribed by one of the police officials and son of the deceased informed to him about the manner of accident. His evidence intoto completely silent about the registration number of the vehicle or its descriptive particulars which involved in the said accident. In these circumstances, though in Ex.P1 the registration number of the crime vehicle was mentioned, much weight cannot be attached to the same since P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the incident and his evidence regarding involvement of van in the alleged accident, is nothing but hearsay. The son of the deceased was not examined by the prosecution, but the wife of the deceased was 7 examined as P.W.2-M.Adi Lakshmi. Her evidence also regarding accident met by her deceased husband, is hearsay as she clearly deposed that she received the information from her son.

12.To prove the identity of the accused as driver of the crime vehicle at relevant point of time, the evidence of son of deceased who informed the accident to P.Ws.1 and 2 is very much material, but the prosecution did not choose to examine him. Hence, no reliance can be placed on Ex.P7 in these circumstances to hold that accused being owner of crime vehicle bearing No.AP 05 TD 1737 drove the same at relevant point of time.

The alleged confession of the accused before the police covered under Ex.P10 shall not be allowed to prove in the light of the legal bar U/Sec.25 of Indian

Evidence Act. To prove the contents of Ex.P10, the prosecution did not adduce any other circumstantial evidence. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused as driver of the crime vehicle at relevant point of time. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

13.Point No.2:

The death of the deceased on account of the accident met by him on 28-3-2015 not disputed by the accused and it can be noticed from the manner of cross examination done by him to the prosecution witnesses.

According to the defense of accused, deceased drove his motor cycle bearing

No.AP 16 BU 0175 in high speed and could not control the speed of his 8 vehicle at the scene of offence and thereby fell on the road. To prove the death of the deceased, the prosecution relied upon the oral testimonies of

P.Ws.5 and 6. P.W.5-K.Giri, being an Inquest panchayatdar, deposed that he attended for the inquest of the deceased held by the police at Government

General Hospital, Vijayawada on 29-3-2015 and he signed on the inquest report prepared by the police which is marked under Ex.P4. As admitted by him, no written notice issued to him by the police to act as inquest panchayatdar, but he signed on Ex.P4 upon confirming its contents. His evidence in chief is completely silent about the presence of eye witnesses to the alleged accident. He did not depose anything as to whether the police examined any witnesses in his presence on that day to confirm the cause of death of the deceased which mentioned in Column No.15 of Ex.P4. In these circumstances, the reason assigned by the prosecution in Column No.15 of

Ex.P4 cannot be completely relied to hold that the death of the deceased was caused due to hit of his motor cycle by the crime vehicle, driven by the accused. The Post Mortem Report of the deceased issued by P.W.6-

Dr.G.Sivarami Reddy, marked under Ex.P5 which shows that deceased sustained multiple injuries which is cause of his death. Since defence of the accused is the accident met by the deceased was due to falling on the road from a moving vehicle when he could not control the speed of his vehicle, no suspicion over the contents of Ex.P5 can be entertained. Basing on the oral testimonies of P.W.6 coupled with Ex.P5, it can be held that deceased died due to multiple injuries sustained by him, in a road traffic accident.

9

14.In the absence of examining the injured, much weight cannot be given to the oral testimony of P.W.7-Dr.N.Radha Krishna coupled with Ex.P6 to hold that L.W.6-D.Yesu sustained simple and grievous injuries in the alleged accident, being pillion rider of the deceased vehicle. Thus, accused cannot be held responsible for the alleged injuries, sustained by L.W.6 as well as for the death of the deceased.

15. To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/Secs.304A, 338 of I.P.C, the prosecution must establish not only the death of the deceased or injuries of the injured but also the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle apart from proving his rash and negligent act, is the root cause for such death and injuries. In the case on hand, the factum of accident met by the deceased not disputed by the accused at the scene of offence, but his specific defense is, he is no way concerned with the alleged incident. The evidential burden is upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the the death and injuries of the injured is nothing but out come of negligent or rash act of the accused. With the above discussed oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution could not prove the same.

