Sri P. Srinivas

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST MAGISTRATE ::

CHODAVARAM

Present :: Sri P. Srinivas,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CHODAVARAM

Thursday, this the 31stday of March, 2022.

C.C.No.361/2018

Between :

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Devarapalli Police Station.

...Complainant

A n d :- A1)Kortham Ramesh, S/o.(L) Satyam, aged 24 years, St Bhagatha, Cultivation, China Somupuram (v), Raiwada (P), Devarapalli(M).

A2) Salugu Simhadrappadu, S/o.(L) Nagannadora, aged 24 years, ST Bhagatha, Cultivation, China Somupuram (v), Raiwada (P), Devarapalli (M).

...Accused/A1 and A2

This case is coming on 30.3.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri CHBR, learned Advocate for the Accused/A1 and A2 and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Devarapalli Police Station, filed charge sheet against Accused/A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 25 (1) (B) of Indian Arms Act.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows :

That on 03.04.2016 at 16.00 hours LW9 G.Appanna on credible information about illegal possession and carrying the country made long barrel gun and ammunition. He rushed to Juthadapalem village of

Devarapalli Mandal along with his staff and found you/accused along with weapon and then he caught you/accused with the assistance of his staff and enquired on that you/accused disclosed identity and also disclosed that there is no license to the weapon from concerned authority and having no license and transported the weapon illegally to save their crops from the animals. On that he seized the weapon under cover of

- 2 -

mediators/occurrence report and took them into custody. Basing on the said report LW9 registered as a case in Cr.NO.21/2016 u/s.25(1) (b) Indian Arms

Act of Devarapalli Police Station and took up investigation. He served notice to the accused u/s.41A Cr.P.C and examined the scene of offence drafted rough sketch, examined witnesses and recorded their detailed statements.

On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against you accused.

Hence the charge.

3.The case was taken on file against Accused/A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 25 (1) (B) of Indian Arms Act.

4.On appearance of the Accused/A1 and A2, the copies of case documents were furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C and they were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, in which the Accused/A1 and A2 denied the offence punishable offence punishable under Section 25 (1) (B) of Indian Arms Act and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 examined and got marked Exs.P-1 to P5 and MO.1 and MO.2 on behalf of the prosecution.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused/A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, with regard to incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The Accused/A1 and A2 denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence charged under Section 25 (1) (B) of Indian Arms Act against the Accused/A1 and A2 or not?

9.In order to prove the case of prosecution, it can be seen whether the evidence of PW.1 to PW.6 coupled with Exs.P1 to P5, are sufficient for base conviction for the offence charged against the Accused/A1 and A2, after

- 3 -

scrutinizing their evidence with due care and caution.

10.It is the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who are said to be direct witnesses for the alleged offence along with police officials at the time of the alleged detection of this case, as per the case of prosecution, but both

PW1 and PW2 never stated anything about the facts of the case as such their evidence is not much helpful to the case of prosecution.

11.It is the evidence of PW3, who is said to be mahazar for observation of the scene according to the case of prosecution along with

LW4 Killi Srinivasa Rao but PW3 did not state anything about the facts of the case, but stated only that on one day he went to Police Station and one constable obtained his signature on white paper and marked the same as

Ex.P1. As the witness did not support the case of prosecution as such he was declared by Learned APP as Hostile. During his cross examination the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor confronted the contents of scene observation mahazarnama dt.03.04.2016 at 4.00PM and the same is denied by the witness. As such the contents of scene observation mahazarrnama is not proved by the prosecution.

12.It is the evidence of PW4, who is Trainee Sub Inspector of Police of Devarapalli Police Station and who alleged to be participated at the time of detection of this case as per the case of prosecution, he deposed that on 03.04.2016 he along with PW5 and staff by collecting mediators on the way and proceeded to Juttupalem village by 4.00PM and found both A1 and A2 by holding long bags and on seeing them they tried to escape but they caught hold them and found one gun in the hands of A1 and A2 holding a small bag and PW5 interrogated both accused and they failed to produce any licence as such PW5 arrested them seized gun under cover of mediators report and he never put his signature on it.

13.During his cross examination he himself admitted that at the time of detection of this case he was working as Trainee Sub Inspector and

- 4 -

there are Kasipuram, Seethampeta, Nagayyapeta and Chinasompuram are situated before the scene of offence and there are number of VROs and

Sarpanches in said village. He further stated that before reaching the scene of offence they collected mediators on the way.

14.As can be seen from the evidence of P.W4, he stated that they detected this case at Juttadapalem at 4.00Pm and found both A1 and A2 with gun and the same was seized under of mediatorsnama by PW5.

15.On perusal of the record, no such mediatorsnama dt.03.04.2016 at 4.00PM is not placed before this court but there is occurrence report which is marked as Ex.P2 through PW5 where it is noted at 5.00PM on 03.04.2016. Non-filing of mediatorsnama dt.03.04.2016 at 4.00PM is best known to him and it is fatal to the case of prosecution. Further he stated that they collected mediators on the way. Whereas PW5 in his cross examination he stated that he picked up mediators at police station which is too contradicting. Further if really PW4 participated in the alleged detection of the case as per the case of prosecution, nothing is prevented him to put his signature on said document. Non-filing of said mediatorsnama as stated by PW4 before the court, is fatal to the case of prosecution and it is best known to the case of the prosecution.

16.It is the evidence of PW5, who deposed his evidence by re- iterating the contents of Ex.P2 to P4 MO1 and MO2. Later he handed over the CD file to PW6.

17.During his cross-examination he himself admitted that he himself proceeded to the scene of offence by picking up mediators from police station. So many suggestions are given to him and the same are denied by the witness.

