Sri.s.srinivasa Kalyan

1

FORM No.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Guntur Calendar of case tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class :: Macherla.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.50/2019.

Nature of Offence :: U/Ss.353 & 506 I.P.C.

Date of Judgment :: 20-08-2024.

Commence Offence Report of ApprehensioDate of Release Closure Sentence or -ment of on complainantn of accusedremandon bailof trialorder trial 25-10-1625-10-201626-10-2016--19-02-202413-08-2420-08-2024

Explanation for the delay :: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non production of witnesses in time. Hence, the delay.

Complainant :: State : The Inspector of Police, Macherla Urban Police Station.

Name Husband’s of Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal name accused Manjula Mangamma, W/o.Venkateswarlu, Waddera by Caste, R/o.Door No.12-2-397/2, 10th Ward, Macherla Town and Mandal, Guntur District.

PLEA OF ACCUSED:- NOT GUILTY.

FINDING OF THE COURT:- FOUND NOT GUILTY.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 353 & 506 I.P.C., and accordingly, she is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months from today in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- S.Srinivasa Kalyan.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Macherla.

Copy submitted to :- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

2

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: MACHERLA

Present ::Sri S.Srinivasa Kalyan.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class :: Macherla.

Tuesday, this the 20th day of August, 2024.

CALENDAR CASE No.50/2019

Between : State :: The Inspector of Police, Macherla Urban Police Station. … Complainant

And

Manjula Mangamma, W/o.Venkateswarlu, Waddera by Caste, R/o.Door No.12-2-397/2, 10th Ward, Macherla Town and Mandal, Guntur District.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me today for disposal in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant; and of Sri R.Rama Naik, Learned Counsel for the Accused and the matter having heard on 16-08-2024 and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

01.The Inspector of Police, Macherla Urban Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.190/2016 for the offences punishable under sections 353 & 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.” for the sake of brevity) of Macherla Urban Police Station.

02.The brief averments of the case of Prosecution is that:- As per the contents of the Charge Sheet, it connotes that, on 25-10-2016 at about 04.00 p.m., L.W.1 – Sri Dalivala Durga Prasad/defacto – complainant has rushed to Macherla Urban Police Station and lodged a written report before L.W.6 – Sri G.Narayana Reddy/Sub-Inspector of Police, Macherla Urban Police Station, stating that, he has been working as Manager of the State Bank of Hyderabad. On 04-02-2015, one Komera Siva Lakshmi Narayana and his wife Aruna took loan of Rs.8,00,000/-, by mortgaging their house vide D.No.12-2-397/2 situated near Veterinary Hospital at Macherla and also took Housing Loan of Rs.8,50,000/-, dated 25-07-2014 as per the conditions of Bank Authorities; but the said Komera Siva Lakshmi Narayana failed to repay the loan amount within the prescribed time; due to which, on 08-06-2016, the Bank Authorities served SARFAESI Act Notice to the above said persons and according to the said notice, the Bank Authorities took under their symbolic possession after 60 days. In this connection, they forwarded a notice to the said Komera Siva Lakshmi Narayana and also they submitted a representation, addressing to the District Collector for physical possession and the same was received by them on 21-10-2016. In obedience to the orders of the District Collector, on 25-10-2016 at about 11.30 a.m., when the defacto – complainant along with L.W.2 – Sri Bajineni Mallesh/Field Officer of State Bank of Hyderabad at Macherla and L.W.3 – Sri N.Ravi Kumar/Sweeper of State Bank of Hyderabad at Macherla went to the said house, the accused, who is sister of the said Komera Siva Lakshmi Narayana, has caused obstruction while they were discharging their legitimate duties and also threatened them, that she would commit suicide if 3 they possess the house and also abused them in filthy language. Having no option, the defacto – complainant has placed the same before the concerned police to take necessary action in the above matter.

03.Basing on the report of the defacto – complainant, L.W.6 – Sub- Inspector of Police, Macherla Urban Police Station has registered the same as F.I.R. under Crime No.190/2016 for the offences punishable under sections 353 & 506 I.P.C., and the same was sent to the concerned authorities. In turn, he took up investigation and during the course of investigation, he has visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, served section 41-A Cr.P.C., notice on the accused and thereafter, he has handed over the C.D. file to L.W.7 – Sri M.V.Subba Rao/Inspector of Police, Macherla Urban Police Station and in turn, he has verified the investigation done by his subordinate, found it to be on correct lines and after completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 353 & 506 I.P.C. Hence, the charge.

04.On receipt of the Charge Sheet, this case was taken on file for the offences punishable under sections 353 & 506 I.P.C., against the accused.

05.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.” for the sake of brevity).

06.The accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under sections 353 & 506 I.P.C., contents therein were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, she denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined out of 07 cited witnesses in the Charge Sheet and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. The evidence of L.Ws.2, 3, 5 & 7 were given up by the prosecution side.

08.On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material available against her, for which, her plea was total denial and reported no oral evidence.

09.Heard both sides.

10.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.P1 to P3 shows that, the accused committed the offence and the prosecution has established and proved this case beyond all reasonable doubt against her. Therefore, prayed to punish the accused as per law.

11.The defence counsel argued that, Exs.P1 to P3 coupled to that of P.Ws.1 to 3 is of irrelevant as not established their case before the court either on facts or of law and the entire case is depending upon the case proceedings, which is infirmity. Hence, prays to acquit the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt.

4

12.Now, the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the charges framed against her for the offences punishable under sections 353 & 506 I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt?”

13.P O I N T : -To suffice the ingredients on par with evidence laid down on record herein under sections 353 & 506 of I.P.C., the definition of section 353 of I.P.C., laid down as follows :- S.353 I.P.C. - Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty :- “Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” The definition of section 506 of I.P.C., laid down as follows :- S.506 I.P.C. - Punishment for criminal intimidation :- “Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc — and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

