Sri Shaik Pedakhasim

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: SATHYAVEDU.

Present:Sri Shaik Pedakhasim,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathyavedu.

Monday, this the 20th day of March, 2017.

C.C. No. 115 / 2014.

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Sathyavedu P.S. (Cr.No.70/2014)

.. Complainant.

// V E R S U S //

N. Dhamodaram, Age:32 years, S/o Ethirajulu, Occ:Cultivation, Rallakuppam village, Sathyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District.

.. Accused.

This case is coming on 15-03-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution and Sri P.D.Venkateswarlu, learned Advocate for Accused, upon hearing their arguments, this Court delivered the Judgment today i.e., 20-03-2017 which is as follows:

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sathyavedu Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.70/2014 for the offences U/s 500, 506 IPC r/w 156(3) Cr.P.C.

2)The case of the Prosecution is that there were disputes and ill feelings between the family of PW1 and family of accused. The marriage of daughter of PW1 was arranged with son of PW7, engagement date was fixed as 20.04.2014.

On 15.04.2014 in the afternoon, accused called through phone number 9052021695 to PW7 to his mobile number

FAIR JUDGMENT

2 9177871321, accused informed to PW7 that he has illicit intimacy with Hemapriya who is daughter of PW1, even if marriage of son of PW7 is performed with Hemapriya, he will elope with Hemapriya. Later, accused informed to PW4 and

PW6 that he has illicit intimacy with Hemapriya and requested them to inform the same to PW7. Due to the information given by accused, PW7 canceled the betrothal of Hemapriya with his son. PW7 informed to PW1 the fact that he received information from the accused about the bad character of

Hemapriya. PW1 and PW3 went to accused and questioned him about his defamatory statement against Hemapriya, accused threatened PW1 and PW3, assaulted them, accused threatened PW1 and PW3 that he will not allow them to live and he will kill them. PW1 filed Private complaint before this

Court, same was forwarded to the Police station, Sathyavedu with a direction to register the same as FIR. Upon receipt of

Court endorsement, PW9 registered a case as Cr.No.70/2014

U/s 500, 506 IPC r/w 156(3) Cr.P.C and took up investigation.

PW9 conducted investigation examining witnesses, collecting call data of phones, etc. After completion of investigation, PW9 filed charge sheet U/s 500 IPC, U/s 506 IPC r/w 156(3) Cr.P.C against the accused. Hence, the charge against the accused.

3)On 07.07.2014, this case was taken on file for the offences U/s 500, 506 IPC against the accused.

4)On 21.08.2014, on appearance of accused, the case copies were furnished to him as per Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5)On 17.12.2014, accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. He denied the offence. Then, a charge

U/s 500 IPC & U/s 506 IPC framed against the accused, same

FAIR JUDGMENT

3 was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.9 were examined and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

7)After closure of Prosecution evidence, on 08-3-2017, accused was examined U/s 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8)Heard the arguments of the learned A.P.P. for state and learned defence counsel for the accused.

9)Now, the Point for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences U/s 500 IPC & U/s 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10)Point:- The learned APP submitted that evidence of

PW1 to PW9 together with contents of Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 clearly established case of Prosecution hence accused shall be convicted. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the accused submitted that there are several contradictions in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses, moreover PW7 who is very important witness not deposed any incriminating material against the accused hence benefit of doubt shall be given to him. In view of these rival submissions, this Court has gone through the material on record. The material on record shows contents of Ex.P1, evidence of PW1, PW4, PW6, PW7 and PW9 plays vital role in deciding this case even though evidence of other witnesses also plays role.

FAIR JUDGMENT

4

11)The reading of evidence of PW1 and contents of

Ex.P1 shows that PW1 not stated several facts before this

Court which he mentioned in Ex.P1. PW1 in his evidence simply deposed that 5 days prior to date of engagement, PW7 informed to him that PW7 is not interested for the marriage of his son with daughter of PW1. PW1 further deposed he do not know the reason why PW7 refused for marriage of his son with daughter of PW1. PW1 further deposed that he lodged report in the Police station, police called the accused to the Police station, upon enquiry, accused stated to the Police that he has illicit intimacy with the daughter of PW1 even daughter of PW1 married another man, accused will continue his relationship with daughter of PW1. It means, as per evidence of PW1, PW7 cancelled marriage of his son with daughter of PW1 hence PW1 lodged report with the Police, upon enquiry, accused disclosed

before Police that he has illicit intimacy with daughter of PW1.

PW1 in Ex.P1 mentioned that on 15.04.2014, accused called to

PW7 and informed to him that he has illicit intimacy with daughter of PW1 even marriage is performed, he will came to the house of PW7 and elope with daughter of PW1. PW1 further mentioned in Ex.P1 that accused informed the same fact to

PW4 and PW6 and asked them to inform the same to PW7 therefore PW7 cancelled marriage of his son with daughter of

PW1. PW1 further mentioned in Ex.P1 that himself and his brother i.e., PW3 went to house of accused and questioned, then accused threatened PW1 and PW3 with dire consequences stating he will not allow them to live and he will kill them. It is clear from the evidence of PW1 and contents of

Ex.P1 that PW1 gave information in detail making allegation that accused informed to PW4, PW6 and PW7 that he has illicit

FAIR JUDGMENT

5 intimacy with daughter of PW1 hence engagement was canceled but PW1 not stated all those facts before the Court.

PW1 not stated before this Court that accused informed to

PW4, PW6 and PW7 about his illicit intimacy with daughter of

PW1. PW1 not stated before this Court that PW4, PW6 and PW7 informed to PW1 about phone call or information provided by accused to them. PW1 not stated before this Court that accused threatened him and PW3. PW1 in his chief examination itself deposed that he do not know the reason why PW7 canceled the marriage. As per evidence of PW1, accused stated before Police about his illicit intimacy with daughter of PW1 but said fact is not mentioned by PW1 in

Ex.P1. PW1 in his evidence deposed that after Police informed to him that accused confessed before Police about his illicit intimacy with daughter of PW1, then only PW1 lodged report with the Police. PW1 categorically admitted that he do not know the contents of Ex.P1. The reading of evidence of PW1 shows PW1 omitted to state before this Court several facts he mentioned in Ex.P1. The evidence of PW1 further reveals the plane reading of evidence of PW1 not disclosing any incriminating material against the accused, moreover evidence of PW1 is not supporting the case of Prosecution. PW1 himself admitted he do not know the contents of Ex.P1, in these circumstances, no value can be attached to Ex.P1 therefore the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

12)The case of Prosecution is accused informed to PW4,

PW6 and PW7 about his relation with daughter of PW1 and asked for cancellation of engagement. The evidence of PW4,

PW6 and PW7 plays vital role. PW7 is father of bridegroom.