18.As can be seen from the scene observation mahazarnama dt.03.04.2016 at 4.00PM, PW5 prepared it as per the record since the signature of PW3 is marked on said document before declaring him as

- 5 -

hostile. But said document is not marked through PW5 since PW5 never deposed in his evidence about the observation of scene of offence in the presence of PW3 and LW4 Killi Srinivasa Rao. Except marking of Ex.P4 rough sketch which is deposed by PW5 in his evidence. Non-marking of the crucial document ie., scene mahazarnama through any witnesses including

PW5 is best known to the prosecution and it is fatal to the case of prosecution.

19.As has can be seen from the contents of Ex.P2 which is not a mediators report and it is occurrence report. Once mediators are with them and in their presence the case was detected by the Police, it normally prepared by Police mahazarnama or mediatorsnama and whenever no mediators are available with them at the time of detection of any case, it is normally prepared by police occurrence report. Once the mediators are with the police why they have not prepared mediatorsnama except preparing occurrence report is not explained by the prosecution. Further the name of the mediators who were alleged to be signed on said Ex.P2 were not confronted through PW3 since the signature of PW3 is marked as Ex.P1 in scene observation mahazarnama and PW3 never stated that facts of contents of Ex.P2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also failed to confront the signature of PW3 in said Ex.P2 to know whether the signature found in Ex.P2 and P1 of PW3 is one and the same are not. Why because

Ex.P1 of PW3 in said scene observation mahazarnama is in telugu on 03.04.2016 whereas the signature of one D.Srinivasa Rao whose name is cited as witness as LW3, examined as PW3 before court is signed in English language and the same has to be elicited by the prosecution through the same witness. Non marking of Ex.P2 through PW3 is best known to the prosecution and it is one of the ground to discard the total testimony of case of prosecution.

20.According to PW5, he sent country made gun and ammunition

- 6 -

along with letter of advice to expert opinion. But there is no single scrap of document produced by prosecution that he sent said gun and ammunition with letter of advice.

21.It is not out of place to mention here that it is bounden duty of

PW5 to speak above said fact by referring his evidence by giving his evidence by marking said letter of advice through him and further he is supposed to speak that he received any opinion pertaining to the gun from expert. All the facts are expected to be deposed by witness since he is detecting officer in this case by marking said letter of advice through him.

Non-filing said letter of advice and non marking said letter of advice is best known to the case of prosecution. Therefore, the contents of Ex.P2 not proved by prosecution through its independent mahazardars, though PW3 was examined by prosecution but he did not state anything about the particulars of Ex.P2.

22.It is not out of place to mention here that LW4 Killi Srininvasa

Rao was not examined by prosecution since they filed memo stating that the whereabouts of LW4 is not known as such the evidence of LW4 was closed by this court by giving an opportunity to prosecution to recall and reopen his evidence if he is traced out in future. But the prosecution failed to do so.

23.PW6 who deposed his evidence that he received case dairy from

D.Eswara Rao Sub Inspector of Police and after receiving prosecution sanction orders from District Collector ie., Ex.P5 after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet. If really he received case dairy from

D.Eswara Rao, Sub Inspector of Police he is supposed to cite him as witness in memo of evidence. Further he never spoken anything against accused.

24.It is settled Law, once the detecting Officer is the Complainant and the Investigation Officer, he supposed to hand-over the case, along with reports to the Station House Officer, to take further action after detection of

- 7 -

this case by himself to take further action on those culprits. But, PW5 who is detecting officer, cannot investigate himself alone, after detecting the case by himself. Hence, the testimony of PW.5 is also not relied-on and also cannot be considered.

25.It is settled law that the Investigation Officer, who is complainant, detecting officer, registered FIR and Investigation Officer, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration.

26.The learned counsel for Accused relied upon decision reported in :

1).Gurujala Ramesh and others Vs. State of AP in 2003 Crl. L.J. 3584.

2).Roop Lal Helba Vs. State of Chattisgarh reported in 2014 Crl.L.J. 4683.

27.I have gone through the above said decisions with due respect.

The proposition of law in said decisions aptly applicable to present case in hand since the facts are one and the same.

28.In view of the facts and circumstances and in view of the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution measurably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent convenience evidence. Therefore, the Accused/A1 and A2 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

29.In the result, Accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 25 (1) (B) of Indian Arms Act. Hence, the Accused/A1 and A2 are ACQUITTED under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C, for the offences under Section 25 (1) (B) of Indian Arms Act. The bail bonds of the Accused/A1 and A2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of Six Months time.

MO1 Country made Gun and MO2 is ammunition (Mandugundu samagri) are ordered to be deposited before Superintendent of Police, District Armed

Reserve, Visakhapatnam under proper acknowledgment according to law.

The Sub Inspector of Police, Devarapalli Police Station is directed to depute a responsible Police Officer to deposit MO1 and MO2 before Armed Reserve,

Visakhapatnam for taking necessary action.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

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

JUDL. MAGISTATE OF I ST CLASS,

CHODAVARAM

- 8 -

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : PW.1: J.Demudu PW.2: V.Nagamani P.W.3:D.Srinivasa RAo P.W.4:P.Srinu P.W.5:G.Appanna P.W.6: P.Narasimha Murthy

For Defence :- -None-

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution : Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW3 Ex.P.2 : occurrence reported Ex.P.3 : FIR Ex.P.4: rough sketch Ex.P.5: proceedings of collector

For Defence :- - Nil -

MO1 Naatu Thupaki MO 2 mandu gundu samaanu

JUDL. MAGISTATE OF I st CLASS,

CHODAVARAM

- 9 -

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: CHODAVARAM

Present:: Sri P.SRINIVAS, Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

CHODAVARAM

Tuesday, the 29th of day of March, 2022

C.C. No. 117/2019

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its the Sub-Inspector of Police, A.Koduru Police Station.

