Sri. P.Tirumala Rao, B.A., LL.B.,

CC.76 /2010 1 JFCM , KPM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: KUPPAM

Present:Sri P.Thirumala Rao, B.A., L.L.B.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,KUPPAM

Dated this the 20 th day of May 2015

C.C. NO: 76 of 2010 Between:-

The State of A.P., represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuppam PS. (Crime No.7/2010) … Complainant. And:-

1.C. Chitti Babu, age: 43 yrs.S/o Chinna Rajappa Naidu

2.K. Subramanyam, age: 33 yrs. S/o Kampanna

3.A.S. Murugan @ Murugesh, age: 38 yrs. S/o Appaiah

4.D. Chennayyan, age: 32 yrs. S/o Dhanpal naidu

5.K. Jaya Sankar, age: 30 yrs. S/o Kuppuswamy

6.P. Raghupathi, age: 29 yrs. S/o Pedda Thammudu

7.K. Samidi, age: 35 yrs. S/o Kaverappa

8.K. Chinnathammudu, age: 35 yrs. S/o Kaverappa

9.B.Mani, aaaaage: 47 yrs. S/o Badrappa MPTC

10.G. Venkatapathi, age: 45 yrs. S/o Gopal ( Died)

11.Suri @ M.Lingappa, age: 36 yrs. S/o Mallappa, Waterman

12.Raja @ Rajappa, age: 27 yrs. S/o Machappa @ Maboodu

13.C. Buddappa, age: 42 yrs. S/o Chinna Thammudu

14.S. Varadarajulu, age: 32 yrs. S/o Sanjeevi Naidu

15.Beejalingam @ S. Vijayalingam, age: 35 yrs. S/o Chokkalingam

16.R. Radhakrishnan, age: 37 yrs. S/o Rajagopal

17.C. Veerabhadran, age: 30 yrs. S/o Chinnathammudu

18.C. Vijayan @ C. Vijay Kumar, age: 30 yrs. S/o Chinnathammudu, All the accused except A8 are r/at Adavibudugur village and A8 is R/at Kaverikottalu village H/o Adavibuduguru, Kuppam Mandal. …. Accused.

This case is coming on this day 18.5.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst., Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri P.V. Madhusudhan, counsel for the

CC.76 /2010 2 JFCM , KPM

accused, upon hearing their arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuppam PS. filed charge sheet in Crime No.7/2010 for the offences punishable U/s.

147,148, 332,353,429 r/w 149 IPC and Sec. 11 (i) (a), 35, 38 of Indian animal protection act and U/s. 5,6,10,11 of cow protection of Animal preservation Act against Accused NO.1 to 18 alleging as follows:-

2. That on 17.1.2010 at 11.00 a.m. S.I. of police ,

Kuppam PS. received information about Jallikattu festival was going in Advibuduguru village. On receipt of information the

S.I. of police along with his staff proceeded to Advibuduguru

Village and noticed that the villagers prepared to conduct jallikattu procession. The S.I. of police, Kuppam PS., informed the villagers that conducting jallikattu by betting is an offence.

The villagers agreed to conduct cattle festival without betting.

The S.I. of police, Kuppam along with his staff also observed the procession and they prepared to return to Kuppam, at 4.30 p.m. While they were proceeding on the way some of the villagers placed stones, tree branches across the road and obstructed them. When the S.I. of police, Kuppam questioned

CC.76 /2010 3 JFCM , KPM

the acts of villagers, they questioned the authority of police to stop their procession.

3. It is further alleged that A1 to A18 themselves informed into unlawful assembly felted stones on police. A1,

A2 armed with sticks and stones beat police constable 946 – N.

Ramesh and caused injuries. A3, A4 also armed with stones beat PC. 3954- Devakumar and caused injuries. A5, A6 beat police constable 3940- Nagaraju. A15 along with other accused also beat PC.3957- M.D. Zilani. The other accused also beat Home Guard – Nagaraju and caused injuries. The injured was shifted to PES hospital, Kuppam. On receipt of written report of PC. 3664-B. Panner Naik a case in Cr. NO.

7/2010 for the offence punishable U/s.147,148, 332,353,429 r/w 149 IPC came to be registered. The Investigating Officer examined the defacto complainant, injured, material witnesses and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene and drawn rough sketch. On 18.2.2010 at 1.00 p.m. all the accused were arrested and they were produced before the Court for judicial remand. Dr. T. M.

Suresh, Senior Casualty officer, PES Hospital, Kuppam, treated the injured - Lw.2- N. Ramesh, Lw.3- K. Devakumar, Lw.4- B.

Nagaraja, Lw.5- M.D. Zilani and Lw.6- Nagaraju and issued wound certificates opining that the injuries are simple in nature and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

CC.76 /2010 4 JFCM , KPM

4. This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s. 147,148, 332,353,429 r/w 149 IPC and Sec.

11 (i) (a), 35, 38 of Indian animal protection act and U/s.

5,6,10,11 of cow protection of Animal preservation Act against

Accused No.1 to 18.

5.On appearance of Accused No.1 to 18, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated U/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

Accused No.1 to 18 were examined U/s. 239 Cr. P.C. Charges for the offence U/s. 147,148, 332,353,429 r/w 149 IPC and Sec.

11 (i) (a), 35, 38 of Indian animal protection act and U/s.

5,6,10,11 of cow protection of Animal preservation Act has been framed read over to accused in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During pendency of trial, A10 is died and case against A10 is abated. The case is proceeding against A1 to A9, A11 to A18 only.

6. During course of trial, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to Pw.17 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. Out of which

Pw.1 is the defacto complainant, Ex.P1 is his report. PW.2 to

Pw.6 are said to be injured eyewitnesses. Pw.7 to Pw.11 and

Pw.14 are eyewitnesses, Ex.P3 is Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of

Pw.14. Pw.12 is S.I. of police, Kuppam. Pw.13 , Pw.15 are panch witness for seizure mahazarnama. Ex.P2 , Ex.P4 are their signatures therein. Pw.16 is Station House officer,

Kuppam , Ex.P5 is FIR. Pw.17 is Investigating Officer. ExP6 is

CC.76 /2010 5 JFCM , KPM

is rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P7 is Mahazarnma.

E.xP8 to Ex.P12 wound certificates of Pw.2 to Pw.6 respectively.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused

No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating material evidence appearing in prosecution witnesses, for which they stated it to be false and reported no evidence. Hence, Defence side evidence was closed.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 9 , 11 to 18 for the offence punishable U/s. 147,148, 332,353,429 r/w 149 IPC and Sec. 11 (i) (a), 35, 38 of Indian animal protection act and U/s. 5,6,10,11 of cow protection of Animal preservation Act beyond all reasonable doubts ?

10. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.1.2010 at 4.00 p.m. A1 to A18 themselves formed into unlawful assembly armed with sticks and stones made assault on S.I.

of Police, Kuppam and his staff members and voluntarily caused hurt to Pw.2 to Pw.6 and obstructed them from discharging their legitimate duties. Hence, the accused are liable for the alleged charges.

CC.76 /2010 6 JFCM , KPM

11. Proof of Injuries to Pw.2:-To prove its case, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant as Pw.1. He stated that on the date of incident at 4.30 p.m. when they were about move from Adivibuduguru village , the villagers in drunken state kept stones and other material on the road and obstructed them to proceed on their way. A1, A2 armed with sticks and stones beat PW.2. A3, A4 also beat Pw.3 with stones. A5, A6 beat Pw.4. A15 beat Pw.6 and the other accused beat Pw.5.

12. However, one of the injured examined as Pw.2, stated that after completion of procession, they started at 4.30 p.m.

at Adivibuduguru village by the time some of the villagers pelted stones on himself, Pw.1, Pw.3 to Pw.6. A1, A2 hurled stones, sticks on him and he sustained injuries on his left shoulder and to his left leg below knee. But, Pw.2 failed to identify other accused and only identified A1 before the court.

Further, no specific overt acts attributed to A1.

