P. Uma Maheswari

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

SATHUPALLY

Dated this the 24th day of April, 2018

Present: Smt. P.Uma Maheswari,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Sathupally

C.C.No.308/2012

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Aswaraopeta … Complainant. AND A.1:Nadipally Chakradhar Rao, s/o. Venkateswar Rao, Age:40yrs, Occ: Business, r/o. Kukkunuru A.2:Nadipally Narayana Murthy, s/o. Venkateswar rao, Age:35yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Kukkunuru A.3: Ravi Ramesh, S/o. Sathyanarayana, Age:45yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Kukkunuru A.4:Gurajala Ramu, S/o. Durgaiah, Age:35yrs, Occ: Hamali, R/o. Kukkunuru ….Accused Nos. 1 to 4.

This case is coming on 24.4.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state is for the complainant and Sri.P.Janaki Rama Rao,Advocate for accused No.1, and Sri.M.Ajay Kumar, advocate for A.2 to 4 upon perusal of material papers available on record; upon hearing the arguments on both sides and 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, Aswaraopeta Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offences punishable U/secs.363,323,506 r/w.34 IPC, alleging that based on the complaint received from the complainant

Seemakurthy Sri Rangam (LW.1), on 27.10.2012 at 2200 hrs a case in

Cr.No.167/2012 is registered U/secs.363,323,506 r/w.34 IPC , and investigated into. After completion of investigation which established the commission of the offences punishable U/secs.363,323,506 r/w.34 IPC by the accused Nos1 to 4 , charge sheeted them accordingly.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the third son of the complainant by name

Seemakurthy Narsimha Rao was kidnapped by some unknown persons at 2000hrs on 27.10.2012 when his son reached near the sandy market on his motor cycle near Saibaba temple, Bhadrachalam road, Aswaraopeta by forcibly throwing him into a car.On knowing about the incident the complainant -2- immediately rushed to the spot and found the motor cycle of his son bearing No.

AP 20 2086 and his slippers lying besides the road. Since there are business disputes between his son and one Nadipally Chakradhar Rao and his brother

Narayana Murthy of Dammapeta village, suspecting them he lodged complaint against the said two persons. On 29.10.2012 at 2100hrs, LW7, who is the victim, managed to escape from the clutches of the kidnappers and went to police station upon which his statement is recorded and the investigation established that A.1 to

A.4, who kidnapped LW7, beat him with hands and threatened him with dire consequences to kill him if he do not pay the remaining amount of

Rs.50,00,000/- . On knowing the same Lw6 made a phone call to the accused, who are his nephews, to release Narasimha Rao immediately as a case is registered against the accused persons, upon which A.1 to A.4 returned to Mandalapally and shifted the victim in another car and left him at Aswaraopeta. On 29.10.2012 A.1 to A.4 were arrested and produced before the court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation the charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable

U/secs.363,323,506 r/w.34 IPC.

3.On the strength of such charge sheet, this case is taken cognizance for the offences punishable UU/secs.363,323,506 r/w.34 IPC , and on appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 4 before this court, they are examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C duly complying with Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The accused Nos. 1 to 4 pleaded not guilty.

Hence, charges for the offences punishable U/secs.363,323,506 r/w.34 IPC are framed, read over and explained to them. The accused Nos.1 to 4 claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused

Nos.1 to 4 are examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C, for which they pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.

-3-

5.Heard, the learned APP, who contended that the prosecution, through the evidence of P.Ws2,3 and 7 estblished the motive for the offences and the commission of the offences is also proved. Hence, A.1 to A.4 are liable to be convicted. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the A.1 to A.4 contended that Ex.P.1 complaint is lodged only on suspicion , there is no seizure from the scene of offence, Pw2 is a planted witness. The evidence of Pw7 is entirely different from the prosecution story, which is admitted by the investigating officer.

The plea of the prosecution that in view of the business disputes the accused persons kidnapped PW7 is a double edged weapon and since the evidence of the prosecution does not establish its case against the accused persons, the accused persons are entitled for acquittal.

6.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable

U/secs.363,323,506 r/w.34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

7.P.W.1 is the complainant. P.Ws,2,4 and 5 are the eye witnesses. P.Ws.3 and 6 are the circumstantial witneses. P.W.7 is the victim. P.Ws8 and 9 are the panch witneses for scene of offence. PW10 is the panch witness for confession. P.W.11 is the investigating officer.

