Smt. S.Surya Kiran Sree

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE CUM JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE : KOTHAVALASA.

Present : ­ Smt. S.Surya Kiran Sri, Judl.Magistrate of First Class cum Junior Civil Judge. Kothavalasa.

Wednesday, this the 12th day of April,2023.

C.C.No. 295 of 2022

BETWEEN:

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa Police Station. … Complainant ... A n d

 A.1 Sarika Sankara Rao, s/o. Late Appayya, age 50 years, N/o. Ganivada village, L.Kota mandal, R/o. Plot No.206, Block No.­5, Vasantha Vihar, Kothavalasa village and mandal.

A.2 Sarika Demudu, s/o. Mahalaxmi, age 48 years, Ganivada village, L.Kota mandal.

.. Accused. 

This case is coming on 31.03.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for prosecution and of Sri M.V.S.Giri Babu, Learned advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: 

J U D G M E N T

The accused are prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 386, 387 r/w 120­B of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC), in Cr.No.233/2018 of Kothavalasa

Police Station.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case, as disclosed from the charge sheet are that :

PW.1 is living by carrying out construction works and is well reputed person. About six years back prior to the offence, A.1 came down to Kothavalasa village, from his village Ganivada and purchased a house plot in Vasantha Vihar

Apartment, Block No.B5, Plot No.­206, with the assistance of PW.1, as the A.1 previously worked in Andhra Voice News, up to General elections 2014 and due to that he got acquaintance with PW.1. A.1 is closely moving and assisting PW.1, in 2 his business and political affairs, now and then. PW.1 is giving money to A.1, for his expenses. A.1’s wife is working as computer operator in MPDO Office, Denkada.

About few years back, A.1 run lorries, but due to loss in business, one lorry gave for rent and another lorry was seized by Finance Bank Authorities. He sustained loss of

Rs.7,00,000/­ in his business and due to financial crisis, A.1 could not bear severe stress. Then, A.1 hatched up a plan to earn money in greedy manner, decided to blackmail the PW.1, on the pretext of Naxalities, as he is well sounded person. He met A.2 and shared his evil deeds with him. They conspired each other and A.1 got prepared a letter with A.2, on the name of Aruku Galikonda Dalam Maoist and on 05.04.2017, they sent a letter to PW.1, by demanding Rs.25,00,000/­ and in the letter, they threatened PW.1 that if he will expose about letter to anybody, they will cause irreparable harm to PW.1 and his family members. But, PW.1 did not respond to the first letter, upon which, on 17.09.2018, the A.1 prepared another letter with

A.2, in continuation to first letter, in same manner, but no response from PW.1, as expected by them. In course of days, PW.1 called A.1 and PW.2. On 03.11.2018 at 20.00 hours, A.1 called PW.1 and informed him that at about 6.00 PM, while he was parking his motorcycle in cellar of the apartment, meanwhile, an unknown person came and aiming a revolver and instructed him to move to North East side of the

Apartment, on which, he moved to that place, where, he found another person and they informed him that they are Maoist and two times, they sent letters to PW.1 by demanding money, but he failed to send and asked A1 to inform PW.1 that if he fails to send money to them, they will cause severe harm to PW.1, his family members and followers. On that, P.W.1 informed A1 to discuss the matter on the next day.

On the next day, A1 and P.W.2 went to the house of P.W.1, where A1 informed the same facts, which was informed by him, on the previous day to P.W.1. P.W.1 suspected about black mailing on the name of Moist, approached the Kothavalasa police and lodged a report.

On the strength of report of PW.1, LW.8­ R.Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of Police registered a case in the above crime and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he seized two threat letters written by unknown persons on the name 3 of Galikonda Moist and half of the Ten rupees note from PW.1. On 07.11.2018, on credible information, he arrested the accused at the house of A.1, which is situated at block No.5, Plot No.206, Vasantha Vihar Apartment in the presence of mediators ie., P.Ws.5 and 6 and seized half of the Ten rupee note from A.1 and on interrogation the A.1 confessed that he conspired with A.2 to earn money easily, prepared two threat letters with A.2 and sent them to PW.1 through registered post, along with half of the ten rupee note by demanding Rs.25,00,000/­ , and threatened P.W.1, if he fails to send money, they would kill PW.1 and his family members and A.2 also confessed the same facts, as that of A.1. He arrested A1 and A2 and sent them for remand. During the course of investigation, on the petition filed by police, the court collected sample signatures, hand writings and admitting writings of A.1 and A.2, in open court u/sec.311(a) Cr.P.C, for onward transmission to the Hand Writing

Expert, FSL, Amaravathi of A.P state. He took up further investigation, filed a petition before the court with a request to forward the collected sample signatures, hand writings and admitting writings of A.1 and A.2, vide DDR.No.779/2021. After completion of investigation, PW.8 filed charge sheet. 

3. Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 386, 387 r/w 120­B of IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused 1 and 2 were examined Under Section 239 Cr. P.C. They denied the contents of charge sheet and documents. After hearing and on consideration, charge for the offence under section 386, 387, r/w 120­B of IPC, against accused was framed, read over and explained in Telugu, for which they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11 and M.O.1 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under 4 section 313 Cr.P.C, by putting incriminating material available on record. The plea of accused is one of total denial. When accused were called upon to enter upon defence evidence, they did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

8.I have heard the arguments of learned APP for the state and the learned counsel for the accused. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.

9.Now point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 386, 387, r/w 120­B of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:­

To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8. PW.1 is the victim cum defacto complainant , P.Ws.2 to 4 are the independent witnesses, P.Ws.5 and 6 are mediators in whose presence, the accused alleged to be confessed the offence, P.W.7 is police constable and P.W.8 is Investigating Officer. Ex.P.1 is complaint of PW.1, Ex.P.2 is letter received by PW.1, Exs.P­3 to 6 are Section 161

Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.2 to 4, Ex.P­7 and 8 are signatures of PW.5, Ex.P.9 is the confession statement of accused and Ex.P.10 is the mediator report, Ex.P.11 is original FIR, M.O.1 is the two pieces of Rs.10/­note.

11. The evidence of PW.1, who is the victim cum defacto complainant revealed that in the year 2017, he received a letter, in which, it was mentioned that the persons who wrote the said letter are Naxalites and they demanded

Rs.25,00,000/­ from him. Later, he gave complaint to police on that issue. Later, the

CI of police came to him and enquired. P.W.1 deposed that except this, he does not know the other facts. he does not know anything about the case facts. He gave his

Ex.P.1 complaint by mentioning the above facts only. Ex.P2 is the letter received by him from naxalites. 

12.The evidence of PW.5 revealed that about four years ago, he went to

Kothavalasa Police Station, as Kothavalasa police called him to the Police Station.

5

The Sub-Inspector of police requested him to sign on a report stating that the report was drafted in connection with crime number 233/2018 of their Police

Station. At his request, he signed on two reports. The signatures shown to him are the said signatures. But, he does not know the contents of the reports which contained his signatures. He does not know anything about the case facts.

13.The evidence of PW.6 revealed that on 07.11.2018, at 01:00PM, the

Kothavalasa police called him over phone and they asked PW5 and himself to come to Police Station. Then, PW5 and himself went to Kothavalasa Police Station.

From Police Station, PW5 , the Kothavalasa police and himself went to Vasantha vihar of Kothavalasa. On seeing police jeep, two persons tried to run away. Police caught-hold them. Police enquired them. One person by name Sankara Rao, confessed due to financial problems, he wrote a letter to PW1 in the name of

Naxalites and demanded Rs.25,00,000/-, when PW1 did not fullfill the demand, again, for second time, he wrote another letter. Then, police recorded the confession statement of the above said persons in their presence. Later, they went to the house of one Demudu and enquired the Demudu and the Demudu also confessed the offence in their presence. The police obtained a letter from the said Demudu at 03:30PM and police drafted a report. He deposed that the two reports shown to him are the said reports. The police seized two pieces of Rs.10/- note in their presence from Sankara Rao. P.W.6 failed to identify the accused and also the note.

14.PW.7 deposed that on 07.11.2018 at 01:30PM, PW8, LW8-R.Srinivasa rao, Sub-Inspector of police, Kothavalasa, one ASI, three head-constables and six police constables including himself proceeded to Vasantha Vihar of Kothavalasa in their police jeep, since their CI received information. They proceeded to B-block of the said Vasantha Vihar. They found A1 and A2 and on seeing the police jeep, they tried to run away, on that they caught-hold them. A1 confessed the offence

before them that he wrote a letter to PW1 in the name of Nexlites and demanded

amount, due to his financial crisis. He further confessed that the PW1 did not respond for the first letter and on that they wrote another letter. He confessed that he sent a piece of Rs.10/- to PW1 along with the said letter. Then, PW1 gave 6 report to police. On that, on seeing them he tried to run away. Their CI verified the said piece of Rs.10/- with the another piece of Rs.10/- which is with him and found that the both pieces belong to one note. Their CI seized the the piece of the said

Rs.10/- from A1. MO1 is the two pieces of Rs.10/-. Their CI also interrogated A2 and he also confessed the offence in the same lines as that of A1. He drafted mediator report on the dictation of CI ie.,Ex.P9. Their staff, mediators and the accused signed on Ex.P9. Later, their CI arrested the accused and brought them to the Police Station.