13. The other injured examined as Pw.4 to Pw.6 also not stated the specific overt acts of A1, A2 to cause injuries on

Pw.2. Further, there is no corresponding injury that was noted in the wound certificate of Pw.2. Further, Pw.1, Pw.2 not stated any overt acts of A2 to A18. Pw.2 only identified A1

before the court, but no specific overt acts attributed to him.

CC.76 /2010 7 JFCM , KPM

As such the evidence of Pw.1, PW.2 as to alleged hurt caused by A1, A2 on Pw.2 is found not reliable.

14. Proof of injuries to PW.3:- As per the prosecution case

A3, A4 armed with sticks beat Pw.3 and caused bleeding injuries. The defacto complainant in his first information report and in his evidence before the court stated that A3, A4 beat Pw.3 with stones.

15. However, Pw.3 in his evidence stated that some of the villagers in drunken state came to their vehicle and laid stones and heap across the road. The villagers also pelted stones and sticks on them and they sustained injuries. Pw.3 identified

A4 as that of person in the mob, but no specific overt acts attributed to A4. Pw.2, Pw.4, Pw.6 also not stated the specific overt act of A3, A4 to cause injuries on Pw.3. Pws.1 to Pw.6 also not stated the involvement of A1, A2, A5 to A18 in this case. As such the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove injuries caused to Pw.3 and obstructed them from discharging their legitimate duties.

16. Proof of injuries to Pw.4:- As per the prosecution case

A5, A6 armed with stones beat Pw.4 and caused bleeding injuries. The defacto complainant examined as Pw.4 in his first information report and in his evidence before the court stated that A5, A6 beat Pw.4.

CC.76 /2010 8 JFCM , KPM

17. However, Pw.4 in his evidence stated that when they about to move from Adivibuduguru village some of the villagers laid some waste material across the road and obstructed their vehicle. A mob comprising 50 members came there and hurled bricks , stones on them. Pw.4 not stated the specific overt acts of A5, A6 or any other accused. Further, Pw.4 also not identified A5, A6 as that of the culprits made assault on him.

18. Proof of injuries to Pw.5:- As per the prosecution case all the accused themselves formed into unlawful assembly and beat Pw.5 i.e., Home guard- Nagaraju. The defacto complainant in his first information report and in his evidence

before the court stated that the accused beat Pw.5.

19. However, Pw.5 in his evidence stated that when they about to move from Adivibuduguru village, some of the villagers came across the road in drunken state and placed stones and sticks and questioned their authorities. The mob hurled stones, sticks and he sustained injuries to his back.

Pw.5 identified A1 , A9, A18 as that of the persons in the mob.

But, Pw.5 not stated any specific overt acts of them. As per the first information report and evidence of Pw.1 , A17 and one Anandan beat Pw.5, but Pw.5 not stated specific overt acts on A17 or Aanandan. As such the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the injuries caused to Pw.5 by accused.

CC.76 /2010 9 JFCM , KPM

20. Proof of injuries to Pw.6:- As per the prosecution case A15 and Chukkalingam armed with sticks and beat Pw.6 and caused bleeding injuries. Pw.1 in his first information report and in his evidence before the court also stated that A15 beat Pw.6 with sticks and caused injury.

21. However, Pw.6 in his evidence stated that some of the villagers obstructed them and made attack on himself

Pw.1, Pw.2 and caused injuries. Pw.6 is unable to identify the persons who made assault on him. The other prosecution witnesses also not stated the specific overt acts of A15 or any other accused to caused injuries on Pw.6.

22. The independent eyewitnesses examined as Pw.7 to

Pw.11 and Pw.14 not support the prosecution case and they reported their innocence. Pw.14 denied his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.

statement to police, marked Ex.P3. Pw.13 and Pw.15 also denied their presence for the seizure report and only they admits their signatures therein, marked Ex.P2, Ex.P4 respectively.

23. The S.I of police, Kuppam examined as Pw.12 also stated that on the date of incident at 4.30 p.m. himself and his staff were returning from Adivibuduguru village. Then some of the villagers came across the road in drunken state and laid stones and tree branches across the road and made attack on the police constables and he along with his staff

CC.76 /2010 10 JFCM , KPM

disbursed the mob and taken the injured to hospital. But,

Pw.12 not stated the specific overt acts of any of the accused.

Though Pw.12 identified A1, A2, A12, A14 before the court as that of persons in the mob. But, mere presence of them at the scene itself is not a offence. The other prosecution witnesses also not stated the presence and participation accused in the incident.

24. The station house officer, Kuppam PS. examined as

Pw.16 and he stated that on 17.1.2010 at 9.00 a.m. he received report of PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.NO.7/2010 submitted FIR marked Ex.P5 to Court, he handed over the C.D file to his successor for further investigation.

25. The investigating officer examined as Pw.17, he stated that he examined Pw.1 to 11 recorded their statements and he visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene drawn rough sketch marked as Ex.P6 and he seized stones, sticks under cover of mahazarnama, marked Ex.P7. Pw.17 further testified that Dr. T.M. Suresh treated the injured PW.2 to Pw.6 and issued wound certificates, marked Ex.P8 to P12 respectively, opining that the injuries are simple in nature.

26. The evidence of Pw.16 and Pw.17 is also not direct as to involvement of accused in the alleged offence. The other prosecution witnesses also not stated any specific overt acts of any of the accused. Though Pw.1 stated the identity of A1,A6,

CC.76 /2010 11 JFCM , KPM

A15, but the same is not corroborated by the injured or other witnesses. Further, none of the prosecution witnesses stated any inconvenience or ill-treatment said to have caused by the accused to any of the cattle that is an offence under animal protection act and cow protection act and animal prevention act. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove that A1 to A9, A11 to A18 themselves formed into unlawful assembly and voluntarily caused hurt on Pw.2 to Pw.6 and obstructed them from discharging their legitimate duties. The prosecution also failed to prove that the accused committed any offence U/Sec.

11 (i) (a), 35, 38 of Indian animal protection act and U/s.

5,6,10,11 of cow protection of Animal preservation Act.

Hence, the evidence on records is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. The prosecution failed to prove the alleged charges. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

27. In the result, the A1 to A9, A11 to A18 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.147,148, 332,353,429 r/w 149 IPC and Sec. 11 (i) (a), 35, 38 of Indian animal protection act and U/s. 5,6,10,11 of cow protection of Animal preservation Act and they are acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr. P.C.

the bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

CC.76 /2010 12 JFCM , KPM

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of May , 2015.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

KUPPAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION :- DEFENCE :- Pw.1 -B. Panner naik - None- Pw.2 - N. Ramesh Pw.3 - K. Devakumar Pw.4 - Nagaraju Pw.5 -B. Nagaraja Pw.6- M.D. Zilani Pw.7C. Rajendran Pw.8- Chinnaraji Pw.9 Perithambi Pw.10- Tirumala Pw.11- P. Perumal Pw.12- K. Pullaiah Pw.13 Murugan Pw.14- Chinnathambi Pw.15 Sreenivas Goud Pw.16- M.S. Gurupadam Pw.17 – D. Amarnath Fredricks.

EXHIBITS MARKED FORPROSECUTION :-

Ex.P-1 Report of Pw.1 given to police

Ex.P2 – signature of Pw.13 on mahazarnama

Ex.P3 - Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.14.

Ex.P4 signature of Pw.15 on mahazarnama

Ex.P5 is FIR.

ExP6 -Rough sketch of scene of offence.

Ex.P7 is Mahazarnma.

Ex.P8 to Ex.P12 wound certificates of Pw.2 to Pw.6

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE :-Nil

Material objects: Nil.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

KUPPAM.