.. Complainant

-Versus-

Setti Govinda, S/o.Simhachalam, aged 46 years, yatha, auto driver, A.Koduru village, K.Kotapadu (M)

.. Accused

This case is coming on 28-3-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri U.Govind Advocate for the accused and upon hearing their arguments and upon perusing the documents available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :-

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. This is a case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, A.Koduru Police Station, against the accused for the offence u/Sec.304-A, 337, 279 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows: Hence the charge.

on 16.11.2018 at about 20.00 hours, LW17 K.Srinivasa Rao received complaint from Yellanki

Eswara Rao stating that on 16.11.2018 at about 5.30PM his son Yellanki Manikanta (deceased) aged 18 years and his villager Setti Sandeep Juvenile in conflict with law were started from their village on Motorcycle is being ridden by Setti Sandeep aged 17 years when they reached near the water tank and culvert near Sureedipalem rider ride the said bike rashly and negligently at high speed andlost control over it and turned turtle into road side eucalyptus tope resulting his son Manikanta received invisible fracture on the backside of his head and got bleeding from his ears, nose and mouth. Rider of Motor cycle also received invisible injuries. On information given by witnesses who saw the accident he rushed to the spot on Autorickshaw of Setti

Govinda and took his son and motor cycle rider Setti Sandeep to Government Hospital,

K.Kotapadu. Medical Officer while rendering first aid declared that his son Manikanta was dead. Basing on the said complaint, LW17 registered a case in Cr.No.73/2018 u/s.304-A, 337, 279 IPC and took up investigation. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchayatdars and took photographs of deceased and examined witnesses and recorded their statements. Later he sent the dead body to CHC, Chodavaram for autopsy. Later he examined the scene of offence, prepared observation report, rough sketch and took photographs of the scene and later LW17 examined witnesses and recorded their statements. Subsequently LW18

M.V.Ramanaverified the investigation made by LW17 and served notice to the juvenile in 2 conflict with Law as well as to his father (accused) u/s.41-A Cr.P.C. on receipt of PM report and MVI report and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A, 337, 279 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents are furnished to them U/s.207

Cr.P.C and they were examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., in which, the accused denied the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A, 337, 279 of IPC and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, Pws.1 to 13 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P10.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard both the sides.

8.Now the points for determination is

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences u/Sec.304-A, 337, 279 of IPC charged against him?

9.In the instance case PW.1 who is father of the deceased and PW.2 who is younger brother of the PW.1, who are not direct witnesses for the alleged accident as per the case of the prosecution and they are hearsay witnesses and both of them stated their respective evidence against the Sandeep that said Sandeep and son of PW.1 were proceeding in the bike of said

Sandeep and said Sandeep is the rider of the bike and the son of the PW.1 is pillion rider and said Sandeep unable to control his driving while driving the vehicle, due to which their vehicle fell down at the turning point on the road and the son of PW.1 sustained serious injuries over his body and on knowing the same he went to Government Hospital, K.Kotapadu and his son was with his last breathing and on the same day, the son of PW.1 was expired due to injuries and he gave Ex.P1 report to police against said Sandeep and PW.2 also deposed on the same line of evidence before the court. But there is no whisper of word from the entire evidence of both

PW.1 and 2 to the effect that due to negligent driving of the accused this accident was taken place and further the above accident was taken while the son of accused drove the said crime vehicle as rider and the son of PW.1 was sat as pillion rider at the time of accident. PW.1 simple stated that as the accused not take proper care as such he filed this case against the accused, which is not attracted for the offence charged against the accused. Therefore their evidence cannot be looked into.

10.It is the evidence of PW.1 who is auto driver, and he came to know about the accident though his villagers and he went to Government Hospital, K.Koptapadu and found the injured was unconscious state. Except that he never stated that he witnessed the accident and the accused is the responsible for giving his vehicle to his son who is Juvenile in conflict with Law.

Hence his evidence is also not looked into.

11. PW.4 who is mother of deceased and PW.5 who is relative of PW1, did not speak anything against the accused and also not stated anything against the accused. As the witnesses did not 3 support to the case of the prosecution, as such, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared them as hostile. During their respective cross-examinations, the contents of their earlier u/s 161

Cr.P.C statements, are confronted through them and Exs.P2 and P3 are marked and they denied the same, as such, their evidence is not much helpful to the case of the prosecution.

12.Pws.6 and 7, who are said to be direct witnesses according to the case of the prosecution, but they also did not state anything about the facts of the case and also did not support to the case of the prosecution, as such, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared them as hostile. During their respective cross-examinations, the contents of their earlier u/s 161

Cr.P.C statements are confronted through them and both witnesses stated that they stated the same before police and due to long gap they could recollect the same during their chief examination.

13.As as can be seen from their evidence there is no whisper of word against the accused that he is the root cause of said accident, since both witnesses stated that they came to know about the accident. Such inconsistent evidence of PW.6 and 7 cannot be looked into.

14.PW.8 who is said to be inquestdar and he deposed that the police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Manikanta at Government Hospital, Chodavaram and prepared inquestnama and he put his signature on it and Ex.P4 is inquestnama. During his cross- examination, he stated that no notice is served by police to attend as inquestdar and he used to attend police stations regularly and he does not know each colum containing what are therein

Ex.P4. From his evidence, the witness never deposed anything against the accused and his involvement in this case.

15.PW.9 who is said to be Mahazardar for the observation of the scene of offence, as per the case of the prosecution and he deposed that the police observed the scene of offence in their presence and prepared scene observation mahazarnama and he put his singature on it and Ex.P5 is observation of the scene of offence. From his evidence, the witness never deposed anything against the accused and his involvement in this case.