PW7 in his evidence deposed that about 2 years ago, one unknown person called to his mobile phone and asked him

FAIR JUDGMENT

6 whether PW7 was performing marriage of his son with daughter of brother of PW3, then PW7 asked him about his name and other particulars but said person not properly replied, the said person informed to PW7 that behavior of girl was not good, then PW7 asked him who is that person to say like that hence said person disconnected the phone. PW7 categorically deposed he do not know the accused. PW7 in his evidence not deposed any incriminating material against the accused, moreover he said he do not know the accused. PW7 in his evidence not deposed his mobile phone number as well as phone number from which he received call. It is not the evidence of PW7 that said person informed to PW7 that said person has illicit intimacy with daughter of PW1. It is not the evidence of PW7 that said person informed to PW7 even if marriage is performed, said person elope with daughter of

PW1. PW7 simply stated said person informed to him that behavior of that girl was not good. It is not the evidence of

PW7 that said person informed his name and other particulars to PW7. PW7 in his cross examination admitted that he do not know the date on which he received phone call. The reading of evidence of PW7 not disclosing incriminating material against the accused. As per Prosecution case, PW7 is very important witness, however he did not depose any incriminating material against the accused, moreover even the evidence of PW7 is considered, the essential ingredients of Sec.499 IPC are not established.

13)PW4 in his evidence deposed that about 2 years ago on one day, accused called him through phone and informed that engagement of daughter of PW1 was fixed with son of

PW7 but character of daughter of PW1 is bad and accused asked him to inform the same to PW7. As per evidence of PW4,

FAIR JUDGMENT

7 accused informed to him that character of daughter of PW1 is bad. It is not the evidence of PW4 that accused informed him that he has illicit intimacy with daughter of PW1 even marriage is performed, he will elope with daughter of PW1. As per

Prosecution case, on 15.04.2014 while PW4 and PW6 were present in the house of PW4, accused came there and informed about bad character of daughter of PW1 but as per evidence of PW4, accused informed to him through phone therefore evidence of PW4 is contrary to the Prosecution case.

PW4 not deposed in his evidence PW6 also present with him when accused informed to him about bad character of daughter of PW1. Therefore, this aspect also contrary to the case of Prosecution. The evidence of PW4 is doubtful. Even the evidence of PW4 is believed, the essential ingredients of

Sec.499 IPC are not established. PW6 in his evidence deposed that about 1 ½ year ago on one day at about 7.30 PM, he along with PW4 were proceeding from Varadaiahpalem –

Peradam, accused stopped their motor cycle in Rallakuppam village and he was discussing something with PW4, later PW4 informed to PW6 that accused informed to PW4 something bad about girl with whom engagement of son of maternal uncle of

PW6 was settled. The evidence of PW6 is quite contrary to the evidence of PW4. PW4 not stated in his evidence that while he along with PW6 were proceeding on their motor cycle, accused stopped them in Rallakuppam village and informed about bad character of girl, then PW4 informed the same to PW6. The evidence of PW6 is quite contrary to the evidence of PW4 as well as Prosecution case. The comparison of evidence of PW4 and PW6 clearly shows both of them are giving entirely different facts from each other therefore evidence of PW6 also not believable. Even the evidence of PW6 is believed, the

FAIR JUDGMENT

8 essential ingredients of Sec.499 IPC are not established. The evidence of PW4 and PW6 also not helpful to prove the case of

Prosecution.

14)The evidence of other witnesses also not helpful to prove the case of Prosecution, moreover the evidence of

Prosecution witnesses is contrary to each other. PW2 who is wife of PW1 in her evidence deposed that as accused called

PW7 through phone and informed that he has illicit intimacy with her daughter Hemapriya, the engagement was cancelled.

PW2 in her evidence categorically deposed upon suspicion, report was lodged in the Police station against the accused, then upon enquiry, accused confessed he committed offence.

This shows only upon suspicion, they lodged report against the accused. She categorically admitted that report was lodged in

June’ 2014. As per evidence of PW1 and contents of Ex.P1, report was lodged in the Police station on 20.04.2014 but not in June’ 2014. The admissions made by PW2 clearly raises doubt regarding trustworthiness of her evidence. PW2 in her evidence admitted that Sub-Inspector called the accused to

Police station and enquired with him. She further admitted that

Sub-Inspector informed to them that accused confessed before him accused committed offence. PW2 further admitted that

PW1 mentioned in his report and stated before the Police that accused confessed before the Police commission of offence by him. She further admitted PW3, PW6, Muniramaiah were also present in the Police station when Police enquired with the accused. She further admitted that upon suspicion, herself, her husband, Munikrishnaiah, Muniramaiah, Chiranjeevi and

Munaswamy lodged report in the Police station. The admissions made by PW2 are quite contrary to the Prosecution case, evidence of PW1 and contents of Ex.P1. It appears that

FAIR JUDGMENT

9 evidence of PW2 is only hearsay evidence from different sources. It is not the evidence of PW2 that PW7, PW4 and PW6 informed to her about the accused committing offence against her daughter. There is no substance in the evidence of PW2 hence same cannot be considered and not helpful to the case of Prosecution. PW3 also in his evidence deposed Sub-

Inspector called the accused, upon enquiry, accused confessed

before Sub-Inspector that he committed offence. He further

admitted that Police brought the accused to the Police station on the date of lodging report and enquired with him and accused was released on the same day. The reading of evidence of PW3 shows he did not state in his evidence how he came to know and through whom he came to know the accused committed offence against daughter of PW1. It appears that PW3 simply deposing accused confessed guilt

before Sub-Inspector. It is not the evidence of PW3 that PW4,

PW6 and PW7 informed to him about accused committing offence. It is not the evidence of PW3 that PW1 informed to him about PW4, PW6 and PW7 informed to PW1 about accused committing the offence. It is not the evidence of PW3 that Sub-

Inspector informed to him that accused confessed guilt before

Sub-Inspector. The evidence of PW3 is on one hand contrary to the Prosecution case, evidence of PW1 and contents of Ex.P1, on the other hand, it is not sufficient to prove the case of

Prosecution. PW5 in his evidence deposed that on 17.04.2014,

PW7 informed to him that accused called him through phone from different phone numbers including crime phone and threatened him that accused has illicit intimacy with daughter of PW1 therefore PW7 is not interested to perform marriage of his son with daughter of PW1. However, PW7 in his evidence not stated that he informed PW5 that accused called him and

FAIR JUDGMENT

10 informed accused has illicit intimacy with daughter of PW1 hence PW7 not interested to perform marriage of his son with daughter of PW1. In view of evidence of PW7, the evidence of

PW5 is not believable, moreover PW5 in his cross examination admitted that accused confessed that he committed offence hence report was lodged thereafter. This also creates doubt as same is against to the Prosecution case. Therefore, the evidence of PW2, PW5 is also not helpful to prove the case of prosecution.

