Smt S. Sujatha, B.A., B.L.,

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

Calendar Case No.113 of 2011

Complainant:STATE : The Sub Inspector of Police, Tadivaripalli Police station

Description of the AccusedAkula Suresh Kumar, S/o.Lakshmaiah, 33 years, Telaga by caste, Pedda Mosque centre, Markapur. Driver of Sumo AP.27 V 1849.

Offence :under Sec.304-A of IPC, Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 MV Act

Plea of Accused :Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC,

Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 MV Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled forthwith. Accused is directed to execute self bond U/s.437-A

Cr.P.C. to appear before the appellate court within six months to answer the appeal if any. The unmarked property in CPR.57/11 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Date of

Offence:28.4.2011 Complaint:28.4.2011 Apprehension of Accused:05/03/11 Released on bail:05/03/11 Commencement of trial:27.8.2012 Closure of trial:18.3.2014 Judgment:24.3.2014

2

Explanation for the delay:

The Sub Inspector of Police, Tadivaripalli Police station filed chargesheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.304-A of IPC, Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187

MV Act. On 16.8.2011 this case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Sec.304-A of IPC, Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 MV Act. On 7.9.2011, the copies of documents are furnished to the accused. On 9.2.2012 Accused examined under

Sec.251 Cr.P.C., and the accusation under Sec.304-A of IPC, Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187

MV Act read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution PW1 to PW10 examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P5 are marked. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating material found against him, he denied the same and reported no defense evidence. On 24.3.2014 heard arguments on both sides. On the same day Judgment pronounced vide separate judgment. Hence the delay.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Podili

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist & Sess. Judge, Ongole.

Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Ongole

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

3

Present: Smt. S. SUJATHA, B.A., B.L., Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Podili

Monday, this the 24 th day of March, 2014

Calendar Case No.113 of 2011

BetweenSTATE : Sub Inspector of Police, Tadivaripalli Police Station …Complainant

and

Akula Suresh Kumar, S/o.Lakshmaiah, 33 years, Telaga by caste, Pedda Mosque centre, Markapur.… Accused Driver of Sumo AP.27 V 1849.

1.Annapureddy Venkata Subbareddy, S/o.Subbaiah, 46 years, Reddy by caste, cultivation, Kondareddypalli village, Tarlupadu Mandal. … Deceased

2.Annapuredy Thirupathireddy, S/o.Venkata Swamy, 54 years, Reddy by caste, cultivation, Kondareddypalli village, Tarlupadu Mandal

This case was coming before me for disposal in the presence of the

Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri V.Nagaraju, advocate for accused ; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:- // J U D G M E N T //

01. The Sub Inspector of Police, Tadivaripalli Police Station filed chargesheet against the accused in Cr.No.15/11 of Tadivaripalli Police Station alleging that on 28.4.2011 at about 3.00 p.m. D1 Venkata Subbareddy along with pillion rider D2

A.Thirupathireddy left Obayapalli village towards Kondareddypalli on motor cycle AP 27

S 4008 with Tobacco kata, when they reached near the Water Tank, the accused driver of Sumo No.AP 27 V 1849 who coming in opposite direction, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with hectic speed and dashed against the motor cycle and caused death of D1 on the spot and D2 received injuries on his person, later

4

succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment at Government Hospital,

Markapur.

02. Basing on the statement of D2 A.Thirupathireddy, LW22 K.Venkateswarlu registered the same as a case in Cr.No.15/11 under Sec.304-A of IPC, Sec.134 (a) &

(b) r/w 187 MV Act and submitted the copies of FIR to concerned officers. During the course of investigation LW22 K.Venkateswarlu visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, seized the broken glass pieces and black plastic pieces under the cover of observation report. On 3.5.2011 LW22 K.Venkateswarlu arrested the accused and sent him for judicial custody.

After receipt of Post Mortem certificates and Motor Vehicle Inspector report and after completion of investigation LW22 K.Venkateswarlu filed chargesheet against the accused under Sec.304-A of IPC, Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 MV Act.