15.P.W.8 deposed about the investigation done by L.w.8-R. Srinivasa Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa police station, who registered FIR, basing on the report of P.W.1, who conducted investigation in this case, since, the said

Srinivasa Rao is no more. During the course of cross examination, P.W.8 categorically admitted that he has not conducted any investigation in the above case, except filing the charge sheet.

16.In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused conspired together and committed extortion and while committing the same, they put or attempted to put the P.W.1 or the persons belong to P.W.1, in fear of death or grievous hurt.

17. In order to prove the above, no evidence is available on record, except the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8, who are police officials. The crucial witness

P.W.1, who is victim cum de-facto complainant did not depose anything against the accused. He simply deposed that he received a letter in the name of

Naxalites and they demanded him to pay Rs.25,00,000/- and on that he gave

Ex.P1 report to police. He handed over Ex.P2 letter which was received by him to police. Further, this court perused Ex.P1. Ex.P1 was given to police on 5-11- 2018. But, as per contents of Ex.P1, P.W.1 received first letter on 5-4-2017.

Further, as per said letter, no second letter was received by P.W.1. But, the prosecution case is that two letters were sent to P.W.1. Further, in Ex.P1, it was mentioned that P.W.1 came to know that one persons threatened A1 on 3-11- 2018. But, neither on 5-4-2017 nor on 3-11-2018, P.W.1 did not give any report to police, but, he gave Ex.P1 on 5-11-2018. The distance between the scene of 7 offence and the police station is only 1 ½ KM, as per FIR. If really, P.W.1 had received Ex.P-2, why he kept quiet on 5-4-2017 or 3-11-2018, without giving police report and why he gave Ex.P1, after two days of 3-11-2018, there is no explanation from prosecution. The said delay is fatal to the prosecution. Further, as stated supra, P.W.1 did not depose anything against the accused.

18.P.Ws.2 to 4 who are independent witnesses categorically deposed that they do not know anything about the case. They did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. PW.5, who is mediator deposed that at request of police he signed on two reports at police station. Even though, P.W.5 identified his signatures on reports but he categorically deposed that he does not know the contents of the reports, which contained his signatures. P.W.6 another mediator deposed about the arrest of two persons by police and their confession about the offence. But, P.W.6 did not identify those persons and also did not identify the material object, which was seized by police. He categorically deposed that due to paucity of time, he could not identify the two persons and Rs.10/- note. Further, during the course of cross examination, P.W.6 stated that he cannot say either the door number or assessment number or boundaries of the house at which the above reports were drafted. He further stated that he can not say the numbers of the police, who came along with them to the Vasantha Vihar and he cannot say the particular place, where they found the two persons. He admitted that the

Vasantha Vihar is a residential area which consists nearly 450 flats and the said

Vasantha Vihar is situated by the side of the road which proceeds to

Visakhapatnam from Kothavalasa and there is a petrol bunk by the side of the said

Vasantha Vihar. He further admitted that in their presence the police did not call either the inhabitants of said Vasantha Vihar or the petrol bunk staff to act as mediators.

19.Hence, P.Ws.1 to 6 did not support the prosecution version. P.Ws.1 to 5 were turned hostile to the prosecution case. The learned APP cross examined them, but nothing could be elicited from their cross examination, except marking their 161 Cr.PC statements and signatures as Exs.P3 to P8. Even though, P.W.6 deposed that two persons confessed the offence, as stated supra, he could not 8 identify them. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 is no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused.

20.The remaining evidence is the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8. P.W.7 is constable. He deposed about the confession of accused. But, during the course of cross examination, he admitted that there are so many blocks in Vasanth Vihar and it is a residential area. He stated that he drafted Ex.P­9 on the dictation of his CI.

This court perused Ex.P­9. But, the contents of Ex.P­9 did not show that it was drafted by P.W.7. The contents are in such a manner that it was drafted by mediators. But, the mediators did not support the prosecution version. Further, if really, P.W.7 accompanied his CI to the scene of offence, he ought to have deposed the exact place, where they caught hold the accused. But, he stated that he do not remember the flat number. Further, according to P.W.7, A1 and A2 confessed the offence at Vasath Vihar, Kothavalasa. But, P.W.6 deposed that one person by name

Demudu confessed the offence at his house. Hence, there is no corroboration in the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7. Now, coming to evidence of P.W.8, his evidence is only with regard to investigation done by L.W.8­R.Srinivasa Rao. P.W.8 is not the investigating officer in this case, he only filed charge sheet and the same was admitted by him in his cross examination. Hence, in order to prove the charge against the accused, except the evidence of P.W.7, who is constable, no other evidence is available on record. Further, the evidence of P.W.7 is also not trust worthy and the prosecution failed to prove the contents of Exs.P­9 and P­10.

Further, the confession made by A1 and A2 before the police is not admissible as per section 25 of Evidence Act.

21.Therefore, in the light of above discussion and after careful consideration of the material brought on record, this court hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused under Sec 386, 387 r/w 120­B of IPC, by placing cogent evidence and hence, accused are entitled for acquittal.

22.In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 386, 387 r/w 120­B of IPC and they are acquitted under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months 9 u/sec.437­A Cr.P.C.. The accused are directed to appear before the appellate authority, if their presence is required before the appellate authority. Accused are further directed to execute a self bond for Rs.5,000/­(Rupees five thousand only) each u/sec.437­A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 ie., two pieces of Rs.10/­ note shall be confiscated to state, after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of April,2023. Sd/­Smt. S.Surya Kiran Sri, Judl.Magistrate of I Class ­cum­ Junior Civil Judge. Kothavalasa. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined. For Prosecution:­ For Defence:­

PW.1 Valluri Jaya Prakash Babu­None_

PW.2Gompa Pothunaidu. 

PW.3Kota Satyanarayana.

PW.4 Nagireddy Kanaka Raju.

PW.5 Pappu Apprao, Retired Panchyat secretary.

PW.6 Lelam Radha Krishna. VRO,

P.W.7 G.Kanaka Raju, PC­279. 

PW.8 S.Bala Surya Rao, C.I of Police.

Exhibits Marked.

For Prosecution:­ 

 Ex.P.1: Complaint of PW.1 given to police.

Ex.P.2: Letter received by PW.1 from Naxalites.

Exs.P.3 to P.6: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statements of Pws.1 to 4

Exs.P.7 and 8: Signatures of PW.5 on reports.

Ex.P.9: Confession statement of accused.

Ex.P.10:Mediators report.

Ex.P.11: Original First Information Report.

Material Objects.

M.O.1 is the two pieces of Rs.10/­.

Sd/­Smt. S.Surya Kiran Sri, Judl.Magistrate of I Class ­cum­Junior Civil Judge. Kothavalasa.

10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa.

Date of offence: 05.11.2018 Date of report or complaint: 05.11.2018 Date of apprehension of accused: 07.11.2018 A.1 and A.2. Date of release if any: 29.11.2018 Date of commencement of trial: 16.02.2023 Date of closure of trial: 31.03.2023 Date of sentence.: 12.04.2022

Explanation for delay and remarks Due to non­production of witnesses.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.295/2022 on the file of 

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kothavalasa.

ComplainantState represented by the Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa Police station in Cr.No.233/2018. ___________________________________________________________________________ A.1 Sarika Sankara Rao, s/o. Late Appayya, age 50 years, SC Mala by caste, N/o. Ganivada village, L.Kota mandal, R/o. Plot No.206, Block No.­5, Vasantha Vihar, Kothavalasa village and mandal. A.2 Sarika Demudu, s/o. Mahalaxmi, age 48 years, SC Mala by caste, Ganivada village, L.Kota mandal. _________________________________________________________________________

Offence :­ Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt u/sec.386 of IPC. Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion U/Sec. 387 of IPC. Concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment u/sec.120­B of IPC

Finding : A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 386, 387, r/w 120­B of IPC and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

SENTENCE: A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 386, 387 r/w 120­B of IPC and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months u/sec.437­A Cr.P.C.. The accused are directed to appear before the appellate authority, if their presence is required before the appellate authority. Accused are further directed to execute a self bond for Rs.5,000/­(Rupees five thousand only) each u/sec.437­A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 ie., two pieces of Rs.10/­ note shall be confiscated to state, after appeal time is over. 

Sd/­Smt. S.Surya Kiran Sri, Judl.Magistrate of I Class ­cum­Junior Civil Judge. Kothavalasa.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS CUM JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE:: KOTHAVALASA::

PRESENT: Smt. S. Surya Kiran Sri Judl. Magistrate of First Class cum Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa.

Wednesday, the 12th day of April, 2023. 

