Smt Shammi Parvin Sultana Begum

1 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT GUDUR,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2025

Present:- Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Gudur.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 68 of 20 22 .

Judgment in Crl. Appeal : C.A. No. 68 of 2022 1. Number. : Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet From what Court, 2. the Appeal is preferred

Number of the case in that : C.C. No.233 of 2019 on 14.09.2022 3. Court

4.Number of the Appeal: Crl. Appeal No. 68 of 20 22

Kudumula Bala Krishnaiah, S/o. Chandraiah, aged about 48 years, R/o. Kummari Street, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District … (Appellant/Accused)

Names and description of Vs.

5.Appellant/s and : Respondent/s STATE: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sullurpeta Police Station … (Respondent/Complainant)

6.The sentence and law under : which it was imposed in the Accused was found guilty for the offence lower Court. u/s.304-A of IPC and he is convicted u/s.255(2) CrPC. Accused was sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for a period of eight months.

2 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

Whether confirmed or :CONFIRMED

7.modified or reversed, if modified the modification.

8.Date of presentation: 23.09.2022

9.Date of filing: 27.09.2022 Date of notice issued by the : 11.10.2022 10. Court to appear Date of bail bond if :

11.appellant(s) has/have been left out on bail--- Appellant(s) ordered to : 12. appear

13.Date of hearing: 24.03.2025

14.Date of Order/Judgment: 03.04.2025

This appeal coming on 24.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. M. Upendra, Advocate for the Appellant/Accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and having heard both sides and having perused the record and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

This is a criminal appeal preferred by the Appellant/Accused against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet in C.C. No.233 of 2019 on 14.09.2022.

3 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

2. The Appellant hereinafter will be referred as accused and the respondent hereinafter will be referred as Prosecution, for convenient reference and easy understanding.

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sullurpet Police Station filed the charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.421/2018 of Sullurpet Police

Station for the offence punishable u/s.304-A of IPC.

4.The case of the prosecution as narrated in the Charge sheet in brief is that the deceased Kuppani Kavitha is resident of

Santhaveluru village of Varadayyapalem mandal. The defacto complainant

Kuppani Pratap Reddy is the husband of the deceased. The deceased was working as a Telugu teacher in Narayana school, Sullurpet. She used to attend the college daily up and down from Santhaveluru Village to

Sullurpet. Her husband used to drop her at the bus stop and to get her on her return everyday. As usual on 18.12.2018 her husband dropped the deceased at bus stop and she boarded Tirupati to Sullurupet Bus belongs to Sullurupet depot at Santhaveluru cross road. At about 8.00 AM on 18.12.2018, the accused who was driver, stopped the said APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP29Z2060 at Vinayaka Temple and moved negligently without observing that the deceased was getting down from the

Bus. Due to said negligent moving of the Bus by the accused, the 4 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

deceased fell down on the road and the rear side of the wheel ran over the waist of the deceased. The staff of Narayana School and others shifted her to Dhanamjaya Hospital and due to non availability of doctor in the said

Hospital. She was shifted to Government hospital, Sullurpet where the doctors declared that she died. After coming to know about the accident, her husband who is the Defacto Complainant in this case went to the police station and lodged a report at 8.00 AM on 18.12,.2018 before the police, Sullurpet. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.421 of 2018 is registered for the offence u/s.304-A IPC by P.W.4. He also inspected the scene and prepared a scene observation report in the presence of L.W.12

P. Bhagyaraj and L.W.13 S. Dayakar. He also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 18.12.2018 itself in between 11.40 AM to 1.45 PM in the presence of L.W.13 S. Dayakar and another. P.W.4 an I.O.

has sent the dead body to the medical officer, Government Hospital,

Sullurpet for PM examination. On 18.12.2018 itself at about 6.30 PM he has served notice u/s.41-A CrPC upon the accused and released him on bail after compliance of said notice. The medical officer P.W.3 has conducted

PM over the dead body of the deceased and issued PM certificate opining that the death is due to multiple injuries and loss of blood. The investigation done by P.W.4 was verified by L.W.17 P. Viswanatha Reddy. Finally, another IO P.W.6 took up the file, verified the investigation done by P.W.4 5 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

and also L.W.17 P. Viswanatha Reddy, collected MACT certificate and filed charge sheet.