03. This case was taken on file against the Accused for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC, Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 MV Act. Copies of documents are furnished to him on his appearance before the Hon’ble Court as contemplated under

Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused is examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C., and accusation under Sec.304-A of IPC, Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 MV Act is read over and explained to him in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed tobe tried.

04. During the Course of trial, the Prosecution has examined PWs1 to 10 and

Exs.P1 to P5 are marked. The prosecution has given up the evidence of Lws.5, 8, 10 and 13 and not examined Lws11, 14, 16, 18, 19 and 22. After closure of Prosecution evidence the accused examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material found against him and reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

05. Heard the arguments.

06. Now the point that arises for determination is

1. Whether the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle TATA Sumo bearing No.AP 27 B1849 at the time of accident and drove the same in a rash or negligent manner and caused the death of Annapureddy Venkata Subbareddy, Annapureddy Thirupathireddy, thereby committed the offence U/s.304-A IPC ?

5

2. Whether the accused ran away from the place of accident without providing medical aid to the injured and also not informed to the police, thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.134 (A) & (B) r/w 187 MV Act ?

3. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

07. P O I N T No.1 to 3 : To prove the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined LW1 Annapureddy Chinnamma as PW1, who is wife of D1, LW2

Annapureddy Nagarjunareddy as PW2, who is son of D1, LW3 Annapureddy

Subbaramireddy as PW3, who is also son of D1, LW7 Annapureddy Venkata Reddy as

PW4 who is brother of D1 and D2, LW4 Kunduru Malleswari as PW5 who is daughter of D1, LW12 Yakkanti Venkata Subbareddy as PW6, who is said to be present at the time of conducting inquest on the dead body of D1, LW15 Venna Velugondareddy as

PW7, who said to have present at the time of inquest of D2, LW17 Dr.Vamsi Krishna as

PW8 who said to have conducted Post Mortem over the dead body of D1 and further examined LW20 M.Khadar Baig the then ASI as PW9 who said to have recorded the statement of D2 and also examined LW21 Sk.Baba Khadar Vali as PW10, the then

Head Constable who said to have conducted inquest to D2.

08. The case of the prosecution is that accused being the driver of the crime vehicle driven the same in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the

Hero Honda Motor cycle on which D1 and D2 coming opposite to him near the water tank, Kondareddy palli thereby D1 and D2 received injuries D1 died on the spot, D2 shifted in 108 ambulance to the Government Hospital, Markapur where he died, the said accident is witnessed by PW4, LW6 Annapureddy Venkatareddy and LW10

Yakkanti Musalareddy.

09. As seen from the evidence of PW1 who is wife of D1 deposed that she was informed by PW6 over phone that D1 and D2 met with an accident at

Obayapalli near Tank bund on that she rushed to the spot along with her relatives and notice the dead body of her husband and she was also informed by PW6 and LW14 that while D1 and D2 proceeding ahead to them one car came in their opposite direction

6

hit D1 and D2 thereby accident occurred, however during her cross examination it was suggested that she omitted to state that LW12 and LW14 following D1 and D2 at the time of accident. PW2 and PW3 also deposed the same version that they came to know about the accident rushed to the spot. The evidence of PW4 is that while D1 and

D2 were proceeding in front of their bike when reached near tank bund one sumo came with high speed hit them thereby D1 died on the spot as he was dragged by

Sumo to a certain distance, D2 jumped from the bike when they rushed to the spot. He further deposed that the driver of the sumo stopped the vehicle ran away from that place and he identified the accused as driver of the sumo in the court hall and also omitted that he has seen the driver and he can identified him and also stated that the accident was took place on the tank bund and he has witnessed the accident at a distance of 40 feet and noticed that sumo dragged D1 to a distance on that they called 108 ambulance shifted D2 to the hospital. During his cross examination it was suggested that he omitted to state to the police that soon after hitting the bike D1 was dragged to a distance due to that he died and soon after hitting by the sumo D2 jumped from the bike fell on the front glasses of Sumo. He further admitted that he did not shown the accused to the police either on the date of accident or till today.