15)PW7 not deposed in his evidence his phone number as well as phone number from which he received call regarding character of daughter of PW1. As per evidence of PW9, he did not seize Phone and SIM cad of PW7 as well as phone from which call was received by PW1. PW9 in his evidence admitted that he did not conduct investigation to find out in whose name the coin phone was issued, he did not conduct investigation to find out who were present when calls were made through coin phone. As per evidence of PW9, the phone from which calls were received by PW7 is coin phone. In these circumstances, it can be said that there is no proper investigation by PW9 to find out from which phone PW7 received phone calls, there is no proof before this Court to show PW7 received phone calls from the accused. The minute reading of evidence on record shows Prosecution failed to establish PW7 received phone calls to his mobile phone number 9177871321 from phone number 9052021695. Even call date of those phones not marked as exhibit before this

Court. In these circumstances, the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

FAIR JUDGMENT

11

16)PW9 in his cross examination deposed that he started investigation in this case only after he received endorsement from this Court. PW9 further deposed that PW1 not made any report with him on 20.04.2014 more particularly report enclosed to Ex.P1. As per evidence of PW1 to PW3 and

PW5, PW1 lodged report only after the accused confessed his guilt before the Police. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and PW5 is contrary to the evidence of PW9. Therefore, the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

17)PW1 filed complaint before this Court which is marked as Ex.P1. In the present case, daughter of PW1 by name Hemapriya is the aggrieved person. The Investigating

Officer neither examined and shown Hemapriya as a witness in memo of evidence nor Prosecution examined Hemapriya

before this Court to elicit facts therefore non examination of

Hemapriya is fatal to the case of Prosecution. Sec.199 Cr.P.C provides that Court shall not take cognizance except upon a complaint by aggrieved person when offence is U/s 499 IPC to

U/s 502 IPC. Sec.199 Cr.P.C provides an exception. As per proviso to Sec.199 Cr.P.C, any person may file complaint if aggrieved person is under the age of 18 years or an idiot or a lunatic or unable to make complaint due to sickness or infirmity or Paradhansi woman. PW9 filed charge sheet U/s 500 and 506 IPC. As per evidence of Prosecution witnesses, there is no incriminating material to establish ingredients of Sec.506

IPC. Therefore, the other section left is U/s 500 IPC. In view of

Sec.199 Cr.P.C, daughter of PW1 by name Hemapriya alone is competent to file complaint as it is not the case of PW1 that

Hemapriya is under age of 18 years or idiot or lunatic, etc as provided U/s 199 Cr.P.C. As per the contents of Ex.P1,

Hemapriya was aged about 20 years as on 20.04.2014. There

FAIR JUDGMENT

12 is no evidence on record to show that this case falls under the proviso provided U/s 199 Cr.P.C. As per the provisions of

Sec.199 Cr.P.C and other material on record, Hemapriya is alone competent to file complaint, however for the reasons best known to PW1 and Hemapriya, she did not file complaint and not deposed evidence before this Court even though she is aggrieved person. PW1 lodged complaint before this Court which is not lawful and same is against to Sec.199 Cr.P.C.

Sec.199 Cr.P.C is mandatory in nature therefore accused shall not be convicted based on the complaint filed by PW1 who is not an aggrieved person. Therefore, the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. In view of the above facts, circumstances and material on record, this Court is of opinion that Prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused for the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the Point is answered in favour of accused and against the Prosecution.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 500 IPC and U/s 506 IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months from date of judgment as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no Property in this case, no Property order is passed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of this Court,

transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20 th day of March, 2017.

Sd/- Shaik Pedakhasim,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathyavedu.

FAIR JUDGMENT

13

Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:

PW1M.Anandaiah.

PW2M.Sujatha.

PW3M.Munikrishnaiah.

PW4P.Krishnaiah.

PW5M.Muniramaiah.

PW6S.Chiranjeevi.

PW7M.S.Parthasaradhi.

PW8S.Munaswamy.

PW9P.Ramlakshmi Reddy.

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution:

ExP1Complaint, dated 22.04.2014.

ExP2161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6.

ExP3161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7.

ExP4161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8.

ExP5FIR in Cr.No.70/2014, dated 26.04.2014.

Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:- Nil.

Witnesses examined on behalf of defence: None.

Exhibits marked on behalf of defence : Nil.

Sd/- Shaik Pedakhasim,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathyavedu.

// true copy //

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathyavedu.

FAIR JUDGMENT

14

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT SATHYAVEDU.

CALENDAR IN C. C. No. 115 / 2014.

Date of offence:15.04.2014.

Date of complaint:26.04.2014.

Date of apprehension of :28.04.2014. Accused

Date of taken on file :07.07.2014.

Date of commencement of :27.12.2016. trial

Date of close of trial:28.02.2017.

Date of sentence or order :20.03.2017.

Complainant:State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Sathyavedu P.S. (Cr.No.70/2014)

Description of the Accused:N.Dhamodaram, Age 32 years, S/o Ethirajulu, Occ:Cultivation, Rallakuppam village, Sathyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District. Nature of offence:U/s 500 IPC, U/s 506 IPC :- Punishment for Defamation and Punishment for criminal intimidation.

Findings of the Court:Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 500 IPC and U/s 506 IPC.

Sentence or order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 500 IPC and U/s 506 IPC. Accordingly,accusedis acquitted U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused

FAIR JUDGMENT

15 shall be in force for six months from date of judgment as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no Property in this case, no Property order is passed.

Sd/- Shaik Pedakhasim,

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Sathyavedu.

// true copy //

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathyavedu.

FAIR JUDGMENT

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: SATHYAVEDU.

Present: Sri Shaik Pedakhasim,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathyavedu.

Friday, this the Twenty-fourth (24th) day of March, Two thousand and Seventeen.

C.C. No. 126 / 2014.

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Sathyavedu P.S. (Cr.No. 97 / 2014).

.. COMPLAINANT.

// V E R S U S //

A. Gurappa, Age:28 years, S/o Krishnaiah, caste by Ediga, working as Software Consultant at Bangalore city, native village is Ranganadhapuram village, Sathyavedu Mandal.

.. ACCUSED.

&&&

This case is coming before me on 20-03-2017 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri P.D.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for Accused and upon hearing their arguments, this Court delivered the Judgment today i.e., 24-03-2017 which is as follows:

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sathyavedu Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in

FAIR JUDGMENT

2

Cr.No.97/2014 for the offences punishable U/s 324, 506

IPC.

2) The Case of the prosecution is that PW1 and accused are sister and brother, there was a dispute between them regarding house. While so, on 28.05.2014 at about 9 AM, in front of house of PW1 in

Ranganadhapuram village, the accused beat PW1 and

PW2 with stick, threatened them stating he will stab them with knife asking them to vacate from the house.

Upon report of PW1, a case was registered as

Cr.No.97/2014 U/s 324 IPC, 506 IPC and Police took up investigation. Police conducted investigation examining witnesses, visiting scene of offence, etc. After completion of investigation, PW8 filed charge sheet U/s 324 IPC, U/s 506 IPC against the accused. Hence, the charge against the accused.

3)On 25.07.2014, this case was taken on file for the offences punishable U/s 324, 506 IPC against the accused.

4) On 02.09.2014, on appearance of accused, the case copies were furnished to him as per Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

5)On 14.10.2014, accused was examined under

Sec.239 Cr.P.C. He denied the offence. Then, a charge

U/s 324 IPC, U/s 506 IPC framed against the accused, same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for

FAIR JUDGMENT

3 which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.8 are examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

7) After closure of prosecution evidence, on 10.03.2017, accused was examined u/Sec.313(1)(b) of

Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence but Ex.D1 was marked.

8) Heard the arguments of the learned APP for the State and learned defence counsel for the accused.