Hence, it is a fit case to extend benefit of doubt to the accused. In addition to that, none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution deposed that accused escaped from the scene of offence soon after the incident and his presence could not be secured in spite of their efforts. As could be seen from 10 the record, P.W.1 reported the incident to Ibrahimpatnam police at 22.30 hours on 28-3-2015. It means within 2 ½ hours of the alleged incident, it was reported to the police. Ex.P1 is also silent about the availability of crime vehicle and accused at the scene when P.W.1 reached there. As per Ex.P9-

Rough Sketch, the crime vehicle was very much present at the scene of offence when it was observed by P.W.9. Hence, the contention of the prosecution that accused failed to secure medical attention for the injured soon after the incident, cannot be believed. Moreover, in Ex.P1 it was clearly mentioned that injured was shifted to the hospital through 108 ambulance by the time, P.W.1 reached the scene. Absolutely, no evidence to prove that accused left the injured to his fate. Hence, accused cannot be held liable for the offences punishable U/Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

16.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.304A,338 of I.P.C and Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act and he is acquitted there U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the

Accused shall stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this 31st day of March, 2022.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

11

Appendix of evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: -For Accused: P.W.1: M.Kantha Rao -None- P.W.2: M.Adi Lakshmi P.W.3: Ch.Durga Koteswara Rao P.W.4: D.Nagaraju P.W.5: K.Giri P.W.6: Dr.G.Sivarami Reddy P.W.7: Dr.N.Radha Krishna P.W.8: M.V.N.Raju, M.V.I., P.W.9: P.Krishna, S.I of Police.

Documents Marked For Prosecution:- For Accused: Ex.P1: Report given by P.W.1 to the police - None - Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 Ex.P4: Inquest Report Ex.P5: Post Mortem Report Ex.P6: Wound Certificate Ex.P7: Accident Report Ex.P8: F.I.R No.91/15, U/Sec.304A,337 IPC of Ibrahimpatam P.S. Ex.P9: Rough Sketch Ex.P10: Report given by the accused

Material Objects: -Nil-

III Addl. C.M.M, Vijayawada.

12

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA.

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Date of Report orApprehen-ReleasedCommenceClose ofSentence OffenceComplain-sion ofon bail-ment oftrialor Order antaccusedtrial 28-3-1528-3-15––27-01-2028-03-2231-03-22

Name of the Court III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Calendar Case No.416-2015

ComplainantThe State rep. by its Sub Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada City.

Particulars of theChodisetti Surya Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Sridhar, 38 accusedyears, Kapu, D.No.3-85, Narsayyapet, Kirlampudi Mandal,East Godavari District – Driver of TATA Ace (Ashok Leyland Dost) bearing No.AP 05 TD 1737

OffenceU/Secs.304A,338 of I.P.C and Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act

FindingNOT GUILTY Sentence: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.304A,338 of I.P.C and Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act and he is acquitted there U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.

Explanation for delay:- This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.304A,338 of I.P.C and Sec.134(a) &(b) r/w 187 of M.V Act against the accused on 12-6-15 and numbered as C.C.No.416-2015. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C on 7-8-15. Accused is examined Under Section 251 of Cr.P.C on 12-12-19. P.Ws.1 & 2 are examined on 27-1-20, P.W.3 is examined on 11-3-20, P.W.4 is examined on 11-01-21, P.W.5 is examined on 2-12-21, P.Ws.6 & 7 are examined on 23-12-21, P.W.8 is examined on 7-1-22 and P.W.9 is examined on 9-3-22. Accused is examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C on 21-3-22. Heard the arguments of defense counsel on 28-3-22. Judgment is

pronounced on 31-03-2022. Hence the delay.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

Present:- Smt. P.Sri Satya Devi, III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 7th day of April, 2022.

Calendar Case No.558-2015 Between: The State rep. by its Sub Inspector of Police, Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada City. …. Complainant.

AND

Kodali Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Basavaiah, 55 years, Kamma, D.No.2-224, Currency Nagar, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada – Driver of Lorry No. AP 16 TW 5855. …. Accused.