CC NO.229 of 2022

Between: 

State: Inspector of Police,

Kothavalasa Police station, ..Complainant

AND

1. Sika Anand @ Adam, S/o Raju, A/29 Yrs, R/o Anandapuram village, Pottipadu Panchayat, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District

2. Ponnada Kiran @ Nani, S/o Late Srinivasa Rao, A/28 Yrs, R/o Sarabulu Veedhi, Puritipenta Village, Gajapathinagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram District

3. Nalabandha Satheesh, S/o Sathibabu, A/40 yrs, R/o Kirlampudi Village and Mandal,

East Godavari District ... Accused.

This case is coming on 10­04­2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for state and of Sri K.Atchibabu, Legal Aid Counsel for

A.1. to A.3. and on perusing the material papers on record, and upon hearing arguments on both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court delivered the following:­

JUDGMENT

The Accused i.e., A1 to A3 were tried for the offences under section 457, 380 or 411 IPC

2.The Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa Police Station filed a report under section 173 Cr.P.C. with the following allegations in brief:

On 14­06­2022 at 13.00 hours, P.W.1 came to police station and lodged a report stating that he is resident of Despatrunipalem village, Kothavalasa Mandal.

2

Their villagers built Sri Bangarammathalli temple, adjacent to High way road,

Desapatrunipalem village and they developed the said temple. Every day, the devotees offer the prayers from morning 6AM to afternoon at 12 noon and evening 4PM to 7PM, by that time, the temple is being opened. Like wise, on 13­06­2022,

Monday evening, the temple was closed, after offering prayers and on the next day i.e., on 14­06­2022 morning, as usual, the P.W.2 went to the temple to open the temple, he found the locks of temple were broke open and one silver crown weighing about 3 ½ Kgs and one silver Haram weighing about 25 tulas including the hundi were committed theft by unknown culprits and they decamped with booty. 

Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.6 registered a case in Cr.No.114/22 under section 457, 380 IPC of Kothavalasa Police Station. He took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence i.e., Sri BangarammaThalli temple situated at

Despatrunipalem village, inspected the scene of offence in the presence of L.W.5­

Arjuna and L.W.6­Yernaidu. He secured witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. He prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. While causing enquiries about the unknown culprits, on 12­08­2022, P.W.6 was informed by P.W.7 that on 12­08­2022 at 16.00 hours, on reliable information, he arrested A1 and A2 at Kamakshinagar Junction, Vizianagaram, in the presence of mediators ie.,P.Ws.4 and 5 in Cr.No.333/22 under section 457, 380 IPC of Vizianagaram I Town Police

Station and he recovered the stolen properties. On interrogation, A1 and A2 confessed that about one month 25 days ago, during night, they committed theft of silver crown and silver Haram from Bangaramma temple of Kothavalasa village and then, he recovered those properties from A3 at the outskirts of Ayyannapeta

Junction and later sent them to remand. Then, P.W.6 obtained attested copies of mediators report/confessional statements of A1 to A3, arrest CD and remand report and on 17­08­2022 filed a petition before the Kothavalasa JFCM Court with a request to issue PT warrant against A1 to A3, since they were lodged in Central Jail, 3

Visakapatnam. On his requisition, the PT warrant was issued by the court and the accused were produced before the court on execution of PT warrant on 19­10­2022.

After completion of investigation, P.W.6 filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3.Considering the material on record, this court took cognizance of offences under section 457 and 380 or 411 IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of A.1 to A.3, copies of documents were furnished to them, as contemplated under the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges under section 457 and 380 against A1 and A2 and an alternative charge under section 411 IPC against A1 to A3, have been framed, read­over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.6 and M.Os. 1 and 2. 

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as contemplated under section 313 (1)(3) of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

8.P.W.1 is the defacato complainant, P.Ws.2,3 are independent witnesses, P.Ws.4,5 are mediators, P.Ws.6 and 7 are Investigating Officers. Ex.P.1 is the report given by P.W.1 to Police, Ex.P.2 is the scene observation report, Ex.P­3 is the Certified Copy of confession statement dt.12­08­2022 at 4­00 PM, Ex.P­4 is 4 the confession statement dt.12­08­2022 at 7­15 PM, Ex.P.5 is the F.I.R and Ex.P.6 is rough sketch. M.O.1 is silver crown and M.O.2 is silver Haram.

9. Heard arguments of learned APP and Legal Aid counsel

10. Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has made out the case against the accused for the offences under sections 457 and 380 or 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts”?

11. Point: ­ P.W. 1 is the defacto complainant and he testified that on 14­06­22, early hours, P.W.2 went to the Bangarammatalli temple and he found the doors of the said temple were kept open. When he entered into the temple, he found missing of the silver crown and silver Haram of Goddess and also the hundi of the said temple was found missing. Immediately, he called him over phone and informed the same. Then, the village elders, P.W.3 and himself came to the said temple and checked the CC footage of the said temple. They found one person entered into the said temple and committed theft of silver crown,Silver Haram and Hundi of the said temple. Immediately, P.Ws.2,3 and himself went to Kothavalas Police Station and

P.W.2 and himself gave report to police i.e., Ex.P1. After one month of Ex.P1, the police informed them that they recovered the silver crown and silver Haram. The weight of silver crown is 3 ½ Kgs and the weight of silver haram is 25 tulas. P.W.1 identified M.Os.1 and 2, as the above silver crown and silver haram.

12.P.Ws.2 and 3 supported the version of P.W.1 and they also deposed about the theft of M.Os.1 and 2, in Bangarammathalli temple. P.W.3 also deposed that on 14­06­2022 at 1­45 PM, Kothavalasa CI and himself went to

Bangarammatalli temple of Desapatrunipalem village, the CI observed the scene of offence in their presence, he took photos of scene of offence and drafted Ex.P2 scene observation report. P.Ws.4 and 5 are mediators for arrest of A1 to A3 and seizure of

M.Os.1 and 2 and P.Ws.6 and 7 are investigating officers. P.W.6 registered the 5 above crime, basing on Ex.P1 and took up further investigation. P.W.7 arrested the accused in the presence of P.Ws.4,5, recorded their confessional statements and recovered M.Os.1 and 2.

13.The learned A.P.P. contended that P.W.1. categorically identified

M.O.s., 1 and 2 as stolen properties. P.Ws.4 and 5. the mediators for arrest of accused categorically deposed about arrest of accused and seizure of M.O.s. 1 and 2, under the cover of Exs.P.3 and P..4 i.e., confessional statements, almost all the witnesses have categorically supported the version of prosecution and seizure of

M.Os. 1 and 2 from the possession of accused is duly proved and prays to convict the accused. 

14.The learned defence counsel contended that P.W.7, the Investigating

Officer did not try to secure any independent mediators at the scene of offence,

P.Ws.4 and 5 are the stock mediators and seizure of M.Os. 1 and 2 from the possession of accused is not proved by the prosecution, by adducing appropriate evidence. There is no evidence regarding the offence under Sec. 457 and 380 I.P.C.

and prays to acquit the accused.

15.On going through the rival contentions and on perusal of entire evidence available on record, it is evident that P.W.1 is the defacto complainant in this case and he categorically deposed about the theft of M.O.s. 1 and 2 and his identification of M.O.s. 1 and 2, as stolen properties. P.Ws.2 and 3 supported the version of P.W.1. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the mediators and they deposed about the arrest of A.1. to A.3 on 12­08­2022 at Kamakshinagar, Vizianagaram and Ayyannapea outskirts and seizure of M.O.s. 1 and 2 under the cover of Ex.P.4. P.W.6, the

Investigating Officer testified about the registering of Ex.P.5 F.I.R, preparation of

Ex.P2 scene observation report and Ex.P.6 rough sketch , recording he statements of witnesses and filing of charge sheet. P.W.7, the Investigating Officer categorically 6 deposed about arrest of A.1. to A.3 in the presence of P.Ws.4 and 5 and seizure of

M.O.s. 1 and 2, under the cover of Ex.P.4. 

16.The evidence spoken by P.Ws. 4,5 and 7 is directly incriminating against the accused and duly proved recovery of M.O.s. 1 and 2, which were proved to be the stolen properties of Bangarammatalli temple, Kothavalasa from the possession of A.1 to A.3. Though, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not directly incriminating against the accused , but from their evidence, it is duly proved that

M.O.s. 1 and 2 are stolen properties. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, is consistent and cogent. Though, P.Ws.1 to 5 were cross examined at length by the defence counsel, nothing was elicited from their cross examination to doubt their trustworthiness, more particularly the presence of P.Ws.4 and 5 at the time of arrest of A.1. to A.3.

and seizure of M.Os. 1 and 2 from the possession of A.1 to A.3 under the cover of

Ex.P.4. A.1. to A.3. are strangers to P.Ws. 4 and 5 and there is no ill­will or enmity towards them. No cogent reasons were assigned for falsely implicating them to fasten the criminal liability, except putting a general suggestion that P.Ws.4 and 5 are stock mediators.

