Sri S.Srinivas Kalyan

Calender Case No.: 104 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL

Present: S.Srinivasa Kalayan,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sidhout

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

Wednesday, this the 12 th day of January, 2022

Calendar Case No.: 104 of 2020

Between: State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Forest Range Officer, Badvel Range. ….Complainant AND

A2. Anakarla Prakash, S/o Pedda Pullaiah, aged about 34 years, Caste by : Madiga, Resident of Repalli Village, Porumamilla Mandal (Main case in C.C.No.422/2014) ….Accused No.2

This case is coming on 12-01-2022 before this court in the presence of Prosecution and Sri Elicherla C.Obula Reddy, learned

Advocate for the Accused No.2 and upon hearing having stood over to this day for consideration, this court, delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Forest Range Officer, Badvel Range, filed Charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 8 for the offence under Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code and 29(4)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act 1967 R/W Rule 30(2) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Rules on the file of the Badvel Range for the offence alleged to be committed at

Page No. 1 of 11

Calender Case No.: 104 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel hillock area, Lakkavaripalli, near Tamarakkabavi, near

Teluguganga canal that falls with in the limits of Badvel Range and jurisdiction of this court.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is: It is submitted that on 26-03-2011, K.Ulasaiah (LW1) received credible information about illegal transportation of red sanders at 05:30

AM. Then immediately K.Ulasaiah (LW1) secured K.Ganireddy (LW6) & P.Sivashankara Reddy (LW7) to act as mediators,

G.Munaiah (LW3) F.B.O. & staff and proceeded to Tamarakkabavi forest area. When the said officials along with mediators arrived at the said spot, there they found six persons were dumping the logs and two persons were standing near the dump. The said eight persons i.e. A1 to A8 on seeing Police tried to run away, then the officials caught them and each Accused was interrogated separately in the presence of said mediators. The Accused revealed their details and it was revealed that A1 & A2 hired A3 to

A8 by paying Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to fell red sander trees. Accordingly A3 to A8 felled and converted them into logs and this day morning A1 to A8 arrived there to hide the same in forest. When they were dumping the logs police arrived there.

On verification the officials found 45 logs which were measured, weighted & seized under cover of Panchanama along with arrest of A1 to A8. After that the seized property was given to safe custody of G.Munaiah (LW3) and based on the Panchanama crime

Page No. 2 of 11

Calender Case No.: 104 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel no.25 of 2011 was registered against Accused. After that the

Accused were produced before Court. Later the case was forwarded to Badvel range for further investigation on 05-04- 2011. After obtaining sanction orders charge sheet was filed against Accused.

3.After filing of the charge sheet the case was taken on file for the offence under Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code and 29(4)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act 1967 R/W Rule 30(2) of

Andhra Pradesh Forest Rules against Accused No.2. On appearance of Accused No.2 the copies of the case record were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code.

4.The Accused No.2 was examined as per Section 239 of

Criminal Procedure Code, the substance of the accusation was read over & explained to the Accused in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges framed explained in Telugu to Accused. Accordingly matter was posted for trial and summons was issued to list of witnesses.

5. Evidence adduced from Prosecution side: To establish the charges leveled against the Accused No.2, the

Prosecution examined T.V.Konda Reddy (LW2) as PW1 and through him got marked Panchanama as Ex.P1 & FIR in crime no.25/2011 as Ex.P2. Examined K.Gangireddy (LW6) as PW2 and through him got marked his signature on Panchanama as Ex.P3.

Page No. 3 of 11

Calender Case No.: 104 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

Examined P.Sivashankara Reddy (LW7) as PW3 and through him got marked his signature on Panchanama as Ex.P4. Examined

G.Muneiah (LW3) as PW2 and through him got marked list of logs as Ex.P5, POR as Ex.P6, Form C as Ex.P7 & D.F.O. Proceedings as

Ex.P8. Examined K.Ulasaiah (LW1) as PW5. Prosecution gave up the evidence of rest of the official witnesses as corroborated by

PW1, PW4 & PW5.

6.After completion of evidence of Prosecution side, A2 failed to appear before this Court, Non-bailable warrant was issued against him. As the case is at examination as per Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code stage, the case against A2 was split up as Calender Case No.104 of 2020 and this case proceeded against remaining Accused.