This case coming before me on 4-4-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.T.Sasikala, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/ Prosecution, and of Sri A.Murali Krishna, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The State, represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Patamata

Police Station, Vijayawada City, laid charge sheet against the Accused, in

Crime No.68/2015 of Patamata Police Station for the offences punishable

U/Sec.304A of I.P.C and Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act.

2.The brief facts of the case are, one Garapati Prasad, resident of

Poranki, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District was working as Clearner on the lorry on which accused was working as Driver. On 01-02-2015 at about 9.30 a.m, Garapati Prasad received a phone call from L.W.5-N.Koteswara Rao, owner of the lorry, to attend the duty. Accordingly, Garapati Prasad left the house and reached the Ashok Leyland Parking Place, Enikepadu Village, 2

Vijayawada Rural. On the same day at about 11.10, accused being a driver of lorry, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner while taking the lorry from the Ashok Leyland Parking Place towards Ramavarappadu side.

Due to which, the cleaner of said lorry i.e., Garapati Prasad fell down while getting into the said lorry and died on the spot.

On receipt of report from L.W.1-G.Surya Kumari, wife of deceased-G.Prasad on 1-2-2015 at 12.00 hours, L.W.15-A.D.L.Janardhan, S.I of

Police, registered a case in Crime No.68/2015, U/Sec.304A of I.P.C, inspected the scene of offence and observed the same, prepared rough sketch of scene, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars, sent the dead body of deceased for post mortem examination, arrested the accused on 4-2-2015 at 10.00 hours when he surrendered before him along with crime vehicle, served notice U/Sec.41A of Cr.P.C to him, released him on bail upon obtaining sufficient sureties. L.W.14-T.V.N.Subba Rao, Motor Vehicles

Inspector, inspected the crime vehicle, issued Accident Report and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects. L.W.13-Dr.B.Srinu Naik, conducted autopsy to the dead body of deceased, issued Post Mortem Report and opined that the cause of death is due to multiple injuries. After completion of investigation, L.W.15 filed the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.304A of I.P.C and Secs.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act.

3

3.The cognizance of offence was taken U/Sec.304A I.P.C, by my

Predecessor in Office.

4. On appearance of the Accused, the case copies were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused is examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the said offence stating the substance of accusation leveled against him in the Charge Sheet, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the accusation and claimed to be tried.

6.Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied. When Accused was called upon to enter his defense, he reported no defense evidence.

8.Perused the material evidence available on record.

9. The point that arises for determination is; 4

Whether the prosecution could bring home guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304A of I.P.C, beyond reasonable doubt or not ?

10. Point :

It is the case of the proscution that accused being a driver of

Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TW 5855 negligently moved said lorry from Ashok

Leyland Parking Area towards Ramavarappadu without observing the deceased who was boarding the said lorry, being its cleaner. Due to such negligent act of accused, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. Thus, he is held responsible for the death of the deceased.

11.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 9 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9 and got exhibited 12 documents under Exs.P1 to

P12. Out of them, P.Ws.4 and 5 who are said to be Mediators for Scene

Observation, did not support the prosecution version, except admitting their signatures on the Scene Observation Report dated 1-2-2015 which are marked under Exs.P3 and P4. P.Ws.1 and 2 are said to be eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Among them, P.W.1-M.Rama Swamy supported the prosecution version by identifying the accused as driver of the lorry bearing

No.AP 16 TW 5855 who used to park his vehicle in the parking area for which he was working as Watchman. Whereas P.W.2-N.Chandraiah pleaded ignorance about the manner of accident, but he deposed that accident took 5 place outside the gate of parking area of Ashok Leyland lorries on 1-2-2015 at about 11.00 a.m.