CC.76 /2010 13 JFCM , KPM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

KUPPAM

CALENDER in C.C. NO: 76 of 2010

Dis. No. 537 Date: 20.5.2015

Date of Offence 17.1.2010 Date of Report or Complaint 17.1.2010 Date of taken on file 21.5.2010 Date of apprehension of 18.2.2010 accused Explanation for delay in -- disposal of the case. Date of commencement of trial 20.10.2014 Date of close of trial 18.5.2015 Date of Sentence or Order 20.5.2015 Complainant The State of A.P., represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Kuppam PS. (Crime No.7/2010)

Name of the accused :

1.C. Chitti Babu, age: 43 yrs.S/o Chinna Rajappa Naidu

2.K. Subramanyam, age: 33 yrs. S/o Kampanna

3.A.S. Murugan @ Murugesh, age: 38 yrs. S/o Appaiah

4.D. Chennayyan, age: 32 yrs. S/o Dhanpal naidu

5.K. Jaya Sankar, age: 30 yrs. S/o Kuppuswamy

6.P. Raghupathi, age: 29 yrs. S/o Pedda Thammudu

7.K. Samidi, age: 35 yrs. S/o Kaverappa

8.K. Chinnathammudu, age: 35 yrs. S/o Kaverappa

9.B.Mani, aaaaage: 47 yrs. S/o Badrappa MPTC

10.G. Venkatapathi, age: 45 yrs. S/o Gopal ( Died)

11.Suri @ M.Lingappa, age: 36 yrs. S/o Mallappa, Waterman

12.Raja @ Rajappa, age: 27 yrs. S/o Machappa @ Maboodu

13.C. Buddappa, age: 42 yrs. S/o Chinna Thammudu

14.S. Varadarajulu, age: 32 yrs. S/o Sanjeevi Naidu

15.Beejalingam @ S. Vijayalingam, age: 35 yrs. S/o Chokkalingam

16.R. Radhakrishnan, age: 37 yrs. S/o Rajagopal

17.C. Veerabhadran, age: 30 yrs. S/o Chinnathammudu

18.C. Vijayan @ C. Vijay Kumar, age: 30 yrs. S/o Chinnathammudu, All the accused except A8 are r/at Adavibudugur village and A8 is R/at Kaverikottalu village H/o Adavibuduguru, Kuppam Mandal.

CC.76 /2010 14 JFCM , KPM

Nature of offence Rioting, Rioting armed with a deadly weapon,

Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty, Assault or used of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty, mischief by killing, poisoning maiming or rending useless any elephant, camel, horse etc, whatever may be its value, or any other animal of the value of 50 rupees or upwards, Indian animal protection act and cow protection of Animal preservation Act.

Section of law U/s. 147,148, 332,353,429 r/w 149 IPC and Sec.

11 (i) (a), 35, 38 of Indian animal protection act and U/s. 5,6,10,11 of cow protection of Animal preservation Act

Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court. Accused are found not guilty Sentence or order In the result, the A1 to A9, A11 to A18 are found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/s. 147,148, 332,353,429 r/w 149 IPC and

Sec. 11 (i) (a), 35, 38 of Indian animal protection act and U/s. 5,6,10,11 of cow protection of Animal preservation Act and they are acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr. P.C. the bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property , if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

KUPPAM

CC.56 /2012 1 JFCM , KPM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: KUPPAM

Present:Sri P.Thirumala Rao, B.A., L.L.B.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,KUPPAM

Dated this the 18 th day of May 2015

C.C. NO: 56 of 2012 Between:-

The State of A.P., represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudupalle PS. (Crime No. 13/2012) … Complainant. And:- M. Govindappa @ Govindaraj, age: 30 yrs. S/o M. Muneppa, Vannekulakshthriya by caste, Kotapalle Village, Gudupalle Mandal.Owner cum driver to the passenger auto bearing registration No. AP 03 X 8186. …. Accused.

This case is coming on this day 16.5.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst., Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of SriM. Subramanyam, counsel for the Accused, upon hearing their arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudupalle PS. filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.13/2012 for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A IPC and Sec. 146 r/w 196 of

M.V. Act alleging as follows:-

2. That on 23.6.2012 at 7.30 p.m. on Gudupalle –

Kuppam B.T.road, near Railway gate of Gudupalle Mandal, the accused being driver of passenger auto bearing registration

CC.56 /2012 2 JFCM , KPM

No.AP 03 X 8186, engaged passengers at Gudupalle and proceeding to Kuppam. During course of journey, the accused drove the auto in rash and negligent manner and the auto was turned turtle. As a result of which the one of the inmate of the auto by name Srinivasulu (deceased) sustained head injury and other inmates of the auto taken the injured to PES hospital, Kuppam and informed the accident to the elder brother of injured. The brother of the deceased- Ramamurthy lodged written report to Station house officer, Gudupalle Police

Station. Upon which a case in Cr. No. 13/2012 for the offence punishable U/s.304-A IPC came to be registered. The

Investigating Officer examined the defacto complainant and material witnesses, recorded their statements. He visited the scene of accident, and inspected the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch. While undergoing treatment the injured – Sreenivasulu was died on 28.3.2012 at 9.30 p.m. On receipt of hospital intimation the station house officer , Gudupalle PS.

altered the section of law from U/s. 337 IPC to U/s. 304 –A IPC and submitted altered FIR to court. On 29.3.2012 the investigating officer secured blood relatives and panchayathdars and hold inquest over the dead body of the deceased- Sreenivasulu, and drawn inquest report and subjected the dead body for postmortem examination. Dr. M.

CC.56 /2012 3 JFCM , KPM

Ravishankar, CAS, Govt. Hospital, Kuppam, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased – Sreenivasulu and issued postmortem examination report opining that the deceased would appear to have died of due to cardio respiratory arrest due to uncontrolled rise in intracranial pressure due to left FTP, fracture SDH and multiple in tract in head injury. The Motor

Vehicle Inspector, Palamaner, inspected the crime vehicle and gave his report opining that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle. On 9.4.2012 at 7.30 a.m. at Katapalle village bus stop of Gudupalle mandal, the accused was arrested and was produced before the court for judicial remand. Accused being the registered owner of the crime vehicle is not insured the crime vehicle. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s.304-A IPC and Sec. 146 r/w 196 of M.V. Act against Accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined U/s. 251 Cr.P.C. and substance of accusations for the offence U/s. 304-A IPC and Sec. 146 r/w 196 of M.V. Act against Accused were read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

CC.56 /2012 4 JFCM , KPM

5. During course of trial the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to Pw.11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. Out of which

Pw.1 is the defacto complainant and brother of deceased,

Ex.P1 is his report. PW.2 to Pw.5 are said to be eyewitnesses,

Ex.P2, E.xP3 are Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Pw.2 , Pw.3 respectively. Pw.6 is wife of deceased. Pw.7 is panch witness for inquest report , marked Ex.P4. Pw.8 and Pw.10 are panch witnesses for scene observation report , Ex.P5, E.xP6 are their signatures on scene observation report. Pw.9 is photographer.

Pw.11 is Investigating Officer, Ex.P7 is FIR. Ex.P8 is rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P9 is scene observation report.

Ex.P10 is altered FIR from U/s. 337 IPC to U/s. 304 – A IPC.

Ex.P11 is Motor Vehicle Inspector report. Ex.P12 is Postmortem examination report. The evidence of Lw.13- M. Ravisankar,

Medical Officer and other witnesses has been given up by

Assistant Public Prosecutor on the ground, police failed to secure the witness.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating material evidence appearing in prosecution witnesses, for which he stated it to be false and reported no evidence.

Hence, Defence side evidence was closed.

CC.56 /2012 5 JFCM , KPM

7. Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

8. Now the points for determination are :-

1)Whether the deceased- Sreenivasulu was died due to injuries received in road traffic accident?

2)Whether the accused was the driver of crime vehicle by the time of accident and he drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner caused the accident?

3)Whether the accused being the registered owner , failed to insure the crime vehicle by the time of accident?

4)Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

Accused for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A IPC and Sec. 146 r/w 196 of M.V. Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.Point No.1:- To prove that the deceased –

Sreenivasulu was died due to injuries received in road traffic accident, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant and elder brother of deceased as Pw.1. He stated that the deceased – Sreenivasulu was his own younger brother. About three years ago on one day at 7.00 p.m. his brother boarded in a auto at Gudupalle and he was proceeding to Kuppam.

During course of journey the auto met with accident and sustained injuries. One Devarajulu informed him about the accident. He rushed to PES hospital, Kuppam and found that

CC.56 /2012 6 JFCM , KPM

his younger brother sustained injuries. He lodged report to police, marked Ex.P1.