8. P.W.1, the father of the victim and the complainant, deposed beforet this court that on 27.10.2012 Lw3 informed him that four persons kidnapped his son

Seemakurthi Narasimha Rao when he was present at Saibaba Temple at

Vinayakapuram road, Aswaraopeta. Then he went to the said place along with

LW2 and found the slippers and bike of his son. LW3 informed him that the kidnappers took his son in a car. Thereafter, he lodged complaint with the police against A.1 and A.2 . On cross examination he stated that he do not know who scribed Ex.P.1 complaint but its contents were read over to him, which he do not remember. He also stated that he is not aware of A.1 and A.2 filing suits for -4- recovery of money against his son but he came to know that A.1 and A.2 approached the chamber of commerce, khammam against LW7, the details of which he do not know. The other suggestions are denied by him. Pw2 who is an eye witness deposed that on 27.10.2012 at 8 PM he had seen A.1 and A.2 along with two others taking away Lw7 in a car at Saibaba temple at Bhadrachalam road, Aswaraopeta. At that time Lw7 was on his pulsor bike. The number of the car is AP 16 BL 6889 which is a white colour swift desire car. He also stated that he is having bike finance shop near the scene of offence. The bike and slippers of

Lw7 were left at the scene of offence. Thereafter he informed Pw1. He also stated that the bike number of Lw7 is AP 20 B 2086 . He further stated that subsequently he came to know that Lw7 was kidnapped in view of rice mill disputes and identified A.1 and A.2 present in the court. On cross examination he admitted to have not stated the names of A.1 and A.2 to the police. He also stated that he knows LW7 since his childhood and the scene of ofefnce is at a distance of 300 feet from his shop which is a busy locality. He further stated that he is aware of financial disputes between A.1 and A.2 and LW7. The other suggestions are denied by him. Pw3 deposed before this court that on 27.10.2012 around 8 PM

Pw1 informed him on phone about the kidnap of Lw7 near Saibaba temple,

Aswaraopeta. He also staed that Pw1 lodged complaint suspecting A.1 to A.4. Pw4 who is also an eye witness spoke about some persons coming in a car and kidnapping LW7, who was going on a two wheeler around 8 PM. Pw5 another eye witness also spoke about four persons coming in a white car and kidnapping LW7, who was on his two wheeler at Santhapaka, Aswaraopeta. On cross examination he stated that he was the driver of the tractor of Lw7 in his rice mill. PW6 spoke about the disputes between the accused and Lw7 regarding the rice mill which are tried to be settled before the Chamber of Commerce on three occasions for which he is also a witness. He denied to have stated to the police as in Ex.P.2 ,on his cross examination by the prosecution.

-5-

PW7 who is the victim spoke about A.1 to A.4 kidnapping him in a car while he reached the culvert near Saibaba temple at Santha market of Aswaraopeta on his bike bearing No. AP 20 B 2086 on 27.10.2012 around 8 PM. A.1,A2 and A.4 got down from the car, caught hold his neck and dragged him into the car, upon which he raised cries. Then A.1,A.2 and 4 pressed his neck and pushed him into the car, upon which he kicked the door of the car, without closing the door of the car they started the car and took him up to 1/2KM on Utlapally road towards

Bhadrachalam side. He also identified A.3 stating that he was also present in the car while A.1 was driving the car. The accused took him to Kukunoor, kept him behind the rice mill and thereafter took him to the forest of Bhadrachalam and kept him in a dilapidated house.While A.1 was present along with him in the said house, A.2 to A.4 kept watch out side the house and the accused threatened him that they would murder him and throw his body in Godavari. On the next day morning they shifted him to Mandapally bus stand around 5.00PM. He further stated that in the year 2004 he had partnership business with A.1 and in that regard A.1 gave him Rs.4,00,000/- for which he gave promissory note for

Rs.8,00,000/- in the year, 2007. Subsequently A.1 insisted for share in his rice mill instead of the amount for which he refused. Then A.1 filed a civil suit and got attachment orders of his house and rice mill. Subsequently A.1 referred the matter to Chamber of Commerce, Aswaraopeta alleging that PW7 is due to him

