Sri S. Siva Sankara Reddy, B.Sc., L.L.M.,

S.T.C.46 of 2011

JMFC Court, Parchur

1/9

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PACHUR

Present:- Sri S.Sivasankar Reddy,Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala. FAC: Judl Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

Summary Trial Case No. 46 of 2011

Between:

Andhra Pradesh State represented by Sri K.Appu Singh, Asst. Inspector of Factories, Ongole.…Complainant -: And :-

Sri M.Mastan Rao, age 62 years, S/o Bhadrachalam, Ossupier cum Managar, Sri Hari Cotton Ginning Mill, Nuthalapadu village, Parchur mandal, Prakasam District.

...Accused

The case coming on 20.04.2017 for hearing before me in the presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state-complainant and Sri M.R.Reddy, Advocate

for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered

the following:

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

01.The Assistant Inspector of Factories, Ongole, filed a complaint against the sole accused for the offence under Section 6 and Rule 3 (6), Section 6 and Rule 4 (I) and (6), Section 21 (I) (iv) (b) of A.P.Factories Act which are punishable under

Section 92 of Factories Act 1948.

02.The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- On 06.03.2010 at 1.00

P.M Sri G.V.V.S.Narayana, Inspector of Factories, Ongole-I along with Sri B.Satya

Narayana, Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Nellore inspected the premises of Sri

Hari Cotton Ginning Mill which is situated at Nuthalapadu village,Parchur Mandal, in which accused is the Occupier cum Manager, there they found 11 workers working with the aid of power 33.5 H.P. The manufacturing process at the time of inspection is cotton ginning and also found that accused failed to comply with the following provisions of the Act and Rules:-

S.T.C.46 of 2011

JMFC Court, Parchur

2/9

1. Section 6 and Rule 3 (6) :- Carrying on the manufacturing process in the factory premises without submitting the plans in triplicate along with Form No.1 and Original challan for requisite plans scrutiny fee.

2. Section 6 & Rule 4 (I) & (6) :- Carrying on manufacturing process in the factory premises without obtaining a valid licence from Inspector of Factories, Ongole-I.

3. Section 21 (I) (iv) (b) :- Failed to provide secure weld mesh guards to belt drives of (i) Ginning M/cs. (6 Nos.) ii) Elevator iii) Screw conveyor.

Hence, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 92 of Factories Act 1948. After receipt of sanction orders from the Prosecution, the complainant filed this complaint before this Honourable court and prays a direction may be imposed on the accused to rectify the above defects before such time. Hence, the complaint.

03. On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished and when he was examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the substance of accusation found against the accused for the offence Under Sec. 6 and

Rule 3 (6), Section 6 and Rule 4 (I) and (6), Section 21 (I) (iv) (b) of A.P.Factories Act which are punishable under Section 92 of Factories Act 1948, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04.On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to

P6 were got marked.

05.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and further stated that he did not commit any offence and further stated that he was implicated in a false case. Accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor marked any documents.

06.Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

S.T.C.46 of 2011

JMFC Court, Parchur

3/9

07.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

Whether the prosecution has bring home the guilt of accused for the offences under Section 6 and Rule 3 (6), Section 6 and Rule 4 (I) and (6), Section 21 (I) (iv) (b) of A.P.Factories Act which are punishable under Section 92 of Factories Act 1948 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

08. POINT:-

According to the complaint contents, the case of the complainant ie.,

Assistant Inspector of Factories, Ongole is that the accused has committed the offence Under Sec. 6 and Rule 3 (6), Section 6 and Rule 4 (I) and (6), Section 21 (I)

(iv) (b) of A.P.Factories Act which are punishable under Section 92 of Factories Act 1948. In order to prove the same, the complainant himself examined as P.W.1 and the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P.1 to P.6 are marked.

09.To prove the alleged offences Under Sec. 6 and Rule 3 (6), Section 6 and Rule 4 (I) and (6), Section 21 (I) (iv) (b) of A.P.Factories Act which are punishable under Section 92 of Factories Act 1948, the complainant/P.W.1 has deposed before this court that on 06.03.2010 at 1.00 P.M he visited the factory by name Sri Hari

Cotton Ginning Mill situated at Nuthalapadu village of Parchur Mandal along with

P.W.2. P.W.1 further deposed that at the time of the inspection he found the manufacturing process is being carried in the factory premises with the aid of 33.5

H.P. And 11 workers and the said factory was covered under sec.2 (m) (I) of the

Factories Act. P.W.1 further deposed that at the time fo inspection, the accused who is the occupier of the said factory was also present. P.W.1 further deposed that at the time of the inspection he found the following contraventions under the factories Act.

1. Section 6 and Rule 3 (6) :- Carrying on the manufacturing process in the factory premises without submitting the plans in triplicate along with Form No.1 and Original challan for requisite plans scrutiny fee.

2. Section 6 & Rule 4 (I) & (6) :- Carrying on manufacturing process in the factory premises without obtaining a valid licence from Inspector of Factories, Ongole-I.

S.T.C.46 of 2011

JMFC Court, Parchur

4/9

3. Section 21 (I) (iv) (b) :- Failed to provide secure weld mesh guards to belt drives of (i) Ginning M/cs. (6 Nos.) ii) Elevator iii) Screw conveyor.

P.W.1 further deposed that he prepared Ex.P.2 inspection report and also issued

Ex.P.3 show cause notice to the accused. Ex.P.4 is the acknowledgment of the accused. Ex.P.5 is the reply notice given by the accused. P.W.1 further deposed that as the reply given by accused under Ex.P.5 is not satisfactory, prosecution was sanctioned against the accused for the contraventions and accordingly he field the complaint against the accused. Ex.P.6 is the prosecution sanction proceedings

Dt:03.06.2010.