10. PW5 evidence is that she came to know about the accident through one

Subbamma and she also rushed to the place of accident found her father of D1 died and D2 while shifting to the hospital died. The evidence of PW6 is that his presence at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body D1 and his attesting inquest report marked as Ex.P1.

11. The evidence of PW7 also is that in his present the inquest over the dead body of D1 and D2 conducted at the Government Hospital and in the said inquest it was opined that Akula Suresh Kumar who is the accused driven the Sumo in negligent manner and committed accident and thereby D2 died. The inquest report of D2 marked as Ex.P2. During his cross examination he stated that the relatives of D1 and

D2 informed that accident occurred due to negligent driving of Akula Suresh Kumar the same is informed by him during the inquest.

7

12. In the evidence of PW8 is that during his Post Mortem examination he noted the external injuries over the dead body of D1 and opined that the death is due to the multiple injuries accordingly issued Ex.P3 Post Mortem certificate. It is the evidence of PW9 that he received Ex.P4 Hospital intimation proceeded to the hospital, secured deceased No.2, recorded his statement marked as Ex.P5 and forwarded the same to Tadivaripalli Police Station on point of jurisdiction. The evidence of PW10 is that he conducted inquest over the dead body of D2 in the presence of PW7, LW14 and LW16 at Government Hospital, Markapur and after that the dead body was sent for

Post Mortem examination.

13. As seen from the evidence on record PW1, PW2, PW5 are the witnesses who came to know about the accident occurred to D1 and D2 and after coming to know the same they rushed to the place of accident, noticed D1 died on the spot and D2 shifting to the hospital. The evidence of PW5 is that while D2 was shifting to hospital on the way he died. The evidence of PW4 who is the alleged eye witness when perused goes to show that he witnessed the accident and at that time D1 and D2 were proceeding ahead to him accordingly he identified the accused in the court hall as driver of the crime vehicle who committed the accident. But during his cross examination he categorically deposed that there is small curve at the place of accident and he witnessed the same accident at a distance of 40 feet but the said information is not stated by him in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. So by this evidence it is difficult to believe that if PW4 witnessed the driver of the Sumo from a distance of 40 feet it is not possible to observe the identity particular of the driver. It was suggested that he omitted to state to the police that soon after hitting the bike D1 was dragged to a distance due to that he died and soon after hitting by the sumo D2 jumped from the bike fell on the front glasses of Sumo. He further admitted that he did not shown the accused to the police either on the date of accident till today when considers the said evidence by him

before the court can be improvement to the case of the prosecution which he has not

stated earlier to the police soon after the accident as he has not stated to the police about the accused and did not shown him either the date of accident or on the next day

8

till he has shown in the court hall his identifying the accused before the court is difficult to believe. more over in view of his not stating the omissions which are not found in his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement are material to consider that he has witnessed the accident and he was present at that time. More over he has not stated to the police that the accident taken place near the tank bund and as per his version there are small curve on the road at the place of accident and soon after the accident the driver went away from the place of accident. To confront omissions that were elicited during the cross examination before the court to that of Investigating Officer who recorded the Sec.

161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 he was not examined by the prosecution by which any amount of prejudice will be caused to the accused admittedly PW4 is the relative of

D1 and D2, if really PW4 has witnessed the accident and also the accused on the date of accident the same ought to have stated by him in the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

Except at the time of accident subsequently he has not seen the accused so also no identification parade was conducted wherein he identified the accused as that of driver of the sumo who caused the accident. Further the said fact of his seeing the accused at the place of accident is not stated by him to the police in his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.

statement, except identity the accused when PW4 is in the witness box. So under these circumstances it is difficult to believe that PW4 has seen the accused at the place of accident as the driver of the crime vehicle.