14.The prosecution side, in order to substantiate their contention, cited as many as 07 witnesses; among them, got examined three witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3 towards their ocular evidence and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 towards their documentary evidence; in that context on perusal of contents of chief - examination of P.W.1/Sri D.Durga Prasad, it clearly connotes that, on 04-02-2015, one Komera Siva Lakshmi Narayana and his wife by name Aruna took loan an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- by mortgaging the house. On 05-07-2014, the said Siva Lakshmi Narayana and his wife obtained house loan for an amount of Rs.8,50,000/-. The said Siva Lashmi Narayana and his wife failed to discharge the loan amount within time. On 08-06-2016, P.W.1 served sarfaesi notice to the said persons. After 60 days, P.W.1 sent the notice to said persons for symbolic possession. On 21-10-2016, he obtained permission from the Collector for physical possession. On 25-10-2016 at about 11.30 a.m., he along with L.Ws.2, 3 and P.W.2 went to the house of said persons and found the accused. The accused obstructed their legitimate duties and abused him and threatened with dire consequences that, she would commit suicide. On the same day, he went to the Police Station and gave a report, which was marked as Ex.P1, and Police examined him; as to that through the contents of chief – examination, P.W.1 reiterated his earlier version of Ex.P1 and section 161 Cr.P.C., statement in all material particulars marginally; during the course of cross – examination, it was elicited certain material facts against the case of prosecution as to that, no documents were submitted by P.W.1 in order to show about the assistance of P.W.2 and L.W.2 – Sri Bajineni Mallesh/Field Officer of State Bank of Hyderabad at Macherla and L.W.3 – Sri N.Ravi Kumar/Sweeper of State Bank of Hyderabad at Macherla taken by him and also admitted that, he is not acting as Manager either to the said Bank as on the date of house loan or 5 mortgage loan transaction; in accordance to that, surprisingly P.W.1 replied that, he does not know identity particulars of one Komera Siva Lakhsmi Narayana, who is brother of the accused, surprise of and stood as controversial to his earlier version of Ex.P1 and section 161 Cr.P.C., statement; accordingly, P.W.1 not aware of civil disputes pending before the Court in respect of the disputed property, besides that, criminal case of accused herein lodged against P.W.1 herein shown as the accused therein in connection with the alleged scene of offence transaction not aware of P.W.1 herein that uncorroborated by P.W.3 is causing reasonable disbelief upon P.W.1 testimony, leaving several lacunae and it cannot be simply thrown away for want of material piece of corroborative evidence in order to ascertain the facts at the alleged scene of offence at the instance of the accused; in that context, the prosecution side got examined P.W.2/Smt. M.Sasi Rekha (Village Revenue Officer) in order to speak about the facts pertaining to the alleged scene of offence; in that perspective, P.W.2 chief – examination corroborated to that of P.W.1 marginally in all material particulars; accordingly, on the objection of the accused, the attachment of the house is not effected as the concerned officials left that place, there is nothing contra elicited against the accused; apropos P.W.2 coupled to that of P.W.1 for want of series of transactions specifically that taken place in between P.W.1 and the accused at the scene of offence, prior and subsequent stood uncorroborated as per section 6 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 i.e., resgestae means - Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction :- Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places read with section 8 of Indian Evidence Act i.e., Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto; in – lieu of criminal case that lodged by the accused herein against P.W.1 herein, who is the accused therein; thence, accused herein is of probable and plausible and stood irrebuttable on record, as such, although P.W.2 is a direct witness to the scene of offence together with P.W.1 for want of material omission of facts with regard to specific overt acts among P.W.1 and accused herein is of improbable causing reasonable disbelief to rely upon, then, as such their evidence is rebuttable on record, because even though P.W.2 acted as official witness for attachment of house property of the accused through P.W.1 and made her presence at the alleged scene of offence through police rather than P.W.1 is of doubtful in the absence of reasons prevented P.W.1 from disclosing to do so, leaving several lacunae and moreover, in the absence of service of notice of proceedings issued by the then Collector to the brother of accused in the presence of accused, attempted to attach the disputed property of the brother of accused in the absence of reasons preventing P.Ws.1 and 2 to do so, is causing reasonable disbelief leaving several lacunae fetters suppression of facts that are detrimental and fatal to the prosecution case through P.W.1; in accordance to that, on categorical examination of P.W.3/Sri G.Narayana Reddy in the pursuit of Investigating Officer/Official witness through contents of his chief – examination got corroborated the prosecution case coupled with Exs.P2 and P3 i.e., Ex.P2 is Original F.I.R., and Ex.P3 is Rough Sketch of the scene of offence; during the course of cross – examination, it was elicited that, no 6 particulars of cause of action pertaining to the disputed property is admittedly neither secured nor cited herewith in order to ascertain the actual facts of the case; no such authorization letter of P.W.1 in connection with this case is secured; like so, documents pertaining to the disputed property of the accused for want of identity particulars thereof, so also, house property records of K.Siva Lakhsmi Narayana; similarly admitted about the report of the accused herein and aggrieved therein in Crime No.191/2016 against P.W.1 herein and accused therein with allegation of proposal of unauthorized attachment of house property of the accused herein by P.W.1 herein against P.W.1 therein is shown as accused therein, inculcates that, the evidence that laid down against the accused on behalf of prosecution side with ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.P1 to P3 is of inconsistent, incredible, untrustworthy, untenable, unreasonable, irrelevant, discrepant, unreliable, uncorroborative and invariably establishes the prosecution case thenceforth, insufficiently proved to the satisfaction of the Court. Inadvertent to that, on examination of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied this as false case and reported no defence evidence; besides that, incriminating material is neither laid down nor found against her so as to constitute the ingredients of the offences punishable under sections 353 & 506 I.P.C. It is settled proposition of law that, mere case proceedings does not confers any penal liability against the accused unless and until established and proved by material piece of corroborative evidence. Furthermore, as per “Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution provides that “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”. The right guaranteed under Article 20 (3) acts as a “protective umbrella against testimonial compulsion in respect of persons accused of an offence to be witness against themselves.” Thence, as a matter of right the accused reserves their right to remain silent during the proceedings by invoking the provisions contemplated under Article 20 (3) of Indian Constitution i.e., right against self – incrimination. On the basis of the evidence that laid down against the accused on behalf of the prosecution side, the testimony of P.W.1 coupled with P.W.2 is of doubtful, unsupportive, uncorroborative and unhelpful to that of the prosecution case; accordingly, their evidence is hereby disregarded and discarded i.e., P.W.1 in the pursuit of surmise witness and P.W.2 as tutored witness. However, in – lieu of settled proposition of law that, on the sole basis of official witness, conviction cannot be granted against the accused unless and until established the case with material piece of corroborative evidence, as to that P.W.3 forms weak piece of evidence herein nothing to do with the accused. By that, even a prudent man can easily be said that, the accused never committed the alleged offence as charged upon. Therefore, this court is of considered view not to go with the plea of prosecution side either on facts or of law. Thence, there is no iota of evidence to connect the case with the accused in any manner whatsoever. Hence, it can be said with reasonable belief that the prosecution side has utterly and miserably failed to bring home to guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.Therefore, the prosecution side neither proved their case nor the defence disproved the same; accordingly, the accused is entitled to claim the benefit of doubt. Thence, the accused is hereby acquitted on the grounds of benefit of doubt in lieu of section 5 of Indian Evidence Act and set at liberty forthwith. Accordingly, this point is answered not in favour of the prosecution side on merits.

7

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 353 & 506 I.P.C., and accordingly, she is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months from today in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer – Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 20th day of August, 2024.

Sd/- S.Srinivasa Kalyan.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Macherla.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Prosecution :- P.W.1 :- Sri Dalivala Durga Prasad. P.W.2 :- Smt. Malladi Sesi Rekha. P.W.3 :- Sri G.Narayana Reddy/Sub-Inspector of Police, Macherla Urban P.S.

For the Defence : - NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Prosecution :- Ex.P-1 :- Report of P.W.1. Ex.P-2 :- Original F.I.R. Ex.P-3 :- Rough Sketch of the scene of offence.

For the Defence :- - N I L -

Sd/- S.Srinivasa Kalyan.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Macherla.

1

FORM No.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Guntur Calendar of case tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class :: Macherla.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.60/2021.

Nature of Offence :: U/S.304-A I.P.C.

Date of Judgment :: 20-08-2024.

Commence OffenceReport ofApprehensioDate ofReleaseClosureSentence or -ment of on complainantn of accusedremandon bailof trialorder trial 16-06-2017-06-202025-06-2020--04-07-202409-08-2420-08-2024

Explanation for the delay :: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non production of witnesses in time. Hence, the delay.

Complainant :: State : The Sub- Inspector of Police, Nagarjuna Sagar Police Station.