10.P.W.2 who is the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories at Nellore during relevant period deposed in the same lines of P.W.1 and fully supported and corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.2 categorically deposed that on 06.03.2010 at 1.00 P.M he along with P.W.1 inspected the accused Ginning Mill at Nuthalapadu and P.W.1 prepared inspection report and issued show cause notice to the accused for non-compliance of the factories act and rules ie., non-approval of plan, not obtaining valid licence and non provision of secure guard.

11.In the cross examination of P.W.1, he admitted that accused has applied for necessary approval to the District Industries Centre, Ongole. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that accused sent prescribed fee on 17.07.2008 to their office.

P.W.1 also denied the suggestion in the cross examination that it is not possible to arrange mesh guard, belt drives of the machine as machine was fixed adjacent to the wall. P.W.1 voluntarily deposed in the cross examination that the accused did not apply the contraventions. P.W.2 also denied the in the cross examination that the machines are arranged very close to the wall and there is no possibility for arranging mesh guards. P.Ws.1 and 2 denied the suggestion that this case was foisted against the accused for statistical purpose.

S.T.C.46 of 2011

JMFC Court, Parchur

5/9

12.On through consideration of above evidence of P.ws.1 and 2, it is crystal clear that inspite of cross examination made by the accused counsel he did not elicit anything against P.Ws.1 and 2 to dis-prove their chief examination. Apart from that P.Ws.1 and 2 are officials of the Factories Department and there is no personal enemity between this accused and P.Ws.1 and 2. As such, there is no necessity for P.Ws.1 and 2 to depose falsehood against this accused. Apart from that the suggestion put by the accused counsel to P.Ws.1 and 2 in the cross examination that there is no possibility to arrange mesh guards as the machines are situated near to the wall itself clearly goes to show that accused is contravened the Factories Act by not providing the mesh guards to the machines. In addition to that as per the cross examination of the accused counsel to P.Ws.1 and 2 the case of the accused is that he obtained valid plan. But for the reasons best known to the accused he did not file the said copy of the plan or original before this court to dis-prove the case of the prosecution. On meticulous consideration of the P.Ws.1 and 2, there is nothing to dis-believe their chief examination and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically proves that the accused being the occupier of the Sri Hari Cotton Ginning Mill,

Nuthalapadu village of Parchur Mandal has made contraventions under the Factories

Act as mentioned in Ex.P.2 Inspection report of P.W.1. So, through the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2, the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences Under Sec. 6 and Rule 3 (6), Section 6 and Rule 4 (I) and (6), Section 21 (I)

(iv) (b) of A.P.Factories Act which are punishable under Section 92 of Factories Act 1948. Accordingly, this point is answered infavour of the complainant and against the accused.

13.For the aforesaid reasons and discussions this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence

Under Sec. 6 and Rule 3 (6), Section 6 and Rule 4 (I) and (6), Section 21 (I) (iv) (b) of

A.P.Factories Act which are punishable under Section 92 of Factories Act 1948 beyond all reasonable doubt and that the accused is liable for conviction.

S.T.C.46 of 2011

JMFC Court, Parchur

6/9

14.In the result, Sole accused is found guilty for the offence under

Sec.6 and Rule 3 (6), Sec.6 and Rule 4 (1) and (6), Sec.21 (i) (iv) (b) of

A.P.Factories Act which are punishable Under Sec.92 of the A.P.Factories Act

and accordingly accused is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- S.Siva Sankar Reddy

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

When the accused questioned about the quantum of sentence to be

imposed against the accused:

The accused pleaded that in the year 2011 itself he closed the said Ginning

Mill and he is aged about '70' years and suffering from several old age ailments. The accused further submitted that he has been roaming around the court for the last 'six' years for the trial of this case and prays for mercy of this court by taking lenient view and to imposed fine only instead of sentence.

Having considered the plea of the accused and facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case to invoke the P.O.Act.

However, by considering the long period of trial ie., for about 'six' years in this case and also the age of the accused, nature of the offence being not in grave and plea of the accused, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to take lenient view in imposing the sentence.

Accordingly, sole accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees

Five thousand only) in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of

'Fifteen days for the offence under Sec.6 and Rule 3 (6) read with Sec.92 of the

A.P.Factories Act.

Further, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 'Fifteen

days for the offence under Sec.6 and Rule 4 (1) and (6) read with Sec.92 of the

A.P.Factories Act.

S.T.C.46 of 2011

JMFC Court, Parchur

7/9

Further, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five

thousand only) indefault to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 'Fifteen

days for the offence under Sec.21 (I) (iv) (b) read with Sec.92 of the

A.P.Factories Act.

Total fine amount is (5000+5000+5000 = Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen

thousand only).

The remand period of the accused is -NIL- to give set off under Section 428

Cr.PC.

Sole accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this

Judgment and about free legal aid. No order regarding case property, since no property.

In this case, no property seized and produced, hence no property order is passed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- S.Siva Sankar Reddy

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // -:WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW.1: G.V.V.S.NarayanaNONE PW.2: B.Satyanarayana // DOCUMENTS MARKED //

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1/ Workers list--NIL-- Ex.P2/ Inspection Report Ex.P3/Show cause notice Ex.P4/Postal Acknowledgment Ex.P5/Reply notice Ex.P6/Prosecution Sanction orders // MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED // -NIL- Ild/ SSSR A.J.C.J., Chirala FAC:JFCM, Parchur // True copy //

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

S.T.C.46 of 2011

JMFC Court, Parchur

8/9

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: PARCHUR

CALENDAR IN S.T.C.No.46 of 2011

Date of offence prior to:06.03.2010 Date of report: 06.03.2010 Date of apprehension of accused: 12.07.2011 Date of release of accused: 12.07.2011 Date of commencement of trial: 22.03.2012 Date of closure of trial: 04.07.2013 Date of Judgment: 27.04.2017

Offence: under Section 6 and Rule 3 (6), Section 6 and Rule 4 (I) and (6), Section 21 (I) (iv) (b) of A.P.Factories Act which are punishable under Section 92 of Factories Act 1948.

Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court: Found guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, Sole accused is found guilty for the offence under Sec.6 and Rule 3 (6), Sec.6 and Rule 4 (1) and (6), Sec.21 (i) (iv) (b) of A.P.Factories Act which are punishable Under Sec.92 of the A.P.Factories Act and accordingly accused is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, sole accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees

Five thousand only) indefault to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of

'Fifteen days for the offence under Sec.6 and Rule 3 (6) read with Sec.92 of the A.P.Factories Act. Further, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five

thousand only) indefault to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 'Fifteen

days for the offence under Sec.6 and Rule 4 (1) and (6) read with Sec.92 of the

A.P.Factories Act. Further, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five

thousand only) indefault to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 'Fifteen

days for the offence under Sec.21 (I) (iv) (b) read with Sec.92 of the

A.P.Factories Act.

Total fine amount is (5000+5000+5000 = Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen

thousand only). The remand period of the accused is -NIL- to give set off under Section 428 Cr.PC. Sole accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment and about free legal aid. No order regarding case property, since no property. In this case, no property seized and produced, hence no property order is passed.

Note:- Accused paid fine amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only)

on 27.04.2017. Explanation for delay:- This case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.6 and Rule 3 (6), Sec.6 and Rule 4 (1) and (6), Sec.21 (i) (iv) (b) of A.P.Factories Act which are punishable Under Sec.92 of the A.P.Factories Act against the sole accused. On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished and when they were examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the substance of accusation found against the accused for the offence under Sec.6 and Rule 3 (6), Sec.6 and Rule 4 (1) and (6), Sec.21 (i) (iv) (b) of A.P.Factories Act which are punishable Under Sec.92

S.T.C.46 of 2011

JMFC Court, Parchur

9/9

of the A.P.Factories Act, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial was commenced on 22.03.2012 and concluded on 04.07.2013, and during trial P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and prosecution evidence was closed. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Heard the arguments on both the sides. On 27.04.2017 Judgment pronounced by acquitting the accused under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Hence the delay.

Sd/- S.Siva Sankar Reddy

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole // True copy //

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

C.C.209/2012

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PARCHUR

Present:- Sri S.Sivasankar Reddy, Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2017

Calendar Case No. 209 of 2012

Between: The State: rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Parchur P.S.…Complainant -: And :- 01.Sunnapu Pothu Raju, S/o Molakaiah, aged 36 years, Pattapukapu by caste, resident of Ramapuram village of Vetpalem Mandal, Driver of Mini Vanb bearing No.AP 26 TB 1572. 02.Konduru Chalendra, S/o Ramaiah, aged 32 years, Pattapukapu by caste, resident of Utukuru Peddapalem village, Vidavaluru Mandal, Nellore District, owner of Mini van bearing No.AP 26 TB 1572.

...Accused

The case coming on 21.04.2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state-complainant and Sri P.Sudhakara Rao, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Parchur P.S., filed a charge sheet for the offence under Section 338 IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act and Sec.3 read with 181 of M.V.Act against A1 and Sec.5 read with 180 of M.V.Act against A2 in Cr.No.77/2012 of Parchur P.S.

02.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, Nakkala Bala

Krishna (L.W.1) is the resident of near Vegetable market, Narasaropet,

Guntur District and living by coolie works and also selling mirrors and combs. On 07.08.2012, Nakkala Bala Krishna (L.W.1), Nakkala Naga Raju (L.W.2), Nakkala Vijay (L.W.3) and Nakkala Naga Raju (L.W.4) went to

Chriala on their personal work and after completion of the same, on 08.08.2012 evening at about 16.00 hours, all were boarded an auto at

C.C.209/2012

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

Chirala in order to go to Narasaraopet and proceeding towards

Narasaraopet side and when they reached Edarimadigapalli village cross road on Parchur-Chilakaluripet road at about 17.00 hours, Nakkala Bala

Krishna (L.W.1) got down the auto and while crossing the road to take drinkable water at water tank situated at Eastern side of the road. At that time one white colour mini van bearing No.AP 26 TB 1572 came from

Chilakaluripet side proceeding towards Parchue side, in which the accused is the driver, drover the mini van in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn and dashed Nakkala Bala Krishna (L.W.1), as a result, he fell down on the road and sustained bleeding injuries to his right jaw, left shoulder and left side waist. After the accident, the accused escaped from the spot without helping the injured and also without informing the incident to police. Later, Nakkala Bala Krishna (L.W.1) shifted to Community Health Centre, Chilakalurpet in auto, where Nakkala

Bala Krishna (L.W.1) gave statement to the police. Basing on the statement of Nakkala Balakrishna (L.W.1) a case in Cr.No.77/2012 was registered by N.D.Rama Rao, HC-329 (L.W.8) and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation he visited the scene, drawn rough sketch of the scene, examined the witnesses by recording their statements, he also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During the course of investigation A.Srihari Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police (L.W.9) arrested A1 and A2 and sent them to this court for remand. After receipt of wound certificate of Nakkala Balakrishna (L.W.1) and also after completion of investigation, he laid chargesheet against the accused under Sec.338 IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of

C.C.209/2012

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

M.V.Act and Sec.3 read with 181 of M.V.Act against A1 and Sec.5 read with 180 of M.V.Act against A2.

03. On appearance of accused/A1 and A2 before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished and when they were examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the substance of accusation found against the accused/A1 and A2 for the offence Under Sec. 338 IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act and Sec.3 read with 181 of M.V.Act against A1 and Sec.5 read with 180 of M.V.Act against A2, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04.On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and

Exs.P1 to 6 were got marked.

05.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused/A1 and

A2 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and further stated that they did not commit any offence and further stated that they were implicated in a false case. Accused/A1 and A2 did not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor marked any documents.

