1 Judgment in CC 93/2021, Dt:06.08.2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: REPALLE
PRESENT: Ms. V. Geetha Bhargavi
ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
REPALLE.
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025.
C.C.No.93/2021
Between: State represented by its, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nizampatnam P.S.,
….. Complainant
Vs
Gummadi Soulraju S/o. Bikshalu, 36 years, C/Mala, Nizampatnam Village and Mandal. (driver of tractor vide bearing No.AP-07-TW-8575)
….. Accused
This calendar case is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 26.12.2024 in the presence of Sri P.Sunil Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor
for complainant/State and of Sri M.subbaiah and Smt. G.Vijaya Kumari,
Advocate for accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nizampatnam Police
Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.29/2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of I.P.C.
02. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet, in a nutshell is as follows:
a) One Neela Pandaiah S/o. Subbarao is the deceased in this case and hereinafter referred to as “deceased”. The scene of offence took place on 08.06.2020 at about 07:30 a.m., near ST Colony between Repalle to
Nizampatnam road, Nizampatnam. On 08.06.2020 morning time, the deceased 2 Judgment in CC 93/2021, Dt:06.08.2025 called his elder brother i.e. P.W.1 for bringing of palm leaves to cover their cattle shed. Then, PW1 and deceased went to the house of L.W.6/Matlapudi
Anandarao, who is the owner of the tractor vide bearing No.AP-07-TW-8575 and LW.6 sent the accused as driver of the said tractor, then, deceased, PW1 and accused went to Miriyalapalem Village in tractor and loaded palm leaves in the tractor, then PW1 sat on the engine and the deceased sat on the palm leaves load in the tractor and at about 07:30 a.m., when they reached near ST colony, accused, driver of the tractor drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner on the pot holes, resulting the deceased fell down on the road from the tractor and received bleeding injury on the back of the head. Then, PW1 shifted the deceased to Nizampatnam Government Hospital, where the duty doctor rendered treatment to the deceased and from there for better treatment shifted him to Ponnur Government Hospital. In the meantime, PW1 informed about the accident to P.Ws.2,3, LWs.3 and 5/Dasari Bikshalu and Tumati
Mantraiah and they all rushed to CHC., Ponnur. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries at about 10:00 a.m., on 08.06.2020. They learnt that, that the accident was occurred only due to negligent driving of tractor by the accused and it is the reason for the accident and the consequent death of the deceased.
b) Basing on the report of PW1, PW4/ASI of Police, Nizampatnam
P.S., registered a case in Crime No.29/2020 under Sec.304-A IPC., During the 3 Judgment in CC 93/2021, Dt:06.08.2025 course of investigation, PW4/ASI of Police, Nizampatnam P.S., conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars i.e. L.Ws.7 to 9/Kattupalli Venkata Subbarao, Cherukuri
Bushanam and Devarampati Samuel, so also examined blood relatives of deceased I.e. P.Ws.1 to 3, LWs.3,5 and 6/ Dasari Bikshalu, Tumati Mantraiah and Matlapudi Anandarao and recorded their statements. Thereafter,
PW4/ASI of Police, Nizampatnam P.S., visited the scene of offence, observed it in the presence of LWs.7 and 8/Kattupalli Venkata Subbarao and Cherukuri
Bushanam. During the course of investigation, PW4/ASI of Police,
Nizampatnam P.S., re-examined PWs.1 to 3, LWs.3 and 5/ Dasari Bikshalu and Tumati Mantraiah, and as per their statements, at the time of accident, the accused is the driver of said tractor and at the time of report, PW1 mentioned the name of the owner of the tractor i.e. LW.6/Matlapudi
Anandarao instead of name of accused. To that effect, PW4/ASI of Police,
Nizampatnam P.S., filed memo before the Hon’ble court. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to autopsy by L.W.10/Dr.Ch. Sujatha Lakshmi, Civil
Asst. Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Ponnur and issued postmortem certificate with an opinion that to the best of her knowledge the death of deceased is due to Road Traffic Accident, which led to head injury with midrate fosse and which led to hyporolenive shock and cardio pulmonary arrest which caused death. During the course of investigation, on the request 4 Judgment in CC 93/2021, Dt:06.08.2025 of PW4/ASI of Police, Nizampatnam P.S., LW.11/B.Sathyanarayana Prasad,
MVI, Bapatla, inspected the crime vehicle and issued MV Report stating that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.