The Accused No.2 was examined as per Section 313 of

Criminal Procedure Code, the incriminating evidence against them was explained in Telugu and Accused denied the same. On enquiry Accused reported, they have no evidence to adduce from their side.

7.Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Arguments advanced by Prosecution side in brief:

The learned Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW1, PW4 & PW5 proves the case of the Prosecution. By cross examining the said witnesses, Defense could not extract anything that is adverse

Page No. 4 of 11

Calender Case No.: 104 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel to the case of the Prosecution. Hence it can be said that the

Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Arguments advanced by Defence in brief: It was submitted that this case is created only for statistical purpose by falsely implicating the Accused. The Ex.P1 panchanama was recorded in the presence of Police and same is of no help to

Prosecution. PW2 & PW3 Panch witnesses who as per the case of

Prosecution did not support the case of Prosecution, hence there is no material on record to show that the Accused committed the alleged offence. There is no material on record to show that the

Accused committed the alleged offence. Hence prayed for acquittal of the Accused No.2.

10.Now the point for determination is Whether the

prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused No.2

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under

Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code and 29(4)(i) of Andhra

Pradesh Forest Act 1967 R/W Rule 30(2) of Andhra

Pradesh Forest Rules?

Prosecution has made accusations against the Accused No.2 hence it is the burden of the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the

Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. To prove the guilt of the

Accused, Prosecution examined PW1 to PW5. PW1 Sub-Inspector of Police, PW2 & PW3 are panch witnesses, PW4 is forest official who accompanied police and PW5 is Inspector of Police who

Page No. 5 of 11

Calender Case No.: 104 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel received credible information. This case in a nutshell is that PW5 received credible information about illegal dump of red sander logs, then he secured PW2 & PW3 panch witnesses, PW4 F.B.O.

and PW1 along with staff and went to the alleged scene of offence. There they found A1 to A8 dumping red sander logs which were felled illegally. Then the Accused were arrested under cover of Ex.P1 Panchanama and were produced before Court after registering crime on the file of Badvel Rural Police station and later case was transferred to Badvel Range office.

10.1 On perusal of evidence of PW1 Sub-Inspector, PW4

F.B.O. & PW5 Inspector of Police who participated in the raid, during examination-in-chief the said witnesses deposed in the same line as stated in charge sheet. The said witnesses were cross examined in the same and three of them deposed in the same line. During cross examination, it was deposed that the

Ex.P1 panchanama is silent about how PW2 & PW3 panch witnesses were secured, no rough sketch was prepared, no scene observation mahazzar was prepared, the record is silent about exact spot of the alleged scene of offence and Ex.P1 panchnama does not contain the signature of PW4 F.B.O. The said witnesses denied that no raid as narrated in Ex.P1 happened, denied that

Ex.P1 does not contain the signature of PW4 as he did not participate in the raid and entire record was prepared in the office. Even though all the witnesses deposed in the same line

Page No. 6 of 11

Calender Case No.: 104 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel and there are no contradictions in the evidence of the said witnesses, however Ex.P1 Panchanama not having signature of

PW4, Police not preparing the rough sketch, not mentioning anywhere in the record exact spot of alleged scene of offence and not mentioning the details how PW2 & PW3 panch witnesses were secured are drawbacks to the case of Prosecution. Whether the said drawbacks are adverse to the case of Prosecution or not has to be examined in the context of evidence of PW2 & PW3 and documentary evidence.

10.2 On perusal of evidence of PW2 & PW3 panch witnesses, the said witnesses did not support the case of

Prosecution. At request PW2 & PW3 were declared hostile and cross examined by Prosecution. By cross examining PW2 & PW3

Prosecution could not extract anything that supports the case of

Prosecution. Hence the evidence of PW2 & PW3 is not of any help to Prosecution.