The conjoint reading of the oral testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2, this

Court noticed that they are not the eye witnesses to the alleged incident for the reason they clearly deposed that they were inside of their office by the time of incident and on coming to know the information, they came out and found the dead body of the deceased and the stationed lorry i.e., crime vehicle at the scene. Though P.W.1 was cross examined by the defense counsel, nothing contrary could be elicited to deny his evidence in chief. As deposed by him in the cross examination, they maintained a separate register for noting down the inward and outward of the lorries, parked in their area and he did not hand over such register to the police when he was examined by them. Non collection of the documentary evidence may be fatal to the prosectuion case, but it shall not be a ground to deny the presence of P.W.1 at the scene of offence on the alleged date of incident. Likewise, even in the absence of documentary proof about the occupation of P.W.1 as Watchman of scene of offence parking area, his evidence in chief can be relied for the reason, P.W.2 clearly deposed that P.W.1 was working as Watchman in the

Ashok Leyland Parking Area place. As such, this Court has no hesitation to rely upon the oral testimony of P.W.1 to hold that prosecution could prove the identity of the accused as driver of crime vehicle at relevant point of time.

6

12.P.W.3-G.Dinesh Chandra is the son of the deceased-G.Prasad as well as the defacto complainant i.e., L.W.1-G.Surya Kumari. As deposed by him, his mother died on 17-11-2015 i.e., subsequent to the death of his father. His further evidence in chief goes to show that on 1-2-2015, his father met with an accident at Ashok Leyland Parking Area at Enikepadu.

Someone from the accident spot, made a phone call to his mother and informed the same to her. In turn, she informed the same to him and left to the accident spot. He also rushed to the accident spot and found the dead body of his father and also his mother who was in shock. Someone who was present at the accident spot, informed them that the accident took place due to negligence of the lorry driver who did not observe the deceased when he was about to board the lorry. He further deposed that police shifted the dead body of his father to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada and his mother reported the accident to the police, under Ex.P2. His evidence in chief not traversed by the accused by way of cross examination. As such, the death of the deceased/G.Prasad on account of the accident met by him at the scene of offence area on 1-2-2015 at about 11.00 a.m, can be accepted without seeking any further proof. However, the oral testimony of P.W.3 about the manner of accident is nothing but hearsay and it was not corroborated by any other independent direct or circumstantial evidence. No one deposed before this Court that the accident was occurred while the deceased was trying to board the crime vehicle when it was driven by accused negligently. In these circumstances, the oral testimony of P.W.6-B.Seetha 7

Ramaiah coupled with Ex.P5 i.e., inquest panchayatdars and inquest report of the deceased, cannot be completely taken into consideration to believe the manner of accident to hold that it was occurred purely on the negligence of the accused.

13.P.W.7-T.V.N.Subba Rao is the Motor Vehicles Inspector who inspected the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TW 5855 on 4-2-2015 on the requisition of S.H.O., Patamata Police Station. His evidence in chief remained unchallenged. His evidence coupled with Ex.P6-Accident Report given by him goes to show that the crime vehicle was in fit condition and no damage occurred to it by the time of its inspection. The involvement of the crime vehicle in the alleged incident can be accepted basing on his evidence which was corroborated by the oral testimony of P.W.1. As per Ex.P6-Accident

Report, Smt.N.Vani is the registered owner of said vehicle. She was neither cited nor examined by the prosecution as witness in this case.

14.P.W.8-Dr.B.Srinu Naik is the Medical Officer who conducted post mortem examination to the dead body of the deceased. As per his evidence coupled with Ex.P7-Post Mortem Report, the death of the deceased caused due to multiple injuries. During the cross examination, he admitted the suggestion that there is a possibility to get like injuries mentioned in Column No.11 of

Ex.P7 due to fall on the hard surface from a considerable height.

8

15.P.W.9-A.D.L.Janardhan is the Investigation Officer whose evidence in chief is nothing but basing on the record, regarding his investigation of Crime No.68/15 which was registered U/Sec.304A of I.P.C.

The registered F.I.R, rough sketch of scene and Scene Observation Report marked under Exs.P8 to P10. The positive photographs without corresponding

C.D marked under Exs.P11 and P12 which shows the dead body of the deceased. According to his further evidence, on 4-2-2015, the owner of the crime vehicle i.e.,L.W.5-N.Koteswara Rao came to the police station and submitted the record of crime vehicle and surrendered the accused as driver of said vehicle. This evidence of P.W.9 is contrary to the contents of Ex.P6.

The said N.Koteswara Rao is not the owner of crime vehicle. During the cross examination, he clearly admitted that none of the witnesses stated before him that deceased fell on the road from a moving lorry due to accidental slip.