Rs.50,00,000/-. PW6 P.Subba rao and one Nageswar Rao are the elders present at

Chamber of Commerce. Keeping in view the said disputes A.1 along with other accused kidnapped him. On cross examination he admitted that prior to this incident he had no acquaintance with A.3 and 4. He denied that he did not state to the police about A.1 and A.2 catching hold his neck,dragging him into the car, himself kicking the door of the car, the accused keeping him behind the rice mill, threatening him to kill and also about A.1 staying with him in the room while A.2 to A.4 were keeping watch out side the room. He further stated that no Test -6-

Identification Parade is conducted by the police. He also stated that by the time he was dropped at Mandalapally bus stand, the police of Aswaraopeta came there and took the car along with A.1 to A.4 into their custody and he also accompained the police.

PW8 the panch witness for scene of offence stated that Pw1 is his senior paternal uncle and on 28.10.2012 Pw1 asked him to sign on some papers at

Aswaraopeta police station but no panchanama is conducted in his presence. PW9 another panch witness for scene of offence also did not support the prosecution case. PW10 the panch witness for confession and recovery did not support the prosecution case.

Pw11 the investgating officer spoke about the investigation done by him commencing from issuance of FIR and stated that on the night of 28.10.2012 itself Pw7 came to police station and he recorded his statement and on the next day morning i.e., 29.10.2012 on reliable information he proceeded to

Mandalapally cross road and apprehended A.1 to A.4 in the presence of PW10 and

LW11, recorded the confession and A.1 to A.4 and recovered the white colour Swift desire car bearing No. AP 16 BL 6889 . On cross examination he admitted that

PW7 did not state before him about A.1 and A.2 catching hold his neck, kicking the door of the car, keeping him behind the rice mill at Kukunoor and also about

A.1 staying with him in the room and A.2 to A.4 keeping watch outside the room.

He further stated that he did not visit the place where Pw7 was confined as Pw7 did not specify the place. He also admitted that PW1 stated before him that there are civil disputes between himself and the accused.

9.On a perusal of the above evidence of the prosecution it is evident that as far as the offence punishable under sec.363 IPC is concerned the scene of offence is at Bhadrachalam road near Saibaba temple at Aswaraopeta. P.Ws.2,4 and 5 are the eye witnesses to the alleged kidnap, which took place around 8 PM on -7- 27.10.2012 ie during winter season. The evidence of Pw2 discloses that scene of offence is at a distance of 300 feet from his shop while the scrap shop of Pw5 is at a distance of 20Yards, Pw5 admittedly do not know the accused prior to this incident. According to Pw2 he had seen the number of the white colour swift car and identifying the number from a distance of 300feet during the winter season around 8 PM appears to be unbelievable. The fact that immediately after the alleged incident he informed the father of PW1 shows his acquintance with Pw1 and his family . In his chief examination he stated that subsequently he came to know that Pw7 was kidnapped in view of the rice mill disputes. On cross examination he stated that he is aware of the financial disputes between A.1 , A.2 and Pw7. The evidence of Pw4 is silent about the identification of the accused persons. Even Pw5 did not identify the accused persons to have kidnapped Pw7.

Further he admitted that he is the driver of the tractor of Pw7 which goes to show that he is an interested witness. Apart from that the scene of offence is also not proved by the prosecution as Pw8, one of the panch witness for scene of offence, though stated that Pw1 is his senior paternal uncle did not support the prosecution case. Moreover, by choosing Pw8 as panch witness it clearly goes to show that the investigating officer did not follow the procedure in conducting the scene of offence, as an independent witness is not choosen by him. PW9 the other panch witness also did not support the prosecution case. The evidence of PW7, who is the victim is quite inconsistent with that of the investigating officer and there is improvement in his evidence. Hence, from the above evidence the prosecution failed to prove its case against all the accused for the charge levelled against them U/Sec.363 IPC.