In summarizing the entire evidence, even though this court found nothing in the evidence of PW1, PW4 & PW5 adverse to the case of Prosecution, the material inconsistency causing disbelief with reasonable suspicion as to testimony of witnesses of prosecution side with material irregularities and latches found during the investigation made the oral evidence of

PW1, PW4 & PW5 insufficient to establish their case against A2. As the PW2 & PW3 did not support the case of Prosecution and there

Page No. 7 of 11

Calender Case No.: 104 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel evidence is not of any help to Prosecution. The only incriminating evidence is Ex.P1 Panchanama on which the signatures of

Accused are available. But same is not of any help to Prosecution as the confession part of the Ex.P1 Panchanama is hit by Sections 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as it is a settled proposition of law that, the confession made to police officer is not to be proved, as such it cannot be relied upon and the seizure part i.e. seized 45 red sander logs cannot linked to the Accused as PW2 & PW3 panch witnesses did not support the case of Prosecution in the absence of independent witnesses or any such other material piece of evidence to establish that the 45 logs were recovered and seized from the custody of accused in due course of law as per the provisions contemplated under section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C.

Hence, there is no material on record to show that the Accused

No.2 committed the alleged offence. Further, as there is no incriminating material that found against A2 on examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thence, on the basis of such evidence that laid down on record by prosecution side, even a prudent man can easily be said that the A2 never committed the said offence as charged against him, moreover there is no such ingredients found against A2 so as to constitute the offences as charged against him, in these circumstances, as the series of transactions that taken place prior, subsequent and during the course of the said commission of offence there is no such material

Page No. 8 of 11

Calender Case No.: 104 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel piece of evidence to establish the case of prosecution against A2.

Hence, it can be said with no doubt that the prosecution side utterly and miserably failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, there is no iota to connect the case with accused. Accordingly this point is answered against

Prosecution.

10.3Therefore, the prosecution neither proved their case, nor the defence disproved the same, as such, A2 is entitled to claim benefit of doubt. Accordingly, A2 is herewith acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt.

11.In the result, the Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code and 29(4)

(i) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act 1967 R/W Rule 30(2) of Andhra

Pradesh Forest Rules. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the Accused, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of six months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 12th day of January, 2022.)

Sd/- S.Srinivasa Kalyan,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SIDHOUT

FAC ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BADVEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION : P.W.1:T.V.Konda Reddy P.W.2:K.Gangi Reddy P.W.3:P.Siva Sankar Reddy

Page No. 9 of 11

Calender Case No.: 104 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

P.W.4:G.Munaiah P.W.5:Ulasaiah

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE : NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P.1:Panchanama, dt : 26.03.2011 Ex.P.2:F.I.R. In Cr.No.25/2011 Ex.P.3:Signature of Panchanama, dt: 26.03.2011 Ex.P.4:Signature of Panchanama, dt: 26.03.2011 Ex.P.5:List of Logs Ex.P.6:P.O.R. Ex.P.7:Form-C Ex.P.8:D.F.O. Proceeding

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : NONE

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : NIL

Id/- S.S.K.

JFCM, SDT,

FAC AJCJ, BDL.

// TRUE COPY//

Page No. 10 of 11

Calender Case No.: 104 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN

C.C.NO.104/2020(MAIN CASE IN C.C.NO.422/2014)

Dates of Commen ApprehensiSentence Report of Released-Close of Offenceon ofor Complainton bailcementtrial accusedOrder of trial 12/01/2 26/03/1126/03/1126/03/1130/03/1118/06/1912/01/22 2

Calander and Judgment in C.C.104/2020 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel. Complainant: Represented by the Forest Range Officer, Badvel Range. O.R.No.11/2011-12 Name of theFather’s S.NoAge CallingReligionResidence accusedName Anakarla Prakash, S/o Pedda Pullaiah, aged about 34 years, Caste by : Madiga, Resident of Repalli Village, Porumamilla Mandal (Main case in C.C.No.422/2014)

...Accused No.2

Offence : under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and 29(4)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act 1967 R/W Rule 30(2) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Rules. Finding : Found not guilty Sentence : In the result, the Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code and 29(4)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act 1967 R/W Rule 30(2) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Rules. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the Accused, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of six months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- S.Srinivasa Kalyan,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Sidhout FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel //TRUE COPY//

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Sidhout FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

Page No. 11 of 11

C.C.No.622/2018 1 Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BADVEL.

Present: S.Srinivasa Kalyan,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Sidhout

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

Friday, the Twenty Fifth (25th) day of February, 2022

C.C.No.622/2018

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, B.Mattam Police Station.