In the light of this clear admission made by P.W.9 it remained doubtful, as to how P.W.9 could conclude that the contents of Ex.P2-Report about the manner of accident as true and correct. Undoubtedly, prosecution could prove the factum of accident met by the deceased as well as his death on account of such accident and also the existing physical features of scene of offence and involvement of crime vehicle apart from establishing the identity of the accused as driver of said vehicle, beyond reasonable doubt. However, the same is not suffice to visualize the manner of accident as projected by the prosecution, in the light of any consistent direct or circumstantial evidence.

To prove the criminal negligence, high degree of proof is required to apply 9 the rule of res ipsa loquitur. In the case on hand, no one deposed that accused being a driver of crime vehicle drove the same either in rash manner or negligently. In these circumstances, how the deceased fell on the road at the parking area of Ashok Leyland near to the crime vehicle, remained as not proved. In these circumstances, accused cannot be held responsible for the death of the deceased as well as for the alleged accident. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to extend benefit of doubt to the accused instead of making him responsible for the death of the deceased.

16.For the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304A of I.P.C, beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of proving rash or negligent act of the accused, his conviction for the offence U/Sec.304A of

I.P.C, is not sustainable and cannot stand good. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

17.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304A of I.P.C and he is acquitted there U/Sec.255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this 7th day of April, 2022.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

10

Appendix of evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: -For Accused: P.W.1: M.Rama Swamy -None- P.W.2: N.Chandraiah P.W.3: G.Dinesh Chandra P.W.4: M.Siva Rama Prasad P.W.5: R.Sambasiva Rao P.W.6: B.Seetha Ramaiah P.W.7: T.V.N.Subba Rao,M.V.I P.W.8: Dr.B.Srinu Naik, Medical Officer. P.W.9: A.D.L.Janardhan,S.I of Police.

Documents Marked For Prosecution:- For Accused: Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 - None - Ex.P2: Report of L.W.1 given to the police Ex.P3: Signature of P.W.4 on Scene Observation Report Ex.P4: Signature of P.W.5 on Scene Observation Report Ex.P5: Inquest Report Ex.P6: Accident Report Ex.P7: Post Mortem Report Ex.P8: F.I.R No.68/15, U/Sec.304Aof IPC of Patamata P.S. Ex.P9: Rough Sketch Ex.P10: Scene Observation Report Exs.P11 & 12: Photographs with corresponding C.D.

Material Objects: -Nil-

III Addl. C.M.M, Vijayawada.

11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA.

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Date of Report orApprehen-ReleasedCommenceClose ofSentence or OffenceComplain-sion ofon bail-ment oftrialOrder antaccusedtrial 01-02-1501-02-15––14-10-1904-04-2207-04-22

Name of the Court III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Calendar Case No.558-2015

ComplainantThe State rep. by its Sub Inspector of Police, Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada City.

Particulars of theKodali Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Basavaiah, 55 years, accusedKamma, D.No.2-224, Currency Nagar, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada – Driver of Lorry No. AP 16 TW 5855.

OffenceU/Sec.304A of I.P.C

FindingNOT GUILTY Sentence: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304A of I.P.C and he is acquitted there U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.

Explanation for delay:- This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.304A of I.P.C against the accused on 4-8-15 and numbered as C.C.No.558-2015. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C on 26-11-15. Accused is examined Under Section 251 of Cr.P.C on 2-8-19. P.Ws.1 & 2 are examined on 14-10-19, P.W.3 is examined on 20-01-20, P.Ws.4 & 5 are examined on 05-02-20, P.W.6 is examined on 30- 11-21, P.W.7 is examined on 17-12-21, P.W.8 is examined on 20-12-21 and P.W.9 is examined on 27-03-22. Accused is examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C on 31-03-22. Heard the arguments of defense counsel on 04-04-22. Judgment is

pronounced on 07-04-2022. Hence the delay.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

Present:- Smt. P.Sri Satya Devi, III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Tuesday, this the 29th day of March, 2022.

Calendar Case No.341-2016 Between: The State rep. by its Sub Inspector of Police, Governorpet Defacto Police Station, Vijayawada City. …. Complainant.