Name Father's ofAge Religion Calling Residence Mandal name accused Ramavath Kamala, S/o.Ranjit, Aged 45 Years, Sugali by Caste, R/o.Ramannagudem Thanda Village, Pedavoora Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana State. (Driver of Auto vide bearing No.TS 05 UC 8133)

PLEA OF ACCUSED:- NOT GUILTY.

FINDING OF THE COURT:- FOUND NOT GUILTY.

SENTENCE OR ORDER :- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A I.P.C. and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months from today in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- S.Srinivasa Kalyan.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Macherla.

Copy submitted to :- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

2

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: MACHERLA

Present ::Sri S.Srinivasa Kalyan.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class :: Macherla.

Tuesday, this the 20th day of August, 2024.

CALENDAR CASE No.60/2021

Between : State :: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagarajuna Sagar Police Station. … Complainant

And

Ramavath Kamala, S/o.Ranjit, Aged 45 Years, Sugali by Caste, R/o.Ramannagudem Thanda Village, Pedavoora Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana State. (Driver of Auto vide bearing No.TS 05 UC 8133)

...Accused

This case is coming up before me today for disposal in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri R.Rama Naik, Learned Counsel for the Accused and the matter having heard on 13-08-2024 and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagarjuna Sagar Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.111/2020 for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.” for the sake of brevity) of Nagarjuna Sagar Police Station.

02.The brief averments of the case of Prosecution is that:- As per the contents of the Charge Sheet, it connotes that, on 17-06-2020 at about 09.00 a.m., L.W.1 – Sri Nagendla Chiranjeevi/defacto – complainant has rushed to Nagarjuna Sagar Police Station and lodged a written report before L.W.15 – Sri Paul Ravinder/Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagarjuna Sagar Police Station, stating that, he is son of the deceased namely Nagendla Yallamanda. In the morning of 16-06-2020, the deceased was proceeding towards Macherla to see L.W.3 – Smt. Kukkamudi Latha, who is his younger daughter, on his cycle and after passing Yogaiah Swamy Temple and when he reached in front of Old Railway Bridge on Macherla – Hyderabad N.H. Road at about 10.00 a.m., at that time the accused being the driver of Auto vide bearing registration No.TS 05UC 8133 drove it at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly went to extreme left side of the road, hit the deceased on his back, got down the road and immediately, came on road, as a result, he fell down on road, sustained bleeding injury to his head and abrasions on his body; L.W.7 – Smt. Uddandi Kumari and L.W.8 – Smt. Ramavath Lalitha Bai, who were traveling in the accused auto, got down the auto, rushed near the deceased, identified him as their Villager; L.W.6 – Sri Boya Mahesh Reddy also rushed to the spot, learnt through L.Ws.7 and 8 about the accident and name of the deceased and they all learnt the name of the driver as the accused herein and on that, L.W.6 informed to 108 ambulance, the ambulance came to the spot, shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Macherla and admitted him in hospital for treatment and while undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 16-06-2020. Thus, the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased 3 and thereafter, the same was placed before the concerned police to take necessary action in the above matter.

03.Basing on the report of defacto – complainant, L.W.15 - Sub- Inspector of Police, Nagarjuna Sagar Police Station has registered the same as F.I.R., under Crime No.111/2020 for the offence punishable under section 304-A I.P.C., and the same was sent to the concerned authorities. In turn, he took up investigation and during the course of investigation, he has examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report & rough sketch of the scene of offence, visited the hospital, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, served section 41-A Cr.P.C., notice on the accused on 25-06-2020, conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and after receipt of M.V.I., Report, Postmortem Examination Report and after completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A I.P.C. Hence, the charge.

04.On receipt of the Charge Sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section 304-A I.P.C. against the accused.

05.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.” for the sake of brevity).

06.The accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under section 304-A I.P.C., contents therein were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined out of 15 cited witnesses in the Charge Sheet and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. The evidence of L.Ws.2, 4, 5, 9, 11 to 14 were given up by the prosecution side.

08.On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material available against him, for which, his plea was total denial and reported no defence evidence.

09.Heard both sides.

10.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 coupled with Exs.P1 to P12 shows that, the accused had committed the offence and the prosecution has established and proved this case beyond all reasonable doubt against him. Therefore, prayed to punish the accused as per law.

11.The defence counsel argued that, Exs.P1 to P12 coupled to that of P.Ws.1 to 7 is of irrelevant as not established their case before the court either on facts or of law and the entire case is depending upon the case proceedings, which is infirmity. Hence, prays to acquit the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt.

4

12.Now, the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the charge framed against him for the offence punishable under section 304-A I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt?”

13.P O I N T : -To Suffice the ingredients on par with evidence laid down on record herein under section 304-A of I.P.C., the definition of section 304-A of I.P.C., laid down as follows :- “Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, i.e., Causing death by negligence”.