On 09.06.2020, LW.6/Matlapudi Anandarao produced the accused before
PW4/ASI of Police, Nizampatnam P.S., and PW4 served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused and instructed him to appear before the court as and when his presence is required. Thereafter, L.W.13/K.Siva Prasada Rao, SI of Police,
Nizampatnam P.S.,verified the investigation done by PW4/ASI of Police,
Nizampatnam P.S., and found it on correct lines and conducted further investigation. After completion of investigation, LW.13/SI of Police,
Nizampatnam P.S., laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC. Hence, the Charge.
03.Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of I.P.C against the accused.
04.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.
5 Judgment in CC 93/2021, Dt:06.08.2025
05.Accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. Accused denied the accusation leveled against him. The substance of accusation for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of I.P.C. was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
06.During trial, in order to bring home guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11.
Since, the material witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1 to 3 did not support the case of the prosecution, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of L.Ws.3, 5 to 11 and 13/Dasari Bikshalu, Tumati Mantraiah,
Matlapudi Anandarao, Kattupalli Venkata Subbarao, Cherukuri
Bushanam, Devarapmpati Samuel, Dr. Ch.Sujatha Lakshmi, CAS.,
Community Health Centre, Ponnur, B. Sathyannarayana and K.Siva
Prasada Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nizampatnam P.S..
07.After closure of the evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of P.W.4 by explaining the same in Telugu, for which, the accused denied the same and reported that he has no defence evidence on his behalf.
6 Judgment in CC 93/2021, Dt:06.08.2025
08.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the accused. Perused the material on record.
09.Now, the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could able to bring home guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under
Sec.304-A of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?”
10.POINT:
In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. L.W.1 was examined as P.W.1, LW.2 is examined as P.W.2, LW.4 was examined as
P.W.3 and LW.12 was examined as P.W.4. According to the prosecution,
P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased, who is the defacto-complainant in this case and direct eye witness to the accident. P.W.2 is the wife of deceased, P.W.3 is said to be eye witness to the accident and PW4 is the
Investigation Officer, who conducted investigation in this case.
11.P.W.1, who is brother of the deceased/Neela Pandaiah in his chief-examination deposed that he does not know anything about this 7 Judgment in CC 93/2021, Dt:06.08.2025 case. He deposed that about 4 years ago, on one day police called him to police station and obtained his signature on written paper and he does not know the contents of it. He deposed that police never examined him and recorded his statement. PW.2/Neela Mariyamma, who is the wife of deceased deposed in her chief-examination in the similar lines of PW1.
She further deposed that about four years ago, her husband met with an accident and died. She deposed that police never examined her and recorded her statement. P.W.3/Vadde Prasad, who is said to be eye witness to the accident in his chief-examination deposed that he does not know anything about this case. He deposed police never examined him and recorded his statement. As P.Ws.1 to 3 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor requested the court to declare P.Ws.1 to 3 as hostile witnesses and also requested the Court to grant permission to cross-examine P.Ws.1 to 3. During cross- examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 done by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, they denied to have state before the police as in Exs.P2 to P4, which are their respective Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements. Except marking Exs.P2 to
P4/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1 to 3, there is nothing in their evidence to connect the accused for the accusation leveled against him.
8 Judgment in CC 93/2021, Dt:06.08.2025
12.Now, the only evidence remained on record is the evidence of
P.W.4, who conducted investigation in this case, in his chief-examination he deposed about receiving of death intimation of deceased/Neela
Pandaiah from Community Health Centre, Ponnur and presenting of
Ex.P5/Report by PW1, registering of Ex.P6/FIR in crime No.29/2020 under Sec.304-A IPC., visiting C.H.C., Ponnur, conducting inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of LWs.7 to 9/Kattupalli
Venkata Subba Rao, Cherukuri Bhushanam and Berampati Samuel, so also examination of blood relatives of deceased i.e. P.Ws.1 to 3, LWs.3 and 5/Dasari Bikshalu and Tummati Mantraiah and recording their statements. He further deposed about visiting of scene of offence and observation of scene of offence in the presence LWs.7 and 8/Kattupalli
Venkata Subba Rao and Cherukuri Bhushanam, drafting of
Ex.P8/Scene observation report, so also Ex.P9/rough sketch of the scene of offence and receiving of Ex.P10/postmortem certificate of deceased from L.W.10/Medical Officer,CHC., Ponnur. He further deposed about production of accused by LW.6/Matlapudi Ananda Rao and verification of vehicle records and serving of Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused and receiving of Ex.P11/MVI report from
LW.11/B.Sathyanarayana with an opinion that the accident was not 9 Judgment in CC 93/2021, Dt:06.08.2025 occurred due to mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. He further deposed about verification of investigation done by him by LW.13/SI of
Police, Nizampatnam P.S., and found it on correct lines and filing of charge sheet by LW.13/SI of Police, Nizampatnam P.S., against the accused under Sec.304-A IPC after completion of investigation. During the cross-examination of PW4 done by learned counsel appearing for accused, PW4 denied the suggestion that he did not conduct inquest over the dead body of deceased and the accused was falsely implicated in this case. The evidence of PW4 is formal in nature, his evidence no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to connect the accused with accusation levelled against him.