AND

1) Dola Rambabu, S/o.Lakshmana Rao, 27 years, Christian, Katikala Mastan Street,D.No.4-3-1/40, Chittinagar, Vijayawada.

2) Pendinti Giribabu, S/o.Subba Rao, 46 years, Koppu Velama, Plot No.70, Y.S.R Colony, Jakkampudi Village, Vijayawada Rural.

3) Battu Chandra Sekhar, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 31 years, Devangulu,VallurivariStreet,D.No.41-20/3-87, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada.

4) Majeti Manikianta Naga Venkata Laxmi Kumar, S/o. Venkata Rama Koteswara Rao, 32 years, Vysya, D.No. 14- 16/48, Tadepalli Village and Mandal, Guntur Dist.

5) Manam Raju, S/o.Appala Raju, 31 years, Devangulu, Arunodaya Nagar, D.No.20-4/2-75/9, Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada.

6) Kumba Yesu Babu, S/o. Krishna, 43 years, Erukala, Ranadivenagar,D.No.41-1-14/483,Krishnalanka, Vijayayawada.…. Accused.

This case coming before me on 25-3-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.T.Sasikala, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/ Prosecution, and of Sri K.Anantha Babu, Advocate for Accused Nos.1 to 6 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The State, represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Governorpet

Police Station, Vijayawada City, laid charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 6, 2 in Crime No.154/2016 of Governorpet Police Station for the offences punishable U/Sec.3 & 4 of A.P.Gaming Act.

2.The brief facts of the case are, on 21-04-2016 at 22.00 hours,

L.W.9-B.Krishna Rao, S.I of Police, received reliable information about cricket betting at Sri Lakshmi Food Items, Lenin Centre, Governorpet, Vijayawada.

Then, he sent requsition to the Asst. Commissioner of Police, West Zone,

Vijayawada with a request to issue Search Warrant to conduct raid. After obtaining the Search Warrant, he along with staff and two mediators rushed to Sri Lakshmi Food Items, Lenin Centre, Governorpet, Vijayawada, noticed

Accused Nos.1 to 6 observing the Cricket Match in T.V and on arrival of the police, they tried to escape from there. Then with the assistance of staff,

L.W.9 arrested them on 21-4-2016 at 22.45 hours, interrogated them separately wherein Accused No.1 confessed that they gathered for betting the money when I.P.L Cricket Match in between Sunrise Hyderabad Vs Gujarath

Lions Team was going on. On that L.W.9 seized cash of Rs.800/- and

L.G.Company 24 inches Ultra Slim T.V from Accused No.1; cash of Rs.150/- and black colour Samsung Duo Cell Phone from Accused No.2; cash of

Rs.200/- and black colour Samsung Duo Cellphone from Accused No.3; cash of

Rs.350/- and while colour Gionee Cellphone from Accused No.4; cash of

Rs.260/- and black colour Cellkon cellphone from Accused No.5 and cash of

Rs.250/-, black and red colour Karbon Cellphone from Accused No.6, in the presence of mediators, under the cover of mediators report. Later on 22-4- 2016 at 00.30 hours, Accused Nos.1 to 6 were brought to the police station 3 along with seized property, registered a case in crime No.154/2016, U/Secs.3 & 4 of A.P.Gaming Act basing on the mediators report, took up investigation, inspected the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, released Accused Nos.1 to 6 after obtaining sufficient sureties and filed the Charge Sheet.

3.The cognizance of offence was taken U/Secs.3 & 4 of A.P.Gaming

Act against Accused Nos.1 to 6, by my Predecessor in office.

4. On appearance of the Accused, the case copies were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused Nos.1 to 6 are examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec.4 of A.P.Gaming Act, stating the substance of accusation leveled against them in the Charge Sheet, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the accusation and claimed to be tried.

6.Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused Nos.1 to 6 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied. When Accused Nos.1 to 6 were called upon to enter their defense, they reported no defense evidence.

4

8.Perused the material evidence available on record.