16.It is the evidence of PW.10, who inspected the crime vehicle and issued Ex.P6 MVI report, but he never started that the accused is the person for the cause the death of the deceased.

17.It is the evidence of PW.12, who is Ist investigating officer, deposed his evidence before the court by reiterating the contents of his investigation and Ex.P9 and P10 are marked through him and later he hand over the case record to PW.11 for further investigation. During his cross- examination, PW.12 admitted that PW.4 did not state before him that the mother of accused informed about the accident to PW.1 in turn PW4 and her husband went to the scene of offence.

He further stated that he has not examined on person by name Vemala Nookaraju, whose name shown in the rought sketch and he further admitted that no body gave any report to him against the accused that the accused used to give his vehicle to his son to drive said vehcile without having any license and he further admitted that PW.3 did not state before him that there is a turning near to the scene of offence and the deceased and son of accused fallen from the motor cycle as the scene of offence road is having ditches. He further admitted that PW.6 did not state 4

before him that Sandeep took the deceased in his vehcile and he did not enquire wehther PW.7

received any phone call from the phone of the deceased that there was an accident occurred and

PW.1 did not make mentioned in Ex.P1 that due to negligence of the accused the accident was taken place.

18.From his admission, it made clear that the accused is no way concerned with the alleged accident and he also did not find place what is the role played by the accused in this case and there is no single word from the entire of the PW.12 against the accused in this case and his involvement.

19. It is the evidence of PW.11, who is 2nd investigating officer, deposed his evidence

before the court by reiterating the contents of his investigation and Ex.P7 and P8 are marked

through him and later he filed the charge sheet. During his cross-examination, he stated that during the investigation conducted by PW.12, the witnesses stated that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle. But in the instance case the son of the accused who is Juvenile in

Conflict with Law is the person as per the case of the prosecution for the alleged offence alleged to be committed by him.

20.As can be seen from his evidence, it is silent from his evidence, on what ground he filed charge sheet against accused in this case. All points are silent from the evidence of prosecution witness. Unless, the Investigation Officer established the involvement of the accused and about his hand over the crime vehicle to his son who is not having any driving license to drove the vehicle and as such the accident was taken place and the son of PW.1 was died by sustaining injuries in said accident. Therefore the evidence of PW.11 without corroborated to other evidence cannot be looked into.

21.It is the evidence of PW.13 who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and

Issued Ex.P8 Post Mortum certificate. Except that he never stated anything against the accused.

22.In view of the facts and circumstances, in view of the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no cogent and convincing evidence on behalf of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

23. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences u/Sec.304-A, 337 and 279 of IPC. Hence, he is acquitted u/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences u/Sec.304-A, 337 and 279 of IPC. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand canceled, after lapse of six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 31st day of March, 2022.

Addl Judl. Magistrate of I Class Chodavaram 5

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution For Accused

PW1: Yellanki Eswara Rao PW2: Yellanki Suribabu PW3:K.Prasad PW4: Yellanki Bondamma PW5: Setti apparao PW6:Reddy Durgaprasad PW7: Jeelam Sivakumar PW8: Lekkala Malleswari PW9:Dunga Yerrinaidu PW10Satyanarayana PW11M.V.Ramana PW12K.Srinivasa Rao PW13Dr.A.Maheswara Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report of PW1. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P4: Signature on inquest nama Ex.P5: Signature on inquestnama Ex.P6: MVI report Ex.P7: wound certificate of sandeep kumar Ex.P8: PM certificate of LW14 Ex.P9: FIR Ex.P10: Rough Sketch

Accused:

-Nil -

Material Objects:

-Nil-

AJCJ., Chodavaram

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: CHODAVARAM

Present:: Sri P.SRINIVAS, Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

CHODAVARAM

Thursday, the 31st of day of March, 2022

C.C. No. 608/2018

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its the Sub-Inspector of Police, A.Koduru Police Station.

.. Complainant

-Versus-

Vechalapu Chandra Rao, S/o.late Suryanarayana, aged 42 years, K.Velama,D.Agraharam (v), K.Kotapadu Mandal, Driver of Tipper Lorry AP 37 TC 6129.

.. Accused

This case is coming on 31.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri G.Koti Advocate for the accused and upon hearing their arguments and upon perusing the documents available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :- -:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. This is a case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, A.Koduru Police Station, against the accused for the offence u/Sec.304-A of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

On 17.06.2018 LW1 Dammu Demullu along with his Mother D1(Deceased No.1) and daughter D2(Deceased No.2) started on his bike bearing No.AP 31 DE 4258 to go to

Thummerupalem (v) to attend marriage function of their relative and and when reached near

Ramalayam of Lankavanipalem village at about 10.30 hours, accused being driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 37 TC 6129 while proceeding from Kothavalasa towards Anandapuram drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed Motor cycle of LW1 resulting Motor cycle fell down on the left side and escaped from injuries. D1 and D2 who sat on back of LW1 fell down on the road towards right side of road and accused Lorry run over the Lorry up on them and both of them received crush injuries on both of their heads and died on spot instantaneously. LW1 reported the matter before Police and basing on the same LW16

L.Himagiri registered a case in Cr.No.40/2018 u/s.304-A IPC of A.Koduru Police Station on 17.06.2018 and took up investigation. He visited scene of offence, examined witnesses, drafted observation report, prepared rough sketch of scene and also taken photographs, held inquest over the dead bodies and sent the bodies to Post Mortem examination. LW16 served notice of 41-A Cr.P.C against accused on 19.06.2018. On receipt of MVI report, PM report and on due completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused. Hence the charge.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A of IPC.