14.The prosecution side, in order to substantiate their contention, cited as many as 15 witnesses and got examined P.Ws.1 to 7 towards their ocular evidence and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 towards their documentary evidence; in that context on perusal of contents of chief - examination of P.W.1/Chiranjeevi, it clearly connotes that, the deceased/Nagendla Yallamanda is his father, on 16.06.2020 at about 11:00 a.m., while proceeding from Thallapalle towards Macherla on bicycle to attend coolie works, as soon as he reached the area nearby Vegaiah swamy temple, he met with a road accident, i.e., one bypasser auto dashed him, with that he sustained head injury, nearby shifted him to Government Hospital, Macherla in an ambulance, on phone intimation PW1 came to know about the same and as he rushed hospital, at 4:00 p.m., duty doctors therein declared that the deceased is no more, in accordance to that, PW1 lodged written report under the cover of ExP1/Report of PW1 before police, on the basis of the same, PW7/K.P.Ravindra, on receipt of ExP6/hospital intimation, acted upon and got registered the same as FIR under Crime No. 111/2021 under section 304-A of IPC, on due dispatch of the copy of the same, PW7 got examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and LW2 at the station house, on perusal of the contents of the chief examination of PW1, it clearly connotes that, he reiterated all material particulars of his statement on par with contents of chief examination and ExP1 marginally gone contra to that of his earlier version of section 161(3) CrPC statement and ExP1, in connection with his purpose of visit of Macherla, because as per his report, it discloses that, the deceased proceeded to Macherla in order to see PW1, whereas as per statement it arrays that, to see PW2, itself is causing reasonable disbelief leaving several lacunae. However, PW2 is not an eye witness to the scene of offence in order to elicit the identity particulars of the driver of the crime vehicle specifically, as such PW1 ascertains that the cause of death of the deceased is due to road accident, thence, to determine the point against accused PW1 is nothing to do with unless and until established the prosecution case with material piece of corroborative evidence, on categorical examination of PW2 who corroborated PW1 coupled with cross examination in the pursuit of circumstantial witness nothing to do with the prosecution case unless ascertaining the facts of the case in connection with the occurrence of the alleged road accident in the scene of offence, in that perspective, on categorical examination of PW3 and 4 in the pursuit of eye witnesses who boarded in auto herein cited as crime vehicle, deposed that, their auto met with an accident and they do not know the identity particulars of that auto and driver of the auto, during the course of accident they spotted that the deceased was proceeding on bicycle, PW3 deposed that police examined her after one month of the alleged accident and PW4 deposed that police never examined her, resiled to her earlier version and 5 turned as hositle witness through ExP2/statement of PW4. Thence, on the basis of testimony of PW3 and 4, it is clearly evident that the deceased while proceeding in a bicycle met with road accident dashed by auto as per PW1 and 2 and the identity particulars of the driver of the crime vehicle including crime vehicle are unknown to PW3 and 4, with that their evidence is nothing to do with accused. Further, on examination of PW5/B.Mahesh reddy to speak about the facts pertaining to Inquest report, resiled to his earlier version deposed that he not known anything about this case and never acted as inquest panchyatdar over the dead body of the deceased, thereby declared as hostile witness denied ExP3 i.e., his statement recorded under section 161 (3) CrPC. Further, on examination of PW6/T.Mallaiah to speak about the facts pertaining to scene observation report and inquest panchayatdar over the dead body of the deceased, he deposed that, he is resident of Bairavunipalem Village, Macherla, he known deceased and not known accused and not known anything about this case, police never examined him, further deposed that, one day while he going while he proceedings in front of the police station, police obtained his signatures on written papers and he do not know contents therein in ExP4/signature on Scene observation report and ExP5/signature on Inquest report. Further, on examination of PW7/K.P Ravindra who acted as Investigating officer herein through contents of his chief examination coupled with ExP6/Hospital Intimation, ExP7/FIR, ExP8/Rough sketch of the scene of offence, ExP9/Scene observation report, ExP10/Inquest report, ExP11/Postmportem report of the deceased, issued by LW12/Dr.B.Srinu Naik, opined that, the cause of death of the deceased is due to head injury, ExP12/MVI report of LW13/Bhanu Vekata Ranga rao, opined that observed no mechanical defects over the crime vehicle. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 in the pursuit of circumstantial witness nothing to do with accused, like so, in the pursuit of eye witness PW3 for want of identity particulars of alleged crime vehicle i.e., auto and driver of the auto, so also PW4 in the pursuit of eye witness who resiled to her earlier version through denial of ExP3 transaction, PW5 in the pursuit of circumstantial witness to ExP9 transaction, resiled to his earlier version through denial of ExP4 transaction, PW6 in the pursuit of inquest panchayatdar to ExP10 transaction resiled to his earlier version through ExP5 transaction, altogether stood unsupported and not helpful for the case of prosecution. Besides that, it is settled proposition of law that, on the basis of sole testimony of the official witness conviction cannot be granted unless and until the prosecution case is established with material piece of corrbororative evidence, as such the evidence of PW7 is nothing to do with accused by invoking the provisions contemplated under section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, i.e., Confession to police officer not to be proved: No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence, herein the accused confessed himself as accused herein before police, as rightly contended by learned defence counsel, identity of the accused is not made out before court either under section 9 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further, as a matter of fact, on the basis of the evidence that let in by prosecution side, it was ascertained to the extent of fact and elicited through ocular evidence of PW1 to 7 coupled with ExP1 to 12 documentary evidence that, the cause of death of the deceased is due to road accident, apart from that, despite of examination of accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., incriminating material against the accused is neither laid down nor found against the accused. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cited and examined as circumstantial witnesses stood unsupported and unhelpful for the prosecution case; accordingly, their evidence is disregarded and discarded to the extent of rash/negligent act imparted 6 against accused in the pursuit of hearsay surmise witnesses; like so, P.Ws.3 and 4 cited and examined as eye witnesses in the pursuit of surmise witnesses, so as, P.W.5 examined as circumstantial witness to accident and direct witness to Ex.P9 i.e., scene of offence subsequent to accident in the pursuit of hostile witness through Ex.P4; similarly, P.W.6 examined as Panchayatdar to Ex.P10/Inquest Report in the pursuit of hostile witness through Ex.P5 transaction. Further, the accused reserves his right to remain silent under Article 20(2) of Indian Constitution that is right against self incrimination. Thence, on the basis of the evidence that let in by prosecution side, it clearly evident that, even a prudent man can easily be said that the accused is not committed the alleged crime. Therefore, it can be easily be said that the prosecution side not established their case sufficient to the satisfaction of the court so as to constitute the offence under section 304-A of IPC. Hence, it can be said with no doubt that the prosecution side utterly and miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Thence, there is no iota to connect the case with accused. Accordingly, point is answered not in favor of prosecution side on merits.

15.Therefore, the prosecution side proved their case, nor the defence disproved the same, thence, the accused is entitled to claim his right to acquittal under grounds of benefit of doubt. Therefore, accused is hereby acquitted and set at liberty forthwith.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A I.P.C. and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months from today in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer – Grade.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 20th day of August, 2024.

Sd/- S.Srinivasa Kalyan.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Macherla.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Prosecution :- P.W.1 :- Sri Nagendla Chiranjeevi. P.W.2 :- Smt. Kukkamudi Latha. P.W.3 :- Smt. Uddandi Kumari. P.W.4 :- Smt. Ramavath Lalitha Bai. P.W.5 :- Sri Boya Mahesh Reddy. P.W.6 :- Sri Tambati Mallaiah. P.W.7 :- Sri K.Paul Ravinder/Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagarjuna Sagar P.S.

For the Defence : - NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Prosecution :- Ex.P-1 :- Report of P.W.1. Ex.P-2 :- Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.4. Ex.P-3 :- Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.5. Ex.P-4 :- Signature Portion of P.W.6 on Scene Observation Report. Ex.P-5 :- Signature Portion of P.W.6 on Inquest Report. Ex.P-6 :- Hospital Intimation. Ex.P-7 :- Original F.I.R.

7

Ex.P-8 :- Rough Sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P-9 :- Scene Observation Report. Ex.P-10 :- Inquest Report. Ex.P-11 :- Postmortem Examination Report of the deceased. Ex.P-12 :- Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report.

For the Defence :- - N I L -

Sd/- S.Srinivasa Kalyan.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Macherla.

1

FORM No.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Guntur Calendar of case tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class :: Macherla. Judgment in Calendar Case No.63/2024.

Nature of Offence :: U/S.7-A r/w.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

Date of Judgment :: 22-08-2024.

OffenceReport ofApprehensionDate ofReleaseCommence-Closure ofSentence or on complainantof accusedremandon bailment of trialtrialorder 09-10-2309-10-202309-10-202309-10-2311-10-2301-08-202409-08-2422-08-2024

Explanation for the delay :: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non production of witnesses in time. Hence, the delay.

Complainant :: State : The Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Macherla.

Husban Name of Age d’s Religion Calling Residence Mandal accused name Komera Ramana, W/o.Madhu, Aged 39 Years, Waddera by Caste, R/o.Door No.6- 103/1, Waddera Bazaar, Macherla Town and Mandal, Palnadu District.

PLEA OF ACCUSED:- NOT GUILTY.

FINDING OF THE COURT :- FOUND NOT GUILTY.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and accordingly, she is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall be remained in force for a period of six months from today as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property vide M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- S.Srinivasa Kalyan.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Macherla.

Copy submitted to :- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

2

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: MACHERLA

Present ::Sri S.Srinivasa Kalyan.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class :: Macherla.

Thursday, this the 22nd day of August, 2024.