10. The eyewitness examined as Pw.4, he stated that about two and half years ago on one day he went to Gudupalle hospital. On his return he boarded auto at Gudupalle to go to their village. During course of journey when the auto was proceeding at Ghat section the auto was fell down. One of the inmate of auto by name Sreenivasulu fell into auto and died.

He sustained head injury to his forehead. Himself, Devaraju, yellappa, Subramani taken the injured to hospital.

11. The other eyewitness examined as Pw.5, he stated that about two years ago on one day he went to a carpenter at Besanatham. On his return he boarded auto at Gudupalle to go to their village. During course of journey when the auto was travelled about one kilometer the auto was fell down. One of the inmate of auto by name Sreenivasulu fell into auto and died. He sustained head injury to his forehead. Himelf,

Devarajulu, Yellappa taken the injured to hospital.

12. The wife of deceased examined as Pw.6, she stated that about more than two years ago her husband boarded auto at

Gudupalle to reach their house. During course of journey the auto met with accident and her husband sustained injuries and was succumbed to injuries. By the time he was at his

CC.56 /2012 7 JFCM , KPM

residence and Pw.1 informed her about the accident and found that her husband sustained injuries. While undergoing treatment her husband succumbed to injuries.

13. The panch for inquest panchanama examined as

Pw.7. He stated that about two years ago the injured –

Sreenivasulu (deceased) met with accident on Kuppam –

Gudupalle road. He came to know about the accident , he rushed to PES hospital and found that the injured –

Sreenivasulu was kept in ICU ward. He was given the treatment for two days. While undergoing treatment the injured succumbed to injuries. The dead body of deceased –

Sreenivasulu was taken to Govt. Hospital, Kuppam where police conducted inquest panchanama and he was present as one of the panchayathdar. Himself , Munirathnam, Sreeramulu were acted as panchayathdars to inquest panchanama. Himself and other panchayathdars opined that the deceased died due to injuries received in road traffic accident. Police drawn inquest report in their presence and obtained their signatures on inquest report, marked Ex.P4.

14. The investigating officer examined as Pw.11, he stated that on 27.3.2012 at 6.00 p.m. he received report of

PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.NO. 13/2012 and submitted

FIR to court , marked Ex.P7. He examined Pw.1 recorded his

CC.56 /2012 8 JFCM , KPM

statement. On 28.3.2012 he visited PES hospital, Kuppam and found the injured –Sreenivasulu was unconscious. On the same day he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene and drawn rough sketch marked Ex.P8. He drafted scene observation report, marked Ex.P9. On 29.3.2012 he received death intimation of Sreenivasulu, basing on the death intimation section was alter from U/s. 337 IPC to U/s. 304-A

IPC and submitted the altered FIR to court, marked Ex.P10.

The secured panchayathdars and hold inquest over the dead body of the deceased – Sreenivasulu and drawn inquest report and subjected dead body for postmortem examination.

15. Pw.11 further testified that on 9.4.2012 at 7.30 p.m.

he effected the arrest of accused and produced them before the court. Pw.11 further testified that Motor Vehicle Inspector, inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report marked

Ex.P11, opining that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects. Dr. M. Ravishanker, CAS, Govt. Hospital,

Kuppam, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased – Sreenivasulu and issued postmortem examination report, marked Ex.P12 opining that the deceased would appear to have died of due to cardio respiratory arrest due to uncontrolled rise in intracranial pressure due to left FTP,

CC.56 /2012 9 JFCM , KPM

fracture SDH and multiple in tract in head injury. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet .

16. On the other hand the defence of the accused No.1 is total denial of his rash and negligent driving and claimed false implication to claim compensation. The learned counsel for the defence cross examined the prosecution witnesses by put forthing defence of accused. But, nothing is elicited to disbelieve the evidence of Pw.1, Pw.4 to Pw.7, Pw.11 coupled with Ex.P1, Ex.P4, Ex.P7 to Ex.P12 and unchallenged their evidence as to cause of death of deceased – Sreenivasulu was due to injuries received in road traffic accident. Therefore, the prosecution proved that the deceased – Sreenivasulu was died due to injuries received in road traffic accident. This point is decided accordingly.

17.Point No.2:- To prove the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle and his rash or negligent driving , the prosecution examined the defacto complainant as Pw.1, he stated that about three years ago on one day at 7.00 p.m.

he boarded in a auto at Gudupalle and he was proceeding to

Kuppam. During course of journey the auto met with accident and sustained injuries. One Devarajulu informed him about the accident. He rushed to PES hospital, Kuppam and found that his younger brother sustained injuries.

CC.56 /2012 10 JFCM , KPM

18. The eyewitnesses examined as Pw.2 to Pw.5. But Pw.2,

Pw.3 not support the prosecution case and denied their Sec.

161 Cr.P.C. statements to police, marked Ex.P2, Ex.P3 respectively. The other eyewitnesses examined as Pw.4 and

Pw.5 stated as to injuries sustained by Sreenivasulu and shifting the injured to hospital. Pw.4 and Pw.5 not stated the identity of accused and rash or negligent driving to driver of crime vehicle. The panch for scene observation report examined as Pw.8 and Pw.10, stated that police obtained their signatures on drafted papers. The photographer examined as

Pw.9, stated that about two years back at noon hours the sub inspector of police instructed him to take photographs of dead body lying at PES Medical college and he have taken photographs and handed over to Gudupalle police. Pw.1 and

Pw.6 are brother and wife of deceased and their evidence is not direct. Pw.7 is panch for inquest panchanama and his evidence is also not direct.

19. The investigating officer examined as Pw.11, stated as to he received report of PW.1 and registered a case in

Cr.NO. 13/2012 and submitted FIR to court , marked Ex.P7.

He visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene and drawn rough sketch marked Ex.P8. He drafted scene observation report, marked Ex.P9. On 29.3.2012 he received

CC.56 /2012 11 JFCM , KPM

death intimation of Sreenivasulu, basing on the death intimation section was alter from U/s. 337 IPC to U/s. 304-A

IPC and submitted the altered FIR to court, marked Ex.P10 and hold inquest over the dead body of the deceased –

Sreenivasulu and drawn inquest report and subjected dead body for postmortem examination. Pw.11 further testified that on 9.4.2012 at 7.30 p.m. he effected the arrest of accused and produced them before the court. Pw.11 further testified that Motor Vehicle Inspector, inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report marked Ex.P11, opining that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects. Dr. M.

Ravishanker, CAS, Govt. Hospital, Kuppam, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased – Sreenivasulu issued postmortem examination report, marked Ex.P12 opining that the deceased would appear to have died of due to cardio respiratory arrest due to uncontrolled rise in intracranial pressure due to left FTP, fracture SDH and multiple in tract in head injury after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. But, Pw.11 not seized any documents such as driving licence of driver of crime vehicle and any other document to connect the accused to the crime vehicle. Hence, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to prove the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle and his rash or negligent

CC.56 /2012 12 JFCM , KPM

driving. The Prosecution failed to prove that accused was the driver of crime vehicle by the time of accident and he drove the same in a rash or negligent driving. Point No.2 is decided accordingly.

20. Point No.3:- To prove the violation of Accused, that he did not insure the crime vehicle by the time of accident , the investigating officer examined as PW.11, he stated that during course of investigation it is disclosed that Accused being owner of the crime vehicle is not insured the crime vehicle bearing registration No. AP03X 8186.

21. When once the identity of accused as driver or owner of crime vehicle is not proved, the alleged omission attributed to the accused that he failed to insure the crime vehicle is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the alleged offence. The prosecution failed to prove the identity of accused as owner of crime vehicle by the time of accident and he failed to insure the same. Therefore, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to prove ownership of Accused. The prosecution failed to prove that the Accused is the registered owner of crime vehicle and not insured the crime vehicle. This point is decided accordingly.

22.Point No.4:- Though the prosecution proved that the deceased – Sreenivasulu died due to head injury received in

CC.56 /2012 13 JFCM , KPM

road traffic accident, but prosecution failed to prove that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle and he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner caused the death of deceased – Sreenivasulu. Hence, Accused is entitled for acquittal.

23. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A IPC and Sec. 146 r/w 196 of

M.V. Act is acquitted U/s. 255 (1) Cr. P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The case property, i.e.

crime vehicle auto bearing No. AP 03 X 8186 already given to registered owner/Accused for interim custody. The same is made absolute after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of May 2015.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

KUPPAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION :- DEFENCE :-

Pw.1- Ramamurthy - None-

Pw.2- V. Devaraju

Pw.3 – Yellappa

PW.4 – Gurrappa

PW.5-Subramani

Pw.6- Amaravathi

Pw.7- G. Sankarappa

Pw.8- G.T. Manjunatha

CC.56 /2012 14 JFCM , KPM

Pw.9 G. Lakshminarayana

Pw.10- G. Manjunath

Pw.11 – A. Jayaswamulu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :-

Ex.P-1 - Report of Pw.1 give to police .

Ex. P2 – Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2

Ex. P3 – Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3

Ex. P4 – Inquest report

Ex. P5 – signature of Pw.8 on scene observation mahazarnama

Ex. P6– signature of Pw.10 on scene observation mahazarnama

Ex.P7 – FIR

Ex.P8 - Rough sketch of scene of offence.

E.xP9 – Scene observation report

Ex.P10- Altered FIR

Ex. P11- MVI report

Ex.P12- PME report

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE :- Nil.

Material objects: Nil.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

KUPPAM.

CC.56 /2012 15 JFCM , KPM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

KUPPAM

CALENDER in C.C. NO: 56 of 2012

Dis. No. Date:

Date of Offence 26.3.2012 Date of Report or Complaint 27.3.2012 Date of taken on file 3.7.2012 Date of apprehension of accused 9.4.2012

Explanation for delay in -- disposal of the case. Date of commencement of trial 30.3.2015 Date of close of trial 16.5.2015 Date of Sentence or Order 18.5.2015 Complainant The State of A.P., represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudupalle PS.(Crime No. 13/2012) Name of the accused :

M. Govindappa @ Govindaraj, age: 30 yrs. S/o M. Muneppa, Vannekulakshthriya by caste, Kotapalle Village, Gudupalle Mandal.Owner cum driver to the passenger auto bearing registration No. AP 03 X 8186.

Nature of offence Causing death rash or negligent act and not insure the crime vehicle by the time of accident. Section of law U/s. 304-A IPC and Sec. 146 r/w 196 of M.V. Act Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Accused is found not guilty Court. Sentence or order In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A IPC and Sec. 146 r/w 196 of M.V. Act is acquitted U/s. 255 (1) Cr. P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The case property, i.e. crime vehicle auto bearing No. AP 03 X 8186 already given to registered owner/Accused for interim custody. The same is made absolute after appeal time is over.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

KUPPAM.

CC.85 /2011 1 JFCM , KPM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: KUPPAM

Present:Sri P.Thirumala Rao, B.A., L.L.B.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,KUPPAM

Dated this the 19 th day of May 2015

C.C. NO: 85 of 2011 Between:-

The State of A.P., represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rallabuduguru PS. (Crime No.16/2011) … Complainant. And:-

1.Baba shaheb, age: 60 yrs. S/o Saboo sab , ( the case against A1 is split up and assigned new number as

CC.254/2014)

2.Vazeed Sab, age: 45yrs. S/o Saboo Sab

3.Pyaru Sab, age: 44 yrs S/o Saboo Sab

4.Shabeer Basha, age: 36 yrs. S/o Saboo Sab

5.Ameer bee, age: 56 yrs. W/o Baba sab

6.Badrunnisa, age: 35 yrs. W/o Sardar, All are R/at Sogadaballa village, Santhipuram Mandal. …. Accused.

This case is coming on this day 16.5.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst., Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri S.V. Nagaraja, counsel for the accused No.1 to 4, upon hearing their arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rallabuduguru PS. filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 6 in Crime No.16/2011 for the offences punishable U/s. 324 , 509, 323 r/w 34 IPC alleging as follows:-

2. That the defacto complainant – Sharjun bee and her children own lands an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No. 90/B , an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.No.90/A, an extent of Ac.1.26 cents in

CC.85 /2011 2 JFCM , KPM

Sy.No.87/10 and they have raised caesarians trees in their lands.

It is further alleged that the accused claiming right over the said lands and thereby the defacto complainant filed civil suit before the court at Chittoor and obtained injunction orders on 28.2.2011.

3. It is further alleged that on 30.3.2011 at 3.00 p.m. the defacto complainant – Sharjun bee along with her family members went to their lands and made attempt to cut the caesarians trees.

Meanwhile Accused No.1 to 6 came there, objected and made assault on them. When Lw.2- Shaik Ibrahim try to rescue the defacto complainant the accused also beat him with cart pegs on his head and caused bleeding injuries. The defacto complainant and her family members taken the injured -Shaik Ibrahim to Govt.

hospital, Kuppam for treatment and lodged written report. On receipt of written report of defacto complainant – Sharjun bee a case in Cr.No. 16/2011 for the offence punishable U/s.324 r/w 34

IPC came to be registered. The Investigating Officer examined the defacto complainant, injured, material witnesses and recorded their statements and he visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene and drawn rough sketch. Dr. K. Nagendra Prasad, Medical officer,

Area Hospital, Kuppam , treated the injured - Shaik Ibrahim, and issued wound certificate opining that the injury is simple in nature.

On 20.5.2011 at 9.00 a.m. the Accused No.1 to 6 were arrested and they were produced them before the court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

CC.85 /2011 3 JFCM , KPM

4. This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s.

324,509,323 r/w 34 IPC against Accused No.1 to 6 .

5. On appearance of Accused No.1 to 6, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 to 6 were examined U/s. 239 Cr. P.C. Charges for the offence U/s.

324,509,323 r/w 34 IPC has been framed read over to accused in

Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During pendency of trial, A1 is absconding and case against him is split up and assigned new number as CC.254/2014. The case is proceeding against A2 to A6 only.

6. During course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to

Pw.7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. Out of which Pw.1 is defacto complainant, Ex.P1 is her report. Pw.2 is injured . Pw.3 to Pw.6 are said to be eyewitnesses. Pw.7 is Investigating Officer, Ex.P2 is

FIR. Ex.P3 is rough sketch of scene of offence, Ex.P4 is wound certificate of Pw.2. The evidence of medical officer has been given up by Assistant Public prosecutor on the ground, police failed to secure the witness.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused No.2 to 6 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating material evidence appearing in prosecution witnesses, for which they stated it to be false and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

CC.85 /2011 4 JFCM , KPM

9. Now the points for determination is:-Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused No.2 to 6 for the offence U/s.324,509,323 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

10. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.3.2011 at 3.00 p.m. at the land of PW.1, Accused No.1 to 6 with common intention

Voluntarily caused hurt by dangerous weapons and also made intentional insult to the modesty of Pw.1 and thereby the accused are liable for the charges U/s.324, 509, 323 r/w 34 IPC.

11. To prove the alleged charges, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant as Pw.1, she stated that her husband died about 18 years ago. During life time of her husband herself,

Babsaheb/A1, Pyaru Sabheb/A3, Wajid Basha/A2 got partition of their property. After the death of her husband the accused not allowing her to enjoy the share of her husband. She filed suit

before the court at Chittoor and obtained injunction orders. After

getting orders herself, her daughters , her son-in-law went to the land to harvest the crop. Then the accused came there and beat her son –in-law by name Shaik Ibrahim (Pw.2) and she lodged report to police, marked Ex.P1.

12. The injured examined as Pw.2, he stated that about three years ago on one day at 3.00 p.m. Pw.1 along with her daughters went to scene. He was also present about 15 feet away to the scene. There was altercation between Pw.1, her daughters and the accused. When he intervened to rescue Pw.1, A1 to A4 and other three women beat him and questioned his interference by stating

CC.85 /2011 5 JFCM , KPM

that he has no business into the matter. All the accused beat him with stout stick on his head and caused bleeding injuries. Pw.2 further testified that Shiva kumar, Gantlappa, Balappa witnessed the incident and sivakumar taken him to Govt. hospital, Kuppam.