2

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents are furnished to him U/s.207

Cr.P.C and he was examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., in which, the accused denied the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A of IPC and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, Pws.1 to 12 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P18.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard both the sides.

8.Now, the points for determination is

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence u/Sec.304-A of IPC charged against him?

9.It is the evidence of PW1, who is none other than son and father of deceased No.1 and 2 and he is direct witness for the alleged accident as per the case of prosecution and he deposed that he on 15-6-2018 at 10.30 am he himself, his deceased mother and deceased daughter were proceeding on his motor cycle and reached Lankavenipalem village and there is a speed breaker on the road he proceed over the speed breaker, due to which his mother and his daughter who were pillion riders fell down on the right side of the vehicle and himself fallen on the left side of the road and at that time one lorry coming in their opposite direction and said lorry ran over his mother and daughter and both of them died at the spot and thereafter the police came there and shifted dead bodies to hospital and he went to police station and he gave Ex.P1 report to police and accused is the driver of the crime vehicle. During his cross-examination, he admitted that due to speed breaker he was unable to control his vehicle and skid his vehicle as such himself fell down on one side and pillion riders of the vehicles fell down on the other side of the road and he further admitted that the back wheel of the lorry ran over the bodies of the deceased since they fallen from his vehicle on the back wheel of the lorry and he further admitted that he stated before police in his u/s 161 of Cr.P.C statement that he was unable to control his vehicle due to which his mother and his daughter, who were pillion riders fell down on the right side of the vehicle and himself fallen on the left side of the road and the lorry ran over his mother and daughter and both of them died at the spot and he also stated the same to scribe of Ex.P1 and he does not know the contents of Ex.P1 since he is illiterate. Some suggestions were given to him and the same were denied by the witness.

10. As can be seen from his evidence, he never stated anything against the accused and he is responsible for the death of his mother and daughter, that the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit his vehicle. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution said crime vehicle hit his vehicle. Once, he himself admitted how the accident was taken place and also clearly admitted in his cross-examination that due to speed breaker he was unable to control his vehicle and skid his vehicle as such himself fell down on one side and pillion riders of the vehicles fell down on the other side of the road. All crucial points are silent from his evidence. Therefore, his evidence cannot be looked into.

3

11. It is the evidence of PW2, who is none other than mother and daughter in law of the deceased No.1 and 2 respectively and also wife of PW.1 according to the case of prosecution, she is also not a direct witness for the alleged accident and according to her evidence she came to know the accident through PW1 while she was present in her house that her mother in law and daughter were died and thereafter PW.1 gave report to police and police never examined her. As this witness did not stated anything and also did not support to the case of the prosecution, as such she was declared as hostile and her earlier contents of statement u/s 161 of

Cr.P.C is confronted through her and the same is denied by the witness and marked as Ex.P2.

Therefore her evidence is not much helpful to the case of the prosecution.

12. It is the evidence of PW3 to 5 who are said to be direct witness as per the case of prosecution, but they did not state anything against the accused and due to his rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle this accident was occurred. As PW.3 to 5 did not support to the case of the prosecution and also witnesses did not state anything and also did not support to the case of the prosecution, as such they were declared as hostile and their earlier contents of statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C, are confronted through them and the same are denied by the witnesses and marked as Ex.P3 to 5. Therefore their evidence is not much helpful to the case of the prosecution.

13. It is the evidence of PW6 and 7, who are said to be mahazardar for the observation of the scene of offence as per the case of the prosecution, but they never stated anything about the contents of said mahazarnama and they stated that they do not know anything and police obtained their signatures and got marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. As both witnesses did not support to the case of the prosecution, as such, they were declared by Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor as Hostile and during their cross-examination, the contents of said mahazarnama are confronted through them and the same are denied by the witness. Therefore, the contents of said scene observation mahazarnama, is not proved by the prosecution through its mahazardars.

14. It is the evidence of PW8 and PW.10, who are said to be inquestdar as per the case of the prosecution, but they never stated anything about the contents of said inquestnama and they stated that they do not know anything and police obtained their signatures and got marked as

Ex.P8, P11 and Ex.P12. As both witnesses did not support to the case of the prosecution, as such, they were declared by Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as Hostile and during their cross-examination, the contents of said inquestnama are confronted through them and the same are denied by the witness. Therefore, the contents of said inquestnama, is not proved by the prosecution through its inquestdars. So this itself shows that they were not present at the time of inquest of dead bodies of the deceased NO.1 and 2 by the police.

15. It is the evidence of PW.9, who conducted Post Mortum over the dead bodies of Deceased

No. and 2 as per the case of the prosecution and he issued Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 Postmortem report of Deceased No. and 2. But he never deposed anything against the accused and due to his rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle the accident was taken place and both deceased died at the spot.

4

16. It is the evidence of PW11, who inspected the both vehicles at A.Koduru police station and found no damages to the vehicle and Ex.P13 is MVI report marked through him. But he never stated anything against accused.

17.It is the evidence of PW.12, who is investigating officer, deposed his evidence before the court by reiterating the contents of his investigation and Ex.P14 to P18 are marked through and during his cross-examination so many suggestions are given to him by the defence counsel and the same are denied by the witness. Once, no direct witness speak anything against the accused and also not spoken that due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle driver ie the accused, the accident was taken place, since it is very important to consideration such evidence from the witnesses, to determine the case of the prosecution and when the link is cut from the witnesses, the sole testimony of PW12 alone cannot be considered.

18.In view of the facts and circumstances, in view of the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no cogent and convincing evidence on behalf of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.304-A of IPC. Hence, he is acquitted u/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence u/Sec.304-A of IPC. His bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled, after lapse of six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 31st day of March, 2022.