5.The learned Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet has taken cognizance of the offences u/s.304-A of IPC against the

Appellant/Accused and registered as C.C. No.233 of 2019 and issued summons to him.

6.On appearance of the accused, copies were served under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the commission of offence u/s.304-A of IPC against the accused. The contents of charge sheet were read over and explained to him in Telugu. Having understood the same, the accused denied the commission of the offence.

He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 before the Trial Court.

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining all the incriminating evidence appearing against him on record. He denied all the incriminating evidence. He stated that he did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. The accused did not choose to adduce any defence evidence and not marked any documents on his behalf.

6 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

9.The learned Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet found the Accused guilty for the offence u/s.304-A of IPC and he is convicted u/s.255(2) CrPC and sentenced him to undergo Imprisonment for a period of eight months.

10.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/Accused preferred this appeal, assailing the findings of the Trial Court on various grounds, listed below:-

i) The judgment of the Trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

ii) The Trial Court gave much weight to the evidence of P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant and P.W.2 who is the eye-witness of the alleged offence and no 161 CrPC statement of the P.W.2 is marked.

iii) The Trial Court though there is much discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 has given a finding that the evidence of them is very consistent and confident with regard to the manner of alleged offence.

iv) The Trial Court failed to take into consideration that the prosecution did not establish the main ingredients of the alleged offence from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

7 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

v) The Trial Court also failed to take note that there are no ingredients to prove the alleged charge against the appellant from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

vi) The Trial Court also failed to take note that there is no evidence sole testimony of the P.W.2 is not support the prosecution case.

vii) The Trial Court is utterly failed to take the evidence of the independent witness who accrued the incident as directly.

viii) The Trial Court is failed to see the failure of the evidence of the

P.W.2 while giving his evidence, there is no weight and probabilities in his evidence.

The appellant submitted that the appeal may be allowed and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet in C.C. No.233 of 2019 on 14.09.2022.

11.No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on either side before this court.

12. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

13. Points for determination:

1) Whether the prosecution has established that the accused was the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP29Z2060 at the time of accident ?

8 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

2) Whether the prosecution has established that the accused has drove the bus in rash or negligent manner and caused the death of Kuppani

Kavitha (deceased) ?

3) Whether the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and wrongly convicted the accused, as pleaded by him ?

4) Whether there are any valid tenable grounds to interfere and set aside the Judgment passed by the learned Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First

Class, Sullurpet in C.C. No.233 of 2019 on 14.09.2022 ?

5) To what relief ?

POINTS - 1 to 4 :

14.The main contention of the prosecution is that this is a case registered by the police, Sullurpet PS in Crime No.421 of 2018 for the offence u/s.304-A of IPC on the report given by the defacto complainant/P.W.1 alleging that the accused drove the APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP29Z2060 in rash and negligent manner without observing that the deceased was getting down from the bus and because of moving of the said Bus, his wife Kuppani Kavitha fallen down and rear side tire ran across her waist and caused her death. The Trial Court has found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence u/s.304-A IPC mainly 9 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

basing on the evidence given by the eye-witness P.W.2, who deposed that the accused negligently started the Bus and caused the accident. The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal mainly on the ground that the

Trial Court has given much weight to the evidence of P.W.1 who is the husband of the defacto complainant and the eyewitness P.W.2. The appellant/accused has further pleaded that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the evidences of P.Ws.1 and P.W.2. The appellant/accused has further pleaded that the conviction basing on the sole testimony of P.W.2 is not correct and his evidence has not supported the case of the prosecution. In order to answer the grounds of appeal, this

Court has reappraised both oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution in consonance with the findings of the Trial Court in it’s

Judgment in CC No.233 of 2019 dated 14.09.2022.

15.The Defacto complainant is examined as P.W.1. Admittedly he is the husband of the deceased. P.W.1 deposed that on 18.12.2018 he dropped his wife for boarding the bus to attend Narayana School as a teacher. He further deposed that after half an hour, he received phone stating that his wife met an accident caused by the Bus which she boarded.