06.Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

07.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

Whether the prosecution has bring home the guilt of accused/A1 and A2 for the offence 338 IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act and Sec.3 read with 181 of M.V.Act against A1 and Sec.5 rea diwth 180 of M.V.Act against A2 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

C.C.209/2012

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

08. POINT:-

According to the prosecution case, the offence alleged against the accused/A1 and A2 is under Sec.338 IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act and Sec.3 read with 181 of M.V.Act against A1 and

Sec.5 read with 180 of M.V.Act against A2. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has listed 'Nine' witnesses in his chargesheet.

One Nakkala Balakrishna (L.W.1) is the defacto complainant and injured in this case. The Nkkala Naga raju (L.W.2) Nakkala Vijay (L.W.3), Nakkala

Naga raju (L.W.4) and Birudu Sobhan Babu (L.W.5) are the alleged eye witnesses and who shifted the injured to the hospital. Dr.Ch.Aravinda

Babu (L.W.6) is the medical officer. Kathi Prasanna-HC-3157 (L.W.7),

N.D.Rama Rao-HC-329 (L.W.8) and A.Sri Hari Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police (L.W.9) are the investigation officers in this case.

09.As seen from the docket orders, the evidence of Nakkala Bala

Krishna (L.W.1), Nakkala Naga Raju (L.W.2) was closed on 23.11.2015 basing on the memo filed by the A.P.P as their whereabouts are not known.

Further as per the docket order Dt:29.01.2016 basing on the memo filed by the learned A.P.P, the evidence of Nakkala Vijay (L.W.3) and Nakkala

Naga Raju (L.W.4) was closed as their whereabouts are not known. Birudu

Sobhan Babu (L.W.5) was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Ch.Aravinda Babu (L.W.6) evidence was given up by the learned A.P.P. N.D.Rama Rao-HC-329 (L.W.8) and A.Srihari Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police (L.W.9) were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and Kathi Prasanna-HC-3157 (L.W.7) was examined as P.W.4.

10.P.W.1 who alleged to be the independent witness and direct eye witness to the alleged incident deposed that he did not witness any incident and he do not know any facts of this case. P.W.1 further categorically deposed that he do not know A1 and A2. As P.W.1 alleged

C.C.209/2012

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

eye witness did not support the prosecution case, the learned A.P.P treated him as hostile, but marked 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P.1. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 who is the material witnesses of the prosecution did not incriminate anything against the accused to connect him with the alleged charge.

11 (i).P.W.2 who is the Head constable deposed that on 09.08.2012 he received the statement of Nakkala Bala Krishna (L.W.1) in Parchur

Police station and he registered the same as Cr.No.77/2012 under sec.337 of IPC on point of jurisdiction and issued FIR. Ex.P.2 is the FIR. P.W.2 further deposed that he visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P.3/rough sketch and also recorded the statement of injured Nakkala Bala Krishna (L.W.1). Ex.P.4 is the statement of Nakkala Bala Krishna (L.W.1).

(ii)P.W.3 who is the Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that he verified the investigation done by P.W.2 and found it on correct lines and on 14.08.2012, A2 appeared before him along with A1 and produced all records of the crime vehicles. P.W.3 further deposed that he arrested the

A1 and A2 and send them to the Hon'ble court for remand. P.W.3 further deposed that he received the wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P.5.

After completion of investigation he filed chargesheet against A1 and A2 for the offence under sec. 338 IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act and Sec.3 read with 181 of M.V.Act against A1 and Sec.5 read with 180 of M.V.Act against A2.

(iii) P.W.4 who is the Head constable during relevant period in

Chilakaluripet Urban police station deposed that on receipt of hospital intimation he recorded the statement of Nakkala Bala Krishna (L.W.1)/injured in Community Health Centre, Chilakaluripet and sent the

C.C.209/2012

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

same to Parchur Police station on point of jurisdiction. Ex.P.6 is the hospital intimation.

12.On thorough consideration of the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.6 it is crystal clear that P.W.1 independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. Further as per the evidences of P.Ws.2 to 4, they are the police officers and they are not the eye witnesses to the alleged incident. P.Ws.2 to 4 deposed about their official actions done in discharge of their lawful duties. Further on consideration of the evidences of P.Ws.2 to 4 there is nothing incriminating against A1 and A2 to connect them with the alleged charges levelled against them. Further more the official evidences of P.ws.2 to 4 are not at all supported and corroborated by any independent witnesses or atleast by the injured. On consideration of the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4 there is no whisper as to how the alleged incident was occurred and who is responsible for the said accident and what is the negligence or rashness in any part on the part of anybody. It is settled principal of law that until and unless the identity of the accused, rash or negligent act of the accused in causing alleged accident is proved, they cannot be connected with the alleged offence. In addition to the above for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the evidence of injured/Nakkala Bala Krishna (L.W.1) and alleged eye witnesses Nkkala Naga raju (L.W.2) Nakkala Vijay (L.W.3),

Nakkala Naga Raju (L.W.4) was closed basing on the memo filed by the

A.P.P. On thorough consideration of the available evidence on record ie.,

P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.6 there is no incriminating evidence against A1 and A2 to connect them with the alleged in this case. So, viewed from any angle there is no tenable evidence on record to base a

C.C.209/2012

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

conviction against A1 and A2 for the charges levelled against them and that they are entitled for acquittal.

13. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this

Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused/A1 and A2 for the alleged offence under Sec. 338 IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act and

Sec.3 read with 181 of M.V.Act against A1 and Sec.5 read with 180 of

M.V.Act against A2, and that the accused/A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.