...Complainant

And

Lingala Prasad Reddy, S/o Vema Reddy, aged about 50 years, caste by Kapu, Resident of D.No.9/51D, Gandhi Nagar, Vempalli town and mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. …Accused

This case is came before me on 25.02.2022 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri E.C.Obula Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing on both sides, 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, B.Mattam Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.139/2018 for the offence under section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The case of the prosecution is that, on 28.09.2018 at about evening hours deceased along with his brother-in-law i.e. S.

Manjunatha Reddy (LW1) on deceased two wheeler bearing no.

AP04BB8344 left their village in order to go to Mydkur on their personal work. When deceased and Manjunatha Reddy (LW1) reached near

Mallepalli village at about 05:30 pm, Accused who was riding motor

C.C.No.622/2018 2 Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel cycle bearing no. AP04BJ5589 with high speed in a rash & negligent manner with out blowing horn while coming out of petrol pump,

Accused dashed against deceased two wheeler which resulted in deceased falling down from two wheeler, sustaining fracture injury over his leg and also abrasions to all over body severe bleeding injuries.

Then, S. Manjunatha Reddy (LW.1) informed the same to A.Rajeswari (LW2), Gurrala Ramana Reddy (LW3), A.Chenna Krishna Reddy (LW4) and shifted to deceased Madan Super Specialty hospital, Proddutur and admitted for treatment. But, on 02.10.2018 on the advice of doctor,

A.Rajeswari (LW2), Gurrala Ramana Reddy (LW3), A.Chenna Krishna

Reddy (LW4) immediately made arrangements to shift deceased to

Narayana Hospital, Nellore for better treatment, on the way to Nellore while they reached near Kadirinaydupalli village the deceased was expired.

3.Cognizance of offence was taken for the offence under section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code.

4. After appearance of the accused, copies of all documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207

Criminal Procedure Code.

5. On consideration of entire material on record, accused were examined under section 251 Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under section 304A of Indian Penal Code were framed, read over and explained the contents to him in Telugu for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, cited twelve

C.C.No.622/2018 3 Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel witnesses among them examined eight witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 8 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.14. Hence, the evidence of Gurrala Ramana

Reddy (LW.3), Ayyaluri Chenna Krishna Reddy (LW.4), Dr. C.Ram Prasad (LW.10), V.Madhusudhan (M.V.I) (LW.11) are given up by the Learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that with the evidence adduced, the prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the accused.

10. Per contra, the learned defence counsel argued that the evidence available on record is not sufficient to prove the case against the accused and that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11. Now the point that arise for determination is :

Whether the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences alleged against him under section 304A IPC ?

12. POINT :

The case of the prosecution is that, on 28.09.2018 at about evening hours deceased along with his brother-in-law i.e. S.

Manjunatha Reddy (LW1) on deceased two wheeler bearing no.

AP04BB8344 left their village in order to go to Mydkur on their personal work. When deceased and Manjunatha Reddy (LW1) reached near

C.C.No.622/2018 4 Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

Mallepalli village at about 05:30 pm, Accused who was riding motor cycle bearing no. AP04BJ5589 with high speed in a rash & negligent manner with out blowing horn while coming out of petrol pump,

Accused dashed against deceased two wheeler which resulted in deceased falling down from two wheeler, sustaining fracture injury over his leg and also abrasions to all over body severe bleeding injuries.

Then, S. Manjunatha Reddy (LW.1) informed the same to A.Rajeswari (LW2), Gurrala Ramana Reddy (LW3), A.Chenna Krishna Reddy (LW4) and shifted to deceased Madan Super Specialty hospital, Proddutur and admitted for treatment. But, on 02.10.2018 on the advice of doctor,

A.Rajeswari (LW2), Gurrala Ramana Reddy (LW3), A.Chenna Krishna

Reddy (LW4) immediately made arrangements to shift deceased to

Narayana Hospital, Nellore for better treatment, on the way to Nellore while they reached near Kadirinaydupalli village the deceased was expired

13. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P.14. As per the evidence of P.W.1 who is the brother in law of deceased Ayyaluri Rama Subba Reddy, is that on 28.09.2018 he informed to A.Rajeswari (LW2), Gurrala Ramana Reddy (LW3), A.Chenna

Krishna Reddy (LW4) as if the deceased met with an accident due to which he sustained severe injuries and intended to shift the deceased