Coming to the charges levelled against the accused persons U/Secs.323,506

IPC, according to the prosecution story itself there are no eye witnesses. It is only the evidence of Pw7 on which the prosecution relied. As discussed supra the -8- evidence of Pw7 , as rightly contended by the learned counsel is an improvement since he stated that A.1,A.2 and A.4 caught hold his neck and dragged him into car and later pressed her neck and pushed him into the car upon which he kicked the door of the car,while Pw11 the investigating officer denied the same to have been stated before him. Pw7 further stated that the accused took him to Kukunoor later to a forest at Bhadrachalam and kept him in dilapidated house in which A.1 stayed along with him while A.2 to A.4 keep watch outside the house, which Pw11 denied to have stated before him. The evidence of Pw7 further discloses that the accused persons shifted him from the said house to Mandalapally bus stand around 5 PM and by that time Aswaraopeta police came there and took the car along with A.1 to A.4 into their custody. The evidence of Pw11 is completely different in this regard, as according to him Pw7 himself came to the police station on the night of 28.10.2012 and on the next day morning i.e,29.10.2012 he proceeded to Mandalapally cross road and apprehended A.1 to A.4 in the presence of PW10 and Lw11, and recorded the confession of A.1 to A.4 and recovered Swift desire car bearing No. AP 16 BL 6889. Thus, from the above evidence the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused persons for both the charges levelled against them under secs.323,506 r/w.34 IPC.

10.In the result, the accused Nos 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 363,323,506 r/w.34 IPC and they are acquitted of the said offences U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

The interim custody of unmarked case property ie Swift desire car is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Copyist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court

on this the 24th day of April,2018. Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathupally

-9-

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution: Defence: PW.1:S.Srirangam-Nil- PW.2:K.Ramu PW.3:S.Balakrishna PW.4:T.Gopalakrishna PW.5:P.Ramaswamy PW.6:D.Sadhukrishna Rao Pw.7:S.Narasimha Rao Pw.8: S.Vijay Kumar PW.9:G.Satyanarayana Pw.10:G.Jawaharlalnehru PW.11:M.Nagaraju

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: Defence Ex.P1: is the Complaint-Nil- Ex.P.2: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw6 Ex.P.3: is the signature of Pw8 on Crime Detail form Ex.P.4: is the signature of Pw9 on Crime Detail form Ex.P.5: is the Signature of PW10 on confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P.6: is the FIR Ex.P.7: is the CDF Ex.P.8: is the confession-cum-seizure panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SATHUPALLY

10

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

SATHUPALLY

Dated this the 24th day of April, 2018

Present: Smt. P.Uma Maheswari,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Sathupally

C.C.No.30/2016

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Aswaraopeta … Complainant. AND A.1:Gude Raju, s/o. Sudharshanraju, Age:31yrs, Occ: coolie, A.2:Gaddam Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Narsaiah, Age:36yrs, Coolie Both are r/o. Pandidigudem village, Jangareddygudem Mandal, West Godavari District. ….Accused Nos. 1 and 2 .

This case is coming on 24.4.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state is for the complainant and Sri.G.Murali Mohan, Advocate for both the accused upon perusal of material papers available on record; upon hearing the arguments on both sides and 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, Aswaraopeta Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/sec.379 IPC, alleging that based on the complaint received from the complainant Thodam Bojji (LW.1), on 13.8.2015 at 1430 hrs a case in Cr.No.127/2015 is registered

U/sec.379 IPC , and investigated into. After completion of investigation which established the commission of the offence punishable U/sec.379 IPC by the accused Nos1 and 2 , charge sheeted them accordingly.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Thodam Bojji is having current motor at his agricultural land situated in the outskirts of Mallaiahgudem for which the electrical officers issued current transformer on his name and erected in his land. Under that transformer, one Machika Rajulu was also having current motor. On the night of 10.8.2015 some unknown offenders got down the transformer from the current pole, broken the transformer and committed theft of copper wire weighing about 45kgs worth Rs.35,000/- and decamped with booty.

Hence, he informed to the same to the electrical officers.

-2-

3. During the course of investigation, on 28.12.2015A.1 and A.2 were arrested in Cr.No.39/2015 u/sec.379 IPC of Dammapeta police station and in the confession recorded in the said crime the accused confessed to have committed this offence also, pursuant to which the property relating to this crime is recovered and produced before the court and after completion of investigation the charge sheet is filed.

4.On the strength of such charge sheet, this case is taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/sec. 379 IPC , and on appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2 before this court, they are examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C duly complying with Sec.

207 Cr.P.C. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty. Hence, charge for the offence punishable U/sec. 379 IPC is framed, read over and explained to them.