14. In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.

338 IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act and Sec.3 read with 181 of M.V.Act and A2 is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 5 read with 180 of M.V.Act, and they are acquitted u/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused/A1 and A2 shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. In this case, no property is seized and produced, hence no property order is passed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- S.Siva Sankar Reddy

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // -:WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW.1: B.Sobhan Babu NONE PW.2: N.Dasaradha Ramaiah PW.3: A.Sri Hari Rao PW.4: K.Prasanna

C.C.209/2012

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

// DOCUMENTS MARKED //

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1/ 161(3) Cr.P.C.,statement of PW.1--NIL-- Ex.P2/ First Information Report Ex.P3/Rough sketch Ex.P4/ Report of Nakkala Bala Krishna (L.W.1) Ex.P5/ Wound certificate of Nakkala Bala Krishna (L.W.1) Ex.P6/Hospital Intimation // MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED // -NIL-

Ild/- SSSR A.J.C.J., Chirala FAC:JMFC, Parchur // True copy //

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur.

C.C.209/2012

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PARCHUR

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.209 of 2012

Date of offence prior to : 08.08.2012 Date of report: 09.08.2012 Date of apprehension of accused: 14.08.2012 Date of release of accused: 14.08.2012 Date of commencement of trial: 27.10.2016 Date of closure of trial: 20.02.2017 Date of Judgment: 24.04.2017

The State: rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Parchur P.S. …Complainant 01.Sunnapu Pothu Raju, S/o Molakaiah, aged 36 years, Pattapukapu by caste, resident of Ramapuram village of Vetpalem Mandal, Driver of Mini Van bearing No.AP 26 TB 1572. 02.Konduru Chalendra, S/o Ramaiah, aged 32 years, Pattapukapu by caste, resident of Utukuru Peddapalem village, Vidavaluru Mandal, Nellore District, owner of Mini van bearing No.AP 26 TB 1572.

...Accused

Offence: u/Sec.338 of IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act and Sec.3 read with 181 of M.V.Act against A1 and Sec.5 read with 180 of M.V.Act against A2.

Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty Sentence or Order:

In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 338 IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act and Sec.3 read with 181 of M.V.Act and A2 is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 5 read with 180 of M.V.Act, and they are acquitted u/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused/A1 and A2 shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. In this case, no property is seized and produced, hence no property order is passed.

Explanation for delay:- This case was taken on file for the offence under Sec. 338 of IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act and Sec.3 read with 181 of M.V.Act against A1 and Sec.5 read with 180 of M.V.Act against A2. On appearance of accused/A1 and A2 before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished and when they were examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the substance of accusation found against the accused/A1 and A2 for the offence Under Sec.338 of IPC and Sec.134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act and Sec.3 read with 181 of M.V.Act against A1 and Sec.5 read with 180 of M.V.Act against A2., for which, they pleaded not guilty

C.C.209/2012

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

and claimed to be tried. The trial was commenced on 27.10.2016 and concluded on 20.02.2017, and during trial P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and prosecution evidence was closed. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused/A1 and A2 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. Heard the arguments on both the sides. On 24.04.2017 Judgment pronounced by acquitting the accused under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Hence the delay.

Sd/- S.Siva Sankar Reddy

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

// True copy //

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur.

C.C.103/2014

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

1/9

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PACHUR

Present:- Sri S.Sivasankar Reddy,Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Chirala.

FAC: Judl Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

Friday, the 21st day of April, 2017

Calendar Case No. 103 of 2014

Between: The State: rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Parchur P.S. … Complainant

-: And :-

Mangisetty Sivaiah, S/o Papa Rao, 32 years, C/Rajaka, D.No.2-14-

29-3, Mahalakshmi chettu, Vital Nagar, Chirala town, Driver-cum-

owner of Tata Ace bearing No.AP 27 AM 4805.

...Accused

The case coming on 20.04.2017 for hearing before me in the

presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state-complainant

and Sri R.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for accused and having stood

over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the

following:

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

01. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Parchur P.S., filed a charge

sheet for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the sole

accused in Cr.No.69/2014 of Parchur P.S.

02. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, the

deceased Kommanaboina Venkateswarlu is a resident of

Yadvapalem of Chirala. On 2.6.2014, the deceased went to

Cherukuru village to attend Pedakarma of co-brother-in-law of

deceased on his TVS moped bearing No.AP 27 AM 9421 from

Chirala village, when the deceased reached near Parchur village,

the accused driver of Tata Ace bearing No.AP 27 Y 4805 drove the

vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without

blowing horn dashed the deceased TVS Moped, as a result the

C.C.103/2014

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

2/9

deceased fell down on the road and sustained inner head injury

and blood is oozing from nose, later the deceased was shifted to

Saidulu hospital, Chirala and from there the deceased was shifted

to NRI hospital, Mangalari for better treatment and from there to

Manipal hospital, as there is no chance of live and on the advise

of the doctor the deceased was shifted to Veerannapalem village,

where the deceased was died on 03.06.2014. Later,

Kommanaboina Srinivasa rao (L.W.1) gave report to the police.

Basing on the report fo Kommanaboina Srinivasa Rao (L.W.1),

K.Madhava Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.69/2014 under Sec.304-A of IPC and investigated into the

case. During the course of investigation he visited the scene,

drawn rough sketch of the scene, examined the witnesses by

recording their statements, he also conducted inquest over the

dead body of the deceased. After receipt of post mortem

certificate, M.V.I report and after completion of investigation, he

laid chargesheet against the accused under Sec.304-A of IPC.

03. On appearance of accused before this court, copies of

documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished and when he

was examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the substance of accusation

found against the accused for the offence Under Sec. 304-A of IPC,

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

04. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to 15 were got marked.

C.C.103/2014

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

3/9

05. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused

was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating

circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of

prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and further stated

that he did not commit any offence and further stated that he was

implicated in a false case. Accused did not choose to examine any

defence witnesses nor marked any documents.

06. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

07. Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

Whether the prosecution has bring home the guilt of accused for the offences 304-A of IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt ?

08. POINT:-

According to the prosecution case, the offence alleged

against the sole accused is under Sec.304-A of IPC. To prove the

same, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.15. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. P.Ws.2 and 3

are the direct scene observation and inquest mediators. P.W.4 is

the inquest mediator. P.W.5 is the eye witness. P.W.6 is the

Investigating officer.

