1
IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ::
KURNOOL AT ADONI.
Present: Smt. N. Santhi
II Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Kurnool
at Adoni.
Thursday, the 2 nd day of January, 2020.
SESSIONS CASE NO.73 OF 2018 .
TABULAR STATEMENT UNDER RULE 71 Cr.P.C.
01Name of the PoliceNandavaram Police station. Station 02Crime No:Cr.No.46/2017.
03Name of the LowerJudicial Magistrate of I Class, CourtYemmiganur. 04P.R.C. Number15/2017. 05Sessions Case Number73/2018.
DESCRIPTION OF ACCUSED
S.Name of theFather’s/Husband’sReligion No.accusednameAge 01Kuruva DevendraLate HanumanthuHindu45 02Nese VeereshMalleshHindu26 A1 is resident of Nadikairawadi Village. A2 is resident of Nagaladinne Village of Nandavaram Mandal of Kurnool District.
DATE OF
Occurrence/Offence24-04-2017.
Complaint24-04-2017.
Arrest of accused07-05-2017.
Release of accused07-05-2017.
Committal18-12-2017.
Commencement of trial22-11-2019.
Close of trial05-12-2019.
Sentence or order02-01-2020.
IN COMMITTAL COURT: (Vide diary extract of the Committal Court).
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS:
2
This case is made over to this Court by the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Kurnool on 29-03-2018. Charge U/Sec.304-II IPC was framed on 05.11.2019. On 22.11.2019 trial was commenced. P.W.1 to P.W.19 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.13 were marked. Prosecution evidence closed on 05.12.2019. After closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C on 13.12.2019 and posted to 19-12-2019 for arguments. On 19-12-2019 heard arguments and posted for Judgment to 02-01-2020. Judgment pronounced on 02.01.2020.In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the charge punishable under section 304-II I.P.C, consequently the accused 1 and 2 are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuable properties, if any, are ordered destroyed after appeal time, if no appeal is preferred.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in a case reported in (2013) 6 S.C.C. 770 betweenANKUSH SHIVAJI GAIKWAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA held that “it is mandatory duty on the court to apply its mind to the question of compensation in every criminal case for awarding/refusing, depending on capacity of the accused”. Since, PW1 being brother and PW2 being wife of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution, this Court is not inclined to award compensation.
SD/-N.SANTHI.
II Addl., District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni
To:
1. The Registrar Judicial, High Court of A.P., Amaravati.
2. The Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Kurnool.
3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool.
3
IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ::
KURNOOL AT ADONI.
Present: Smt. N. Santhi
II Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni.
Thursday, the 2 nd day of January, 2020.
SESSIONS CASE NO.73 OF 2018.
S.No. Name of the accused 01Kuruva Devendra 02Nese Veeresh A1 is resident of Nadi Kairawadi Village. A2 is resident of Nagaladinne Name of the Village, Nandavaram Mandal of Accused. Kurnool District.
ChargeCharge U/Sec.304-II I.P.C.
Plea of the accused.Pleaded not guilty.
Finding of theFound not guilty
Judge.
Sentence orderAcquitted U/Sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C.
Name of the PoliceNandavaram Police station in Station. Cr.No.46/2017.
The prosecution is conducted by Sri. MothilalAddl., Public
Prosecutor and the accused defended by Sri. M.G. Narasa Reddy,
Advocate for Accused 1 and 2.
The case was committed by Sri. S. Vasu Dev, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur in P.R.C.No.15/2017 and the case was taken on file as S.C. No.73/2018 by the Hon’ble Principal District
Sessions Judge, Kurnool and the same was made over to this Court for
disposal according to law.
4
This case came up on 19-12-2019 for final hearing before me and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
: J U D G M E N T :
**1. This case arises out of the chargesheet filed by the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Nandavaram P.S in Cr.No.46/2017 for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C with the following allegations:
2. On 24-04-2017 in the morning while PW1 and the deceased
Chakali Urukundu were present at their houses, the accused No.1 came there and called them for current coolie work along with him.
They agreed to attend the current coolie work and followed A1 to nearby the land of Ranga Reddy near current pole situated in Cheruvu
Kunta. Later, the accused No.1 informed the deceased that he has taken L.C. from the Accused No.2 operator to climb the current police.
Then the deceased climbed the current pole and carried the current wire presuming that there is no power supply. As a result, he fell down from the current pole and died on the spot due to electrocution and due to the negligent act of the accused 1 and 2.
3. Basing on the report given by PW1, a case was registered under section 304-A I.P.C. and investigated into.
4. On 24-04-2017 PW9 got conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the panchayathdars.
5. PW8 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem report opining that the deceased died due to 5 electrical shock. Thus, the accused 1 and 2 are liable for punishment under section 304-II of I.P.C.
6. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, took cognizance against the accused 1 and 2 for the offence under section 304-II I.P.C. After appearance of accused 1 and 2 before the
Magistrate, copies of documents were furnished to the accused 1 and
2 as per the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
7. As the offence under Section 304-II IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this case was committed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur and in turn the Honourable
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool numbered the case as
S.C. No.73/2018 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.