Super Specialty hospital, Proddutur for treatment, on 02.10.2018 on advise of doctor, deceased Ayyaluri Rama Subba Reddy shifted to

Nellore Narayana hospital for better treatment, when they reached

Kadirinayudipalli village, the deceased expired. On the next day I.e, on 03.10.2018 S.Manjunatha Reddy (LW.1) went to B.Mattam P.S. and gave written complaint/ Ex.P.9 and M.Raja Gopal, Sub Inspector (LW.12)

C.C.No.622/2018 5 Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel registered the case in Cr.No.139/2018 and PW.1 to PW.7 does not know the contents of the same, the learned APP permitted to cross examine the P.Ws.1 to 7 as they turned hostile towards some material aspects and even in the cross examination done by APP they stated that they were not examined by the police and their 161 Cr.P.C, statement were marked as Ex.P.2 to P.4.

14.P.W.2 deposed that on 28.09.2018 during evening hours, when she was at his home, she received phone call from her brother i.e. PW.1 that her husband met with an accident. Then immediately rushed to hospital at Proddutur where her husband was taken for medical treatment, after 3 days as the condition of the deceased worson, on advise of doctor, when the deceased shifted to

Narayana hospital for better treatment on the way deceased was died, the learned APP taken a permission to treat a witness as an hostile and accordingly, she was permitted and some portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2 is marked as Ex.P.3.

15. The prosecution also examined P.W.8 who is IO of this case and who deposed that on 03.10.2018 at about 09.00 a.m., P.W.1 came to Police Station and lodged Ex.P.9, basing on which he registered case in Cr.NO.139/2018 for the offence u/s. 304(A) of IPC and issued Ex.P.10

FIR and later he proceeded to Chinnayapalli village near by house of deceased Ayyalur Rama Subba Reddy, therein examined PW.1 and

PW.2 and LW.3 and LW.4 and recorded their 161 (3) of Cr.P.C.

statements, on the same day in the presence of PW.3 to PW.5 conducted inquest and obtained signature on inquest report/ Ex.P.11, later on the same day the deceased dead body was shifted to

Community Health Center, Badvel for Post Mortem/ Ex.P.13. After that

C.C.No.622/2018 6 Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel in the presence of PW.3 to PW.5, PW.8 prepared rough sketch/ Ex.P.12 of the scene of offence. Further on 11.10.2018 the accused voluntarily surrendered before PW.8 at B.Mattam Police station, then PW.8 proceeded further and seized the crime vehicle. On 12.10.2018 on receipt of Post Mortem report/Ex.P.13 deceased therein, it was opined that the cause of death of the deceased due to multiple injuries and injury to vital organ ie. Brain. Further, PW.8 made a requisition to M.V.I and inspected the crime vehicle and issued Ex.P14/ M.V.I Report. After completion of investigation PW.8 filed charge sheet before court.

On perusal of material on record together with testimonies of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution, it connotes that PW.s1 to 7 were turned hostile through Ex.P.1 to P.8 and not supported prosecution case with that the evidence of PW.s.1 to 7 were discreated and discorded in persuit in hostile witnesses categorically PW.8 who is investigating officer got examined and speak about registered of FIR and investigation and facts pertaining to the said accident corroborated an earlier version of prosecution witnesses through Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.14 supporting to that accident his confess of his chief examination, whereas during cross examination the learned counsel for defence sincerely with put efforts the same, during that it was escalated against the case of prosecution, in that context it was elicited that the admitted facts that there was delay in five days in lodging the report as in column No.8 it was mentioned as no delay held it is corroborated to that of PW.8 earlier version and it is considered as material facts that stood fatal upon on the part of the prosecution case and facts of simple thrown of guilt, in addition to that both the crime vehicles that involved in the case such accident were not in subjected

C.C.No.622/2018 7 Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel to inspection through M.V.I as admitted facts which is fatal upon to prosecution case and moreover as per the investigation taken by the