The accused Nos.1 and 2 claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and got marked

Ex.P1 and Ex.P4. After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused Nos.1 and 2 are examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C, for which they pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable

U/sec.379 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

8.LW1 the complainant died and his evidence is closed in view of death certificate filed. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the co-farmers of Lw1, spoke about the theft. P.W3 is the panch witness for Crime Detail Form. P.Ws4 and 5 are the panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama. P.W.6, is the investigating officer.

-3-

9. P.Ws.1 and 2 spoke about the theft of copper wire from the transformer erected in the agricultural lands of LW1 and Pw2 and lodging of complaint by LW1.

PW3 the panch witness for scene of offence spoke about drafting the Crime Detail

Form at the field of LW1 in connection with the theft of the transformer. P.Ws4 and 5 the panch witnesses for confession and recovery did not support the prosecution case. Pw6 the invesgating officer spoke about issuing of FIR based on the complaint of LW1, recording the statement of LW1, drafting the Crime Detail

Form and thereafter handing over the CD file to Lw11. Prosecution given up the evidence of L.Ws10 and 11 in view of the evidence of P.Ws1 to 6 and closed its evidence. From the evidence of P.Ws1 to 6 prosecution failed to prove its case against both the accused inasmuch as the recovery of the stolen property is not proved through independent evidence of P.Ws4 and 5. Hence, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.

10.In the result, the accused Nos 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 379 IPC and they are acquitted of the said offences U/s.248 (1)

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

The unmarked case property ie 45 kgs of copper wire shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time, under intimation to this court.

Dictated to Copyist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open

court on this the 24th day of April,2018.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathupally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution: Defence: PW.1:G.Srinivasa Rao-Nil- PW.2:M.Rajulu PW.3:J.Venkateswarlu PW.4:B.Yesu Raju PW.5:K.Ramesh Pw.6:K.V.Koteswar Rao

-4-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: Defence Ex.P1: is the Crime Detail Form Ex.P.2: is the signature of Pw4 on attested copy of confession-cum-seizure panchanama in Cr.39/15 of PS Dammapeta Ex.P.3: is the signature of Pw5 on attested copy of confession-cum-seizure panchanama in Cr.39/15 of PS Dammapeta Ex.P.4: is the FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SATHUPALLY

5

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

SATHUPALLY

Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2018

Present: Smt. P.Uma Maheswari,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Sathupally

C.C.No.62/2015

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Aswaraopeta … Complainant. AND Pasupuleti Mallikharjun Rao, S/o. Sathyanarayana(Late), Age:35yrs, Car driver, R/o. ASR Nagar, Aswaraopeta. ….Accused.

This case is coming on 23.04.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri.M.Sathish Kumar Babu, Advocate for the accused upon perusal of material papers available on record; upon hearing the arguments on both sides and 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, Aswaraopeta Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/secs.188,171-E IPC and

Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act,1968 alleging that on 06.04.2014 at 0350hrs the SI of police Aswaraopeta, along with L.Ws1 and 2, proceeded to ASR

Nagar,Aswaraopeta to the house of accused Psupuleti Mallikharjuna Rao, supporter of YSR CP party, and found that he is having 13- IMFL quarter bottles and 7- jacket pieces for distributing to the voters as gratification and to induce them to caste the votes to YSR CP candidate in connection with local body elections. The accused was not having any licese to possess the liquor bottles, hence, the SI of police secured the presence of two mediators and seized 13-

IMFL quarter bottles and 7-jacket pieces under cover of panchanama duly drawing one quarter bottle as sample. Based on panchanama a case in

Cr.No.100/2014 is registered U/Secs.188,171-E IPC and Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise

Act,1968 and investigated into and after completion of investigation which established the commission of the offences punishable U/Secs.188,171-E IPC and

Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act,1968 ,by the accused, charge sheeted him 2 accordingly.

2.On the strength of such charge sheet, this case is taken cognizance for the offences punishable U/secs.188,171-E IPC and Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act,1968 against accused . On appearance of the accused before this court, he is examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C duly complying with Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges for the offences punishable

U/secs.188,171-E IPC and Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act,1968 are framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu and the accused claimed to be tried.

3.In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked

Exs.P1 to Ex.P.6 and M.Os1 and 2 . After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused is examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C, for which he pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case for the offences punishable U/secs.188,171-E IPC and

Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act,1968 against accused beyond reasonable doubt.