17.The evidence of P.W.1 establishes that M.O.s. 1 and 2 are stolen properties. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to stolen properties. The evidence of P.Ws.4,5 and 7 categorically establishes that A1 and A2 confessed the offence before P.Ws.4 and 5 and in pursuance of confession of A1 andA2, P.W.7 recovered the stolen property in the above crime from A3. A.3 has not explained any reasons for possession of M.O.s. 1 and 2 which does not belongs to him. In the absence of any explanation from A.3 regarding possession of M.Os 1 and 2, it has to be presumed that A.3 is in possession of stolen properties i.e. M.O.s. 1 and 2, knowing the same as stolen properties and he retained them unlawfully and it is a fit case to invoke presumption under Section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act. The evidence spoken by P.Ws.1 to 5 7 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 and Exs.P.1. to P.6. and M.O.s. 1 and 2 clearly establishes that A.1 and A.2 committed theft of M.Os.1 and 2 from

Bagarammatalli temple, Kothavalasa and they kept the said property with A3. A3 retained the said property i.e. M.O.s. 1 and 2 knowing the same as stolen and retained it unlawfully and thereby committed an offence under Section 411 I.P.C.

18.The prosecution on whom the burden lies to prove the guilt of A.1. to

A.3 for the offences under Sec. 457 and 380 or 411 I.P.C. is able to bring home the guilt of A.1 and A.2 for the offence under section 457 and 380 IPC and to bring home the guilt of A.3. for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C.

19. In the result, A.1. and A2. are found guilty for the offence under section 457 and 380 I.P.C and A.3 is found guilty for the offence under section 411 IPC and they are convicted under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this 12th day of April, 2023. 

Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa.

On appearance of A.1. to A.3, Judgment is pronounced and they are informed about their right to prefer an appeal. 

On being questioned about quantum of sentence, A.1 submitted that his parents are suffering from illness, as such, he did not marry. He further submitted that he has an unmarried sister and he has no other cases. A.2 submitted that his mother is in hospital and he has to look after her. He also submitted that there are no other cases pending against him. A.3 submitted that as he is in jail, the education of his children is spoiled and the situation in his house is worse. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and manner in committing the offence and the mercy plea of A.1. to A.3, this court feels that P.O.

8

Act is not applicable to the present case and imposition of S.I for a period of six months each for A.1 and A.2 and imposition of S.I for a period of six months for

A.3. will meet the ends of justice. 

20.Therefore, A.1 and A.2 are sentenced to under go S.I for a period of six months each and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/­(Rupees five hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine, they shall under go SI for a period of one month, for the offence under section 457 IPC. They are further sentenced to under go SI for a period of six months each and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/­ (Rupees five hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine, they shall under go

SI for a period of one month, for the offence under section 380 IPC. The sentence imposed under the above sections, shall run concurrently. A3 is sentenced to under go SI for a period of 6 months for the offence under section 411 IPC. The remand period i.e., from 19­10­2022 to till date i.e., till 12­04­2023, undergone by A.1 to

A.3. shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. M.O.1. Silver Crown and M.O.2

Silver Haram which were already given to P.W.1 for interim custody vide orders in

Crl.M.P.381/23 dt.23­1­23, shall be made absolute, after the expiry of appeal time. 

Pronounced by me in open court, on this 12th day of April, 2023.

Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa.

Appendix of Evidence witness examined For prosecution: For Accused: 

P.W.1 Yeduwaka NarayanaNONE.

P.W.2: Mutchakarala Murali,

P.W.3: Ballina Arjuna PW.4 : Tekkali Swarna Prakash, VRO PW.5 : Pitapurapu Madhukumar PW.6 : S.Bala Surya Rao, C.I of police PW.7: V.Ashok Kumar, S.I of police 9

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution

Ex.P.1: Report given to police. 

Ex.P.2: Scene observation report.

Ex.P.3: Certified copy of confession statement dated 12.08.2022.

Ex.P.4: Certified copy of confession statement dated 12.08.2022 at 07.15 PM.

Ex.P.5: Original First Information Report.

Ex.P.6: Rough sketch.

For accused: NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

M.O.1. Silver Crown M.O.2. Silver Haram . Sd/­Smt. S. Surya Kiran Sri Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa.

10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa.

Date of offence: 14.06.2022 Date of report or complaint: 14.06.2022 Date of apprehension of accused: 19­10­2022 A.1 to A.3 Date of release if any: 19­10­2022 A.1 to A.3 in Jail. Date of commencement of trial: 23.01.2023 Date of closure of trial: 20.03.2023 Date of sentence.: 12.04.2023.

Explanation for delay and remarks There is no delay. Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.229/2022 on the file of 

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kothavalasa. ComplainantState represented by the Inspector of Police Kothavalasa PS in Cr.No.114/2022. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Name of the accused, Father's name, age, calling, village, Mandal etc. ___________________________________________________________________

1. Sika Anand @ Adam, S/o Raju, A/29 Yrs, R/o Anandapuram village, Pottipadu Panchayat, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District

2. Ponnada Kiran @ Nani, S/o Late Srinivasa Rao, A/28 Yrs, R/o Sarabulu Veedhi, Puritipenta Village, Gajapathinagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram District

3. Nalabandha Satheesh, S/o Sathibabu, A/40 yrs, R/o Kirlampudi Village and Mandal, East Godavari District ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Offence :­ U/sec.457 IPC: Lurking house trespass or house breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment. U/sec.380 IPC: Theft in dwelling house etc. U/sec.411 IPC: Dishonestly receiving stolen property.

Finding : A.1. and A2. are found guilty for the offence under section 457 and 380 I.P.C and A.3 is found guilty for the offence under section 411 IPC and they are convicted under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

SENTENCE: A.1. and A2. are found guilty for the offence under section 457 and 380 I.P.C and A.3 is found guilty for the offence under section 411 IPC and they are convicted under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C A.1 and A.2 are sentenced to under go S.I for a period of six months each and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/­(Rupees five hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine, they shall under go SI for a period of one month, for the offence under section 457 IPC. They are further sentenced to under go SI for a period of six months each and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/­(Rupees five hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine, they shall under go SI for a period of one month, for the offence under section 380 IPC. The sentence imposed under the above sections, shall run concurrently.

A3 is sentenced to under go SI for a period of 6 months for the offence under section 411 IPC. The remand period i.e., from 19­10­2022 to till date i.e., till 12­04­2023, undergone by A.1 to A.3. shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. M.O.1. Silver Crown and M.O.2 Silver Haram which were already given to P.W.1 for interim custody vide orders in

Crl.M.P.381/23 dt.23­1­23, shall be made absolute, after the expiry of appeal time.

11

Sd/­Smt. S. Surya Kiran Sri Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa. 

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS: SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA.

Present : ­ Smt. S.Surya Kiran Sri Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa (FAC) Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota.

Thursday, this the 21st day of April,2022.

O.S.No.24 of 2017

Between:

Vemana Chinnammalu, W/o. Sanyasi Rao, Hindu, aged 56 years, Household duties, resident of Venkataramanapeta village, S.Kota mandal, Vizianagaram District …Plaintiff

And

1. Thadi Gopalakrishna, s/o. Late Apparao, Hindu, aged 45 years, Business, resident of Venkataramanapeta village, S.Kota mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2. Thadi Mani, w/o. Gopalakrishna, Hindu, aged 38 years, Household duties, resident of Venkataramanapeta village, S.Kota mandal, Vizianagaram District …defendants

This suit has come on 25.03.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Suri Demudu, learned Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri

P.Nageswara Rao, learned Advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, doth pronounced the following:­ : J U D G M E N T :

The Plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,41,930/­(Rupees One Lakh Forty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty only) being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dt.10.06.2015 executed by the defendants.

2.The brief facts of the plaintiff’s case that the defendants 1 and 2 are husband and wife and they jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 10.06.2015 for the purpose of discharging family sundry debts and 2 jointly executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at

Venkataramanapeta village of S.Kota mandal, on the even date, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a to the plaintiff or to her order on demand. The defendants also borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/­, for which they have executed separate pronotes on the same day. After receipt of the above said amount, they have not paid any amount to the plaintiff, in spite of repeated demands , requests made by her and they have been postponing the same on one pretext or other. But, the defendants intelligently got issued a lawyer’s notice to the plaintiff on 11.01.2017 with false allegations for avoiding repayment of the pronote amount and the plaintiff received the same. Then, she gave a reply to the defendants on 24.01.2017 and later she filed present suit.

3.The 1st defendant filed his written statement and 2nd defendant filed adoption memo by adopting the written statement of 1st defendant, by denying the material allegations in the plaint. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the 1st defendant are:­ the defendants have never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and they never executed any pronote in her favour. The averments made in the plaint are not true, valid and binding on the defendants.

The plaintiff filed the above suit with false and untenable allegations by suppressing the true and correct facts for the purpose of making financial gain.