9) Now, the Point for determination is :

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/s 324 IPC, U/s 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10)Point:- The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor submitted that Prosecution proved its case examining PW1 to PW8 and producing Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 therefore accused shall be punished. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the accused submitted

Prosecution miserably failed to prove its case as there are several latches in the evidence of prosecution witnesses therefore accused shall be acquitted. In view of these rival submissions, this Court perused the material on record. PW1 in her evidence deposed accused committing offence against her and PW2. PW2

FAIR JUDGMENT

4 to PW6 deposed corroborating with the evidence of

PW1 on some material aspects. PW3 and PW5 were declared as hostile, however they deposed some facts in favour of prosecution. PW7 deposed his examining

PW1 and issuing Ex.P4. PW8 deposed his registering case, conducting investigation and filing charge sheet.

11)The evidence on record raises doubt whether date of offence was on 28.05.2014 or 01.06.2014. PW1 in Ex.P1 mentioned that offence was committed on 28.05.2014. Ex.P1 reveals report was lodged on 01.06.2014 at 8 PM, however PW1 in her evidence deposed that on 01.06.2014 at about 11 AM while herself and PW2 were present in the house, accused beat them and necked out them from the house. PW1 in her cross examination also admitted that she stated

before the Police and mentioned in Ex.P1 that on

01.06.2014 at about 11 AM while she along with her husband were present in the house, accused beat them and necked out them from the house. PW1 further admitted that on the same day, she informed to the village elders, she lodged report in the Police station,

Police examined her on the same day. As per evidence of PW1, date of offence was on 01.06.2014 at 11 AM, on the same day, she informed to village elders, on the same day, she lodged report with the police and on the same day, Police examined her therefore it is clear that evidence of PW1 is quite contrary to the prosecution case as well as contents of Ex.P1 as far as date of offence is concerned. PW3 in his evidence deposed that

FAIR JUDGMENT

5 date of offence was on 28th day in a calendar month.

PW4 in his evidence deposed that date of offence is 28.05.2014 between 8.30 to 9.00 AM. PW6 in his evidence deposed that date of offence is 28.05.2014 at about 9 AM therefore as per evidence of PW3, PW4 and

PW6, date of offence was 28th but same is contrary to the evidence of PW1 as as per PW1, date of offence was 1st day of June. PW5 in his evidence deposed that on 14th day of February at about 3 PM, he saw accused throwing/pushed PW1 stating PW1 shall not reside in said house. As per evidence of PW5, date of offence was 14th February but it is contrary to the contents of

Ex.P1 and evidence of PW1 to PW4 and PW6. As per evidence of PW5, offence was occurred at 3 PM but as per evidence of other witnesses, offence was occurred in the morning hours therefore it is also creating doubt whether offence was occurred in the morning hours or in the evening hours. PW1 in Ex.P1 simply mentioned date of offence but she did not mention whether it is morning or evening or afternoon. The evidence of PW7 also plays significant role regarding this aspect. PW7 in his evidence deposed he examined PW1 on 28.05.2014 at 10 AM and issued Ex.P4. However, as per evidence of

PW1, offence was 01.06.2014 at 11 AM therefore it is doubtful how PW7 can examine PW1 on 28.05.2014 at 10 AM and found PW1 sustaining injury when offence was occurred on 01.06.2014 at 11 AM. The oral evidence of PW1 to PW7 clearly raises doubt whether date of offence was on 28.05.2014 or 01.06.2014 or 14th February, similarly raises doubt whether time of

FAIR JUDGMENT

6 offence was in the morning hours or in the evening hours. Therefore, the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

12) The reading of Ex.P1 shows there were corrections on Ex.P1 regarding date on the report. It appears that date was mentioned on Ex.P1 as 31.05.2014 but same was corrected as 01.06.2014 by correcting digit ‘3’ as digit ‘0’ and digit ‘5’ as digit ‘6’. It further appears that even the date mentioned by PW8 as to when report was received, same correction is made. PW8 in his cross examination admitted that in

Ex.P1, digit ‘3’ was corrected as digit ‘0’, similarly digit ‘5’ as corrected as digit ‘6’. He further admitted that

PW1 not put her initial and not signed at those corrections. The combined reading of Ex.P1 and admissions made by PW8 raises doubt whether report was lodged on 31.05.2014 or 01.06.2014 therefore the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

13)As per evidence of PW7, he examined PW1 and found she sustained abrasion on her right hand, however the material on record raises several doubts regarding PW1 and PW2 sustaining injuries, visiting hospital, etc. PW1 in Ex.P1 not mentioned the place or part of her body on which accused beat, similarly she did not mention that herself and PW2 sustaining injuries. PW1 in her evidence also not deposed that herself and PW2 sustaining injuries. PW1 neither mentioned in Ex.P1 and not stated in her evidence that

FAIR JUDGMENT

7 she visited the hospital. As per contents of Ex.P1 and evidence of PW1, neither PW1 nor PW2 sustained injuries and visited hospital. PW2 in his cross examination deposed that himself and PW1 sustained injuries. He further admitted that he was in the hospital for one day after sustaining injuries, he had shown the injuries to the Doctors and Police. PW2 categorically deposed he sustained injury on back side of his waist and PW1 sustained injury on her back. As per the admissions of PW2, PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries, they went to hospital, shown the injuries to Doctor and

Police and PW2 was in the hospital for one day but this aspect is not supported by evidence of PW1 and contents of Ex.P1. Similarly, the evidence of PW2 on this aspect is not supported by PW7 and PW8. PW2 not produced any document to show that he sustained injury and took treatment in the hospital. Further, as per evidence of PW2, PW1 sustained injury on her back but as per evidence of PW7, there is no injury on the back side of PW1, moreover the only injury found is abrasion present on the right hand. PW2 did not state in his evidence that PW1 sustained injury on her right hand. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 is quite contrary to the prosecution case and evidence of other witnesses. PW4 in his evidence deposed that accused beat PW1 with stick on her back and beat PW2 with stick on his hand. As per evidence of PW7, he did not examine PW2, moreover PW1 sustained only one injury on her right hand and she did not sustain injury on her back therefore evidence of PW4 also contrary to the

FAIR JUDGMENT

8 evidence of PW7 and contents of Ex.P4. PW4 deposed

PW1 went to hospital but PW1 do not depose that she went to hospital. PW8 in his evidence not deposed that he sent PW1 and PW2 to the hospital. It is not the evidence of PW8 that PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries.

All these aspects raises doubt whether PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries, if so on which part of their body they sustained injuries, whether PW1 and PW2 visited hospital, if so they are examined by the PW7, whether

PW2 was in the hospital for one day. The benefit of all these doubts shall be given to the accused.

14)The admissions made by witnesses shows the civil dispute between PW1 and accused lead PW1 to file this case against the accused. PW1 in her evidence admitted that offence was committed due to house dispute. She further admitted that her sisters and accused have right over the said house as same belongs to their mother. PW2 in his cross examination admitted that he asked the accused to constructed house for him for which accused refused. He further admitted that as accused neither gave amount nor construct the house, they filed this case against him.