CALENDAR CASE No. 63 /2024

Between : State :: The Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Macherla. … Complainant

And

Komera Ramana, W/o.Madhu, Aged 39 Years, Waddera by Caste, R/o.Door No.6-103/1, Waddera Bazaar, Macherla Town and Mandal, Palnadu District.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me today for disposal in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri R.Rama Naik, Learned Counsel for the Accused and the matter having heard on 12-08-2024 and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

01.The Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Macherla has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.38/2023 for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

02.The conspectus of the case of prosecution is that :- As per the contents of the Charge Sheet, it connotes that, on 09-10-2023 at about 06.15 a.m., on receipt of credible source of information, L.W.4 – Sri G.V.Prasad Reddy/S.E.B., Inspector, Macherla and his staff i.e., L.W.3 – Sri N.Naveen/S.E.B., Head Constable, Macherla along with mediators i.e., L.W.1 – Sri K.Rajesh/Volunteer of Macherla and L.W.2 – Sri M.Venu/Volunteer of Macherla have rushed to Veterinary Hospital situated at Macherla Town and Mandal and therein, while they were conducting vehicle checking duty, they found the accused, who stood there, by keeping white colour can in front of her; on seeing the Excise Officials in uniform, the accused tried to skulk away from the spot; immediately, L.W.4 – S.E.B., Inspector, Macherla surrounded her with the assistance of his staff and took the accused into custody; when questioned, the accused confessed this offence that, she was in possession of ID arrack; on verifying, found 10 liters capacity can and containing same quantity of ID arrack; L.W.4 – S.E.B., Inspector, Macherla seized total ID arrack in the presence of mediators before being taking one sample for sending analysis; he took the accused into custody and seized remaining ID arrack under the cover of mediatorsnama duly attested by the mediators. The mediatornama was commenced from 06.15 a.m., and concluded at 07.15 a.m. Based on the mediatornama, L.W.4 – S.E.B., Inspector, Macherla has registered the same as a Case in Crime No.38/2023 for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 on 09-10-2023; sent the accused to Judicial Custody; during further course of investigation, L.W.4 sent the sample to the Regional Prohibition Excise Laboratory, Guntur for 3 analysis and obtained the Analysis Report and opinion of Analysis Report is that, the sample in R.C.No.3784/2023 and Sl.Nos.13209 that, it is Illicit Distilled Liquor, unfit for Human consumption and injurious to Public Health and in extreme cases, may leads to death. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Guntur was addressed letter for issuing confiscation orders with regard to remaining case property. After completion of further investigation, he has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Hence, the charge.

03.On receipt of the Charge Sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence under section 7-A r/w.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused.

04.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.” for the sake of brevity).

05.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., contents therein was read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which, she denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined out of four cited witnesses in the Charge Sheet and Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 were marked. The evidence of L.Ws.2 & 3 were given up by the prosecution side.

07.On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material available against her, for which, her plea was total denial and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard both sides.

09.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 shows that, the accused had committed the offence and the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against her. Therefore, prayed to punish the accused as per law.

10.The defence counsel argued that, no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution; the prosecution never established that, the contraband was seized from the custody of the accused on the said date of offence; the entire case is depending upon the mediator report, which is infirmity. Hence, prays to acquit the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt.

11.Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the charge framed against her for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

12.P O I N T :-The prosecution, in order to substantiate their contention, has cited as many as four witnesses and got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 towards their ocular evidence and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 4 towards their documentary evidence; in that context, P.W.1 deposed that, on 09-10-2023 at about 06.00 a.m., as police summoned him to act as mediator in Excise Offence, he made his presence at Waddera Bazaar of Macherla Town; therein, found one female person in selling away Illicit Liquor; with that, police caught hold of her, seized the contraband by the police and obtained his signature therein under the cover of mediatorsnama and proceeded to the station with that Ex.P1 and Ex.P1 is Mediatorsnama. Further, in that context, on perusal of contents of the chief – examination of P.W.2 reiterated all the contents of Mediators Report, as to that, on 09-10- 2023 at about 06.15 a.m., on receipt of credible source of information about ID arrack offence during the course of Special Raid, himself along with P.W.1, L.W.2 & L.W.3 have proceeded to the scene of offence i.e., nearby Veterinary Hospital sitauted at Macherla Town; therein, spotted one unknown female person along with Plastic Can; on suspicion, along with his crew managed to caught hold of her; on interrogation, it came to know about her identity particulars as the accused herein, used to sell away illicit ID arrack to public; on checking, found contraband i.e., 10 liters of ID arrack out of 10 liters capacity can and the same was seized in the presence of mediators and among them, lifted out samples i.e., 180 ml of ID arrack with that M.O.1. M.O.1 is item covered under C.P.R.No.27/2024, so as to refer to FSL, altogether covered under Ex.P1. Further, on the basis of Ex.P1, got registered the same as F.I.R., under Crime No.38/2023 for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act with that Ex.P2. Ex.P2 is Original F.I.R. On due dispatch of Ex.P2, the accused was forwarded to Judicial Custody through Court. Further on receipt Chemical Analysis Report, dated 28-12-2023 in vide R.C.No.3784/2023; therein opined that, Indian Liquor with that Ex.P3. Ex.P3 is Chemical Analysis Report. Further, on addressed a requisition for destruction of contraband letter was addressed to Deputy commissioner of Excise, Guntur. On conclusion of investigation, filed a Charge Sheet before this Court.

13.Further, it clearly connotes that, there is no such local Panch witness to mediatornama transaction, so as to repose confidence upon P.W.2 evidence; whereas P.W.2 forms a weak piece of evidence in the absence of rough sketch of scene of offence to rely upon either on facts or of law in pursuant to mediator/P.W.1 and investigation officer too as rightly contended by the learned defence counsel by invoking the provisions under section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872; wherein, it is incorporated that; “no confession of the accused before the Police Officer shall be proved”.

14.Further, during the course of cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, the learned counsel for defence made sincere efforts in order to rebut or disprove the case of prosecution; surprisingly it was elicited certain material facts contrary to the case of prosecution, such as absence of acknowledgment of driver accompanied to the scene of offence along with P.Ws.1 and 2 over mediators report; so also absence of rough sketch of the scene of offence and non-compliance of section 100 of Cr.P.C., in respect of said contraband; admittedly as no issuance of authorized summons taken place in this case; designation of crew of investigation not specifically mentioned and absence of their duty cards thereof; scene of offence is neither photographed nor video-graphed; absence of independent eye witnesses and denied that, this case was foisted against the accused on account of political rivalry at the Village in – lieu of table investigation deposing false on case proceedings.