09. As seen from the charge sheet, the case of the

prosecution is that, on 02.06.2014 at about 9.45 P.M, the accused

drove his Tata Ace bearing No.AP 27 Y 4805 in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed at Upputur bridge, Upputur

village, Parchur Mandal and dashed the TVS moped of the

deceased Kommanaboina Venkateswarlu and caused severe

C.C.103/2014

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

4/9

injuries. The injured/Kommanaboina Venkateswarlu was shifted

to Saidulu Hospital, Chirala and later the injured was succumbed

with injuries. Hence the accused is committed an offence under

Sec.304-A of IPC.

10 (i). Unfolding the case of the prosecution, P.W.1

deposed that the deceased/Kommanaboina Venkateswarlu is his

junior paternal uncle. P.W.1 categorically deposed that about two

years back on one day while the deceased was going in his TVS

moped, one unknown vehicle hit him and due to which the

deceased/Kommaboina venkateswarlu was died near Upputuru

bridge. P.W.1 further deposed that he did not give any report to

the police and police obtained his signature on white paper at the

time of post mortem. Ex.P.1 is his signature, but he do not know

anything about this case.

(ii) The alleged eye witnesses who was examined as P.W.5

deposed that he did not witness any incident and he do not know

the accused and he do not know anything about this case.

(iii) As P.Ws.1 and 5 did not support the prosecution

case in any manner, the learned A.P.P treated them as hostile, but

marked 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P.2 and P.8. Hence, the

evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 who are the material witnesses of the

prosecution did not incriminate anything against the accused to

connect him with the alleged charge.

11 (i). P.W.2 who alleged to be the scene observation and

inquest mediator deposed that he never acted as mediator for

inquest of the dead body of the deceased/Kommanaboina

C.C.103/2014

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

5/9

venkateswarlu. P.W.2 further deposed that Ex.P.3 is his signature

on Inquest proceedings and Ex.P.4 is his signature on scene

observation report, but he do not know the contents therein and

he put his signature in the police station.

(ii) P.W.3 who alleged to be the scene observation and

inquest mediator deposed that he never acted as mediator for

inquest of the dead body of the deceased/Kommanaboina

venkateswarlu. P.W.3 further deposed that Ex.P.5 is his signature

on Inquest proceedings and Ex.P.6 is his signature on scene

observation report, but he do not know the contents therein and

he put his signature in the police station.

(iii) P.W.4 who alleged to be the inquest mediator deposed

that he never acted as mediator for inquest of the dead body of

the deceased/Kommanaboina Venkateswarlu. P.W.5 further

deposed that Ex.P.7 is his signature on Inquest proceedings, but

he do not know the contents therein and he put his signature in

the police station.

(iv) As P.Ws.2 to 4 deposed that they do not know anything

about this case and they came to know that the deceased was

died due to accident was caused by some unknown vehicle. The

learned A.P.P treated them as hostile, cross examined them, but

nothing was useful elicited.

12. The remaining evidence on record is the evidence of

P.W.6/Investigating Officer who deposed that on 03.06.2014 he

received Ex.P.1/written report from P.W.1 and he turn registered

the case in Cr.No.69 of 2014 under Sec.304-A of IPC and took up

C.C.103/2014

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

6/9

investigation. EX.P.9 is the FIR, Ex.P.10 is the Rough sketch,

Ex.P.11 is the Scene observation report, Ex.P.12 is the Inquest

report, Ex.P.13 is the two photos along with CD, Ex.P.14 is the Post

Mortem certificate of deceased/Kommanaboina Venkateswarlu

and Ex.P.15 is the M.V.I report. P.W.6 deposed about his

investigation, arrest of accused and filing of chargesheet in this

case.

13. On consideration of the evidences of P.ws.1 to 5

coupled with Ex.P.12-Inquest report and Ex.P.15 Post Mortem

certificate it is crystal clear that one Kommanaboina

Venkateswarlu was died in a road accident. But on perusal of the

evidence of P.ws.1 to 5 none of them whispered that how the

alleged accident was occurred and who is responsible for the

accident. It is settled principal of law that mere proving of the

death of the deceased itself does not automatically entitled the

prosecution to connect the conviction of the accused in a case

under Sec.304-A of IPC. It is also bounden duty of the prosecution

to prove the identity of the accused being the driver of the crime

vehicle at the time of the accident and also the rash or negligent

act of the accused/driver in causing the accident. Unfortunately

on thorough consideration of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 coupled

with Exs.P.1 to P.15 there is no iota of evidence of record to prove

the identity of the accused or his rash or negligent act to connect

him with the alleged offence. Further all the material witnesses

P.Ws.1 to 5 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution

case in any manner. Though, P.W.6/Investigating officer deposed

C.C.103/2014

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

7/9

about his investigation, the same is not at all supported and

corroborated by the independent evidence and the evidence of

P.W.6/Investigating officer is not at all helpful to the case of the

prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged charge.

Viewed from any angle there is no tenable evidence on record to

base a conviction against the accused under Sec.304-A of IPC.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

14. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and discussions,

this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has

miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the

alleged offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC, and that the accused is

entitled for acquittal.

15. In the result, sole accused is found not guilty for the

offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC, and he is acquitted u/Sec.255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force

for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. In this

case, no property is seized and produced, hence no property order

is passed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day

of April, 2017.