Addl Judl. Magistrate of I Class Chodavaram

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution For Accused PW1: D.Demullu PW2: Dammu Laxmi PW3:Dammu Demudu PW4: K.Kanthamma PW5: K.Somulamma PW6: K.Sreeramulu PW7: S.Pydiraju PW8: S.Ramanamma PW9: Dr.G.V.Vaidehi PW10:P.Ganga PW11: K.Suman Kumar PW12:L.Himagiri

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution: Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P6: PW6 signature in scene observation report dt.17.06.2018 Ex.P7: PW7 signature in sceneobservation report dt.17.06.2018 Ex.P8 :PW8 signature in the inquest Ex.P9 : PM report of Dammu Ramulamma Ex.P10 : PM report of Dammu Lasya Ex.P11 : signature in inquest report on D1 of PW10 Ex.P12 : signature in inquest report on D2 of PW10 5

Ex.P13 : MVI report Ex.P14 : FIR Ex.P15 : scene observation mahazarnama Ex.P16 : Rough sketch Ex.P17: Inquest report of D1 Ex.P18 : Inquest report of D2 Accused: -Nil -

Material Objects: -Nil-

AJCJ., Chodavaram 6

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I st CLASS :: CHODAVARAM

Present: Sri P. Srinivas Addl. Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Chodavaram Thursday, on the 31st day of March, 2022

Calendar Case No.752/2018

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Deverapalli Police Station

...Complainant.

And:

1. Murikithi Ramana, S/o.late Arjun, aged 34 years, Caste by Yadava, Tipper Driver and owner Venkannapalem (v) Chodavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

2. Kondra Narasinga Rao, S/o.Koteswara Rao, aged 30 years, Caste by Yadava, Tipper Driver and Owner, Duddipalem (v), Chodavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

3. Pillala Ramesh, S/o Demullu, aged 26 years, Caste by Yadava, Tipper Driver and owner, Venkannapalem Village, Chodavaram (M), Visakhapatnam (DT), Driver cum owner of Tipper bearing No. AP 31 TG 9978.

...Accused/A1 to A3

This case coming on 30-03-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. U.Govind, learned Advocate for the Accused/A1 to A3 and upon hearing both sides and having stood over the consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Devarapalli Police Station, filed charge- sheet against the Accused/A1 to A3, for the offences punishable under

Section 379 of IPC Sec.21(1) of Mines and Minerals Devlopment and

Regulations Act,1957.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows :

On 28.10.2018 at about 08.45 hours LW4 received credible information about illegal transportation of sand from Sarada river near

Vechalam village andon instructions of LW4, LW1 rushed to the said place caught the accused with the help of his staff LW2 and LW3 while they were committed theft of Government property ie., sand from 2

Sarada River and transporting the same ie., 6 units worth Rs.12,000/- by using Tippers bearing No.AP 31 TA 4479, AP 31 & 8189 and AP 31

TG 9978 without having any licence or permit from concerned authorities. Basing on the report of LW1, LW5 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.145/2018 u/s.379 IPC (MO sand) andSec.21(1) of

A.P.MMDR Act and took up investigation. During investigation he examined witnesses, recorded their statements and served notice u/s.41-A Cr.P.C to accused and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused for the offences u/s.379 IPC (MO sand) andSec.21(1) of A.P.MMDR Act. Hence the charge.

3.The case was taken on file against accused/A1 to A3 for the offence to punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Sec.21(1) of Mines and

Minerals Development and Regulations Act,1957.

4.On appearance of the Accused/A1 to A3 the copies of case documents were furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C and y were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, in which, the Accused denied the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC Sec.21(1) of Mines and Minerals

Development and Regulations Act,1957 and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs-1 to 3 are examined and got marked Exs.P-1 and P-2 and MO.1 to 3, on behalf of the prosecution.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused/A1 to A3 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses separately as reasons stated above, the Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard both sides.

3

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the

Accused for the offences charged under Section 379 of IPC and

Sec.21(1) of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulations

Act,1957 beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.At this stage, it can be seen whether the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.P-1 and P2 and MO.1 to 3, are sufficient for base conviction for the offences charged against the Accused, after scrutinizing their evidence with due care and caution.

10.Before discuss the evidence and documents, it is better to understand that what offences were charged against the accused and the definition u/s 379 of IPC and Sec.21(1) of Mines and Minerals Development and

Regulations Act,1957, are extracted for better appreciation.

11. Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code

379. Punishment for theft—Whoever commits theft shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three

years, or with fine, or with both.

12.Sec.21(1) of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulations

Act,1957;

Section 21 in The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)

Act, 1957

21. Penalties.—1 [(1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub- section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees, or with both.]

13. It is the evidence of P.W.1, who is said to be VRO and who detected the case and gave Ex.P1 report to police, he deposed his evidence before the 4 court by reiterating the contents of Ex.P1. During his cross examination, he himself admitted he was not instructed by MRO to go to Sarada river in writing and he cannot say the cell phone number of MRO and he further stated that there are 500 houses are situated in said village and there are nearly 2500 people are residing in said village and it is major panchayat and they never secured Panchayat secretary of said village before reaching scene of offence and he further started that he has not specifically mentioned in Ex.P1 that it is prepared by him and he is the scribe of said report and they did not photographed the lorries. Specific suggestions are given to him by the defence counsel and the same are denied by the witness.