5

15.In the light of the above, on conspectus view, on concretion of the ocular evidence coupled to that of the documentary evidence and the material laid down on record, it is clearly evident that, the prosecution witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the prosecution, through contents of chief – examination of P.Ws.1 & 2, established their case against the accused; whereas during the course of cross-examination, it was elicited nothing contra against the accused such as absence of local mediators at the time of alleged seizure of contraband, issuance of authorized summons in respect of mediators in connection with the scene of offence and such other independent material piece of corroborative evidence, because during the course of cross – examination of P.W.1, it was elicited that, he cannot say particulars of scene of offence specifically in the absence of assent obtained by police causing suspicion leaving several lacunae and it cannot be simply thrown away, as such, his testimony cannot be relied upon under the guise of undue influence of police party, thence, for want of material piece of corroborative evidence, showing that the contraband was seized from the possession of the accused as per his contention is much doubtful in – lieu of inconsistency. However, the procedural lapses that were taken place during the course of investigation does not form basis in order to determine the guilt of accused; whereas procedural lapses and intentional latches causing prejudice to either parties to the proceedings do so herein in view of provisions contemplated under section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that “no confession of accused made before the Police Officer shall be proved”, as mediators report itself explicit that the confessional statement of accused is of surmise, moreover the provisions contemplated under section 100 (4) of the code is not followed at the time of seizure of the contraband at the scene of offence in the absence of mediators of nearby locality, leaving behind P.W.1, both of these irregularities are relevant causing reasonable suspicion leaving lacunae and it cannot be simply thrown away as the same is stood as fatal upon the part of prosecution case, although the contents of the chief – examination of material eye witnesses, who were official witnesses, established the case of prosecution on Mediators Report against the accused in the absence of corroborative material piece of evidence attains no evidentiary value until and unless it is proved before the court beyond all reasonable doubt.

16.Further, this Court relied on a decision in Gajemkar Narayana Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2005 (3) ALT (Crl.) Page – 1; in which it was observed that “seizure of contraband was held to be illegal when the provision of section 100 (4) Cr.P.C., not complied.” Thus, seizure of alleged contraband in this case also attires no sanctity in the eye of law. Further, P.W.2 stated that they seized the contraband i.e., case property herein in due course of law; whereas the learned defence counsel rightly pointed out that the procedure that followed by P.W.2 at the time of seizure of M.O.1 is neither tenable on facts nor of law that amounts to material procedural irregularity on the part of P.W.2 herein Investigating Officer, which is considered as fatal case of prosecution. This circumstance would also created the alleged raid that said to be conducted by police was much doubtful.

17.Thence, the evidence that laid down on behalf of the prosecution side, so as to cause reasonable belief that, the alleged samples of liquor inclusively other contraband pertaining to mediators report transaction is of doubtful to rely upon either on facts or of law; besides that, the accused reserves her right against her self-incrimination, so also to remain silent by invoking the provisions contemplated under Article 20 (3) of Indian Constitution.

6 “Article 20 (3) of the Constitution provides that “No person

accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against

himself”. The right guaranteed under Article 20 (3) acts as a “protective umbrella against testimonial compulsion in respect of persons accused of an offence to be witness against themselves.”

18.Further, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with P.W.2 is uncorroborated and not helpful to the case of prosecution and the evidence of P.W.1 is not helpful to this case for want of identity particulars of Ex.P1 transaction specifically; accordingly, P.W.2 evidence is disregarded and discarded in the pursuit of surmise witnesses. Similarly, P.W.1 in the pursuit of stock witness as rightly contended by learned defence counsel. Further on examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., incriminating material is neither found nor laid down against the accused. By that, even a prudent man can easily be said that, the accused never involved in the alleged crime. Therefore, it can be said with reasonable belief that, the prosecution has not established their case sufficient to the satisfaction of this court beyond all reasonable doubt.

19.Therefore, the prosecution neither proved their case nor the defence disproved the same; accordingly, the accused is entitled to claim benefit of doubt; thence, the accused is hereby acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt and set at liberty forthwith. Accordingly, this point is answered not in favour of the prosecution side on merits.

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7-A r/w.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and accordingly, she is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall be remained in force for a period of six months from today as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property vide M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Typed to my dictation by Grade-III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of August, 2024.

Sd/- S.Srinivasa Kalyan.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Macherla.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Prosecution :- P.W.1 :- Sri K.Rajesh/Volunteer, Macherla. P.W.2 :- Sri G.V.Prasad Reddy/S.E.B., Inspector, Macherla.

For the Defence : - - N O N E -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Prosecution :- Ex.P-1 :- Mediators Report. Ex.P-2 :- Original F.I.R. Ex.P-3 :- Analysis Report.

For the Defence : - - N I L - 7

MATERIAL OBJECT

M.O.1 :- Sample of ID arrack.

Sd/- S.Srinivasa Kalyan.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Macherla.

1

FORM No.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Guntur Calendar of case tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class :: Macherla.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.107/2018.

Nature of Offence :: U/Ss.337 & 304-A I.P.C.

Date of Judgment :: 20-08-2024.

Commence OffenceReport ofApprehensionDate ofReleaseClosureSentence or -ment of on complainantof accusedremandon bailof trialorder trial 15-10-1715-10-201705-11-2027--18-12-202312-08-2420-08-2024

Explanation for the delay :: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non production of witnesses in time. Hence, the delay.

Complainant :: State : The Inspector of Police, Macherla Urban Police Station.

Name Father's ofAge Religion Calling Residence Mandal name accused Penupati Yesobu, S/o.Gynana Ratnam, Aged 26 Years, Madiga by Caste, R/o.Rayavaram Village, Macherla Mandal, Guntur District. (Driver of Auto vide bearing No.AP 24T 9372)

PLEA OF ACCUSED:- NOT GUILTY.

FINDING OF THE COURT:- FOUND NOT GUILTY.

SENTENCE OR ORDER :- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 337 & 304-A I.P.C., and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months from today in view of section 437- A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- S.Srinivasa Kalyan.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Macherla.

Copy submitted to :- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

2

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: MACHERLA

Present ::Sri S.Srinivasa Kalyan.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class :: Macherla.

Tuesday, this the 20th day of August, 2024.

CALENDAR CASE No.107/2018

Between : State :: The Inspector of Police, Macherla Urban Police Station. … Complainant

And

Penupati Yesobu, S/o.Gynana Ratnam, Aged 26 Years, Madiga by Caste, R/o.Rayavaram Village, Macherla Mandal, Guntur District. (Driver of Auto vide bearing No.AP 24T 9372)

...Accused

This case is coming up before me today for disposal in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri G.Sreenivasa Rao, Learned Counsel for the Accused and the matter having heard on 19-08-2024 and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

01.The Inspector of Police, Macherla Urban Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.319/2017 for the offences punishable under sections 304-A & 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.” for the sake of brevity) of Macherla Urban Police Station.

02.The brief averments of the case of Prosecution is that:- As per the contents of the Charge Sheet, it connotes that, on 15-10-2017, on receipt of hospital intimation from the Government Hospital, Macherla, L.W.12 – Sri G.Narayana Reddy/Sub-Inspector of Police, Macherla Urban Police Station rushed to hospital; examined L.W.1 – Sri Karnati Lakshmi Narayana/defacto – complainant and recorded his statement, stating that, the deceased was resident of 29th Ward of Macherla Town and lived, by running Dall Mill Business. On 15-10-2017 at about 05.10 p.m., while the deceased and the defacto – complainant were proceeding towards their Dal mill on Two Wheeler vide bearing No.AP 07CW 7175 and L.W.5 - Sri Kande Satyanarayana and L.W.6 – Sri Karnate Bala Pulla Rao were also proceeding on the same way on their Two Wheeler vide bearing No.AP 07BM 4971 and on the way when they reached Maha Lakshmi Milk Dairy, Macherla, the accused being the driver of Auto vide bearing No.AP 24T 9372 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and without blowing horn, hit the defacto – complainant’s motorcycle from back side, as a result, the deceased, who was pillion rider, and the defacto – complainant fell down on road and the deceased received head injury and the defacto – complainant received injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to the Government Hospital, Macherla for treatment and after examination, the Doctors declared that, the deceased was brought to dead and the same was informed to his relatives. On enquiry, the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased and thereafter, the same was placed before the concerned police to take necessary action in the above matter.