6. P.W.1 is the PC who assisted PW4. P.Ws2 and 3 are the mediators for seizure. P.W.4 is the investigating officer.

7.P.W.1 deposed before this court about the apprehension of accused at his house at Aswaraopeta for having in possession 13- Mcdonalds bottles and 7- blouse pieces and recovery of the same from the house-cum-hotel of the accused under cover of panchanama. P.Ws.2 and 3 did not support the prosecution case.

P.W.4 spoke about the apprehension of the accused, seizure of 13-Mecnolds quarter bottles and 7-blouse pieces from the house of the accused, as the accused confessed that he is distributing the same on behalf of YSR CP party in connection with MPTC and ZPTC elections. The case property of 13-Mecnolds quarter bottles and 7-blouse pieces are produced on 6.4.2018 i.e on the date of giving evidence of PW4 and they are marked as M.O.s2 and 1 respectively.

3

From the above evidence the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused for all the charges levelled against him inasmuch as the seizure is not proved through independent evidence and even in the evidence of P.Ws1 and 4 there is no consistency as according to PW1, Mos.1 and 2 were seized from the house cum hotel of the accused while according to Pw4 they were seized from the house of the accused. The evidence of PW1 does not even disclose the brand name of MO.2 and apart from that M.Os1 and 2 were produced after four years i.e., on the date of giving evidence of PW4.

8.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/secs.188,171-E IPC and Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and he is acquitted of the said offences U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

M.O.1 shall be destroyed and M,.O.2 shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Copyist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court on this the 23rd day of April,2018.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathupally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution: Defence: PW.1:K.Satyam-Nil- PW.2:N.Kantha Rao PW.3:N.Ramakrishna PW.4:D.Ramesh

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: Defence Exs.P1 and 2: are the signatures of PW2 on confession and recovery panchanama and Crime Detail Form Exs.P3 and 4: are the signatures of PW3 on confession and recovery panchanama and Crime Detail Form Ex.P.5: is the seizure panchanama Ex.P.6: is the FIR 4

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: is the 7-blouse pieces M.O.2: is the 13-liquor bottles.

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SATHUPALLY

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

SATHUPALLY

Dated this the 24th day of April, 2018

Present: Smt. P.Uma Maheswari,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Sathupally

C.C.No.210/2015

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Aswaraopeta … Complainant. AND Talla Pulla Rao, S/o. Raghavulu, Age:30yrs, Driver of tractor, R/o. Naravarigudem village of Aswaraopeta Mandal.

….Accused .

This case is coming on 24.4.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state is for the complainant and Sri.U.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the accused upon perusal of material papers available on record; upon hearing the arguments on both sides and 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, Aswaraopeta Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A IPC, alleging that based on the complaint received from the complainant Manugonda Srinu (LW.1), on 15.3.2015 at 1130 hrs a case in Cr.No.38/2015 is registered U/sec.304-A IPC , and investigated into. After completion of investigation which established the commission of the offence punishable U/sec.304-A IPC by the accused , charge sheeted him accordingly.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 14.3.2015 at about 10 PM the son of the complainant by name Manugonda Manga Raju was returning from

Atchuthapuram village to Naramvarigudem village on motor cycle bearing No. AP 07 BJ 7615 and when he reached near Naramvarigudem village, the driver Talla

Pulla Rao of the tractor bearing No. AP 24 W 0866 and truck bearing No. AP 24 W 0869 was coming in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side and dashed against the motor cycle of Manga Raju resulting which he fell down on the road along with the motor cycle and received head injury. Immediately he was -2- shifted to government hospital, Aswaraopeta in 108 ambulance and from there to government hospital, Sathupally and on the way he sucummbed to the injuries.

3. During the course of investigation, on 20.3.2015 the accused himself surrendered in the police station and admitted his guilt upon which he was arrested and released on station bail and after completion of investigation the charge sheet is filed.

4.On the strength of such charge sheet, this case is taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A IPC , and on appearance of the accused before this court,he is examined U/s. 251 Cr.P.C duly complying with Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused is examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C, for which he pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A

IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

8. P.W.1 is the complainant. P.Ws 2 to 4 are the eye witnesses. P.W5 is the investigating officer.

9. P.W.1, the complainant and father of the deceased, spoke about the death of his son in a tractor accident in the outskirts of Naramvarigudem village. He further stated that he did not even enquire who was the driver of the tractor and affixed his thmub impression on the complaint drafted by the police. P.Ws2 to 4 did not support the prosecution case by denying to have stated to the police as in Exs.P.3 to 5. P.W.5 the investigating officer spoke about the investigation done by him -3- commencing from issuance of FIR till handing over the CD file to Lw11 who only arrested the accused and after collecting all the documents filed charge sheet.