Sd/- S.Siva Sankar Reddy

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

-:WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW.1: K.Srinivasa Rao NONE PW.2: K.Veeraiah Chowdary PW.3: G.Sudhkar PW.4: P.Subbaiah P.W5: Vemulakonda Srinivasa Rao PW.6: K.Madhava Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police

C.C.103/2014

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

8/9

// DOCUMENTS MARKED //

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1/ Signature of P.W.1 in the report --

NIL-- Ex.P2/ 161(3) Cr.P.C.,statement of PW.1 Ex.P3/Signature of P.W.2 in the scene observation report Ex.P4/Signature of P.W.2 in the inquest report Ex.P5/Signature of P.W.3 in the scene observation report Ex.P6/Signature of P.W.3 in the inquest report Ex.P7/Signature of P.W.4 in the inquest report Ex.P8/161(3) Cr.P.C.,statement of PW.1 Ex.P9/First Information Report Ex.P10/Rough sketch Ex.P11/ Scene observation report Ex.P12/Inquest report Ex.P13/Two photos along with CD Ex.P14/Post Mortem certificate Ex.P15/M.V.I report

// MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED //

-NIL-

ILD/- SSSR A.J.C.J., Chirala FAC:JFCM, Parchur

// True copy //

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur

C.C.103/2014

JMFC COURT, PARCHUR

9/9

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: PARCHUR

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.103 of 2014

Date of offence prior to : 03.06.2014 Date of report : 03.06.2014 Date of apprehension of accused : 10.06.2014 Date of release of accused : 10.06.2014 Date of commencement of trial : 28.07.2016 Date of closure of trial : 20.01.2017 Date of Judgment : 21.04.2017

The State: rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Parchur P.S. …Complainant

Mangisetty Sivaiah, S/o Papa Rao, 32 years, C/Rajaka, D.No.2-14-29-

3, Mahalakshmi chettu, Vital Nagar, Chirala town, Driver-cum-owner

of Tata Ace bearing No.AP 27 AM 4805.

...Accused

Offence : u/Sec.304-A of IPC Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court : Found not guilty Sentence or Order :

In the result, sole accused is found not guilty for the offence

under Sec. 304-A of IPC, and he is acquitted u/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The

bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of

six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. In this case, no property is

seized and produced, hence no property order is passed. Explanation for delay:-

This case was taken on file for the offence under Sec. 304-A of

IPC against the sole accused. On appearance of accused before this

court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished

and when they were examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the substance of

accusation found against the accused for the offence Under Sec.304-

A of IPC, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The trial was commenced on 28.07.2016 and concluded on

20.01.2017, and during trial P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and got

marked Exs.P1 to P15 and prosecution evidence was closed. After

the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances

appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for

which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Heard the

arguments on both the sides. On 21.04.2017 Judgment pronounced

by acquitting the accused under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Hence the

delay. Sd/- S.Siva Sankar Reddy Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parchur Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

// True copy //

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: : PARCHUR.

CALENDER IN C.C.No.152 of 2014

1. Date of offence: Prior to 21-4-2013

2. Date of complaint: 24-01-2013

3. Date of appearance of accused: 20-05-2016

4. Date of release of accused on bail: 25-04-2013

5. Date of commencement of trial: 21-07-2016

6. Date of closing of trial: 21-07-2016

7. Date of judgment: 25-07-2016

8. Complainant: State SHO, Karamchedu Police Station.

9. Accused: Minchala Anjaneyulu, s/o Srihari, 42 years, Yadava by caste, Kunkalamarru village, Karamchedu Mandal.

10. Offence: U/Sec.498(A) IPC, sec.506 IPC, Sec.3 and 4. of D.P.Act. 11.Plea of accused : Not guilty. 12.Finding of court: Accused is found not guilty.

13. Sentence or order:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charges U/section 498-A IPC, Sec.506 IPC, and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act and accordingly accused is acquitted U/section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after lapse of six months time. No property was produced in this case and hence no order is passed with regard to property.

Explanation for the delay:-This case was taken cognizance on 28-04-2016. Accused are present on 20-05-2016 and copies of documents were furnished. On 13-07-2016 accused are examined under section 239 Cr.P.C charge U/Sec.498-A of IPC, 506 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act framed against accused. Trail commenced from 21-7-2016 Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.P1 and P3 were marked. The evidence of 7 witnesses is given up the learned APP. The evidence of three is closed by this court. Since there is no incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, his examination u/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. On 22-7-2016 arguments heard. On 25-07-2016 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- P.Akbar Khan/-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PARCHUR.

Copy submitted to The Hon'ble I -Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole. Copy to :The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

Sd/- P.Akbar Khan/-

J.F.C.M.PARCHUR.

//TRUE COPY//

J.F.C.M.PARCHUR.

2

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: : PARCHUR.

PRESENT: Sri P.Akbar Khan,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Saturday, this the 15th day of April, 2017

C.C. No.152 of 2014

Between: State Sub-Inspector of Police, Inkollu P.S.

..Complainant

AND 1.Nuthalapati Salmon, s/o Wilson, aged 25 years, SC Mala by caste, resident of Idupulapadu village of Inkollu Mandal. 2.Nuthalapati Wilson, s/o Raja rao, aged 60 years, SC Mala by caste, resident of Idupulapadu village of Inkollu Mandal. 3.Nuthalapati Sanjeevi w/o Wilson, aged 50 years, SC Mala by caste, resident of Idupulapadu village of Inkollu Mandal.

..Accused

This case is coming on 13-4-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional public prosecutor for complainant and of

Sri M.Veeranjaneyulu, Advocate for accused in person and after hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following: -

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of police, Inkollu Police station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 498 'A' of IPC, 506 r/w 34

IPC.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-

PW1-Nuthalapati Sukanya is the resident of Idupulapadu village of

Inkollu Mandal and living by doing coolie works, A1 is husband of PW1, A2 & A3 are in-laws of PW1, PW2 is the mother of PW1, A1 to A3 ar the residents of the same village. PW1 and A1 loved with each other at about 2 years back, later

PW1 got pregnancy, A2 and A3 who are parents of A1 did not agree to perform 3 the marriage of A1 with PW1 and did not allow them into their house, on that village elders made panchayath and performed marriage of PW1 with A1 and sent PW1 to the house of accused for leading marital life, after marriage both