3

03.Basing on the statement of defacto – complainant, L.W.12 – Sub- Inspector of Police, Macherla Urban Police Station has registered the same as F.I.R., under Crime No.319/2017 for the offences punishable under sections 304-A & 337 I.P.C., and the same was sent to the concerned authorities. In turn, he took up investigation and during the course of investigation, he has examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report & rough sketch of the scene of offence, visited the hospital, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, served section 41-A Cr.P.C., notice on the accused on 05-11-2017 and thereafter, he has handed over the C.D., file to L.W.13 – Sri S.Samba Siva Rao/Inspector of Police, Macherla Urban Police Station and in turn, he has verified the investigation done by his subordinate and found it to be on correct lines and later, after receipt of M.V.I., Report, Postmortem Examination Report and after completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 304-A & 337 I.P.C. Hence, the charge.

04.On receipt of the Charge Sheet, this case was taken on file for the offences punishable under sections 304-A & 337 I.P.C. against the accused.

05.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.” for the sake of brevity).

06.The accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under sections 337 & 304-A I.P.C., contents therein were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined out of 13 cited witnesses in the Charge Sheet and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. The evidence of L.Ws.4 to 8, 11 & 13 were given up by the prosecution side.

08.On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material available against him, for which, his plea was total denial and reported no oral evidence, but got marked Ex.D1.

09.Heard both sides.

10.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 coupled with Exs.P1 to P10 shows that, the accused had committed the offence and the prosecution has established and proved this case beyond all reasonable doubt against him. Therefore, prayed to punish the accused as per law.

11.The defence counsel argued that, Exs.P1 to P10 coupled to that of P.Ws.1 to 6 is of irrelevant as not established their case before the court either on facts or of law and the entire case is depending upon the case proceedings, which is infirmity. Hence, prays to acquit the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt.

4

12.Now, the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the charge framed against him for the offence punishable under sections 337 & 304-A I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt?”

13.P O I N T : -To suffice the ingredients on par with evidence laid down on record herein under sections 337 & 304-A of I.P.C., the definition of section 337 of I.P.C., laid down as follows :-

337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others :- “Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.” “304-A. Causing death by negligence :- Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

14.The prosecution side, in order to substantiate their contention, cited as many as 13 witnesses and got examined P.Ws.1 to 6 towards their ocular evidence and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 towards their documentary evidence; in that context on perusal of contents of chief - examination of P.W.1 – Sri Karnati Lakshmi Narayana, it clearly connotes that, on 15-10- 2017 at about 05.30 p.m., while P.W.1 was proceeding with the deceased on Two Wheeler vide bearing No.AP 07CW 7175 towards Dal Mill from Macherla, as soon as they reached the area nearby Maha Lakshmi Milk Dairy; at that juncture, one Auto vide bearing No.AP 24T 9372 proceeding from their behind, dashed their Two Wheeler, it resulted into severe head injury and death of the deceased on the road, who died on the spot, leaving behind P.W.1 with simple injuries; shifted them to the Government Hospital, Macherla for treatment in an Auto by nearby; therein, Doctor examined the deceased and informed that, the deceased was no more. Further, P.W.1 lodged report/Ex.P1 on the same day as the accident was caused to negligence of the accused and later, he was examined by the police.

15.Further, during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, the learned defence counsel made sincere efforts in order to rebut or disprove the case of prosecution; in that context, it was elicited certain material facts against the case of prosecution, as to that, P.W.1 not spotted the identity particulars of the alleged auto and the driver thereof at the time of said occurrence of the accident at the scene of offence; at the time of accident, nearly 15 to 20 persons gathered therein at the scene of offence.

16.Further on close perusal of testimony of P.W.1, during the course of cross – examination, it was elicited that, he was not spotted the crime vehicle and the driver of the crime vehicle at the alleged scene of offence is said to be fatal upon the case of prosecution as rightly contended by the learned defence counsel; accordingly, although on marginal corroboration of P.W.1 in all material particulars of his earlier version the case against the accused is not established with for want of material piece of corroborative evidence as his evidence is causing reasonable disbelief with no doubt leaving several lacuna on the part of P.W.1; in accordance to that, P.Ws.2 and 3 i.e., P.W.2/Smt. Aake Lakshmamma & P.W.3/Sri Aake Viswanadham, who were blood relatives of the deceased, were examined as circumstantial witnesses, who ably ascertained the cause of death of the deceased is due to 5 road accident; although they were deposed against the accused as he is responsible for cause of death of the deceased, P.W.3 uncorroborated to his earlier version of his statement in certain relevant portion through Ex.D1, as such, their evidence is causing reasonable disbelief leaving several lacuna without knowing the facts of the case in – lieu of hearsay evidence; accordingly, for want of material piece of corroborative evidence in order to determine the guilt of the accused; the prosecution side produced P.W.4 – Sri Gobburi Sambaiah, who acted as mediator, for inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased in – lieu of Ex.P2 resiled to his earlier version and turned hostile; at request of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, he was declared as hostile witness and his evidence is nothing to do with the accused. At this stage, P.W.5 - Smt. Dr.N.Sireesha and P.W.6 – Sri G.Narayana Reddy/Sub-Inspector of Police, Macherla Urban Police Station were got examined by prosecution side towards official witnesses; in that context, P.W.5, who conducted examination of P.W.1 injuries, corroborated through Ex.P4 opined that, the injuries are simple in nature. Besides that, P.W.6 corroborated the prosecution case through Exs.P5 to P10 i.e., Ex.P5 is Hospital Intimation, Ex.P6 is Original F.I.R., Ex.P7 is Rough Sketch of the scene of offence, Ex.P8 is Scene Observation Report, Ex.P9 is Inquest Report and Ex.P10 is M.V.I., Report. During the course of cross – examination of P.W.6, it was elicited that, the persons shown in Exs.P7 and P8 were neither examined nor cited as witnesses herein is regarded as fatal upon the case of prosecution as rightly contended by the learned defence counsel for want of ascertaining the facts at the alleged scene of offence. However, in – lieu of settled proposition of law that, on the sole basis of testimony of official witness, conviction cannot be granted against the accused unless and until the case is established with material piece of corroborative evidence. At this stage, on concretion of evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 6 on examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied this as false case and reported no defence evidence; besides that, incriminating material is neither laid down nor found against him so as to constitute the ingredients of the offences punishable under sections 337, 304-A I.P.C., is ably, reasonable, tenable, credible, reliable, trustworthy, consistent, relevant, cogent, established insufficient to the satisfaction of the court.