14. The evidence of PW7 who is a inquest mahazar witness is that Akula

Suresh Kumar who is the accused in this case committed accident and caused the death of D1 and D2 as per the opinion formed during the inquest but as seen from

Ex.P2 which is inquest report of D2 it was said to have conducted on 29.4.2011 on the next day of the accident wherein the name of the said Akula Suresh Kumar was not mentioned in it. So he being the inquest mahazar witness his speaking about the name of accused in the witness box is only an improvement and exaggeration as after thought for the first time in the witness box which cannot be considered to connect the accused to the accident. Further the evidence of PW9 that he recorded the statement of D2 under Ex.P5 when also perused that the accident occurred at tank bund corner curve

9

the said place of accident was strike off in Ex.P5 and there is no explanation for striking off the said portion. Even as per the evidence of PW4 at the place of accident there is a curve so the place of accident from the evidence of PW4 to Ex.P5 is contradictory by which any amount of doubt can be attached about Ex.P5 contents about the place of accident. More as per the evidence of PW5 on the way to the hospital D2 died. So it is difficult to believe that Ex.P5 contents given by D2 before his death. Further the prosecution is not cited and examined the Doctor I.C.Laxmireddy who said to have present at the time of recording Ex.P5 by PW9 which is also fatal to the case of prosecution to prove Ex.P5 contents as stated by D2.

15. More over there is no evidence of LW18 to speak about the medical evidence about the reasons for the death of D2 and there is no evidence of LW6 who is alleged eye witness who has alleged to witness the accident and also there is no evidence of LW19 S.Azad Zakeer Motor Vehicle Inspector who said to have inspected the crime vehicle and also LW22 K.Venkateswarlu the then ASI Tadivaripalli Police

Station who said to have registered the FIR investigated into and filed the chargesheet and the said material witnesses evidence is lacking in this case which is fatal to the case of prosecution without being any evidence of Investigating Officer who has registered the FIR and conducted entire investigation to speak about the investigation part and to ascertain the truth by confronting the omissions and contradictions elicited during the evidence of prosecution witnesses by which the case of the prosecution is not said to be prove beyond all reasonable doubt. At every stage of prosecution version a doubt is entertaining by the court about its version before the court which is not explained by the prosecution. In view f the above discussion this court is of the view that prosecution is not able to prove with believable consistent and corroborative evidence that accused is the driver of crime vehicle TATA Sumo bearing No.AP 27

B1849 at the time of accident and drove the same in a rash or negligent manner and caused the death of Annapureddy Venkata Subbareddy, Annapureddy Thirupathireddy.

10

16. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Sec.304-A of IPC, Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 MV Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled forthwith. Accused is directed to execute self bond U/s.437-A Cr.P.C. to appear before the appellate court within six months to answer the appeal if any. The unmarked property in CPR.57/11 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 24th day of March, 2014.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Podili // Appendix of Evidence // Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For defense

PW1 : Annapureddy Chinnamma None PW2 : Annapureddy Nagarjuna Reddy PW3 : Annapureddy Subba Ramireddy PW4 : Annapureddy Venkatareddy PW5 : Kunduru Malleswari PW6 : Yakkanti Venkata Subbareddy PW7 : Venna Velugondareddy PW8 : Dr.Vamsi Krishna PW9 : M.Khadar Baig PW10 : Sk.Baba Khadar Vali

Documents Marked

For Prosecution For defense

Ex.P1 : Inquest report of D1 NIL Ex.P2 : Inquest report of D2 Ex.P3 : Post Mortem certificate of D1 Ex.P4 : Hospital intimation Ex.P5 : Statement of D2

Material Objects NIL

J.M.F.C., PODILI

1

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.10 of 2010 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Podili

1. Date of Offence: 25.5.2009

2. Date of report: 25.5.2009

3. Date of arrest of accused: 25.5.2009

4. Date of release on bail : 6.6.2009

5. Date of commencement of trial: 17.4.2013

6. Date of close of trial: 4.3.2014

7. Date of judgment: 24.3.2014

8. Complainant: State : Inspector of police Podili Circle

9. Accused :

1. Pola Babu, S/o.Prasad, 30 years, Coolie, Pamula by caste, Chinna Cheruvu, Podili. A1 DIED, THE CASE AGAINST A1 IS DISMISSED