The defendants submitted that the plaintiff and her husband Sanyasi Rao used to run chit business and they are invited the defendants to join in one of the chit group maintained by the plaintiff. The 1st defendant joined the chit during

August,2014 to March,2016 for monthly subscription of Rs.5,000/­. During the period, the plaintiff and her husband obtained four empty promissory notes with the signatures of defendants. After completion of the chit, the plaintiff and her husband did not pay the chit amount of RS.1,00,000/­ also not returned the four empty promissory notes. So , the 1st defendant got issued lawyer’s notice to the 3 husband of the plaintiff on 11.01.2017 called him to repay the chit amount of

Rs.1,00,000/­ and also return 4 empty promissory notes obtained by the plaintiff and her husband from the defendants. The husband of the plaintiff received the notice and he sent a reply notice dt.24.01.2017 with false allegations for avoiding to repay the chit amount and not returned the 4 empty promissory notes. Taking advantage of the signed blanked promissory notes available with the plaintiff and her husband, the suit promissory note is brought into existence with the help of the scribe and attestors. The defendants never executed any promissory notes and plaintiff never paid the alleged consideration of Rs.1,00,000/­ to these defendants under alleged pronote, as such, the same is forged one and this suit based on such forged document is not legally maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the defendants pray to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled by my predecessor for trial.

1.Whether the suit promissory note date 10.06.2015 is true, valid and binding on the defendants ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim? 

3.To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and she examined PW.3, who is 2nd attestor of pronote and got marked original promissory note as Ex.A1, office copy of legal notice dated 11.01.2017 as Ex.A.2 and the office copy of reply notice dated 24.01.2017 as Ex.A.3. On behalf of defendants , the 1st defendant himself examined as D.W.1, scribe of pronote examined as DW.2 and no documents were marked on behalf of defendants.

6.Heard arguments from both sides.

4

7.Issues No.1 and 2:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 and 2 jointly borrowed amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from her on 10.06.2015 for the purpose of discharging family sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a they jointly executed a demand promissory note on the even date, in favour of the plaintiff at Venkataramanapeta village of S.Kota mandal. It is further contention of the plaintiff that after receipt of said amount, the defendants did not pay any amount to the plaintiff, in spite of repeated demands, requests made by her and they have been postponing the same. Later, the defendants intelligently got issued a lawyer’s notice to the plaintiff on 11.01.2017 with false allegations and the same was received and later she got issued reply notice dt.21.04.2017 to the defendants. In order to prove her contention, the plaintiff was examined as

PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3, the 2nd attestor of Ex.A1 was examined as PW.3.

the plaintiff who was examined as PW.1 deposed her evidence by reiterating the contents of the plaint. PW.3, who was examined on behalf of the plaintiff deposed in his evidence that he is attestor of Ex.A.1 promissory note. The defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 10.06.2015, for the purpose of discharging family sundry debts and defendants jointly executed a suit promissory note on the same day, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a to the plaintiff or to her order. He further deposed that the defendants also borrowed Rs.2,00,000/­, for which they have executed separate pronotes on the same day. Further he deposed that the entire transaction took place at

Venkataramanapeta village of S.Kota mandal, in the presence of other attestor and scribe. 

8.The learned counsel for the defendants cross­examined P.Ws.1 and 3, but nothing could be elicited from their cross­examination in support of the 5 defendants. The learned counsel for the defendants argued that there is no corroboration in between the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 and plaintiff failed to prove her case by placing cogent evidence. He argued that in her cross­examination

PW.1 stated that she gave Rs.1,00,000/­ cash through her personal savings, she has taken another Rs.2,00,000/­ from her daughter and gave the same to the defendants. Whereas, PW.3 stated in his cross­examination that he gave amount to the husband of plaintiff and in turn the plaintiff gave amount to the defendants.

By pointing out the same, the learned counsel for the defendants argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 is not consistent. But, the said statement of P.Ws1 and 2 is not fatal to the case of the plaintiff and basing on those statements, the entire case of the plaintiff cannot be brushed out. Further, the defendants admitted in their written statement, as well as in the evidence of DW.1 that the signatures on promissory notes belongs to them. The defendants categorically mentioned in the written statement that the plaintiff and her husband obtained 4 empty promissory notes with the signatures of the defendants, but their contention that they used one of the said promissory note and filed the present suit. When the defendants categorically admitted the signatures on the promissory note, the presumption 118 of negotiable instruments Act come into play. According to Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which reads as follows: 

“ 118. Presumption as to negotiable instruments: Until the

contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:­

(a) that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for

consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been 

accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted,

indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. 

In view of the presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act, the burden shits to the defendants to prove that Ex.A.1 is fabricated one and it is not supported by consideration, by adducing positive 6 evidence or by rebutting the plaintiff witnesses. As stated supra, the defendants could not elicit anything from the cross­examination of P.Ws.1 and 3,in their favour.

9.But, the 1st defendant was examined as DW.1 and the scribe of

Ex.A.1 was examined DW.2. DW.1 has reiterated the contents of written statement in his evidence. During the cross­examination DW.1 admitted that the signatures on written statement and on vakalat belongs to him. But, he stated that the signature on adopted written statement of 2nd defendant does not belongs to her and the signature on suit summons, so also on vakalat does not belong to his wife ie. 2nd defendant. He admitted that the signature on pronote belongs to him, but stated that two signatures on revenue stamp of the pronote does not belong to his wife. On one hand, the 1st defendant mentioned in his written statement that the plaintiff and her husband run a chit and himself joined the said chit, on that the plaintiff obtained 4 empty pronotes with the signatures of defendants, he further mentioned that taking advantage of the signed blanked promissory notes available with the plaintiff and her husband, the suit promissory note is brought into existence with the help of the scribe and attestors. On the other hand during the course of cross­ examination DW.1 stated that the 2nd signature on revenue stamp on promissory note does not belongs to 2nd defendant. He further stated that the signature on adopted written statement of 2nd defendant does not belongs to 2nd defendant. But the adopted written statement, vakalat were filed by the learned counsel for the defendants before this court. Hence, the defendants took two pleas ie.,one is in the written statement and other one is in the evidence of

DW.1.

10.In order to prove their contention, the defendants examined DW.2, who is scribe of Ex.A.1 and he deposed in his evidence that he scribed Ex.A.1 7 promissory note for Rs.3,00,000/­. He further deposed that when he went to the house of plaintiff, she informed him that the defendants borrowed

Rs.3,00,000/­ and requested him to scribe Ex.A.1, accordingly he filled Ex.A.1 promissory note at about four years back. At that time of filling Ex.A.1 the plaintiff, Sanyasi Rao, who is the husband of the plaintiff were present. So, according to evidence of DW.2, he filed pronote for Rs.3,00,000/­,but Ex.A.1 is for Rs.1,00,000/­ not for Rs.3,00,000/­. The learned counsel for the plaintiff cross examined DW.2 and during the course of cross­examination DW2, he stated that he do not know have idea how many promissory notes he filled on the date of execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note. He admitted that the signature across revenue stamps belongs to defendants. He further admitted that he scribed promissory notes filed in OS.25/2017 and OS.27/2017. He further admitted that at request of both parties to the promissory note he filled the promissory notes. Hence, the evidence of DW.2 is no way helpful to the defendants to prove their case.

11.The learned counsel for the defendants argued that the defendants got issued legal notice dated 11.01.2017 to the plaintiff to return the chit amount, as well as four empty pronotes, the plaintiff received the same, for which, she got issued reply notice with false and untenable allegations. The plaintiff, herself filed Exs.A.2 and A.3 during her evidence. This court perused

Exs.A.2 and A.3, Ex.A.2 was issued to the husband of plaintiff and in Ex.A.2 it was mentioned that the husband of plaintiff ie., Sanyasirao is neighbour to the 1st defendant and he invited the 1st defendant to join in one chit, on that the 1st defendant joined in the said chit. It was further mentioned that the husband of the plaintiff obtained 4 empty pronotes with the signatures of 1st defendant and his wife and later the husband of plaintiff did not pay chit amount and in turn threatened the defendants. On that the husband of the plaintiff called to 8 repay the entire chit amount with interest and to return four empty pronotes.

It was also mentioned in Ex.A.2 that if he failed to pay said amount and to return the promissory notes, the 1st defendant will be constrained to take appropriate legal action against the husband of the plaintiff in court of law.

The said notice was issued on 11.01.2017. Ex.A.3 is the reply notice to the said notice issued by the plaintiff’s husband to the defendants. Hence, a perusal of Ex.A.2 shows that in Ex.A.2 also the defendants mentioned that the signatures on pronotes belongs to them. Further the defendants did not take any action against the plaintiff through the court of law or they did not gave any police report against plaintiff and her husband for not repaying the chit amount and not returning the 4 empty blank promissory notes. No document was filed by the defendants before this court to show that they have taken appropriate legal action against the plaintiff and her husband. If really the plaintiff and her husband has obtained 4 empty blank promissory notes,which contained the signatures of defendants, what prevented the defendants to take appropriate legal action t against plaintiff and her husband by giving a police compliant. Hence, except self­ surviving evidence of D.W.1 nothing is on record to prove that the plaintiff and her husband run chit business, the 1st defendant joined in the chit business and the plaintiff, her husband has obtained 4 empty blank promissory notes with the signatures of defendants and they used the said pronotes filed the above suit. Further, in Ex.A.2 legal notice, the 1st defendant mentioned that the husband of the plaintiff run chit and he obtained 4 empty blank promissory notes which contained the signatures of defendants. Whereas when coming to the pleadings of the defendants and the evidence of D.W.1, it was mentioned that the plaintiff and her husband run chit, they obtained 4 empty blank promissory notes. Hence, the pleadings and the evidence of defendants is not corroborated with each other.