PW.8 the identity of accused as driver of the said crime vehicle at the time of said accident was not made out through during evidence or through in direct evidence, as such it is considered as fatal upon part of the prosecution case, in these circumstances on that testimony of PW.8 in absence corroboration of remaining witnesses of that corroborated with earlier version of prosecution witnesses in order to establish the case against the accused it is not taken into consideration in order to determine guilt of the accused in persuit of official witnesses as the investigation of PW.8 taken place in the absence of scene observation report and photographs observed as kept with irregularities of lapse during course of investigation. However, procedure lapse that taken place, during course of investigation it is not form basis in order to determine the guilt against the accused, whereas material procedural irregularities forms basis to determined against the accused on the basis of prosecution evidence that laid doubt on record there is no such material that found against accused, on examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. and more over the identity of the accused as driver of the said crime vehicle who got negligently and driving the crime vehicle with rash and negligent manner with out blowing horn and dashed against the deceased motor vehicle which resulted into death of deceased was neither established nor prove. Further on the basis of prosecution evidence of witnesses the learned APP already given up the remaining list of witness in lieu of examining the witnesses, failed to establish and prove the case against through Ex.P.1 to P.14, with that offence prove made and early was that the accused involved in

C.C.No.622/2018 8 Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel committing the said offence as charge upon. Therefore, taken such reasonable believe that the accused involved in committing the said offence as to considered ingredients under section 304A IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore there is no iota to connect the case with accused. Hence, prosecution said utterly and forcibly failed to bring home guilt of accused.

Therefore the prosecution neither prove their case in order to defence disproved the same, the accused entitled for claim both of them. Accordingly the accused herewith guilt that the grounds by this all doubts at liberty forthwith.

16. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. Accused shall execute personal bond for Rs.10,000/- it shall remain in force for a period of six months as required under section 437 (A) Criminal

Procedure Code.

(Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 25th day of February, 2022).

Sd/- S.Srinivasa Kalyan,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sidhout

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1: S.Manjunatha Reddy -None- P.W.2: A.Rajeswari

P.W.3: M.Bala Krishna

P.W.4: K.Sasindranath

P.W.5: M.Bala Raju

P.W.6: Lakshmi Narayana

C.C.No.622/2018 9 Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

P.W.7: N.Jaya Chandra

P.W.8:M.Raja Gopal, Sub Inspector of Police

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1

Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1

Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2

Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3

Ex.P.5: Signature of PW.4 on inquest report.

Ex.P.6: Signature of PW.5 on inquest report.

Ex.P.7: Signature of PW.6 on inquest report.

Ex.P.8: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.7

Ex.P.9: Report of P.W.1 dt.03.10.2018

Ex.P.10: FIR in Cr.No.139/2018 of B.Mattam P.S.

Ex.P.11: Inquest Report.

Ex.P.12: Rough Sketch.

Ex.P.13: Post Mortem Report.

Ex.P.14: M.V.I Report.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Id/- S.S.K

JFCM, SDT

FAC AJCJ, BDL

//TRUE COPY//

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sidhout

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

C.C.No.853/2018 1 Addl. JFCM court, Badvel

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, BADVEL.

Present: S.Srinivasa Kalyan,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Sidhout

FAC Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Badvel

Wednesday, the Thirteenth day (13th) day of April, 2022

C.C.No.853/2018

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, B.Kodur Police Station.

...Complainant

And

Kanuga Sunil Joshi @ Sunil, S/o Joseph, aged about 22 years, Resident of Malawada village, B.Kodur Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. …Accused

This case is came before me on 13.04.2022 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri E.C.Obula Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing on both sides, 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, B.Kodur Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.191/2018 for the offence under section 337, 338, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 134(a) & (b) R/W 187, 184, 196 of Motor Vehicle Act.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The case of the prosecution is that, on 29.11.2018 at about 05.45 PM at Kasanagaram village of B.Kodur Mandal when deceased

Dasari Subbaiah along with J. Subbaiah (LW1), D. Subhash (LW2) and

Sri Ram Nagaraju (LW3) were walking on left side of the road, Accused who was coming from Porumamilla side in a car with registration

C.C.No.853/2018 2 Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel number AP09BC8028 with high speed in rash & negligent manner dashed the said pedestrians, which resulted in deceased Dasari

Subbaiah died on the spot and J. Subbaiah (LW1), D. Subhash (LW2) also received severe bleeding injuries.

3.Cognizance of offence was taken for the offence under section 337, 338, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 134(a)& (b)

R/W 187, 184, 196 of Motor Vehicle Act.

4. After appearance of the accused, copies of all documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207

Criminal Procedure Code.