PW4 in his evidence admitted that mediations were conducted regarding house, villagers asked accused to give Rs.5,00,000/- to PW1 for vacating from the house but accused expressed his willingness to give only

Rs.2,00,000/-, accused and PW1 not able to arrive at compromise hence this case was filed. PW6 in his evidence deposed that mediation was conducted

FAIR JUDGMENT

9 between accused on one hand, PW1 and PW2 on another hand regarding house, PW1 and PW2 asked for money for construction of house, in case they vacate from disputed house, PW1 and PW2 asked the accused for amount twice or thrice through village elders. He further admitted that this case was filed regarding the house property. The admissions made by witnesses clearly shows the house dispute was not settled therefore the present case was filed, in these circumstances there is every possibility of falsely implicating the accused in this case hence the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. Further, PW1 in her evidence admitted that she asked accused to marry her daughter but accused refused. PW2 in his evidence deposed himself and PW1 asked the accused to marry their daughter for which accused refused. PW5 in his evidence deposed that as accused not married daughter of PW1, she had ill-feeling against the accused. Therefore, there is every possibility that PW1 falsely implicating accused in this case as accused refused to marry her daughter. This also shall be taken into consideration.

15)The reading of material on record shows there are several contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses on different aspects. The case of the prosecution is accused beat PW1 and PW2 with stick, however PW1 in her evidence not deposed accused beat them with stick, she simply stated accused beat her and her husband. PW1 in her

FAIR JUDGMENT

10 evidence admitted the site on which house constructed belongs to her mother and same was standing in her name. PW1 further admitted that herself, her sisters and brother have right over the house. Once, site belongs to mother of PW1 and all sisters and brother of

PW1 have right over the disputed house, how PW1 can claim exclusive right over the property. PW3 in his evidence simply deposed he saw accused beat PW1 with hands, meanwhile PW3 intervened and separated

PW1 and accused, thereafter accused and PW2 caught hold their heir each other then also PW3 separated both of them. As per evidence of PW3, only there was a quarrel, each party beat the other with hands and each party caught hold heir of other party. It is not the evidence of PW3, accused is the aggressor against PW1 and PW2. The evidence of PW3 is contrary to the evidence of PW1, PW2 and other witnesses. PW4 in his evidence deposed accused beat PW1 on her back and

PW2 on his hand with stick. He further deposed he stated said fact before the Police and there was a swelling on PW1 and she went to hospital. The minute comparison of evidence of PW4 with other evidence on record shows the evidence of PW4 is contrary to the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW7. As per evidence of

PW5, accused only thrown/pushed PW1 stating PW1 shall not reside in the said house. This is also contrary to the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW6 in his evidence categorically deposed that PW2 is his Junior Paternal uncle and PW4 is his brother. He further deposed PW2 sustained dumb injuries, he went to hospital on the

FAIR JUDGMENT

11 same day, however the evidence of PW6 on this aspect is quite contrary to the evidence of PW7 and Ex.P4. The admissions made by PW8 in his cross examination shows several facts stated by witnesses before this

Court not stated before PW8 therefore all are contradictions in the evidence of respective witnesses.

PW8 in his cross examination admitted that it is not mentioned in Ex.P1, PW1 and PW2 not stated before him on which part of body of PW1 and PW2 the accused beat them, PW1 not stated before him and not mentioned in Ex.P1 and PW2 not stated before him that while PW1 and PW2 were present inside of the house, accused beat them and necked out them from the house. PW8 further admitted that PW4 stated before him as in Ex.D1, PW4 not stated before him that after parking the tractor, while he was proceeding he saw quarrel between accused and PW1, PW2. PW8 further admitted that PW4 not stated before him that accused beat PW1 on her back with stick and thereby there was a swelling and PW1 went to the hospital. PW8 further admitted that PW6 not stated before him accused beat

PW1 and PW2 stating to vacate them from the house as said house belongs to accused. The admissions made by PW8 clearly shows there are several contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses therefore the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

16)PW1 in Ex.P1 mentioned after the offence, they informed to village elders, later lodged report as matter was not compromised. PW1 in her chief

FAIR JUDGMENT

12 examination also deposed same fact, however the admissions made by PW1, PW2 and other witnesses, similarly the corrections made in Ex.P1 regarding date of report shows there was delay in lodging report and prosecution not properly explained the delay with sufficient reasons as PW1 in her evidence itself deposed date of offence as 01.06.2014. The Plain reading of

Ex.P1 shows delay was properly explained, when compared with the admissions of PW1, it is clear that delay is not properly explained therefore the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. In view of the above facts, circumstances, this Court is of opinion that

Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Point is answered in favour of the accused and against the Prosecution.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 324 IPC, U/s 506 IPC.

Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of six months from the date of

Judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no property order is passed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of this Court,

transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24 th day of March, 2017.

Sd/- Shaik Pedakhasim,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, SATHYAVEDU.

FAIR JUDGMENT

13

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for Prosecution:-

PW.1: N.Guravamma. PW.2: N.Kodandaiah. PW.3: A.Venkatesh. PW.4: N.Sekhar. PW.5: M.Ramachandraiah. PW.6: N.Munisekhar. PW.7: Dr.Subba Reddy. PW.8: P.Ramlakshmi Reddy.

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: Report, dated 01.06.2014. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P4: Wound certificate of N.Guravamma, dated 30.6.2014. Ex.P5: FIR in Cr.No.97/2014, dated 01.06.2014. Ex.P6: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Material Objects:-

Nil.

Witnesses Examined for Defence:-

None.

Exhibits Marked for Defence:-

Ex.D1: Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4.

Sd/- Shaik Pedakhasim,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, SATHYAVEDU.

// true copy //

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathyavedu.

FAIR JUDGMENT

14

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT SATHYAVEDU.

CALENDAR IN C. C. No. 126 / 2014.

Date of offence:28.05.2014.

Date of complaint:01.06.2014.

Date of apprehension of:10.06.2014. Accused Date of taken on file :25.07.2014.

Date of commencement:22.11.2016. of trial Date of close of trial:17.02.2017.

Date of sentence or :24.03.2017. order Complainant:State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Sathyavedu P.S. (Cr.No. 97 / 2014).

Description of the :A. Gurappa, Age:28 years, AccusedS/o Krishnaiah, caste by Ediga, working as Software Consultant at Bangalore city, native village is Ranganadhapuram village, Sathyavedu Mandal.

Nature of offence:U/s 324 IPC, 506 IPC:- Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, Punishment for criminal intimidation;

Findings of the Court:Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 324 IPC, U/s 506 IPC.

Sentence or order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 324 IPC, U/s 506

FAIR JUDGMENT

15

IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted

U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of six months from the date of Judgment as per Sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no property order is passed.

Sd/- Shaik Pedakhasim,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SATHYAVEDU.

// true copy //

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathyavedu.

FAIR JUDGMENT

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: SATHYAVEDU.

Present: Sri Shaik Pedakhasim,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathyavedu.

Thursday, this the Twenty-seventh (27th) day of April, Two thousand and Seventeen.

C.C. No. 163 / 2013.

State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Sathyavedu P.S. (Cr. No. 108 / 2013)

.. COMPLAINANT.

// V E R S U S //

K. Suresh, Age:34 years, S/o V.Keerthi Vasan, D.No.5/190, Gandhi road, Gudiyatham R.S, Tq, owner cum driver of lorry Reg.No. KA01 AA 2768.