From the above evidence prosecution failed to prove its against the accused as the identity of the accused and the manner in which the accident took place is not proved by the prosecution. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec. 304-A IPC and he is acquitted of the said offence U/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to Copyist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court on this the 24th day of April,2018.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathupally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution: Defence: PW.1:M.Srinu-Nil- PW.2:M.Saikumar PW.3:M.Polaiah PW.4:M.Sujatha PW.5:K.Venkata Koteswar Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: Defence Ex.P1: is the complaint-Nil- Ex.P.2: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P.3: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2 Ex.P.4: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3 Ex.P.5: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw4 Ex.P.6: is the FIR Ex.P.7: is the inquest report Ex.P.8: is the PME report Ex.P.9: is the CDF Ex.P.10: is the MVI report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SATHUPALLY

4

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT SATHUPALLY

Dated this the 23th day of April, 2018

Present: Smt. P. Uma Maheswari, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Sathupally

C.C.No.13 of 2014

Between:

State represented by Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Aswaraopeta. … Complainant

And

A.1:Rajulapati Mallaiah, S/o. Sambhaiah, Age:45yrs, Coolie, r/o. Dammapeta A.2:Kuppala Mahalaxmi, W/o. Nagendra, Age:35yrs, Coolie,R/o. Mandalapalli A.3:Kuppala Punnamma, W/o. Chennaiah, Age:50yrs, Coolie,R/o. Mandalapalli A.4:Thati Kanakaiah, S/o. Sreehari,age:30yrs, Coolie,R/o. Mandalapalli (abated) … Accused Nos.1 to 4

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 23.04.2018 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state is for complainant and of Sri V.Rama Krishna, Advocate for all the accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Aswaraopeta, filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/Sec.7-A ,r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 alleging that on 08.08.2012 at about 08.50A.M, on reliable information, the raid party officials, along with staff, proceeded to

Mandalapally cross road, Dammapeta Mandal and secured two mediators and conducted raids. They found the accused persons with four liquor covers containing 20 lits of ID liquor . On seeing the raid party the accused persons tried to escape but, the raid party apprehended them . Thereafter, the contraband is seized under cover of panchanama duly drawing the samples for chemical analysis.

2.Based on the panchanama a case in COR No.262/12-13 is registered

U/S. 7-A, r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. The samples were sent to chemical examiner, Warangal for analysis. After receiving the chemical analysis report 2 opining the sample to be I.D Liquor containing sediment injurious to health and unfit for human consumption vide report No.1700/2012, Dt.27.11.2012, the charge sheet is filed. The destruction of contraband is done in the presence of Deputy commissioner of Proh & Excise, Khammam under the cover of panchanama Vide

Proc.No.161/2010/P & EX/A.1,dated:11.9.2012.

3.On the strength of the above charge sheet this case is taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7-A, r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, and on appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 3 before this court they are examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C., duly complying with Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty. Charge for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7-

A, r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 is framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu and the accused Nos.1 to 3 claimed to be tried. The case against A.4 is abated vide docket order dt:05.08.2014.

4.In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused

Nos.1 to 3 are examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C for which they pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the charge leveled against them U/Sec. 7-A, r.w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond reasonable doubt.

7.In this case, Pws.1 and 2 ,who are the mediators, did not support the prosecution case. In the absence of seizure being proved through independent evidence, no reliance can be placed on the sole testimony of PW.3, who is the investigating officer, who issued FIR and filed charge sheet. Hence, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused Nos.1 to 3 3 for the charge leveled against them U/Sec. 7-A, r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal.

8.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec. 7-A, r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act of 1995 and they are acquitted of the said offence U/Sec. 248 (1) of Cr. P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to my copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court on this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SATHUPALLY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution: PW.1: A.Prasad PW.2:G.Nageswar Rao PW.3:S.Narsaiah Defence: None

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: Ex.P1: is the Signature of P.W.1 on recovery panchanama. Ex.P2: is the COR Ex.P.3: is the FSL report. Defence: NIL

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SATHUPALLY

4