2. Pola Prabhudas, S/o.Prasad, 24 years, coolie, Pamula by caste, Chinna Cheruvu, Podili.

10. Offence : U/s.8 (C) r/w 20 (B) of NDPS Act

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court : Found not guilty

13. Sentence or order : A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.8 (C) r/w 20 (B) of NDPS Act, accordingly he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A2 if any shall stand cancelled forthwith. Accused is directed to execute self bond U/s.437-A Cr.P.C. to appear before the appellate court within six months to answer the appeal if any. The un-marked property in CPR.No.16/10 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

2

14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file on 16.1.2010 U/s.8 (C) r/w 20 (B) of NDPS Act against the accused. On 1.5.2012 A2 is present. Copies of all documents were furnished to him U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. On 31.10.2012 A2 examined

U/s.239 of Cr.P.C. he pleaded not guilty, charge is framed U/s.8 (C) r/w 20 (B) of

NDPS Act against A2 read over and explained to him in Telugu, he denied the charge and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution PW1 to PW3 are examined and

Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are marked and after prosecution evidence was closed the accused examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C on 21.3.2014. On 24.3.2014 heard arguments on both sides and on the same day Judgment pronounced vide separate judgment. Hence the delay.

Judl. Magistrate of First class, Podili

Copy Submitted to :

The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

The Superintendent of police, Ongole.

3

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

Present: Smt. S. SUJATHA, B.A., B.L., Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Podili

Monday this the 24 th day of March, 2014

Calendar Case No.10 of 2010

BetweenSTATE : Inspector of Police, Podili Circle… Complainant

and

1.Pola Babu, S/o.Prasad, 30 years, Coolie, Pamula by caste, Chinna Cheruvu, Podili.

A1 DIED, THE CASE AGAINST A1 IS

DISMISSED

Pola Prabhudas, S/o.Prasad, 24 years, coolie, 2Pamula by caste, Chinna Cheruvu, Podili. … Accused

This case was coming before me for disposal in the presence of the

Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri V.Nagaraju, advocate for accused ; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:- // J U D G E M E N T //

1. The Inspector of Police, Podili circle filed chargesheet against the accused in Cr.No.108/09 of Podili Police Station alleging that on 25.5.2009 at about 4.00 a.m.

LW4 P.Deva Prabhakar along with his staff while patrolling in and around Podili, noticed the accused with bag in suspicious circumstances and on interrogation they found it contained about 400 grams of Ganja. As the accused failed to account for the possession of Ganja they were arrested by LW4 P.Deva Prabhakar by informing the grounds of arrest.

2. LW4 P.Deva Prabhakar registered the police proceedings as a case in

Cr.No.108.09, U/s.8 (C) r/w 20 (B) of NDPS Act and sent the copies of FIR to

4

concerned officers. During the course of investigation LW5 M.Sundararao took about 100 grams of Ganja separately as sample for the purpose of analysis. After completion of investigation LW6 Ch.Venkateswararao filed chargesheet against the accused and the same was taken on file U/s.8 (C) r/w 20 (B) of NDPS Act.

3. Copies of documents are furnished to A2 on his appearance before the

Hon’ble Court as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.2 is examined

under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., and charge U/s.8 (C) r/w 20 (B) of NDPS Act against A2 is framed, read over and explained to him in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed tobe tried.

4. During the Course of trial, the Prosecution has examined PWs1 to 3 and

Exs.P1 and P2 are marked. The Prosecution has not examined Lws.3, 5 and 6.

After closure of Prosecution evidence, accused No.2 is examined under Sec.313

Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence against him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence side evidence is closed.

5. Heard the arguments.

6. Now the points that arises for determination are ;

1. Whether A2 found Ganja Weighing about 400 grams without licence thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.8 (C) r/w 20 (B) of NDPS Act ?

2. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A2 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

7. P O I N T S No. 1 and 2 : To prove the guilt of the accused as per the charges levelled against him prosecution has examined LW1 T.Nageswararao, Head

Constable, LW2 Shaik Masthan Shareef, police constable, LW4 P.Deva Prabhakar, Sub

Inspector of police, Podili Police Station as PW1 to PW3 who said to have while conducting night rides found the Ganja in the possession of A2.

5

8. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.5.2009 pw1 to pw3 along with

LW3 while conducting petrolling during night time at about 4.00 a.m. they found A1 and

A2 in suspicious circumstances and on interrogation it was found A1 with possession of one plastic bag containing 400 grams of Ganja. On that the same was seized by

PW3 under the cover of police proceedings went to the Police Station along with accused and seized property and PW3 registered the case and LW5 M.Sundararao formerly Circle Inspector of police, Podili took up investigation.

9. To prove his contention the evidence of PW1 is that on 24.5.2009 himself

PW2, PW3 and LW3 during the night petrolling duty in the early hours while checking the vehicles at Markapur cross roads they found A1 and A2 by walk towards Kanigiri on that PW3 stopped them when they try to ran away they were caught hold and noticed a white plastic can in the hands of A1 and on interrogation he stated that he is carrying

Ganja in the plastic can to sell among the people A2also stated the same, on that PW3 arrested A1 and A2under the police proceedings marked as Ex.P1 wherein he attested in drafted by LW3. During his cross examination he deposed that on the same day of

Ex.P1 PW3 recorded his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement where A1 and A2 were arrested and he further admitted that near the Markapur cross roads there is a marketing committee and a check post and one watchman will be available 24 hours there and there is a catholic church and father of the church will be available in the church. He further deposed that Ex.P1 is scribed by sitting in front of Catholic church started by 4.00 a.m. completed by 4.30 a.m.

10. The evidence of PW2 also corroborated the version of PW1 in his chief examination and he also attested Ex.P1. During his cross examination he stated that he was examined by LW5 on 25.5.2009 and his 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded.

Further stated that PW3 deputed LW3 for securing mediators to the nearby places.

The evidence of PW3 is that on 25.5.2009 while conducting petrolling along with PW1,

PW2 and LW3 at Markapur cross roads they found A1 and A2 in a suspicious

6

circumstances and when they were interrogated A1 possessed a plastic bag in his hand containing Ganja and after confirming it as a Ganja he recorded the confessional statement of A1 and A2 arrested them under the cover of Ex.P1 police proceedings and seized the Ganja and they were brought to Police Station and he registered the case in

Cr.No.108/09 basing on the police proceedings then he handed over A1 and A2 and seized property along with FIR to LW5 for investigation. He further stated that he has lifted sample of 100 grams from 400 grams ganja and sent 300 grams of Ganja to the court. During his cross examination he deposed that he has deputed the constables to secure mediators Church at Markapur check post but none were available but he deposed that the persons available at check post generally will not be willing to act as mediators. He further admitted that he has not taken A1 and A2 to any gazette offer soon found with Ganja, but he know that they have to be taken to the nearest Gazette officer further stated that he has weighed the Ganja in the Police Station, except Ex.P1 no other mahazarnama was drafted in this case. Prosecution has not examined LW3, who accompanied PW1 to PW3 and who drafted Ex.P1 and also not examined LW5

M.Sundararao, Circle Inspector of police and LW6 Ch.Venkateswararao Circle

Inspector of police who investigated and laid chargesheet.