.. ACCUSED.

This case is coming before me on 27-04-2017 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri P.D.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for Accused and upon hearing their arguments, this Court delivered the Judgment today i.e., 27-04-2017 which is as follows:

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sathyavedu Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.108/2013 for the offences punishable U/s 304 (A)

IPC, U/s 134 (A) & (B) of M.V. Act.

FAIR JUDGMENT.

2

2) The Case of the Prosecution is that on 17.07.2013 at about 11.45 PM, opposite to Ankalamma temple near Madanambedu village on Sathyavedu-

Uthukota main road, Sathyavedu Mandal, the accused being the driver of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA01 AA 2768, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner on high speed without taking due care and caution dashed opposite coming Bajaj Discovery motor cycle bearing

Reg.No.TN 18 M 5892, in the result, the rider of motor cycle J.Ramky fell down on the road, sustained injuries, he was shifted to Community Health Center,

Sathyavedu for treatment, while undergoing treatment,

J.Ramky was succumbed with injuries on 18.07.2013 at about 1.45 AM. The accused absconded from the scene of offence leaving the crime vehicle. Upon report, a case was registered as Cr.No.108/2013 U/s 304 A IPC and Police took up investigation. Police conducted investigation examining witnesses, visiting scene of offence, etc. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet U/s 304 A IPC, U/s 134 (A) and (B) of

M.V. Act against the accused. Hence, the charge against the accused.

3) On 31.10.2013, this case was taken on file for the offences punishable U/s 304 (A) IPC, U/s 134 (a) (b) of M.V. Act against the accused.

4) On 14.07.2014, on appearance of accused, the case copies were furnished to him as per Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

FAIR JUDGMENT.

3

5) On 16.01.2017, accused was examined under

Sec.251 Cr.P.C. He denied the offence. Then, the substance of the offence U/s 304 (A) IPC and U/s 187 of

M.V. Act against the accused, was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.10 are examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.

7) After closure of prosecution evidence, on 17.03.2017, accused was examined U/sec.313(1)(b) of

Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8) Heard the arguments of the learned APP for the State and learned defence counsel for the accused.

9) Now, the Point for determination is :

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/s 304-A IPC and U/s 187 of M.V. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10) Point:- The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that Prosecution proved its case examining

PW1 to PW10, producing Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 therefore accused shall be convicted consequently he shall be punished. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the accused submitted prosecution miserably failed to

FAIR JUDGMENT.

4 prove its case hence benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused consequently he shall be acquitted. In view of these rival submissions, this Court has gone through the material on record. PW1 who is brother of deceased

Ramky in his evidence deposed on 17.07.2013 at midnight 12 clock while he was present in his house, he received information that his brother Ramky met with an accident near Ankalamma temple, Madanambedu village. PW1 further deposed he along with his parents and other relatives went to Government Hospital,

Sathyavedu, saw his brother sustaining injuries. He further deposed Ramky died in the hospital. PW1 categorically deposed he came to know accident was occurred at Ankalamma temple, Madanambedu village.

He further deposed he lodged report with the Police.

PW2 who is father and PW3 who is mother of deceased

Ramky deposed in their evidence corroborating with the evidence of PW1. PW4 in his evidence deposed about manner of accident and rider of motor cycle sustaining injuries. PW5 in his evidence deposed Police obtained his signature on a report but he do not know the contents of said report. PW6 in his evidence deposed on one day in July'2013, Police conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased J.Ramky in his presence as well as in the presence of PW5 and Devarajulu and prepared

Ex.P3. PW7 in his evidence deposed that on 18.07.2013, he conducted Postmortem on dead body of

Ramky and issued Ex.P4. PW8 in his evidence deposed about manner of accident, rash and negligent driving of accused, Ramky sustaining injuries, etc. PW9 in his

FAIR JUDGMENT.

5 evidence deposed on 19.07.2013, he inspected crime vehicle lorry bearing No.KA01 AA 2768 and issuing

Ex.P5. PW9 in his evidence categorically deposed the accident was not occurred due to mechanical defect of the vehicle. PW10 in his evidence deposed his registering case, conducting investigation and filing charge sheet.

11)The evidence of PW4, PW8 and PW10 plays vital role in deciding this case. As per prosecution case,

PW4 and PW8 are the direct eye witnesses to the occurrence of the accident. PW8 in his evidence deposed that he know the accused, he saw the accused on the date of accident. PW8 further deposed he spoke with the accused at the time of accident. PW8 further deposed accused was the driver of crime vehicle lorry when accident was occurred. PW8 in his evidence deposed on one day in July' 2013 between 11.30 PM to 11.45 PM, he along with others offering prayers in the

Ankalamma temple situated in Madanambedu village, at that time, he saw deceased was proceeding from

Uthukota side towards Sathyavedu, crime vehicle lorry was proceeding from Sathyavedu towards Uthukota in high speed, lorry dashed the motor cycle of deceased, in the result, deceased sustained injuries on his back side of head, there was bleeding from his nose, there was fracture injury to his right leg, accused was the driver of crime vehicle lorry. PW8 further deposed he along with others shifted the injured person to the hospital, Sathyavedu through ambulance. He further

FAIR JUDGMENT.

6 deposed upon verification he found deceased person name as Ramky, resident of N.M.Kandriga village. PW8 further deposed People gathered in the scene of offence attempted to beat accused but some others prevented the same. The minute reading of evidence of PW8 clearly shows he was direct eye witness to the accident, accused was the driver of crime vehicle and accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of accused.

PW4 in his evidence deposed that at about more than 3 years ago on one day at about 11.45 PM, he was present at Ankalamma temple on main road, he saw one motor cycle proceeding from Uthukota side towards

Sathyavedu side on the left side of the road, one lorry was proceeding from Sathyavedu side towards

Uthukota side, the lorry driver tried to overtake another vehicle which was parked on the road, in the result, lorry driver lost control over the vehicle and dashed the motor cycle. PW4 further deposed the person proceeding on the motor cycle fell down and sustained injuries on his body. He further deposed PW5 and others shifted the injured person to the hospital. He further deposed Police reached the scene of offence, he informed to the Police about the manner of accident.

PW4 categorically deposed lorry driver came towards its right side, in the result, accident was occurred. The evidence of PW4 is corroborating with the evidence of

PW8 as far as the manner of accident and rash and negligent driving of lorry driver. In fact, PW4 in his evidence not deposed lorry number and motor cycle number, details of lorry driver and rider of motor cycle,

FAIR JUDGMENT.

7 however his evidence is corroborating with the evidence of PW8 regarding manner of accident and rash and negligent act of lorry driver. PW10 in his evidence deposed he went to scene of offence, observed the scene and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. PW10 further deposed he found Bajaj

Discovery motor cycle of deceased, crime vehicle lorry in the scene of offence and shifted both the vehicles to the Police station. Ex.P7 is rough sketch of the scene of offence. It is clear from Ex.P7 that lorry went towards its right side and exact scene of offence is situated on the extreme right side of the lorry. It is clear from Ex.P7 that accident was occurred as lorry driver went towards its right side. The evidence of PW10 and contents of Ex.P7 are corroborating with the evidence of PW4 and PW8.