9

12.Hence, from the above discussion the defendants failed to adduce positive evidence and failed to rebut the evidence of plaintiff 1 and 3. On the other hand, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.3 and from the presumption of section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the plaintiff has proved that Ex.A.1 is true, valid and binding on the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim from the defendants.

Accordingly, these two issues are answered in favour of plaintiff.

13.ISSUE NO.3:­

In view of the findings in Issue Nos.1 and 2, the suit is liable to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

16.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendants 1 and 2, for a sum of Rs.1,41,930/­(Rupees One Lakh Forty One Thousand Nine

Hundred and Thirty only) with subsequent interest @12% p.a. from the date of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on the principal sum of Rs.1,00,000/­(Rupees One lakh only).

Dictated to the Stenographer, Grade­III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me through blue jeans on this the 21st day of April,2022.

Sd/- S. Surya Kiran Sri

Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Kothavalasa FAC­unior Civil Judge­cum­ 

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,S.Kota.

10

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

For plaintiff:­ For defendants:­

P.W.1: Vemana Chinnammalu,D.W.1: Thadi Gopalakrishna

PW.2: Simma Apparao.(eschewed) D.W.2: Simma Apparao.

PW.3: Aasapu Thrimurthulu.

Documents marked

For plaintiff:­

Ex.A.1:Promissory note, executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff on 10.06.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/­,

Ex.A.2 :Office copy of legal notice dated 11.01.2017 got issued by the defendants to plaintiff

Ex.A.3:Office copy of reply legal notice dated 24.01.2017 got issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants.

For defendants: ­­NILSd/­ S. Surya Kiran Sri Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Kothavalasa FAC­unior Civil Judge­cum­ 

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,S.Kota.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE CUM JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE : KOTHAVALASA.

Present : ­ Smt. S.Surya Kiran Sri, Judl.Magistrate of First Class cum Junior Civil Judge. Kothavalasa.

Thursday, this the 20th day of April,2023.

C.C.No.257 of 2021

BETWEEN:

State represented by The Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa Police Station. … Complainant ... A n d

Sokila Sunil, s/o. Pothuraju, age 20 years, ST Nookadora by caste, Balipuram village, Devarapalli mandal, Visakhapatnam district.

.. Accused. 

This case is coming on 19.04.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for prosecution and of Sri Venugopal and Sri G.V.Ramana,

Learned advocates for the accused and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: 

J U D G M E N T

The accused is prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 304­A,338 of of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC), and Section 196 of M.V.Act, 1988, in Cr.No.274/2020 of Kothavalasa Police Station.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa filed a final report against the accused with the following allegations:

 The deceased by name Dukka Venkatarao is resident of Kithannapeta village,

L.Kota mandal and he used to reside in Purushothapuram, Pendurthi Mandal.

P.W.1 is the brother­in­law of said Dukka Venkatarao. The deceased used to attend his works at Purushothapuram of Pendurthi mandal. On the occasion of Dussara, the deceased Dukka Venkatarao along with his family and relatives went to his native village Kithannapalem on 25.10.2020 and after completion of Pooja they were returned. The deceased Dukka Venkatarao and P.W.1 were proceeding on two motorcycles, the son of P.W.1 i.e., P.W.5 was also proceeding on the motorcycle bearing No. AP 31 ZKT/ R1472, and when they reached Gandhinagar, Kothavalasa, 2 accused being a driver of auto bearing No.AP 31TF 4067 drove the same, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed motorcycle of the deceased in opposite direction, resulting the son of P.W.1 and the deceased fell down on the road, the deceased rolled into shrubs and received severe bleeding injuries and the deceased died on the spot. P.W.5 also received bleeding injuries on his person and was joined in Q1 hospital, Visakhapatnam. 

Basing on the report of PW.1, PW.8, registered the above crime and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited scene of offence, drafted rough sketch, scene observation report and got photographed the scene of offence, he examined as many as 6 witnesses and recorded their detailed statements u/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C, He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Panchyatdars, P.Ws.1 to 4 and LW.5 Dukka Narayana CHC, S.Kota.

PW.8 served notice u/sec.41(A) Cr.P.C to accused on 29.10.2020. LW.15 Assistant

Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle, he opined that the accident was not caused due to mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. LW.16, Civil Surgeon,

CHC,S.Kota conducted medical autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued

Postmortem certificate of the deceased, in which, he opined that the deceased might have been died of due to hemorrhagic shock, caused due to head injury. LW.17,

Medical officer, Q.1 hospital, Arilova,Visakhapatnam issued a wound certificate in which he opined that PW.5 sustained grievous injuries on his person. After completion of investigation, LW.20­ Inspector of police filed charge sheet. 

3. Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 304­A, 338 of IPC, and 196 of M.V.Act, against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation leveled against him for the offence under Sec, 304­A, 338 of IPC, and 196 of M.V.Act, was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked.

3

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, by putting incriminating material available on record. The plea of accused is one of total denial. When accused was called upon to enter upon defence evidence, he did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

8.I have heard the arguments of learned APP for the state and the learned counsel for the accused. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.

9.Now point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 304­A,338 of IPC and 196 of M.V.Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:­

In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined the uncle of deceased as PW.1, the wife of deceased as PW.2, the cousin of deceased as PW.3, the brother­ in­law of deceased as PW.4, the nephew of deceased and injured as PW.5, the mediators for inquest and scene observation as Pws.6 and 7 and the investigating officer as PW.8 and got marked report of PW.1 as Ex.P.1, Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.2 to 5 as Exs.P.2 to 5, inquest as Ex.P.6, Signature of PW.7 on scene observation report as Ex.P.7, Original FIR as Ex.P.8, Rough Sketch as Ex.P.9 , scene observation report as Ex.P.10, MVI report as Ex.P.11, Postmortem certificate as Ex.P.12 and the wound certificate of P.W.5 as Ex.P.13.

11.The evidence of PW.1 revealed that on 25.10.2020 at 05:00PM, his son and the deceased were proceeding on a bike from Kittnnapeta to Pursothamapalem, the deceased was riding the bike and his son sat as pillion rider. When they reached

Appannapalem village, their bike met with an accident. he was informed about the accident. he was informed that an auto bearing number 4067 hit the motor cycle and on that the deceased died on the spot and his son right leg was fractured.

Immediately, he came to the scene of offence, found the dead body of his nephew.

His son was shifted to Kothavalasa hospital and later he was shifted to Q1 hospital,

Arilova. Later, he gave Ex.P.1 report to police.

4

During the course of cross­examination, PW.1 stated that he does not know the number of the motor cycle, on which, the deceased and his son proceeded, on the date of accident. He further stated that he did not go to the scene of offence after he came to know about the accident. Hence, P.W.1 did not depose anything about the crime vehicle, manner of accident and against the accused. He simply deposed the number of crime vehicle auto as 4067. Further, he is not a direct eye witness to the alleged incident. He is a hearsay witness.

12. P.W.2 deposed that in the month of October, 2020, when she was in

Sujatha Nagar, at 07:00PM, she came to know that her husband met with an accident. Immediately, she went to Kittannapeta village and from there to C.H.C.

S.Kota. By the time, she reached the hospital, her husband was found dead.

13. P.W.3 deposed that about 1 ½ year ago, when he was at fields, one person called him over phone and informed that his brother met with an accident.

Immediately, he went to C.H.C. S.Kota. 

14. P.W.4 deposed that about two years ago, when he was in China

Musirivada village, he received phone call that his brother­in­law met with an accident. Immediately, he went to C.H.C. S.Kota. 

15. P.W.5 injured deposed that on 25.10.2020, during evening hours, himself and the deceased Venkata Rao were proceeding on a motor cycle from

Kittannapalem village and when they reached some distance, one vehicle hit their motor cycle from back side, as such, they both fell down from motor cycle and he lost conscious. Later, he gained conscious in hospital. he came to know that his uncle died. He received fracture injury to his right leg and also simple injuries all over his body. He was admitted in Q­1 hospital, Visakhapatnam.

P.W.5 deposed that he does not know which vehicle hit their motor cycle, the driver of the vehicle, who hit their motorcycle and he does not know anything about the case facts. 