14.It is surprising that PW.1 being VRO and he himself stated that he received phone call from MRO and directed him to proceed with Vigilance personnel, since he received a phone call from, them. So from his evidence, it made clear that as per instruction of MRO, he went to the said place. Once he received said phone call, but he said that he does not know the mobile number of the MRO. I can under stand a ordinary person cannot furnish the mobile number of MRO, but PW.1 who is VRO, whose office is situated in MRO office and he used to go to MRO office and he does not the mobile number of MRO does not accept or believable his evidence. Further if really he detected the 3 lorries, he ought to have deposed the three lorries numbers and how he identified the three accused as drivers of the said lorries without conducing any test identification parada through him by police. Therefore, the inconsistent evidence of PW.1 cannot be looked into.

15.It is the evidence of PW.2, whose is police constable, he deposed his evidence by reiterating the contents of Ex.P1. During his cross- examination, he admitted that he cannot say the boundaries of the scene of offence and they never asked Sarpanch or Ward members of that village to accompany them while proceeding to the scene of offence and he further 5 stated that PW.1 got photographed the three tippers with sand and he further admitted that he does not know PW.1 gave any written report to S I of Police that there is illegal transportation of sand and to allot two constables to accompany him to proceed to said place.

16.As can be from his evidence, he stated that PW.1 got photographed the three tippers with sand, whereas, PW.1 never stated said fact that he photographed the same, If really they photographed the three tippers with sand, nothing is prevented to them to file such photos before the court to believe or accept their evidence. Hence such type of inconstant evidence of witness cannot be looked into.

17.It is the evidence of PW3, who is Station House Officer ,he deposed that on 28.10.2018 while he was present in police station, at 10.00 am, PW1 came to police station and presented Ex.P1, basing on it, he registered FIR ie., Ex.P2 and he secured the presence of PW,2 and other witnesses and examined them and he served sec.41-A of Cr.P.C notices to A1 to A3 and later he released MO.1 to 3 lorries to its owners as per the orders of the

Honourable court. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet

against accused. During his cross examination, he admitted that he did not visit scene of offence and he further stated that the scene of offence situated in major panchayat village and nearly 300 to 4500 houses situated in said viallge and panchayat secretary and ward members will be avilable in said village and he never tried to secure them as witnesses. Further he admitted that he never tried to secure them as witnesses and MRO and

PW.1 never handover any photos of the alloeged sand loaded in MO.1 to

MO.3 and he has not weighed the sand with weighing machine. He further admitted that he has not not auctioned the seized sand and also not produced the same before the court and said sand is laying in their police station and he has not filed any documents to show that said sand is laying in their police station.

6

18.As can be seen from his admissions, it made clear whether PW1, PW2 really detected the case and photographed those three tipper lorries with sand, he has to seize the same and filed the same before the court to prove their case. Being PW3 is Investigation Officer, it is his bounden duty to collect documents and evidence during his investigation but he failed to conduct proper investigation in normal course of business, he filed the charge sheet against them. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 cannot be looked into.

19.It is pertinent to note that summons are ordered to LW.3/Y.TataRao

Home Guard and LW.4/J.Ramesh Babu, Tahsidar of Deverapalli, finally last chance otherwise their evidence will be closed, but the police neither served the summons to them nor produced them to give their evidence, as the prosecution failed to follow the conditional orders passed by the court, since the investigating officer was also examined, as such their evidence is closed by this court.

20.In view of the facts and circumstances and in view of the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Sec.21(1) of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulations Act,1957. Therefore,

Accused /A1 to A3 are entitled for Acquittal.

21.In the result, the Accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Sec.21(1) of Mines and Minerals Devlopment and Regulations Act,1957. Hence, the

Accused/A1 to A3 are ACQUITTED under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Sec.21(1) of Mines and Minerals Devlopment and Regulations Act,1957. Their bail bonds, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of Six months appeal time. MO.1

Lorry bearing No.AP31 TA 4479; MO2 Lorry bearing No.AP 31 Y 8189; MO3 7

Lorry bearing NO.AP31 TG 9978, are already given to interim custody to its owners and same shall holds good after expiry of appeal time of SIX

MONTHS.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 31st day of March, 2022.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I st Class, Chodavaram

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : PW.1 : Earli Gangu Naidu PW.2 : S.Siva Sai Babu PW.3 : P.Narasimha Murthy For Defence :- -None-

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution : Ex.P.1 : Occurrence Report Ex.P.2 : FIR For Defence :- -Nil-

Material Objects:

MO.1 Lorry bearing No.AP31 TA 4479; MO2 Lorry bearing No.AP 31 Y 8189; MO3 Lorry bearing NO.AP31 TG 9978,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I st Class Chodavaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: CHODAVARAM

Present:: Sri P.SRINIVAS, Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

CHODAVARAM

Thursday, the 31st of day of March, 2022

C.C. No. 412/2018

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its the Sub-Inspector of Police, Cheedikada Police Station.

.. Complainant

-Versus-

Addepalli Srinnivasa Rao, S/o.Peda Appa Rao, aged 40 years, Kapu, Driver of Van AP 31TK 0506, r/o.China Gogada (v), Cheedikada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

.. Accused

This case is coming on 30.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri BSN Advocate for the accused and upon hearing their arguments and upon perusing the documents available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :-

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. This is a case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Cheedikada Police Station, against the accused for the offences u/Sec.304-A of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

3. The Sub Inspector of Police,Cheedikada Police station filed charge sheet against accused alleged that on 08.04.2018 deceased Parawada Jangalanaidu went to his thrashing field for agricultural works and returned to home for lunch later deceased andLW1 Parwada

Kannathalli attended a function at Ramalayam street andafter completing lunch at about 13.00 hours deceased went to his thrashing field on his cycle andLW1 returned to home. At 13.30 hours deceased went to his thrashing field on his cycle and LW1 returned tohome. At about 13.30 hours while deceased reached near Ramalayam street, Cheedikada taking turning towards

Main road accused being driver of Van bearing No.AP 31 TK0506 while proceeding from

Chodavaram towards Cheedikada drove the van in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed against deceased who is going on his cycle extreme left side of road resulting which deceased fell on theroad along with cycle and received severe cut injury on head and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chodavaam by auto. Medical Officer on examining declared that theinjured was dead. LW1 was informed by LW3 Paravwada Srinu and she and her daughter reported the matter before police and LW13 L.Himagiri registered a case in

Cr.No.14/2018 u/s.304-A IPC of Cheedikada Police Station and took up investigation during investigation he secured presence of mediators, examined the scene under cover of observation 2 report, photographed thescene, prepared rough sketch, held inquest over dead body in the presence of panchayatdars and after completion of inquest sent the dead body for Post mortem.