The combined reading of evidence of PW4, PW8, PW10 and contents of Ex.P7 clearly established the prosecution case. The material on record clearly established the identity of the accused, rash and negligent driving of accused, death of deceased person in the accident. Therefore it can be said that prosecution proved its case U/s 304-A IPC. Further, the learned Advocate for the accused not put any suggestion to the prosecution witnesses and it is not the case of defence that accused provided medical aid to the injured person and he gave information to the

Police about the accident. PW10 in his evidence deposed on 22.07.2013, accused being owner cum driver of crime vehicle lorry voluntarily appeared in the

Police station, he confessed his guilt. PW8 in his

FAIR JUDGMENT.

8 evidence deposed accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident, he saw the accused on the date of accident and he spoke with the accused at that time. It means, accused identity is established.

Further, it is clear that accused not provided medical aid to the injured person and he did not furnish information to the Police about the accident therefore accused failed to comply the provisions of Sec.134 (a) and (b) of M.V. Act consequently he is liable U/s 187 of

M.V. Act.

12)The learned Advocate for the accused submitted that as per the admissions of PW4 and PW8, a procession was going on the road and thousands of people were present there, if the accused drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner there might be several deaths but prosecution failed to establish how the other persons were able to escape from the injuries in the accident. In view of this submission, this Court has gone through the material on record. Admittedly, procession was going on and several persons accompanied the procession. However accused shall not be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt only on the ground that none of the persons who accompanied procession not sustained injuries. As material on record clearly established the prosecution case, there is no force in the submission of learned Advocate for the accused. In view of the above facts, circumstances and other material on record, this Court is of opinion that prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond

FAIR JUDGMENT.

9 all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Point is answered in favour of Prosecution and against the accused.

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable U/s 304-A IPC and U/s 187 of M.V.

Act and accused is convicted U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no property order is passed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of this Court,

transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- Shaik Pedakhasim,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, SATHYAVEDU.

HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE &

SENTENCE

Accused is Present in the Court hall. Upon questioning about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him, accused stated that he is having father aged about 68 years, wife and 3 daughters aged about 3 years, 5 years and 6 years respectively hence prays to take lenient view in imposing the sentence. In view of the nature of the offence, it is fit case to take lenient view but not fit case to invoke benevolent provision of P.O. Act. Accordingly, Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for the period of one (1) year for the offence punishable U/s 304-A IPC.

Accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one (1) month for the offence punishable U/s 187 of M.V. Act. Total

FAIR JUDGMENT.

10 imprisonment is one year one month. Imprisonment imposed against the accused for the offences punishable U/s 304-A IPC and U/s 187 of M.V. Act shall run concurrently. Accused was not in judicial custody during the course of trial or enquiry therefore no set off period u/Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of this Court,

transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- Shaik Pedakhasim,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, SATHYAVEDU.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for Prosecution:-

PW.1: J.Munaswamy. PW.2: E.Peddajadaiah. PW.3: J.Kamala. PW.4: N.Dhanaraj. PW.5: M.S.Parthasaradhi. PW.6: V.Subramanyam. PW.7: Dr. CH.Ramesh. PW.8: M.Ravi. PW.9: T.Sreenivasulu. PW.10: A.Sriramudu.

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: Report dated 18.07.2013. Ex.P2: Signature of PW5 on inquest report, dated 18.7.2013. Ex.P3: Inquest report of J.Ramki, dated 18.07.2013. Ex.P4: Report of Postmortem examination of J.Ramki,

dated 18.07.2013.

Ex.P5: Report of Motors Vehicle Inspector. Ex.P6: FIR in Cr.No.108/2013, dated 18.07.2013. Ex.P7: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

FAIR JUDGMENT.

11

Material Objects:- Nil.

Witnesses Examined for Defence:- None.

Exhibits Marked for Defence:- Nil.

Sd/- Shaik Pedakhasim,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, SATHYAVEDU.

// true copy //

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathyavedu.

FAIR JUDGMENT.

12

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT SATHYAVEDU.

CALENDAR IN C. C. No. 163 / 2013.

Date of offence:17.07.2013.

Date of complaint:18.07.2013.

Date of apprehension :22.07.2013. of Accused Date of taken on file :31.10.2013.

Date of commencement :25.01.2017. of trial Date of close of trial:08.03.2017.

Date of sentence or order :27.04.2017.

Complainant:State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Sathyavedu P.S. (Cr. No. 108 / 2013)

Description of the :K. Suresh, Age:34 years, AccusedS/o V.Keerthi Vasan, D.No.5/190, Gandhi road, Gudiyatham R.S, Tq, owner cum driver of lorry Reg.No. KA01 AA 2768.

Nature of offence:U/s 304-A IPC and U/s 187 of M.V. Act:- Causingdeathby negligence;Punishmentfor offences relating to accident;

Findings of the Court:Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable U/s 304-A IPC and U/s 187 of M.V. Act.

Sentence or order :In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable

U/s 304-A IPC and U/s 187 of M.V.

Act and accused is convicted U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. As there is no

FAIR JUDGMENT.

13 property in this case, no property order is passed. Accordingly,

Accused is sentenced to undergo

Rigorous imprisonment for the period of one (1) year for the offence punishable U/s 304-A IPC.

Accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one (1) month for the offence punishable U/s 187 of

M.V. Act. Total imprisonment is oneyearonemonth.

Imprisonment imposed against the accused for the offences punishable U/s 304-A IPC and U/s 187 of M.V. Act shall run concurrently. Accused was not in judicial custody during the course of trial or enquiry therefore no set off period u/Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

Sd/- Shaik Pedakhasim,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SATHYAVEDU.

// true copy //

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathyavedu.

FAIR JUDGMENT.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: SATHYAVEDU.

Present: Sri Shaik Pedakhasim,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathyavedu.

Monday, this the Twenty (20th) day of March, Two thousand and Seventeen.

C.C. No. 212 / 2013.

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Varadaiahpalem P.S. (Cr.No.100 / 2013)

.. Complainant.

// V E R S U S //

K.Mani, Age:55 years, S/o Late Krishnan, 4, Jaihind Nagar, 2nd street, Gummadipoondi Town, Tamilnadu state, (Driver of Force Vehicle bearing Regd.No.AP 26 TA 1199).

.. Accused.

This case is coming on 17-03-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri S.Parthiban, Advocate for Accused and upon hearing their arguments, this Court delivered the Judgment today i.e., 20-03-2017 which is as follows:

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub-Inspector of Police, Varadaiahpalem PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.100/2013 for the offence U/sec.304(A) IPC, U/sec.279 IPC and Sec.134(B) of M.V

Act.