13. One of the eyewitness examined as Pw.3, she stated that her father died about 20 years ago. Since then the accused not given any share of produce of the land. On the date of incident A1 to A4 and A6 beat them and they gave report to police. A2 beat her with a stout stick on her left shoulder and she sustained pain for a period of two months.

14. The other eyewitness examined as Pw.4, she stated that her father died during their childhood and her mother performed their marriages. The accused not given any share of land to them.

On the date of incident herself, Pw.1 to Pw.3 went to land and questioned the accused to give their share. The accused rescued to give share and A1 to A4 beat Pw.2. They went to police station and police sent them to hospital and her mother gave report to police.

15. One of the independent eyewitness examined as Pw.5, he stated that on 30.3.2011 at 3.00 p.m. while he was sitting in the village center, A2 came there and asked him to accompany him the Pw.1 was cutting caesarian trees in their land. He along with ten other members went to the fields and noticed A1 and other

Sheppard were present there . Then A1 questioned Pw.2 why he

CC.85 /2011 6 JFCM , KPM

came to their land, there was exchange of words and abusing each other, then A1 beat Pw.2 with stick.

16. The other independent eyewitness examined as Pw.6, he stated that on 30.3.2011 at 3.30 p.m. while he was returning from his fields, he noticed gathering in the village. He went there and found that Pw.2 sustained head injury. He taken him to Govt.

hospital at first instance they taken him to police station and later to hospital.

17. The Investigating officer examined as Pw.7, he stated that on 31.3.2011 at 7.00 a.m. he received report of Pw.1 upon which he registered a case in Cr.NO. 16/2011 submitted FIR to

Court marked Ex.P2. He examined Pw.1 to Pw.6 and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene drawn rough sketch marked as Ex.P3. Dr. K. Nagendra Prasad,

Medical Officer, treated the injured/Pw.2 and issued wound certificate , marked Ex.P4, opining that the injury was simple in nature. Pw.7 further stated that on 20.5.2011 the accused were arrested and were produced before the court and after completion of investigation his successor filed charge sheet.

18. On the other hand , the defence of accused is total denial of alleged offence and claimed false implication. The learned counsel for the defence cross examined the prosecution witnesses by put forthing defence of the accused. It is elicited from PW.1 that during life time of her husband the property was divided into five shares between her husband and his brothers and her husband

CC.85 /2011 7 JFCM , KPM

two items in Sy.No. 90/2 an extent of Ac.2.00 cents and

Sy.No.105/3 an extent of Ac.0.50 cents. It is elicited from Pw.2 that all their family members are under the control of Pw.1 and there is division of properties during life time of his father-in-law and he do not know the subject land fell the share of A1 and A4. It is elicited from Pw.3 that there was division of property during life time of her father and she do not know pattadar pass books issued to the respective shares. It is elicited from Pw.4 that she do not know the extent of lands own by their family. It is elicited from

Pw.5 that there was partition of properties between the accused and husband of Pw.1 and they have been enjoying their respective shares. It is elicited from Pw.7 that he have not secured the injunction orders referred in Ex.A1 and he had not seized any sticks in commission of offence.

19. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.7 is consistent, cogent and found reliable and there is no need to file a false case. He further submits that A1 to A6 with common intention Voluntarily caused hurt to Pw.2 and also made intentional insult to the modesty of Pw.1 and the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused and prays to convict the accused.

20. On the other hand the learned counsel for the defence submits that Pw.1 along with her family members made attempt to occupy the lands of accused and when the accused resisted Pw.1, she lodged false report and police also filed false charge sheet. He

CC.85 /2011 8 JFCM , KPM

further submits that there are civil suits and criminal cases pending between the accused and Pw.1 since long time and Pw.1 falsely implicated the accused to concede her demand. He further submits that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.7 is suffered with material discrepancies on material facts and their evidence cannot be relied upon and he prays to acquit the accused.

21. As seen from the allegations made in first information report, marked Ex.P1, it is alleged that initially Accused No.1 to 6 came together to the land and abused Pw.1, her daughters and beat them with cart pegs. It is also alleged that when Pw.2 try to rescue them he was also beaten by accused with cart pegs and sustained bleeding injuries on his head.

22. However, Pw.1 in her evidence not stated the alleged hurt caused by accused on herself , her daughters. Pw.1 stated that all the accused came to scene and beat her son-in-law(PW.2) and she gave report to police, marked Ex.P1 and she admitted him into the hospital. Pw.1 not stated the specific overt acts of any of the accused. Pw.1 in her statement to police also stated that the accused beat Pw.2 with cart pegs and caused bleeding injury on his head. But, Pw.1 not stated the specific overt acts of any of the accused. As seen from the wound certificate the medical officer noted two lacerated injuries, one over the parietal area, another over the left occipital area. If, the accused No.1 to 6 beat Pw.2 with cart pegs, there is every possibility to sustain more injuries

CC.85 /2011 9 JFCM , KPM

than noted in wound certificate. Hence, the evidence of Pw.1 that all the accused beat Pw.2 and caused injuries is found not reliable.

23. The injured examined as Pw.2 and stated that there was altercation between Pw.1 ,her daughters and accused. When he intervened to rescue Pw.1, A1 to A4 and other three women beat him. Pw.2 also stated that all the accused beat him with stout sticks on his head and caused bleeding injuries. However, Pw.2 in his statement to police stated that A2, A3 beat him with cart pegs on his head and caused bleeding injuries. As such the specific overt acts attributed to other accused is material omission. Further,

Pw.2 also not stated the specific overt acts of any of the accused.

If, Accused No.1 to 6 beat Pw.2, he would have sustain more injuries than noted in wound certificate. Hence, the evidence of

Pw.2 that all the accused beat him and caused injuries is found not reliable.

24. Pw.3 stated that A1 to A4 and A6 beat them. Pw.3 further stated that A3 beat her with stout stick on her left shoulder.

But, there is no corresponding injury to Pw.3. Further, Pw.3 not stated any specific overt acts of any of the accused to cause any specific injury. Further, Pw.3 also not stated in her statement to police as to the injuries caused to herself and her family members.

Hence, the evidence of Pw.3 is found not reliable.

25. Pw.4 also stated on the date of incident herself , Pws.1 to 3 went to their land and questioned the accused to give their share.

But, the accused refused to give share and A1 to A4 beat Pw.2.

CC.85 /2011 10 JFCM , KPM

Pw.4 in her statement to police stated that A2, A3 beat Pw.2. As such the specific overt acts attributed to A1 to A4 are material omissions to her statement to police.

26. Pw.5 is a independent eyewitness , he stated that there was exchange of words between A1 and Pw.2 and abused each other.

Then A1 beat Pw.2 with stick. However, Pw.5 in his statement to police U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. stated that A2, A3 beat Pw.2 with cart peg and caused bleeding injuries. As such the overt acts attributed to

A1 is material omission to his statement to police. Hence, the evidence of Pw.5 is found not reliable.

27. The other independent eyewitness examined as Pw.6, not stated the alleged hurt caused by accused on Pw.2 or Pw.1.

Further, Pw.1 to Pw.6 also not stated the alleged intentional insult made to the modesty of Pw.1 or Pw.2 to Pw.4. The investigating officer examined as Pw.7 not secured any documents in proof of rights of Pw.1 to Pw.4 over the dispute land. Pw.1 also not filed any documents in proof of her right over the subject lands. Hence, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused for the alleged charges. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges

U/s. 324, 509, 323 r/w 34 IPC and the accused are entitled for acquittal.

28. In the result, Accused No.2 to 6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.324,509,323 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr. P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall

CC.85 /2011 11 JFCM , KPM

stands cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of May 2015 .

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

KUPPAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION :- DEFENCE :-

Pw.1- Sharjun bee - None-

Pw.2- Shaik Ibrahim

Pw.3 – Shaik Haseena

Pw.4 – Thageena

Pw.5 –M. Gantlappa

Pw.6- Siva

Pw.7 – N. Gunasekhar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :-

E.xP1 - Report given to police by Pw.1

Ex. P2 - FIR

Ex.P3- Rough sketch of scene of offence.