11. On perusal of the evidence on record though PW1 to PW3 corroborated with each other in their chief examination about their going to petrolling duty at

Markapur cross roads and their noticing A1 and A2 in a suspicious circumstance but with regard to the other material aspects they are differing with each other since PW1 has stated that A1 carrying white plastic can in his hands containing Ganja where as

PW3 stated that A1 carrying Ganja in the white plastic bag. Pw2 has not at all stated in chief examination who was carrying Ganja and in which they were carrying. Further

PW1 to PW3 categorically stated that it is the A1 who is carrying Ganja not A2 further as per the version of PW1 during the cross examination Ex.P1 is scribed in front of catholic church by sitting on the pendol where as PW2 stated that it was scribed by placing the papers on the boynet of the jeep and jeep was facing towards Podili side.

7

Further during the cross examination of PW1 he admitted that there are persons and watchman available at the check post and father will be available at the church 24 hours. But PW3 stated that he has not sent the constable to the check post since he presumed that the persons working at Check post generally will not willing to act as mediators so by this evidence it is doubtful that whether PW3 tried to secure independent mediators before drafting Ex.P1 proceedings. Admittedly there is availability of persons not securing them as mediators will create doubt about the prosecution version except the evidence of PW1 to PW3 who are police officials there is no evidence before the court about the seizure of Ganja from the possession of A2.

Further except their oral evidence the alleged seized Ganja not placed before the court and also there is no evidence to speak that the contraband seized from the possession of A2 is Ganja. Hence at every stage of the prosecution it creates doubt that the Ganja is seized from the possession of A2 under Ex.P1. More over there is no evidence of other witnesses who are material to speak about the registration of FIR and also further investigation. Though PW3 stated that he has informed about the seizure of Ganja from A2 immediately to his Inspector there is no proof to that effect and the said fact is also admittedly not mentioned in Ex.P1. Further there is no evidence before the court that Ex.P1 is resulted in the registration of FIR investigation and filing of the chargesheet. So the insufficient evidence of PW1 to PW3 is not making this court to believe that the Ganja was seized from the possession of A2 under the cover of Ex.P1 proceedings and in the absence of further evidence of material of witnesses to speak about the registration of FIR, investigation and filing chargesheet which is fatal to the case of prosecution is also goes to show that prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence it is a fit case to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.

12. In the result, A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.8 (C) r/w 20 (B) of NDPS Act, accordingly he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A2 if any shall stand cancelled forthwith. Accused is directed to execute self

8

bond U/s.437-A Cr.P.C. to appear before the appellate court within six months to answer the appeal if any. The un-marked property in CPR.No.16/10 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 24th day of March, 2014.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Podili // Appendix of Evidence // Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For defense

PW1 : T.Nageswara Rao None PW2 : Shaik Masthan Shareef PW3 : P.Deva Prabhakar

Documents Marked

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P1 : Police proceedings Nil Ex.P2 : FIR

Material Objects

NIL

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Podili

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PODILI

Present: Smt.S.Sujatha, Junior Civil Judge, Podili.

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2014

Execution Petition No. 89 of 2004

Between:

Yadala Satyanarayana

...Petitioner/D.Hr

and

Suravarapu Pitchaiah … Respondent/J.Dr

// O R D E R \\

The Counsel for D.Hr filed F.S.Memo stating that J.Dr., paid the E.P., amount. Accordingly F.S.recorded. E.P. is terminated.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 28 th day of March, 2014

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PODILI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PODILI

Present: Smt S.Sujatha Junior Civil Judge, Podili.

Dated this the 25th day of March, 2014

Execution Petition No. 67 of 2012

Between:

Guntaka Suseelamma

...Petitioner/D.Hr

and

Koppula Narasamma … Respondent/J.Dr

// O R D E R \\

Batta not paid. D.Hr called absent. No representation. Hence the E.P. is dismissed for default without costs.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this 25 th day of March, 2014

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PODILI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PODILI

Present: Smt.S.Sujatha, Junior Civil Judge, Podili.

Dated this the 27th day of March, 2014

Execution Petition No. 66 of 2012

Between:

Koppula Malla Reddy

...Petitioner/D.Hr

and

Koppula Narasamma … Respondent/J.Dr

// O R D E R \\

Batta not paid. No representation. Hence the E.P. is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 27 th day of March, 2014

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PODILI.