5. On consideration of entire material on record, accused were examined under section 251 Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under section 337, 338, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 134(a)& (b) R/W 187, 184, 196 of Motor Vehicle Act of

Indian Penal Code were framed, read over and explained the contents to him in Telugu for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, cited eighteen witnesses among them examined eleven witnesses i.e.,

P.Ws.1 to 11 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.18. Hence, the evidence of

Dr.C.Ram Prasad (LW.12), Sri V.Madhu Sudhan, M.V.I. (LW.13),

Dr.M.Penchalaiah (LW.14), Dr. S.Soumya, (LW.15), Sri.K.Neelakanta

Reddy (LW.16) & Sri B.Ghana Madduleti Sub Inspector of Police (LW.18) are given up by the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, accused is

C.C.No.853/2018 3 Addl. JFCM court, Badvel examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that with the evidence adduced, the prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the accused.

10. Per contra, the learned defence counsel argued that the evidence available on record is not sufficient to prove the case against the accused and that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11. Now the point that arise for determination is :

Whether the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences alleged against him under section 337, 338, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 134(a)& (b) R/W 187, 184, 196 of Motor Vehicle Act ?

12. POINT :

The case of the prosecution is that, on 29.11.2018 at about 05.45 PM at Kasanagaram village of B.Kodur Mandal when deceased herein one Dasari Subbaiah along with PW.1 to PW.3 were walking on left side of the road, Accused who was coming from

Porumamilla side in a car with registration bearing number

AP09BC8028 with high speed in rash & negligent manner dashed the said pedestrians, which resulted into accident to that effect, deceased died on the spot and PW.1 to PW.3 also received severe bleeding injuries.

13. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked

C.C.No.853/2018 4 Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

Exs.P1 to P.18. As per the evidence of P.W.1 who is the cousin of deceased Dasari Subbaiah, is that about 3 years ago while PW.1 was at

ST colony, main road, Kasanagaram along with PW.2 and PW.3 herein together with deceased Dasari Subbaiah, at that juncture, an unknown car dashed them for which deceased Dasari Subbaiah received severe bleeding injuries and succumbed death on the spot, whereas PW.1 to

PW.3 also sustained grievous and simple injuries, in that context PW.1 reported to Police and obtained signature of PW.1/Ex.P.1. the learned

APP permitted to cross examine the P.Ws.1 to 7 as they turned hostile towards some material aspects and even in the cross examination done by APP they stated that they were not examined by the police and their 161 (3) Cr.P.C, statement were marked as Ex.P.2 to P.9.

Prosecution examined PW.9 and got Ex.P.10/ Inquest report.

14. The prosecution also examined P.W.11 who is Investigating officer of this case and who deposed that on 30.11.2018 at about 06:00 hours PW.11 was on duty at office, at that juncture on receipt of hospital intimation from RIMS, Hospital, Kadapa with regard to road accident. The Hospital intimation is marked as Ex.P.11, basing on

Ex.P.11, he further and got registered the case in Cr.No.191/2018 for the offence under Section 337, 338, 304A of IPC and Sec. 134(a) & (b) 187, 184, 196 of M.V.Act and FIR is marked as Ex.P.12, then PW.11 secured PW.1 to PW.4 and got examined them and recorded their statements U/sec. 161 Cr.P.C. therein after on the same PW.11 proceeded to the scene of offence situated at main road, located between Porumamilla to Badvel at Kasanagaram, ST colony of

B.Koduru village, therein observed the scene of offence and duly prepared rough sketch/Ex.P.13. Immediately PW.11 seized the crime

C.C.No.853/2018 5 Addl. JFCM court, Badvel vehicle bearing No.AP09BD8028 at the scene of offence duly and taken to the station. Further on the same day PW.11 proceeded to the government hospital, Porumamilla and observed the dead body of the deceased and therein secured the presence of PW.5 to PW.8 and got examined them and recorded the statements. Further on the same

PW.11 summoned PW.8 to PW.10 to act as panchayathdars so as to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased, on securing their presence conducted inquest over the deceased dead body and duly prepared inquest report/Ex.10. The dead body of the deceased was referred to Post mortem and therein after PW.11 proceeded to the station and addressed requisition to the concerned M.V.I. On 30.11.2018 on receipt of post mortem report the deceased dead body, therein it was opined that the cause of death is due to multiple injuries, the post mortem report is marked as Ex.P.14, on 12.12.2018 M.V.I got inspected the crime vehicle bearing No.AP09BC8028 and issued his report and same is marked as Ex.P.15, on 21.12.2018 on receipt of wound certificates of PW.1 to PW.3 and same is marked as Ex.P.16 to