17.It is settled proposition of law that, mere case proceedings does not confers any penal liability against the accused unless and until established and proved by material piece of corroborative evidence. Furthermore, as per “Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution provides that “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”. The right guaranteed under Article 20 (3) acts as a “protective umbrella against testimonial compulsion in respect of persons accused of an offence to be witness against themselves.” Thence, as a matter of right the accused reserves his right to remain silent during the proceedings by invoking the provisions contemplated under Article 20 (3) of Indian Constitution i.e., right against self – incrimination. Further, the identity particulars of accused as driver of the crime vehicle at the alleged scene of offence is neither made out under section 9 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 nor otherwise before court including his rash or negligent act, resulting into accident and cause of injuries of P.W.1 and death of deceased. By that, even a prudent man can easily said that, the accused never committed the alleged offence as charged upon. Therefore, this court is of considered view not to go with the plea of prosecution side either on facts or of law. Thence, there is no iota of evidence to connect the case with 6 the accused in any manner whatsoever. Hence, it can be said with reasonable belief that the prosecution side has utterly and miserably failed to bring home to guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

18.Therefore, the prosecution side neither proved their case nor the defence disproved the same; accordingly, the accused is entitled to claim the benefit of doubt. Thence, the accused is hereby acquitted on the grounds of benefit of doubt in lieu of section 5 of Indian Evidence Act and set at liberty forthwith. Accordingly, this point is answered not in favour of the prosecution side on merits.

19.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 337 & 304-A I.P.C., and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months from today in view of section 437- A of Cr.P.C.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer – Grade.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 20th day of August, 2024.

Sd/- S.Srinivasa Kalyan.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Macherla.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Prosecution :- P.W.1 :- Sri Karnati Lakshmi Narayana. P.W.2 :- Smt. Aake Lakshmamma. P.W.3 :- Sri Aake Viswanadham. P.W.4 :- Sri Gobburi Sambaiah. P.W.5 :- Smt. Dr. N.Sireesha. P.W.6 :- Sri G.Narayana Reddy/Sub-Inspector of Police, Macherla Urban P.S.

For the Defence : - NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Prosecution :- Ex.P-1 :- Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P-2 :- Signature portion of P.W.4 on Inquest Report. Ex.P-3 :- Postmortem Examination Report of the deceased. Ex.P-4 :- Wound Certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P-5 :- Hospital Intimation. Ex.P-6 :- Original F.I.R. Ex.P-7 :- Rough Sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P-8 :- Scene Observation Report. Ex.P-9 :- Inquest Report. Ex.P-10 :- M.V.I. Report.

For the Defence :- Ex.D-1 :- Some portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3.

Sd/- S.Srinivasa Kalyan.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Macherla.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):: MACHERLA

PRESENT: S.SRININVASA KALYAN

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Macherla

Friday, this the 24th day of April, 2026

E.P.No.76/2025 in O.S.No.321/2021

BETWEEN:-

Shaik Saidabi, W/o.Hasan Ahammad, Muslim, 42 yrs, R/o.Door No.12-2-531, 11th ward, Macherla (T & M), Palnadu (Dt), Macherla JCJC. … Plaintiff/DHR

And

Shaik Noorjahan, W/o.Jani Basha @ Bandala Bazaar Jani, Muslim, 44 yrs, Business, R/o.Railway Station Road, 15th Ward, Opp: Chilli Powder Mill, Macherla (T & M), Palnadu (Dt), Macherla JCJC.

... Defendant/JDR

This petition is coming up for final hearing before me on 09-04-2026 in the presence of Sri J.Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the plaintiff/Decree Holder and of

Sri R.Srinivasa Rao/K.Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsels for Defendant/JDR, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

O R D E R

1.The Petitioner/DHR is constrained to prefer this petition for grant of relief of attachment and sale of notice schedule property of the JDR, in terms of the money decree of DHR in OS321/2021 dated 05-05-2025 for recovery of the suit claim amount on the file of this Court therein and EP warrant amount herein that fell due by the JDR under Order

XXI Rule 54, 66, 64 of CPC, in the interest of justice.

2.As seen from contents of the petition accompanying affidavit, it connotes that, the

Hon'ble Court passed decree on 05-05-2025 against the JDR. She personally and through

mediators asked about the decree amount so many times after passing the decree. But the JDR has no intention to pay the decretal due amount. She had no intention to defame her except to collect her debt amount. Hence, an amount of Rs.6,70,842/- is due from the 2

JDR. The JDR is trying to alienate or transfer the schedule property to another. Hence, this

EP.

3. At the inception of the Execution Petition, this Court issued Rule 54(1-A) notice to the JDR only in respect of the attached property. On receipt of notice, the JDR engaged counsel and she filed detailed counter stating that the EP schedule property which is attached is not the self acquired property of the JDR and it is not registered in S.R.O,

Macherla as the said property allotted by the Government to the JDR and on 29-09-2004, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Macherla has issued vacant site possession declaration certificate in favour of the JDR for an extent of 69 sq.meters and later, she raised an iron sheet roofed house in the said site under A.P.S.H.C.L Scheme by obtaining loan from the

Government by submitting the Original Certificate issued by M.R.O to the Macherla

Municipality. Till today, the housing loan did not cleared by the JDR to the Macherla

Municipality. Moreover, as per the conditions mentioned in the Certificate No.143/2004, issued by the M.R.O, Macherla, no other transactions are permitted to any persons in respect of EP schedule property and hence, the attachment has to be raised. Infact, the

JDR is not having any financial capacity to pay the EP warrant amount and she is depending upon her children. She is suffering from ill health. The DHR shown the market value of EP schedule property as Rs.4,00,000/-, but the market value of EP schedule house is only Rs.2,00,000/- and hence, the EP is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the

JDR prays the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the EP with costs in the interest of justice.

4.No oral and documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

5.Heard both parties. Perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the Execution Petition can be allowed at the stage of Order 21 Rule 66

CPC ?

7.POINT:-

As seen from contents of the petition accompanying affidavit, it connotes that, in- lieu of execution proceedings, the stage of the case is pending for issuance of

Rule 66 CPC notice, in accordance to that, Rule 54(1-A) notice against the JDR is served 3 on 22-07-2025 and attachment warrant executed as on 22-07-2025 on one and the same date and the market valuation was ascertained by the Bailiff. As seen from contents of the

Court along with appended recitals cited herewith, it connotes there is no dispute that the schedule property belongs to JDR, provided that, it is the contention of the JDR that the schedule land was an assigned land which is under dwelling purpose of JDR, till date since from the date of attachment of the Court, which is a disputed fact as per contention of the DHR invariably and obviously before Court. Furthermore, admittedly, the JDR till date neither filed steps petition nor such objection to set aside the attachment effected as on 22-07-2025 likely either to corroborate her contention under the cover of pleadings for want of reasons that prevented from doing so, leaves several lacunae upon the part of the

JDR undoubtedly. However, on the basis of the contention of either parties to the proceedings herein with the material that placed on record is roving upon the part of the either parties to the proceedings, and ought to be obligatory to determine the claim of the

DHR that penultimates upon both parties to discharge their burden of proof respectively until the sale proclamation adjudges by the Court or at any stage irrespective of the same with the leave of the Court. By that the DHR version sustains vis-a-vis JDR side or vice- versa probably. Therefore, this Court is of considered view to go with the plea of the DHR as tenable either on facts or of law that sufficiently satisfied with to the extent of the relief sought for. Accordingly, point is answered in favor of the DHR side.

8.In the result, the petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, hereby directed the Office to issue fresh notice against the JDR under Rule 66 of CPC, to settle the terms of the "proclamation of sale" for the JDR's property. Hence, call on 25-06-2026.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of April, 2026.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (J.D),

MACHERLA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

(No oral or documentary evidence adduced by both parties)

PCJ (J.D), MCL