16.P.W.6, deposed that about two years ago,at 10:00 AM, he attended the inquest which was conducted over the dead body of the deceased Dukka Sanyasi

Rao. Lws 8, 10 to 12 ie., Dukka Krishna Demudu, Dukka Venkatarao, Korrai

Nagesh and Barnikani Atchibabu and others were present by that time. They opined that the deceased died in an accident caused by an auto. Police drafted inquest and they signed on Ex.P.6 inquest report.

5

During his cross­examination, he stated that he does not know the contents of

Ex.P.6.

17.P.W.7, the mediator for scene observation deposed that in the month of

October, 2020,at 08AM, the Kothavalasa Police Station ASI was present at a Nursery which is situated after Appanndora palem village and it is called as Gangubudi area, by that time he was coming from work, the ASI requested him to sign on a report. At his request he signed on the said report. The signature shown to him is his signature. But, he does not know the contents of the report, which contained his signature i.e., Ex.P­7. 

18.Hence, P.Ws.1 to 7 did not depose anything about the crime vehicle, manner of accident and anything against the accused. Even though, P.W.1 deposed that he came to know that the accident was caused by an auto, he is not direct eye witness to the alleged incident and he did not depose either the exact crime vehicle number or about the accused. P.Ws.2 to 5 and 7 did not support the prosecution version and they turned hostile to the prosecution case. The learned APP cross examined them, but nothing could be elicited from their cross examination, except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements and signature as Exs.P­2 to P­5 and P­7.

Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 is no way helpful to the prosecution, to prove the offence against the accused.

19.Now, there remains the evidence of P.W.8, who is the investigating officer. The entire case of the prosecution rests on solitary testimony of P.W.8. He has spoken the investigation done by him, about the registering the case, recording the statements, further lines of investigation done by him, issuance of section 41­A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused and laying of charge sheet against accused under

Section 304­A,338 of IPC, and 196 of M.V.Act,. The evidence of P.W.8 investigating officer is no way improvises the prosecution case to prove the real matter in issue.

The evidence of P.W.8 investigating officer is formal in nature and his evidence has no bearing on the guilt of the accused and hence, the evidence of P.W.8 investigating officer is also not helpful to the prosecution case.

20.As already discussed, the prosecution failed to establish that the accident was occurred due to crime vehicle which was driven by the accused in a rash or negligent manner, failed to establish that the deceased died in the said accident, caused by crime vehicle and also failed to establish the identity of the accused as a driver of auto bearing No.AP 31TF 4067 and the investigating agency did not connect the accused with the crime vehicle by way of producing any relevant 6 documentary evidence. Therefore, no case is made out by the prosecution against the accused.

21.In the light of above discussion and after careful consideration of the material brought on record, this court hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused under Sec 304­A,338 of IPC, and 196 of M.V.Act,, by placing cogent evidence and hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.

22.In the result, the sole accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304­A,338 of IPC, and 196 of M.V.Act, and he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr. P. C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months u/sec.437­A Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to appear before the appellate authority, if his presence is required before the appellate authority. Accused is further directed to execute a self bond for Rs.5,000/­(Rupees five thousand only) u/sec.437­A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Grade­II, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Judl.Magistrate of I Class ­cum­ Junior Civil Judge. Kothavalasa.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined.

For Prosecution:­ For Defence:­

P.W.1: Kottayi Swamy naidu. ­None­

P.W.2:Dukka Ramulamma.

P.W.3: Dukka Krishna

PW.4: Koryi Appalanaidu

PW.5: Korrayi Ramesh

PW.6: Dukka Venkata Rao

P.w.7: Nagala Apparao.

P.W.8: T.srinivasa Rao, ASI,

Exhibits Marked. For Prosecution:­

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 given to police. 

Exs.P.2 to P.5 :Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.2 to 5

Ex.P.6:Inquest report.

Ex.P.7:Signature of PW.7 on Scene observation report. 

7

Ex.P.8:Original First Information Report.

Ex.P.9:Rough Sketch.

Ex.P.10:Scene observation report.

Ex.P.11:M.V.I report.

Ex.P.12:Postmortem Certificate.

Ex.P13:Wound Certificate of PW.5.

Material Objects. ­NIL­

Sd/­Smt. S.Surya Kiran Sri, Judl.Magistrate of I Class ­cum­Junior Civil Judge. Kothavalasa.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa. Date of offence: 25.10.2020

Date of report or complaint: 25.10.2020 

Date of apprehension of accused: 29.10.2020

Date of release if any: 29.10.2020 Sec.41­A Cr.P.C.Notice.

Date of commencement of trial: 05.07.2022

Date of closure of trial: 19.04.2023

Date of sentence.: 20­04­2023

Explanation for delay and remarks Due to non­production of witnesses.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.257/2021 on the file of 

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kothavalasa.

ComplainantState represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa Police station in Cr.No.274/2020 of Kothavalasa Police Station. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Name of the accused, Father's name, age, calling, village, Mandal etc. _______________________________________________________________________ Sokila Sunil, s/o. Pothuraju, age 20 years, ST Nookadora by caste, Balipuram village, Devarapalli mandal, Visakhapatnam district.

Offence :­ Causing death by negligence u/sec.304(A) of I.P.C Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life u/sec.338 of IPC. Driving uninsured vehicle 196 of M.V.Act,

Finding :Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304­A, 338 of IPC, and 196 of M.V.Act, and he is acquitted U/S.255 (1) Cr. P. C.

SENTENCE: The sole accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 304­A,338 of IPC, and 196 of M.V.Act, and he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr. P. C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months u/sec.437­A Cr.P.C.. The accused is directed to appear before the appellate authority, if his presence is required before the appellate authority. Accused is further directed to execute a self bond for Rs.5,000/­(Rupees five thousand only) u/sec.437­A Cr.P.C.

sd/­Smt. S.Surya Kiran Sri, Judl.Magistrate of I Class ­cum­Junior Civil Judge. Kothavalasa.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE CUM JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE : KOTHAVALASA.

Present : ­ Smt. S.Surya Kiran Sri, Judl.Magistrate of First Class cum Junior Civil Judge. Kothavalasa.

Wednesday, this the 19th day of April, 2023.

C.C.No.250 of 2021

BETWEEN:

State Represented by Sub­Inspector of Police, L.Kota Police Station. … Complainant A n d

Bojanki Ramakrishna, s/o. Late Arjun, age 34 years, R/o. Jamadevipeta village, L.Kota mandal. 

.... Accused. 

This case is coming on 18.04.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for prosecution and of Sri N.Srirama Murthy (Senior), Learned advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments, upon perusing material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused is prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 304­A,338 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC), in Cr.No.197/2020 of L.Kota Police

Station.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, L.Kota Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused, with the following allegations:

 On 21.11.2020 at 23.30 hours, after completion of marriage occasion, PW.1,

P.W.7 and deceased – Darapureddy Venkatalakshmi, started on the motorcycle bearing No.AP 35 AD 3042, which belongs P.W.7 and when they reached a speed breaker, at Gold Star junction at 00.15 hours, by that time, the accused being the driver of tractor bearing NO.AP 35 Y 0188 and trailer bearing No.AP 35 X 9612, drove the same in a high speed and dashed against their motorcycle, in a rash and negligent manner, resulting, they fell down on the road and PW.1 sustained injuries on her left hand. The deceased Darapureddy Venkata lakshmi also received fracture injury on her right hand , on the left eye and blood oozed out from the mouth and 2 she sustained with severe injuries, on her head. Later, they were shifted to K.G.H,

Visakhapatnam, in a car for treatment, the deceased Darapureddy Venkatalakshmi died, while brought to hospital. 

Basing on the report of PW.1, PW.11 registered the above crime and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and examined as many as 8 witnesses and prepared rough sketch and drafted scene observation report in the presence of P.Ws.8 and 9. He conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased. On 24.11.2020, he served notice to accused u/sec.41(A)(1) of

Cr.P.C. LW.11 M.V.Inpsector issued M.V.I report, in which, he opined that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle.

LW.12, Assistant Professor, KHG, Visakhapatnam conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued Postmortem certificate of the deceased, in which, he opined that the deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock, due to blunt injury pelivis and fractures of left radius and ulna bones. LW.13 Dr.Narendra Bendi MD, Apollo

Hospital, Visakhapatnam, issued wound certificate, in which, he opined that the injuries received by P.W.1 are grievous in nature. LW.15 K.Lakshsmana Rao, Sub­

Inspector of Police, L.Kota PS verified the investigation of PW.11 and filed charge sheet.

3. Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 304­A, and 338 of IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation leveled against him for the offence under Sec, 304­A, 338 of I.P.C was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.22 were marked. No oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

3

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, by putting incriminating material available on record. The plea of accused is one of total denial. When accused was called upon to enter upon defence evidence, he did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

8.I have heard the arguments of learned APP for the state and the learned counsel for the accused. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.