P.18. Therein after PW.11 handed over investigation his successor

B.Ghana Madduleti, Sub inspector of Police, (LW.18) to taken up further investigation, as accused herein voluntarily surrendered before him on 14.12.2018. After completion of investigation B.Ghana Madduleti, Sub inspector of Police, (LW.18) filed charge sheet before this court against accused.

On perusal of material on record together with testimonies of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution, it connotes that PW.s1 to 8 were turned hostile through Ex.P.1 to P.9 and not supported prosecution case with that the evidence of PW.s.1 to 8 were

C.C.No.853/2018 6 Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel disregarded and discorded in pursuit of hostile witnesses, categorically

PW.9 and PW.10 as panchayathdhars got examined Ex.P.10/ Inquest report is marked, although corroborated prosecution case, this evidence cannot be taken into consideration to determine the point against apart from cause of death of the deceased, to that effect this evidence supported prosecution case, moreover PW.11 who is investigating officer got examined and speak about registered of FIR and investigation and facts pertaining to the said accident corroborated an earlier version of prosecution witnesses through

Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.18 supporting to that accident his confess of his chief examination, whereas during cross examination the learned counsel for defence.

Although PW.11 as official witness and Investigating officer corroborated the case of the Prosecution, but the evidence cannot be taken into consideration to determine the point against the Accused.

However, the procedural lapses that taken place during the course of investigation, does not form basis in order to determine guilt of

Accused. Hence, there is no iota to connect with accused with the series transactions that taken place prior, subsequent during the course of transactions at the scene of offence in order to form crux of the case. However, the material lapses and procedural irregularities that taken during the course of investigation forms basis in order to determine the point against the Accused, herein as the material witnesses turned hostile and there is no incriminating material that found the Accused although on examination u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and moreover the prosecution utterly and miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence that laid

C.C.No.853/2018 7 Addl. JFCM court, Badvel down by the prosecution side even a prudent man can easily be said that the accused never committed the said offence as charged upon beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point is answered against prosecution side.

Therefore, the prosecution neither proved their case nor the defence disproved the same, accordingly, the accused entitled to claim both of them. Hence, the accused is herewith acquitted on the grounds of benefit of doubt and set at liberty forthwith.

15. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 337, 338, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and

Section 134(a)& (b) R/W 187, 184, 196 of Motor Vehicle Act of Indian

Penal Code and he is acquitted under section 255(1) of Criminal

Procedure Code. Accused shall execute personal bond for Rs.10,000/- it shall remain in force for a period of six months as required under section 437 (A) Criminal Procedure Code.

(Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 13th day of April , 2022).

Sd/- S.Srinivasa Kalyan,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sidhout

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1: J.Subbaiah -None- P.W.2: D.Subash

P.W.3: S.Naga Raju

P.W.4: D.Rama Devi

P.W.5: D.Bala Subbaiah

P.W.6: D.Subbaiah

C.C.No.853/2018 8 Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

P.W.7: D.Subbaiah

P.W.8: J.Polaiah

P.W.9: S.Obulesu @ Marku

P.W.10: D.Chinna Nagaiah

P.W.11: G.V.Ramanaiah, Rtd. A.S.I

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1

Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1

Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2

Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3

Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4

Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.5

Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.6.

Ex.P.8: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.7

Ex.P.9: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.8.

Ex.P.10: Inquest Report.

Ex.P.11: Police Intimation

Ex.P.12: FIR in Cr.No.191/2018 of B.Kodur P.S.

Ex.P.13: Rough sketch.

Ex.P.14: Post Mortem Report.

Ex.P.15: M.V.I Report.

Ex.P.16: Wound certificate of PW.1

Ex.P.17: Wound certificate of PW.2

Ex.P.18: Wound certificate of PW.3

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

NIL

C.C.No.853/2018 9 Addl. JFCM court, Badvel

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Sd/S.S.K.,

JFCM, SDT

FAC AJCJ, BDL

//TRUE COPY//