13.According to the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 3 said to be eye witness to the accident. But as can be seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, they did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
14. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W2, her evidence at best established that her husband i.e. deceased-Neela Pandaiah met with motor vehicle accident, but no where she deposed that accused is the 10 Judgment in CC 93/2021, Dt:06.08.2025 driver of crime tractor at that time of accident, moreover the evidence of
P.Ws.1 and 2 who are direct eye witnesses to the accident did not depose anything against that accused that he is the driver of the crime tractor at the time of accident. Hence, their evidence is not at all useful to the case of the prosecution to connect the accused for the accusation levelled against him.
15.As the material witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1 to 3 did not support the case of the prosecution, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor rightly given up the evidence of L.Ws.3,5 to 11 and 12. In the absence of evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 3, the evidence of P.W.4 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove that the accused is the driver of crime tractor at the time of accident. Absolutely, no case is made out against the accused that accused is the driver of the tractor on the date of accident, he caused the death of the deceased-Neela Pandaiah and he was responsible for the accident.
16.In view of the above discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A of
I.P.C. and hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.
11 Judgment in CC 93/2021, Dt:06.08.2025
17.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of I.P.C. and accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. Since, no property is produced before the court and hence, no order as to property.
Typed to my dictation by the stenographer Gr.III, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, this the 6th day of August, 2025.
Sd/-V. Geetha Bhargavi
ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
REPALLE.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1/dt.04-08-2025 – Neela Mohan Rao- NONE- P.W.2/dt.04-08-2025 – Neela Mariyamma P.W.3/dt.04-08-2025 – Vadde Prasad P.W.4/dt.04-08-2025 – Ch.Rama Krishna, ASI of Police
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on the report given to Nizampatnam P.S. Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.5: Report given by PW1 to Nizampatnam Police. Ex.P.6:First Information Report in Crime No.29/2020 of Nizampatnam PS. Ex.P.7: Inquest report. Ex.P.8: Scene Observation Report. Ex.P.9: Rough Sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P.10: Postmortem Certificate of deceased. Ex.P.11: M.V.I report.
For Defence: Nil.
12 Judgment in CC 93/2021, Dt:06.08.2025
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
- Nil -
Sd/-V. Geetha Bhargavi
ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
REPALLE
13 Judgment in CC 93/2021, Dt:06.08.2025
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:
REPALLE
C.C.NO.93/2021
01. Date of offence: 08-06-2020
02. Date of Complaint : 08-06-2020
03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 09-06-2020
04. Release on bail: 09-06-2020
05. Commencement of trial: 04-08-2025
06. Closure of trial: 05-08-2025
07. Date of Judgment : 06-08-2025
08. Name of the complainant: State represented by its, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nizampatnam Police Station
09. Name of the accused : Gummadi Soulraju S/o. Bikshalu, 36 years, C/Mala, Nizampatnam Village and Mandal. (driver of tractor vide bearing No.AP-07-TW-8575)
10. Offence: U/sec.304-A of I.P.C.
11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty
12. Finding : Not guilty
13. Sentence : Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of I.P.C. and accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. Since, no property is produced before the court and hence, no order as to property.
14.Explanation for delay: This case was taken on file on 30.03.2021.Copies of case documents were furnished to accused on 23-04-2022. Accused was examined U/sec.251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence U/Sec.304-A of I.P.C. on 26.12.2022. On 04.08.2025, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined, Exs.P1 to P11 were marked and prosecution side evidence is closed. On 05.08.2025, accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C. and heard arguments on 05.08.2025, heard arguments. On 06.08.2025, Judgment delivered. Hence, the delay.
Sd/-V. Geetha Bhargavi
ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
Copy submitted to: REPALLE. The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.