Ex.P4 - Wound certificate of Pw.2

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE :- Nil.

Material objects: Nil.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

KUPPAM.

CC.85 /2011 12 JFCM , KPM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

I CLASS :: KUPPAM

CALENDER in C.C. NO: 85 of 2011 Dis. No. Date:

Date of Offence 30.3.2011 Date of Report or Complaint 31.3.2011 Date of taken on file 7.11.2011 Date of apprehension of accused 20.5.2011

Explanation for delay in -- disposal of the case. Date of commencement of trial 20.3.2015 Date of close of trial 16.5.2015 Date of Sentence or Order 19.5.2015 Complainant The State of A.P., represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rallabuduguru PS. (Crime No.16/2011) Name of the accused :

1.Baba shaheb, age: 60 yrs. S/o Saboo sab , ( the case against A1 is split up and assigned new number as

CC.254/2014)

2.Vazeed Sab, age: 45yrs. S/o Saboo Sab

3.Pyaru Sab, age: 44 yrs S/o Saboo Sab

4.Shabeer Basha, age: 36 yrs. S/o Saboo Sab

5.Ameer bee, age: 56 yrs. W/o Baba sab

6.Badrunnisa, age: 35 yrs. W/o Sardar, All are R/at Sogadaballa village, Santhipuram Mandal.

Nature of offence Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means , uttering any words or making any gesture intended to insult the modesty of women etc., Voluntarily causing hurt. Section of law U/s. 324, 509, 323 r/w 34 IPC Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court. Accused are found not guilty Sentence or order In the result, Accused No.2 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 324, 509, 323 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr. P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

KUPPAM.

CC.120 /2011 1 JFCM , KPM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: KUPPAM

Present:Sri P.Thirumala Rao, B.A., L.L.B.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,KUPPAM

Dated this the 19 th day of May 2015

C.C. NO: 120 of 2011 Between:-

The State of A.P., represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuppam PS. (Crime No.90/2011) … Complainant. And:- Partha, age: 25 yrs.S/o Kannayappa @ Kannaiah, Lakshmipuram Village, Kuppam Mandal, Vanyakula Kshathriya by caste. …. Accused.

This case is coming on this day 18.5.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst., Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri A.S. Nataraj, counsel for the accused, upon hearing their arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuppam PS. filed charge sheet in Crime No.90/2011 for the offences punishable U/s.

323, 353 IPC against Accused alleging as follows:-

2. That the defacto complainant - B. Praveen Kumar,

PC. No. 3800 has been working as police constable to

Punganur police station and he was deputed to work within

Kuppam Police station on the eve of Gangamma jathara for the year 2011. On 25.5.2011 he was posted to traffic duty at

Vijalapuram cross road , near Babu nagar , Kuppam from 1.00

CC.120 /2011 2 JFCM , KPM

p.m. to 8.00 p.m. On the same day at 4.00 p.m. when the defacto complainant B- Praveen Kumar was attending his duty at Vijalapuram cross road, the accused came on his TVS50 XL and try to enter into to Kuppam Town. The defacto complainant objected the accused and instructed him to proceed through high way. The accused refused and caught hold the uniform shirt and beat with hands and torn his uniform shirt. The other police constables Lw.2- Yogananda

PS. 3324, Lw.3- Manjunath, PC.4055 came and rescued the defacto complainant- B. Praveen Kumar. On receipt of written report of defacto complainant – B. Praveen kumar the station house officer, Kuppam Police station, registered a case in Cr.

NO. 90/2011 for the offence punishable U/s.353 IPC. The

Investigating Officer examined the defacto complainant, material witnesses and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene and drawn rough sketch and the accused was arrested on the same day and he was produced before the Court and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s. 323, 353 IPC against Accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined U/s. 251 Cr. P.C. and substance of accusations

CC.120 /2011 3 JFCM , KPM

for the offence U/s.323, 353 IPC were read over to Accused in

Telugu , for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During course of trial, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to Pw.6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6, beside Mo.1. Out of which Pw.1 is the defacto complainant, Ex.P1 is his report.

PW.2 to Pw.5 are said to be eyewitnesses, Ex.P2, Ex.P3 are

Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Pw.4, Pw.5 respectively. Pw.6 is

Investigating Officer. ExP4 is FIR, Ex.P5 is rough sketch of scene of offence, Ex.P6 is police proceedings.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating material evidence appearing in prosecution witnesses, for which he stated it to be false and reported no evidence.

Hence, Defence side evidence was closed.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.323, 353 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts ?

9. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.5.2011 at 4.00 p.m. near Vijalapuram cross road, Kuppam, the accused caught hold the uniform shirt of Pw.1 and beat him with hands and torn his uniform shirt and obstructed him from discharging

CC.120 /2011 4 JFCM , KPM

his legitimate duties. Hence, the accused is liable for the alleged charges.

10. To prove its case, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant as Pw.1. He stated that on the date of incident at 4.00 p.m. he was on duty at Vijalapuram cross road, Kuppam from 1.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. and he was diverting the vehicles through bypass road. By the time the accused came to Vijalapuram cross road on his TVS 50 XL and tried to enter into town and he instructed him to proceed through high way. But, he did not heed his words and caught hold his uniform shirt and beat with hands and torn his shirt.

The other constables Yogananda and Manunatha came there and rescued him and he lodged report to police, marked Ex.P1.

11. Pw.2 is said to be eyewitness, he stated that on the date of incident he was also posted to traffic control duty at

Bharath petrol bunk, Kuppam at 4.00 p.m. one of the person informed that a person made assault on their constable.

Himself, another constable Manjunath went to scene and witnessed that the accused beat Pw.1 and he rescued Pw.1 and questioned the accused as to why he made assault and the accused reported that Pw.1 not allowed him to enter into town.

12. Pw.3 also claiming as another eyewitness, he stated that on the date of incident he was also posted to traffic control duty at Bharath petrol bunk, Kuppam. At 4.00 p.m. he

CC.120 /2011 5 JFCM , KPM

came to know that a person beat police constable. Then himself and Pw.2 went to Vijalapuram cross road and witnessed that there was altercation between Pw.1 and accused. He noticed that shirt button of uniform was fallen , both of them caught hold each other and he separated them.

On enquiry the accused reported that Pw.1 obstructed him.

13. Pw.4 , Pw.5 are also said to be independent eyewitnesses, but they did not support the prosecution case and they denied their Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements to police, marked Ex.P2, Ex.P3 respectively.

14. The Investigating Officer examined as Pw.6, and stated that on 25.5.2011 at 4.30 a.m. she received report of PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.NO.90/2011 submitted FIR marked

Ex.P4 to Court. She examined Pws.1 to Pw.5 recorded their statements and he visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene drawn rough sketch marked as Ex.P5 and on the same day the accused was arrested and he was produced before the court for judicial remand. Pw.6 further testified that on 27.5.2011 she seized torn shirt of Pw.1 under cover of police proceedings, marked Ex.P6 and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

15. On the other hand , the defence of accused is total denial of alleged offence and claimed false implication. The learned counsel for the defence cross examined the

CC.120 /2011 6 JFCM , KPM

prosecution witnesses by put forthing the defence of accused.

It is elicited from PW.1 that there is a distance of two furlong from scene of offence to bharath petrol bunk, Kuppam and he had not intimated the incident to the police station by phone.

Pw.1 also admitted that he had not sure about the number of buttons fallen. It is elicited from Pw.2 that there is distance of half kilometer from Bharath petrol bunk to Vijalapuram cross and he came to scene by auto within five minutes. It is elicited from Pw.3 that there is a Jathara and lakhs of people attending jathara. It is also elicited from Pw.3 that it takes 5 or 6 minutes to reach scene from their place of duty. It is elicited from Pw.6 that no case was registered against the accused under motor vehicles act and no fine was imposed and he has not seized the vehicle on which the accused came to scene.

Pw.6 also admitted that Pw.1 not sustained any injuries and he was not sent to hospital.

16. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.3 and Pw.6 is consistent, cogent and found reliable as to alleged hurt and obstruction caused by accused. He further submits that Pw.1 to Pw.3 are public servants and there is no need to file a false case and the accused objected

Pw.1 while discharging his lawful duty and made assault and the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused and prays to convict the accused.

CC.120 /2011 7 JFCM , KPM

17. On the other hand the learned counsel for the defence submits that Pw.1 to Pw.3 are public servants and interested witness to prosecution case and they testified falsehood. He further submits that Pw.1 is ill-literate and villager and the alleged hurt and obstruction attributed to accused is highly improbable. He further submits that police foisted false case when he questioned the high handed acts of Pw.1 and he prays to acquit the accused

18. As seen from the allegations made in first information report Ex.P1, it is alleged that the accused caught hold the uniform shirt and he torn the same and beat Pw.1 with hands.

Pw.1 in his evidence also stated that on the same lines stating that the accused caught hold uniform shirt and beat him with hands and torn his uniform shirt. However, the uniform shirt of Pw.1 was produced before the court , marked as Mo.1 on verification the Mo.1 it is intact. Pw.1 in his cross examination also stated that he is not sure about the number of buttons fallen torn.

19. As seen from the evidence on record, the instant reason to cause hurt and to cause obstruction is that, when

Pw.1 objected the accused to enter into Kuppam town. Then the accused caught hold uniform shirt of Pw.1 and beat with hands. But, the accused is a villager and ill-literate person coming to Kuppam to attend the Gangajathara. In such a state of affairs the alleged attack made by the accused is found

CC.120 /2011 8 JFCM , KPM

not reliable. In General an ill-literate person and villager could not revolt in such an extent of alleged by Pw.1. The evidence of Pw.1 that the accused caught hold his uniform shirt and beat him with hands is remote to the probabilities.

20. Pw.2 claiming that he was on duty on Bharath petrol bunk, Kuppam and on coming to know the incident he went to Vijalapuram cross road and witnessed that the accused beat Pw.1. But, as per Pw.2 the distance between scene of offence to Bharath petrol bunk , Kuppam is half kilometer. In such a case there is no chance to witness the alleged incident after his arrival to scene. As such the evidence of Pw.2 that he witnessed the assault made by accused on Pw.1 is found not reliable.

21. Pw.3 also claiming that he was on duty at Bharath petrol bunk, Kuppam and on coming to know the incident he went to Vijalapuram cross road and witnessed the altercation between Pw.1 and accused. Pw.3 not stated the alleged hurt caused by accused on Pw.1. Pw.2 and Pw.3 also not stated the alleged obstruction caused to Pw.1 from discharging his lawful duties. The evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.3 is inconsistent on material facts and the evidence on records is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. The prosecution failed to prove the alleged assault made by the accused on PW.1 while

CC.120 /2011 9 JFCM , KPM

discharging his legitimate duties. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

22. In the result Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.323, 353 IPC and acquitted U/s.255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

The case property MO.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of May , 2015.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

KUPPAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION :- DEFENCE :-

Pw.1 -B. Praveen Kumar - None-

Pw.2 - B.Yogananda

Pw.3 - Manjunath

Pw.4 - R. Venkatachalam

Pw.5 -N. Shanmugam

Pw.6- K. Lavanya Lakshmi

EXHIBITS MARKED FORPROSECUTION :-

Ex.P-1 Report of Pw.1 given to police

Ex.P2 – Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement to police by Pw.4

Ex.P3 – Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement to police by Pw.5

E.xP4 - FIR

Ex.P5 - Rough sketch of scene of offence.

Ex.P6 – Police proceedings.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE :-Nil Material objects: Mo.1- uniform shirt of Pw.1

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

KUPPAM.

CC.120 /2011 10 JFCM , KPM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

KUPPAM

CALENDER in C.C. NO: 120 of 2011 Dis. No. Date:

Date of Offence 25.5.2011 Date of Report or Complaint 25.5.2011 Date of taken on file 8.8.2011 Date of apprehension of 25.5.2011 accused Explanation for delay in -- disposal of the case. Date of commencement of trial 9.4.2015 Date of close of trial 16.5.2015 Date of Sentence or Order 19.5.2015 Complainant The State of A.P., represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Kuppam PS. (Crime No.90/2011)

Name of the accused :

Partha, age: 25 yrs.S/o Kannayappa @ Kannaiah, Lakshmipuram Village, Kuppam Mandal, Vanyakula Kshathriya by caste.

Nature of offence Voluntarily causing hurt, Assault or used of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty. Section of law U/s. 323,353 IPC Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court. Accused is found not guilty Sentence or order In the result the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 323, 353 IPC and acquitted U/s. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The case property Mo.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

KUPPAM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KUPPAM.

Present:Sri P.Thirumala Rao, B.A., L.L.B., Junior Civil Judge,KUPPAM

Dated this the 28 th day of April 2015

O.S.NO. 21 of 2015

Between:-

R. Manohar raju, age: 47 yrs. S/o Ramaraju , business Indian, Hindu, R/ at Sanganapalle village and post, Gudupalle Mandal, Chittoor District.

.. Plaintiff.

And:- C. Venkatesu, age: 39 yrs. S/o Seetharamappa, business, Indian Hindu, R/at Kodiganipalle Village, Sanganapalle Post Gudupalle Mandal, Chittoor Dist.

... Defendant.

This suit coming before me on for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.V. Madhusudhan, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendant having remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Perused record, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of due under promissory note, dt.13.3.2012, for Rs. 20,000/- said to have been executed by the defendant.

2. Suit summons served on Defendant, but did not choose to appear and contest the suit for which defendant was set ex- parte.

3. Plaintiff examined as Pw.1, suit pronote dt.13.3.2012 ,marked Ex.A1, the same is unchallenged. Hence, Suit claim of the plaintiff is proved.

4. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs. 34,373/- against the defendant with interest of 12% per annum pendentilite and 6 % P.A. till realization on principal amount of Rs. 34,373/-. Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 28th day of April 2015.

Junior Civil Judge Kuppam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANT: P.W.1: R. Manohar raju, -None- Exhibits marked on behalf of the PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT.: Ex.A1: Suit pronote dt. 13.3.2012 -Nil-

Junior Civil Judge Kuppam.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KUPPAM.

Present:Sri P.Thirumala Rao, B.A., L.L.B., Junior Civil Judge,KUPPAM

Dated this the 28 th day of April 2015

O.S.NO. 21 of 2015

Between:-

R. Manohar raju, age: 47 yrs. S/o Ramaraju , business Indian, Hindu, R/ at Sanganapalle village and post, Gudupalle Mandal, Chittoor District.

.. Plaintiff.

And:- C. Venkatesu, age: 39 yrs. S/o Seetharamappa, business, Indian Hindu, R/at Kodiganipalle Village, Sanganapalle Post Gudupalle Mandal, Chittoor Dist.

... Defendant.

This suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 34,373 /- made up Rs. 20,000/- being the principal Rs.14,373/- towards interest and Rs.Nil. being the notice charges done on a pronote dated 13.3.2012 for Rs. 20,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the said sum borrowed together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs.

Plaint presented on: 11.3.2015 Filed on:11.3.2015

C.F. paid U/Sec.20 of APCF.Act is Rs.1966/- Cause of action for the suit arose on 13.3.2012 at Kodiganipalle Village ,

Sanganapalle Post, Gudupalle Mandal

This suit coming before me on for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P.V. Madhusudhan, Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendant called absent, remained set ex-parte, till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:

1.That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs for

Rs.34,373/- against the defendant with interest of 12% per annum pendentilite and 6 % P.A. till realization on principle amount of Rs.34,373/-.

2.That the defendant do also pay a sum of Rs.2868/- to the plaintiff towards the suit costs.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 28th day of April 2015.

Junior Civil Judge Kuppam.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

S.NO. PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANT

01. Stamp for plaint 1966.00 Set ex-pate.. 02.Stamp for power. 2-00 03.Process. 50-00 04.Pleaders fees 850-00 TOTAL: 2868-00 Junior Civil Judge Kuppam.