9.Now point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec.304­A, 338 of I.P.C, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:­

In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined the victim cum de­facto complainant as PW.1, the mother of deceased as P.W.2, the grand father of deceased as P.W.3, the independent witnesses as P.Ws.4 to 6, the another injured as P.W.7, the mediators for scene observation as P.Ws.8 and 9, the owner of crime vehicle as P.W.10 and the Investigating Officer as P.W.11, and got marked signature of PW.1 on a report as Ex.P.1, section 161 Cr.P.C Statements of

P.Ws.1 to 7 and 10 as Exs.P.2 to P.8 and P.11, the signatures of P.Ws.8 and 9 on scene observation report as Ex.P.9 and P.10, Report of P.W.1 as Ex.P.12, Original

FIR as Ex.P.13, scene observation report as Ex.P.14, Rough sketch as Ex.P.15, 11 photos along with CD as Ex.P.16, inquest as Ex.P.17, MVI report as Ex.P.18, Wound

Certificate of P.W.1 as Ex.P.19, Postmortem report as Ex.P.20, three photos of dead body of the deceased as Ex.P.21 and alteration memo as Ex.P.22.

11.The evidence of P.W.1 revealed that on 21.11.2020, at 11:30PM, the deceased, PW7 and herself were proceeding on Pulsur bike and reached the gold star junction, then, one tractor came in their opposite direction and hit their bike, as a result, they fell down on the road along with bike. The tractor wheel ran over on her left hand and also her left side body damaged, due to the said accident. Her 4 cousin received injury on her head. PW7 also received injuries on his person. They were shifted to King George Hospital, Visakhaptnam. After 15 days, she came to know that her cousin died. She signed on a report at APPOLO hospital,

Visakhapatnam, at the request of her family members. 

12. The evidence of P.W.2 revealed that about three years ago, at 11:30PM, when she was present at her house, she received phone call and was informed that when her daughter, PW1 and PW7 were coming on a motor cycle, and reached the gold star junction, a tractor hit their motor cycle and they received injuries.

Immediately, she went to King George Hospital, Visakhaptnam,where they were shifted. Her daughter died on the same day. 

13. P.Ws.3 to 6 categorically deposed that about three years ago at 12:00AM, they came to know that the deceased and other went to a marriage and when they were returning from marriage and reached Gold star Junction, they met with an accident and the deceased died in the said accident.

14. P.W.7 deposed that in the month of November 2021, PW1, the deceased and himself went to a marriage in Pendurthy on a bike, they returned from marriage. When they reached the gold star junction, opposite to Saibaba temple, a tractor had come to their right side and hit his motor cycle, as a result, they fell down on the road. he received simple injuries. PW1 and the deceased received grievous injuries. Later, they were shifted to King George Hospital, Visakhaptnam in a car. The deceased died on the way to the hospital. PW1 was treated in King George

Hospital, Visakhaptnam.

15.The evidence of Pws.8 and 9 categorically revealed that about two years ago, they went to L.Kota Police Station, as L.Kota Sub­Inspector called them, then, the Sub­Inspector obtained their signatures on a report. They deposed that the signatures shown to them are their signatures but they do not know the contents of the report which contained their signatures. 

16.Hence, P.Ws.1 to 9 did not depose anything against the accused. They did not make any single sentence against the accused. P.W.1, the victim deposed that she does not know the tractor number and the driver of tractor, since she lost 5 conscious, after the accident. P.W.7, another injured also deposed that he cannot say the tractor number and he cannot identify the driver of the tractor, since he did not see the driver of the tractor, due to tension. Hence, the crucial witnesses i.e.,

P.Ws.1 and 7 did not depose anything against the accused. They did not support the prosecution case. They turned hostile. P.Ws.2 to 6 are hearsay witnesses and they also did not depose anything against the accused. They also turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.W.10 is alleged owner of crime vehicle. He deposed that he has a tractor and trailer but he does not know their numbers. Except this, he did not depose anything. He also turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.Ws.8 and 9 who are alleged mediators for scene observation also did not support the prosecution case. The learned APP cross examined P.Ws.1 to 10, but nothing could be elicited from their cross examination, except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements and signatures as Exs.P2 to P11. Hence, their evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution, to prove the offence against the accused.

17.The remaining evidence P.W.11,who is the investigating officer. He has spoken the investigation done by him, about the registering the case, recording the statements, further lines of investigation done by him, issuance of section 41­A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused and laying of charge sheet against accused under

Secs.304­A and 338 of IPC. The evidence of P.W11, investigating officers is no way improvises the prosecution case to prove the real matter in issue. The evidence of

P.W.11 investigating officers is a formal in nature and his evidence has no bearing on the guilt of the accused and hence, the evidence of P.W.11 investigating officer is also not helpful to the prosecution case.

18.As already discussed, no prosecution witness has deposed against accused and crime vehicle. The prosecution failed to establish that the accident was caused due to crime vehicle tractor bearing NO.AP 35 Y 0188 and trailer bearing

No.AP 35 X 9612, accused is the driver of said vehicle by the time of accident, and he drove the same in a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of P.W.7, in a rash and negligent manner, resulting the deceased died and P.W.7 received grievous injuries. Even though, the prosecution examined P.W.10, who is alleged to be owner 6 of crime vehicle, he did not depose anything about crime vehicle and accident.

Further more, the investigating officer did not collect the crime vehicle records and license of accused, to prove their involvement in the accident, even though, he deposed that the accused came to him and surrendered before him in police station.

Therefore, no case is made out by the prosecution against the accused.

19.In the light of above discussion and after careful consideration of the material brought on record, this court hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused under Sec 304­A and 338 of IPC, by placing cogent evidence and hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, the sole accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under 304­A and 338 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months u/sec.437­A Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to appear before the appellate authority, if his presence is required before the appellate authority. Accused is further directed to execute a self bond for Rs.5,000/­(Rupees five thousand only)u/sec.437­A Cr.P.C. 

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, Grade­II, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of April,2023.

Sd/­Smt. S.Surya Kiran Sri, Judl.Magistrate of I Class ­cum­ Junior Civil Judge. Kothavalasa. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined. For Prosecution:­For Defence:­

P.W.1: Bhoomireddy Lakshmi ­None­

P.W.2: Darapureddy Demudamma

P.W.3: Darapureddy Yerrinaidu

P.W.4: Kaicharla Sanyasinaidu

P.W.5: Kicharla Venkata Ramana

P.W.6: Darapureddy Venkata Ramana

P.W.7: Bhumireddy Gopi,

P.W.8:Jagarapu Appalaswamy naidu.

P.W.9:Bhoomireddy Narasimha Murthy,

P.W.10:Gedela Rambabu.

P.W.11: Ch.Trimurthulu, Head­constable 7

Exhibits Marked.

For Prosecution:­

Ex.P­1 Signature of PW.1 on report.

Exs.2 to P.8 Section 161 Cr.PC statements of Pws.1 to 7

Ex.P.9The signature of PW.8 on Scene observation Report.

Ex.P.10The signature of PW.8 on Scene observation Report.

Ex.P.11Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.10.

Ex.P.12 Written report of PW.1 on 22.11.2020, 

Ex.P.13 Original First Information report, 

Ex.P.14 Scene observation report, 

Ex.P.15 Rough sketch, 

Ex.P.16 11 photos along with CD., 

Ex.P.17 Inquest report, 

Ex.P.18 M.V.I report,

Ex.P.19 Wound certificate of PW.1 

Ex.P.20 Postmortem report, 

Ex.P.21 Three photos of dead body of deceased,

Ex.P.22 Alteration memo.

For Defence: ­

Nil.

Material Objects.

­NIL­

Sd/­Smt. S.Surya Kiran Sri, Judl.Magistrate of I Class ­cum­Junior Civil Judge. Kothavalasa.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa.

Date of offence: 22.11.2020 Date of report or complaint: 22.11.2020 Date of apprehension of accused: 24.11.2020 Date of release if any: 24.11.2020 Sec.41­A Cr.P.C.Notice. Date of commencement of trial: 13.03.2023 Date of closure of trial: 17.04.2023 Date of sentence.: 19.04.2023.

Explanation for delay and remarks Due to non­production of witnesses.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.250/2021 on the file of 

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kothavalasa.

ComplainantState represented by the Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa Police station in Cr.No.197/2020. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Name of the accused, Father's name, age, calling, village, Mandal etc. _______________________________________________________________________ Bojanki Ramakrishna, s/o. Late Arjun, age 34 years, R/o. Jamadevipeta village, L.Kota mandal. . ____________________________________________________________________________

Offence :­ Causing death by negligence u/sec.304(A) of I.P.C. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life u/sec.338 of IPC.

Finding : Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable 

U/S.304­A and 338 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C

SENTENCE: The sole accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under 304­A and 338 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months u/sec.437­A Cr.P.C.

The accused is directed to appear before the appellate authority, if his presence is required before the appellate authority. Accused is further directed to execute a self bond for Rs.5,000/­(Rupees five thousand only)u/sec.437­A Cr.P.C. . 

Sd/­Smt. S.Surya Kiran Sri,

Judl.Magistrate of I Class ­cum­Junior Civil Judge. Kothavalasa.