9. The point that arises for determination is;

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of Accused

Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable U/Sec.4 of A.P.Gaming

Act, beyond reasonable doubt or not ?

10.It is the case of the prosecution that Accused Nos.1 to 6 were found while participating in Cricket Betting at Sri Lakshmi Food Items, Lenin

Centre, Governorpet, Vijayawada, at about 22.00 hours on 21-4-2016 and on interrogation, they confessed that they gathered for the purpose of betting with cash when I.P.L Cricket Match was going in between Sunrisers and

Gujarat Lions team. On their confession, total cash of Rs.2010/- was seized from all of them apart from L.G.Ultra Slim T.V, Black Colour Samsung Duo

Cellphones two in number, White Colour Gionee Cellphone, Black Colour

Celkon Cellphone, Black and Red Colour Karbon Cellphone.

On the other hand, Accused Nos.1 to 6 denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence.

11.Point:

In order to substantiate its case, though prosecution cited 9 witnesses, examined only 5 out of them, as P.Ws.1 to 5 and got exhibited 3 documents under Exs.P1 to P3. Out of them, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the Police

Constables who are said to be participated in the alleged raid whereas P.Ws.3 to 5 are independent witnesses said to be acted as mediators for arrest of 5 accused and seizure of above discussed property from them, on their confession. However, P.Ws.3 to 5 did not support the prosecution version regarding the Mediators Report dated 21-4-2016, except admitting the signature of P.W.5, under Ex.P3. The contradicted statements of P.Ws.3 and 4 which were recorded U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., marked under Exs.P1 and P2.

P.Ws.1 and 2, being official witnesses, deposed by supporting the prosecution version and their evidence in chief was not traversed by the accused by way of cross examination.

12.P.Ws.1 and 2 evidence in chief stood on same lines. As deposed by them, on 21-4-2016 at about 22.00 hours, their S.I of Police by name

B.Krishna Rao, received reliable information from the informants about Cricket betting at Sri Lakshmi Food Items, Lenin Centre, Governorpet, Vijayawada.

On that, a requisition was sent by him to the Asst. Commissioner of Police,

West Zone, Vijayawada with a request to issue Search Warrant to conduct raid on said premises. After obtaining the Search Warrant, he proceeded along with his staff by procuring two mediators to Sri Lakshmi Food Items, Lenin

Centre, Governorpet, Vijayawada. At there, they found Accused Nos.1 to 6 in the shop, while watching the cricket match in T.V. On arrival of the police party, they tried to escape from there, but with the assistance of his staff

L.W.9-B.Krishna Rao, rounded them and interrogated separately in the presence of mediators. On interrogation, Accused No.1 confessed that they have gathered for betting with cash on account of I.P.L Match in between

Sunrisers and Gurajath Lions running from 8.00 p.m onwards on that day.

6

On that cash of Rs.800/- and L.G Company 24 inches T.V was seized from

Accused No.1. Likewise, cash of Rs.150/- and Samsung Duo Cellphone from

Accused No.2; cash of Rs.200/- and Samsung Duo Cellphone from Accused

No.3; cash of Rs.350/- and MI Cellphone from Accused No.4; cash of Rs.260/- and one Cellphone from Accused No.5; cash of Rs.250/- and Karbon Cellphone from Accused No.6 seized on their confession, under the cover of mediators report. Later, their Inspector along with accused and seized property returned to the police station. This oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 not at all supported by any independent oral testimony or documentary proof. The Sub Inspector of Police who obtained the Search Warrant from Asst. Commissioner of Police,

West Zone, Vijayawada, could not be examined by the prosecution, on account of his death. The prosecution did not choose to mark the Search

Warrant, Mediators Report, registerd F.I.R through any proper authority, even though those were filed along with the Charge Sheet. As per the oral testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2, they did not sign on the alleged Mediators

Report. P.Ws.3 to 5 evidence before this Court is noway helpful to the prosecution to prove the alleged confession of accused or seizure of the property from them apart from participation of P.Ws.1 and 2 in such raid..

According to the prosecution version, one Varma Ramesh i.e., P.W.5 and

Kammili Suryanarayana who was cited as L.W.8 acted as mediators for search of scene of offence and arrest of accused under the cover of mediators report.