On receipt of MVI report and PM report and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused. Hence the charge.

4.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A of IPC.

5.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents are furnished to them U/s.207

Cr.P.C and they were examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., in which, the accused denied the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A of IPC and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, Pws.1 to 12 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P18.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.Now, the points for determination is

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence u/Sec.304-A of IPC charged against him?

10.It is the evidence of PW1, who is none other than wife of deceased and she is not a direct witness for the alleged accident as per the case of prosecution and she deposed that she received a phone call from unknown person informing that her husband was met with a road accident at Cheedikada and immediate, she rushed to the scene of offence, by that time her husband was shifted to Government Hopital Chodavaram and she came to know that her husband died in the hospital and she was informed that his dead body will be brought to the village and she gave Ex.P1 report to police. As this witness did not support to the case of prosecution, as such the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared the witness as hostile and her earlier u/s 161 of Cr.P.C contents are confronted through her, for which the witness again stated that she stated the same lines of statement before the police and due to long back, she could not recollect the same in his chief examination. During her cross-examination, she admitted that the deceased was in the habit of taking of alcohol and the place of accident is a busy place and her husband while coming on his bicycle in drunken state he fell down and sustained head injury.

11. As can be seen from her evidence, she never stated anything against the accused that he is responsible for the death of her husband as he drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her husband bike. Further on perusal of Ex.P1, it is mentioned in it that she came to know about the alleged accident through somebody. Further, PW.1 herself admitted that the deceased was in the habit of taking of alcohol and the place of accident is a busy place and her husband while coming on his bicycle in drunken state he fell down and sustained head injury. From her admissions itself clearly go to show that her husband while 3 coming on his bicycle in drunken state he fell down and sustained head injury. How this case is fioled against the accused. Therefore, her evidence cannot be looked into.

12. It is the evidence of PW2 to 7, who are resident of cheedikada according to the case of prosecution and some of them are direct witnesses and some of them hearsay about the accident as per the case of the prosecution, but they did not state anything against the accused before the court and also did not support to the case of the prosecution. As such the Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor declared the witnesses as hostile and their earlier u/s 161 of Cr.P.C contents are confronted through them and Ex.P2 to P7 are marked and the same are denied by the witnesses.

13.As can be seen from their evidence, they never stated anything against accused that due to rash and negligent driving of accused the accident took place and the accused caused the accident. Therefore, their evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

14. PW.8 to 10 who are said to be Mahazardars for the scene observation and inquestdars as per the case of the prosecution, but they did not speak anything about the contents therein and also did not support to the case of the prosecution, except marking their signatures as Ex.P8 to

P12. Therefore, their evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

15. It is the evidence of PW11, who held PostMortum over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P13 photostat copy of postmortem report, filed by Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor with memo.

16. It is the evidence of PW.12, who is investigating officer, deposed his evidence before the court by reiterating the contents of his investigation and Ex.P14 to P18 are marked through him and after completion of investigation , LW.12/L.Suresh Kumar Sub-Inspector of Police, laid charge sheet and during his cross-examination, so many suggestions are given to him by the defence counsel and the same is denied by the witness.

17. As can be seen from his evidence the contents of inquest and observation of scene, are not proved by the prosecution through its mahazardars and they did not state anything about the contents therein. No witness stated anything against the accused that he is the driver of the crime vehicle and due to his rash and negligent driving the accident was taken place and the deceased died, which is very essential ingredients to attract for the offence punishable under 304-A of IPC against the accused. Hence, the un-corroborated testimony of PW12 alone cannot be considered.

18.In view of the facts and circumstances, in view of the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no cogent and convincing evidence on behalf of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.304-A of IPC.

Hence, he is acquitted u/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence u/Sec.304-A of IPC. His bail bonds, if any, shall stand canceled, after lapse of six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 31st day of March, 2022.

Addl Judl. Magistrate of I Class Chodavaram 4

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution For Accused

PW1: Paravada Kannatalli PW2: Vechalapu Simhachalam Naidu PW3:Paravada Devi PW4: Paravada Srinu PW5: Pothala Sattibabu PW6:Budiredla Mahesh PW7: Paruvada Suryanarayana PW8: Yerra Apparao PW9:Pothala Chinna Naidu PW10:Bandaru Demudu Naidu PW11: Dr.G.V.Vaidehi PW12:L.Himagiri

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: 161 cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P3: 161 cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P4: 161 cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P5: 161 cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P6: 161 cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P7: 161 cr.P.C statement of PW7 Ex.P8: signature on inquest report of PW8 Ex.P9: signature on scene observation report of PW8 Ex.P10: signature on scene observation report of PW9 Ex.P11: signature on inquest report of PW9 Ex.P12 : signature on inquest report of PW10 Ex.P13 : photostat copy of post mortem report Ex.P14 : FIR Ex.P15 : scene observation mahazarnama Ex.P16 : rough sketch Ex.P17 : photostat copy of inquest report Ex.P18 : MVI report Accused: -Nil -

Material Objects: -Nil-

AJCJ., Chodavaram 5