8. After the accused 1 and 2 made their appearance before this
Court, on hearing both sides, a charge under Section 304-II I.P.C was framed, read over and explained to the accused 1 and 2 by translating into vernacular language, for which the accused 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13.
10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused 1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused 1 and 2 denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.
6
11. Heard arguments.
12.Now, the point for determination is, whether the
prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 beyond all
reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 304-II
I.P.C.?
13. POINT: The accused 1 and 2 were charged for the offence punishable under section 304-II I.P.C.
14. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. PW1 is the defacto complainant and brother of the deceased. PW2 is the wife of the deceased. PW3 and PW4 are the independent witnesses. PW5 to PW7 are inquest panchayathdars. PW8 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. PW9 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who has registered and investigated the case.
15. PW8 the Doctor deposed that on 24-04-2017 he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem report Ex.P9 opining that the death was due to cardiac respiratory failure due to burns and shock.
16. PW5 to PW7 inquest panchayathdars deposed that about three years ago, the police called them to the Police Station and obtained their signatures. Thus, they all did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, they were treated as hostile and cross- examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Their 7 signatures on inquest panchanama were marked as Ex.P6 to Ex.P8 respectively. Though the inquest panchayathdars did not support the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PW8,theDoctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased reveals that the deceased died of burns and shock.
17. Now, it has to be seen whether the prosecution is able to prove that the accused 1 and 2 are responsible for the death of the deceased.
18. PW1 the defacto complainant-cum-brother of the deceased deposed that about three years ago, he came to know through neighboring land owners that his brother went to the fields and while giving water to the fields, he died due to electrocution and the accused 1 and 2 are no way responsible for the death of the deceased.
He further deposed that the police obtained his signature on some blank papers. His signature on the report was marked as Ex.P1.
19. PW2 the wife of the deceased also deposed as deposed by
PW1. Thus, PW1 and PW2 did not support the case of the prosecution.
Hence, they were treated as hostile and cross-examined by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor. Their statements recorded under
section 161 Cr.P.C were marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively.
20. PW4 one of the independent witnesses deposed that he do not know anything about the case. PW4 another witness deposed that about three years ago, the deceased while giving water to the fields, died due to electrocution and the accused 1 and 2 are no-way responsible for the death of the deceased. Thus, the independent 8 witnesses also did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, they were treated as hostile and cross-examined by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor and their statements recorded under
section 161 Cr.P.C were marked as Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 respectively. Thus, the brother, wife of the deceased and other independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution.
21. PW9 is the investigating officer. He deposed that PW1 gave a report and he registered the case. Since PW1 defacto complainant did not support the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PW9 is no- way helpful to the case of the prosecution. Moreover, he did not examine the electricity department officials so as to prove that due to the negligence of the accused 1 and 2 the deceased died due to electrocution. Except registering the case and conducting of inquest and preparing rough sketch of the scene of offence, he did not say anything about the complicity of the accused 1 and 2. Thus, there is absolutely no consistent evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 304-II I.P.C, beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is accordingly answered.
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in a case reported in (2013) 6 S.C.C. 770 between ANKUSH SHIVAJI GAIKWAD VS. STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA held that “it is mandatory duty on the court to apply its mind to the question of compensation in every criminal case for awarding/refusing, depending on capacity of the accused”. Since, 9
PW1 being brother and PW2 being wife did not support the case of the prosecution, this Court is not inclined to award compensation.
23. In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the charge punishable under section 304-II I.P.C, consequently the accused 1 and 2 are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuable properties, if any, are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time, if no appeal is preferred.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.1, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in open Court, this the 2nd day of January, 2020.
SD/-N.SANTHI.
II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
KURNOOL AT ADONI.
APAPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED.
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1: Chakali Eranna.
PW2: Chakali Narasamma.
PW3: C. Narasanna.
PW4: C. Muneppa.
PW5: M. Charles.
PW6: J. Samba Siva Reddy.
PW7: K. Pedda Eranna.
PW8: Dr. N. Chandrasekhar.
PW9: M. Jagan Mohan, S.I. of Police.
FOR ACCUSED: -- NONE --
EXHIBITS MARKED:
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the report.
10
Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.
Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.
Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.
Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4.
Ex.P6: Signature of PW5 in inquest panchanama.
Ex.P7: Signature of PW6 in inquest panchanama.
Ex.P8: Signature of PW7 in inquest panchanama.
Ex.P9: Post-mortem Report.
Ex.P10: Report of PW1 given to PW9.
Ex.P11: F.I.R. in Cr.No.46/2017 of Nandavaram P.S.
Ex.P12: Inquest Panchanama.
Ex.P13: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.
FOR ACCUSED: -- NIL --
MATERIAL OBJECTS.
-- NIL --
SD/-N.S.
II Addl.S.J.