Even though P.W.5 not supported the prosecution version, the prosecution did not evince any interest to examine L.W.8 in spite of giving ample opportunity.

Absolutely, there is no acceptable proof of documentary evidence to show that 7

P.Ws.1 and 2 participated in the alleged raid along with Sub Inspector of

Police, Governorpet Police Station. Their attendance to the duty on that day was also not proved by the prosecution with sufficient documentary proof. In such circumstances, though P.Ws.1 and 2 evidence stood on same lines and not traversed by the accused, the same cannot gain much weight in the absence of corroboration by any independent witnesses. In addition to that

P.Ws.1 and 2 not deposed about the presence of P.W3 to 5 along with them.

Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of Accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable U/Sec.4 of A.P.Gaming Act by relying upon the oral testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2, not sustainable. Accused Nos.1 and 2 not even claimed the properties said to be seized by the prosecution from them under the cover of mediators report.

13. For the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/S 4 of A.P.Gaming Act, beyond reasonable doubt with sufficient evidence. Hence, it is a fit case to extend benefit of doubt to the Accused

Nos.1 to 6. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

14.In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.4 of A.P.Gaming Act and they are acquitted there U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 to 6 shall stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.

8

The unmarked case property i.e., cash of Rs.2,010/- (Rupees

Two Thousand and Ten Only) and sale proceeds of other property i.e.,

L.G.Ultra Slim T.V, Black Colour Samsung Duo Cellphones two in number,

White Colour Gionee Cellphone, Black Colour Celkon Cellphone, Black and

Red Colour Karbon Cellphone, shall be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this 29th day of March, 2022.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: -For Accused: P.W.1: M.Panduranga Rao -None- P.W.2: Md.Imran Khan P.W.3: G.Kamalesh Kumar P.W.4: G.Durga Rao P.W.5: V.Ramesh

Documents Marked For Prosecution:- For Accused: Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3-Nil- Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 Ex.P3: Signature of P.W.5 on Mediators Report

Material Objects: -Nil-

III Addl. C.M.M, Vijayawada.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA.

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Date of Report orApprehenReleasedCommence-Close ofSentence OffenceComplain--sion ofon bailmentoftrialor Order antaccusedtrial 21-04-1621-04-16––20-11-1925-03-2229-03-22

Name of the Court III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Calendar Case No.341-2016

ComplainantThe State rep. by its Sub Inspector of Police, Governorpet Police Station, Vijayawada City.

Particulars of the1)Dola Rambabu, S/o.Lakshmana Rao, Vijayawada. accused 2)Pendinti Giribabu, S/o.Subba Rao,Jakkampudi Village. 3)Battu Chandra Sekhar, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Vijayawada. 4)Majeti Manikianta Naga Venkata Laxmi Kumar, S/o. M.V.R.Koteswara Rao, Tadepalli Village,Guntur Dist.

5) Manam Raju, S/o.Appala Raju, Vijayawada.

6) Kumba Yesu Babu, S/o. Krishna, Vijayayawada. OffenceU/Sec.4 of A.P.Gaming Act FindingNOT GUILTY Sentence: In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.4 of A.P.Gaming Act and they are acquitted there U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 to 6 shall stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.

Explanation for delay:- This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Secs.3 & 4 of A.P.Gaming Act against Accused Nos.1 to 6 on 25- 7-2016 and numbered as C.C.No.341-2016. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C on 14-09-2016. Accused Nos.1 to 6 are examined Under Section 251 of Cr.P.C on 6-9-19. P.W.1 is examined on 20-11-19, P.Ws.2 to 4 are examined on 11-12-19 and P.W.5 is examined on 20-2-20. Due to Covid-19 Pandemic, matter is posted from time to time for some time. N.B.W issued against Accused Nos.1 to 6 on 7-12-21. N.B.W recalled against Accused No.1 on 21-1-22, against A2 to A6 on 4-3-22. Accused Nos.1 to 6 are examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C on 16-3-22. No arguments submitted on either side on 25-3-22. Judgment is

pronounced on 29-3-22. Hence the delay.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.