PW1 and A1 lived happily for some times, later A1 addicted bad vices like drinking of alcohol and used to harassing PW1 by mentally and physically and demanded her to bring an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parent's house and also tortured her dye ti suspecting of her fidelity, A2 and A3 were also harassing her in the same manner, A2 and A4 instigated and provoked A1 in harassing and beating her in blue and black, due to unbearable harassment made by A1 to A3,

PW1 left her in-laws house, came to house of PW1 and informed the same, later elders made panchayath and requested A1 to A3 to see PW1 amicably and sent her for leading marital life, but all the accused did not change their attitude and continuously harassed her by physically and mentally, finally necked out her at about 8 months back to her parents house by threatening that, if failed to bring

Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents hosue, she would n ot return back to their house, there was no other way, PW1 reached to the house of PW2 and has been living with PW2, while so, PW1 delivered a baby at about 7 months back, but all accused did not come to PW1 to see PW1 and her baby till now, on 26-4-2013

PW1 approached Family counselling center, Mahila mandal, Chirala and requested to set right her family, then the family conselling staff sent a letter to

A1 to A3 with a request to attend conselling on 3-5-2013 with elders, but A1 to

A3 did not attend to conselling and deaf ear their words, on 26-11-2013 evening at about 6.00 p.m while PW1 was present in her house, A1 came there, picked up quarrel with PW1 abused in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences by saying 'you have failed to bring the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, if you failed to bring the amount he will marry another woman and beat her with his hands and legs indiscriminately, on seeing the same PW2 intervened and rescued PW1 from the hands of A1, there was no other way, PW1 came to the police station with PW2 on 28-11-2013 and gave a report to Sri K.Vijaya Kumar against A1 to A3.

4

Basing on the above report of the complainant, Sri K.Vijay

Kumar registered a case in Cr.No.114/2013 U/Sec.498(A), 506 of Inkollu PS on 28-11-2013 at 11.00 hours and submitted FIR's to all concerned officers and took up investigation into the case.

During the course of investigation, Sri Vijay Kumar secured the presence of witnesses, examined them and recorded their detailed statements U/Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C visited the scene of offence, examined the scene and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, S.V.Raveendra

Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Inkollu took up further investigation in this case, secured the presence of witnesses examined them and recorded their detailed statements U/Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C.

On 28-12-2013 at 9.30 hours V.Naga Malleswararao, formerly

Sub-Inspector of Police, Inkollu PS arrested the accused A1 at his house at

Idupulapadu village and sent him for judicial remand, on 11-2-2014 at 8.30 hours, S.V.Raveendra Reddy arrested A2 and A3 at Pusapadu cross road and sent them for judicial remand.

After completion of investigation, S.V.Raveendra Reddy filed charge sheet against the accused U/Sec.498(A) of IPC, 506 IPC.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence under Sections 498(A) of

IPC, Sec.506 r/w 34 of IPC against accused and registered as

C.C.No.152/2014. On appearance of accused, copies of documents furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. Accused is examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and charges U/s.498(A) of

IPC, Sec.506 r/w 34 of IPC is framed against accused and read over to them, they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial the prosecution examined two witnesses ie.,

Pws 1 and PW2. No witnesses examined and no documents marked on behalf 5 of accused. The evidence of 13 witnesses ie., N.Chittaiah, B.Nageswararao,

P.Bhushanam, N.Kishore, P.Suhashini, N.Novaku, P.Veeramma, Pulipoati

Bhushanam, M.Nirmala, Kurmala Kalyani Kumar, V.Naga Malleswararao,

K.Vijaya Kumar, S.V.Raveendra Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Inkollu was given up by the learned APP.

6.Since there is no incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, his examination U/s.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the Point for consideration is:- “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.498(A) IPC, U/Sec.506 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?”

9. P O I N T:-

In this case, the prosecution has cited 15 witnesses in the charge sheet. But the prosecution examined only two witnesses ie., PW1 and PW2.

PW1-Nuthalapati Sukanya is the defacto complainant in this case and she testified before the court as follows:- A1 is her husband, A2 and A3 are her in- laws, PW2 is her mother, her marriage was performed with A1 and they lived happily for one year, her marriage was love marriage and it is against to the wishes of both families, thereafter some mis-understandings arose in between herself and A1, hence she informed the same to the elders, on the instigation of the elders she signed on one blank white paper, she can identify her signature, but she do not know its contents of Ex.P1, except the above facts she do not know any other facts of this case. PW1 completely turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. The learned APP cross-examined PW1 but nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW1 which would be helpful to the prosecution. Hence the evidence of PW1 is of not useful to the prosecution.

6

10. PW2 is Neelam Bujji testified before the court that PW1 is her daughter and A1 is her son-in-law, PW1's marriage was performed with A1 and they lived happily for one year, some misunderstandings took place between her daughter and A1, they placed the matter before the elders, except that she do not know any facts of this case and police never examined him. PW2 completely turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. The learned APP cross-examined PW2 but nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW2 which would be helpful to the prosecution. Hence the evidence of PW2 is of no use to the prosecution.

11.The complainant herself and her mother turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. As the material witnesses have turned hostile the learned APP had rightly given up the evidence of 14 witnesses. Since the material witnesses have turned hostile, the chances of conviction in this case are very remote and bleak. Consequently, there is no other piece of evidence on record to say that accused is responsible for the alleged offence. Therefore, the prosecution completely failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, the accused is entitled for an acquittal.

12. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the charges U/section 498-A IPC, Sec.506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly accused is acquitted

U/section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after lapse of six months time. No property was produced in this case and hence no order is passed with regard to property.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15 th day of April, 2017.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PARCHUR.

7

Appendix of evidence Witness examined for ProsecutionDefence

PW-1: Nuthalapati Sukanya None PW-2: Neelam Bujji

Documents Marked For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/ :Signature of PW1 on the report Ex.P2/:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3/:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

For Defence:NIL

Material objects Marked:NIL

J.F.C.M.,Parchur.

8 //TRUE COPY//

J.F.C.M.,Parchur