2)The case of the Prosecution is that on 23.08.2013 at about 10 p.m near Lavaja factory cross road, Sricity premises of

Varadaiahpalem mandal on Tada to Madanapalem, Sricity main road the accused being the driver of Fork traveler bearing no.AP

Fair Judgment 2 26 TA 1199 drove it in rash and negligent manner without taking due care and caution, dashed on the back side of motorcycle bearing no.TN 22 P 9781 resulting which the pillion rider

R.Anbalagan fell down, sustained injuries and died on the spot, the rider of motorcycle N.Kolagalan not sustained any injuries, the motorcycle sustained the damages. Upon report a case was registered as Cr.No.100/2013 U/sec.304(A) IPC, U/sec.279 IPC and police took up investigation. Police conducted investigation, examined the witnessed, visiting scene of offence, conducting inquest, etc. After completion of investigation PW6 filed charge sheet U/sec.304(A) IPC, U/sec.279 IPC, U/sec.134(B) of M.V Act.

Hence the charge against the accused.

3) On 03.12.2013, this case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.304-A IPC, U/sec.279 IPC, U/sec.134(B) of M.V Act against the accused.

4) On 21.01.2014, on appearance of the accused, the case copies were furnished to him as per Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5) On 15.04.2014, accused was examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C.

He denied the offence. Then, the substance of the offence u/Sec.304-A IPC, U/sec.279 IPC, U/sec.134(B) of M.V Act against accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

PW1 to PW7 are examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.

7) After closure of Prosecution evidence, on 16.03.2017, accused was examined under Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence against him and reported no defence evidence.

Fair Judgment 3

8) Heard the arguments of the learned A.P.P. for the State and learned defence advocate for the accused.

9) Now, the Point for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec.304-A IPC, U/sec.279 IPC, U/sec.134(B) of M.V.Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10) Point:- PW1 to PW7 are examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 are marked on behalf of the Prosecution to prove its case against the accused. PW1 in his evidence deposed that about three years ago while he was present in his house, he received information that his brother R.Anbalagan met with an accident, immediately he along with Ramesh went to Varadaiahpalem police station, came to know case was already registered, therefore they went to Community Health Center, Sathyavedu and took the dead body of Anbalagan. PW2 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. PW3 in his evidence deposed on 24.08.2013 police conducted inquest on the dead body of

R.Anbalagan in his presence and prepared Ex.P2. PW4 deposed that on 24.08.2013 he conducted autopsy on dead body of

R.Anbalagan and issued Ex.P3. PW5 in his evidence deposed that on 27.08.2013 he inspected crime vehicle AP 26 TA 1199 and issued Ex.P4. PW6 in his evidence deposed his registering case, conducting investigation and filing charge sheet. PW7 in his evidence deposed that PW2 surrendered accused before him informing accused was driver crime vehicle at the time of accident.

11) The Minute reading of evidence of PW1 to PW7 shows there is no incriminating material against the accused. PW1 in his evidence deposed that he saw the accused in the police

Fair Judgment 4 station on the date of offence. PW1 in his cross examination admitted that he do not have prior acquaintance with the accused and he do not know name and other particulars of accused. PW1 further admitted that he did not state before the police particulars of driver of crime vehicle. The case of prosecution case as well as the evidence of PW1 is PW1 is not eye witness to the occurrence of the accident, therefore the evidence of PW1 is not helpful to prove the case of prosecution.

PW3 is only inquest mahazardar therefore his evidence also not helpful to prove the rash and negligent act and identity of the driver of crime vehicle. The evidence of PW2 and PW7 plays vital role in this case. PW7 in his evidence deposed that on 31.08.2013 at about 10 a.m PW2 produced the accused before him, PW2 informed to him that accused was driver of crime vehicle involved in the accident regarding crime number 100/2014 of Varadaiahpalem police station. The reading of evidence of PW7 appears to be helpful to the prosecution but evidence of PW2 shows evidence of PW7 is not helpful to the case of prosecution. PW2 in his evidence deposed that in the year 2013 on one day while he was in Chennai he came to know that his vehicle bearing number 1199 met in an accident opposite to ISUZU company in Sricity. He further admitted that upon inquiry with his supervisor he came to know that said vehicle was engaged to Sricity. He categorically admitted that he do not know whether accused was driver of said van on the date of offence. In view of evidence of PW2 it is clear that evidence of PW7 is not reliable. Kolagalan is the injured witness in this case. Therefore he can identify the accused. PW7 in his cross examination admitted that he did not conduct test identification parade of accused through Kolagalan and other eye witnesses. It is clear from the admission of PW7 that he did not take steps to identify the accused through eye witnesses. In view of the same the evidence of PW7 also not helpful to the

Fair Judgment 5 prosecution. In the absence of incriminating material against the accused and crime vehicle from evidence of PW1 to PW3 the evidence of PW4 to PW7 who are merely official witnesses is not sufficient to prove the case of prosecution. After considering the entire material on record this court is of opinion that prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.304-A IPC, U/sec.279 IPC and U/sec.134(B) of

M.V.Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of six months from the date of Judgment as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no property order is passed.

Typed by the Typist of this Court upon my dictation directly on my laptop, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of March, 2017.

Sd/- Shaik Pedakhasim,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathyavedu.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined on behalf of the Prosecution:

PW1 : R.Ravichandran PW2 : R.Krishnamurthy PW3 : G.Ramakrishnaiah PW4 : Dr.B.V.Subba Reddy PW5 : G.Venkateswara Prasad PW6 : S.Vamsidhar PW7 : V.Mani

Exhibits Marked on behalf of the Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P2 : Inquest report of deceased R.Anbalagan dt.24.08.2013.

Fair Judgment 6

Ex.P3 : Report of Postmortem examination of R.Anbalagan. Ex.P4 : Report of Motor Vehicles Inspector dated 27.08.2013. Ex.P5 : Report dated 24.08.2013. Ex.P6 : FIR in Cr.No.100/2013 dated 24.08.2013. Ex.P7 : Rough sketch of scene of offence.

Material Objects:Nil.

For Defence:None.

Sd/- Shaik Pedakhasim,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathyavedu.

// true copy //

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathyavedu.

Fair Judgment 7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: SATHYAVEDU.

CALENDAR IN C. C. No. 212 of 2013.

Date of offence:23.08.2013. Date of complaint:24.08.2013.

Date of apprehension of :31.08.2013. Accused Date of taken on file:03.12.2013.

Date of commencement :17.01.2017. of trial Date of close of trial:15.03.2017.

Date of sentence or :20.03.2017. Order Complainant:State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Varadaiahpalem P.S. (Cr.No.100/2013)

Description of the :K.Mani, Age:55 years, S/o Late AccusedKrishnan, 4, Jaihind Nagar, 2nd street, Gummadipoondi Town, Tamilnadu state, (Driver of Force Vehicle bearing Regd.No.AP 26 TA 1199).

Nature of offence:U/s.304-A IPC, U/sec.279 IPC and U/sec.134(B) of M.V Act: Causing death by negligence; Rash driving or Driving on public way and Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person;

Findings of the Court:Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.304-A IPC, U/sec.279 IPC and Sec.134(B) of M.V Act.

Sentence or order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishableU/sec.304-AIPC,

U/sec.279 IPC and U/sec.134(B) of

M.V.Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted

U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at

Fair Judgment 8 liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of six months from the date of Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

As there is no property in this case, no property order is passed.

Sd/- Shaik Pedakhasim,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SATHYAVEDU.

// true copy //

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathyavedu.

Fair Judgment