P.W.1 further deposed that he lodged a report which was drafted by one constable on his dictation. Ex.P1 is the report lodged by P.W.1. He further 10 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

deposed that he can identify the driver of the Bus. He has identified the accused as driver of the said Bus in the open Court. P.W.1 further deposed that he was informed that his wife while getting down from the Bus, met with an accident and the Bus was moved over her. The evidence of P.W.1 and the contents of report Ex.P1 supported the case of the prosecution to believe that P.W.1 has dropped his wife (deceased) and while she was getting down, the said Bus at Vinayaka temple, it was moved and ran over her. The evidence of P.W.1 is showing that immediately after the accident, he came to know about the accident and the manner in which the accident occurred. His evidence is also established that he lodged a report Ex.P1

before the police against the driver of the said APSRTC Bus bearing

registration No.AP29Z2060. An IO who registered the case is examined as

P.W.4. He deposed that on 18.12.2018 P.W.1 lodged a report Ex.P1 at 10.00 AM and he registered a case in Crime No.421 of 2018 for the offence u/s.304-A IPC. P.W.4 further deposed that he issued FIR against the driver of the bus. Ex.P3 is an FIR. The contents of the FIR Ex.P3, supported the evidence of the defacto complainant/ P.W.1 and the I.O. P.W.4.

16.The eyewitness to the accident is examined as P.W.2. He clearly deposed that on 18.12.2018 he boarded the APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP29Z2060 at 7.00 AM to attend the duty in Narayana 11 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

School. P.W.2 further deposed that after 9 K.Ms their Bus reached to

Santhaveluru cross road where the deceased boarded the Bus to go to same Narayana School. P.W.2 further deposed that at 8.00 AM their bus reached to Vinayaka temple located opposite to Narayana School,

Sullurpet and when the said Bus was stopped the deceased got down from the Bus. P.W.2 further deposed that the driver moved the said bus and she fell down from the Bus. He also deposed that the back tires of the Bus ran over the waist of the deceased and immediately she was shifted to

Dhanunjaya Hospital and due to non availability of doctors in the said

Hospital, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Sullurpet, where it was declared that she died. Even during cross examination, P.W.2 has identified the accused in open Court as driver of the Bus at the time of accident. He further deposed that because of negligence of the driver the accused herein, the accident was occurred. The clear evidence of an eye witnesses P.W.2, has supported the case of prosecution that the accused drove the APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP29Z2060 negligently without observing that the deceased was getting down from the Bus and caused the accident. Even during cross examination, P.W.2 has denied the suggestion put to him that he has not seen the driver earlier and for the first time, he identified the accused as driver in the Court at the instance of police. P.W.2 further deposed that the deceased and himself are working 12 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

in the same Narayana School and daily used to go to bus college by Bus.

Though the learned counsel for the accused has cross examined P.W.2, nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence.

17. In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s.304-A IPC, two essential elements are to be satisfied which are (i) identification of the accused as driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and (ii) the rash or negligent acts of the accused. In this case, the eye witness P.W.2 clearly deposed that the accused was the driver of APSRTC

Bus bearing registration No.AP29Z2060 at the time of accident and identified him in the open Court. P.W.2 has also deposed that due to negligent driving of the Bus, the accident was occurred and the deceased was succumbed to injuries. In this way, the evidence of P.W.2 has established both the essential elements by identifying the accused as driver of the Bus and also by deposing that he witnessed the accused moved the bus negligently when the deceased was getting down from the Bus.

18.This is a case registered against the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP29Z2060. The accused has not denied the employment as driver of APSRTC. P.W.1 has deposed that it is a bus of

APSRTC which caused accident. All those who are manning the steering 13 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

of automobiles particularly professional drivers must keep under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences be falling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental whistle is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any attitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and fraulic. When automobiles have become death traps, any leniency shown to the drivers who are found guilty of rash or negligent driving, would be at the risk of further excavation of road accidents. In the present case, the accused is a driver by profession working in the APSRTC and the duty is to manning the steering of the Bus as a professional driver and he must take utmost care having knowledge of consequences of rash or negligent driving. P.W.2 an eyewitness who boarded the same Bus clearly deposed that he witnessed the accident where the accused being driver of the said Bus started the same negligently, without observing that the deceased was getting down from the

Bus. P.W.2 has also deposed that at 8.00 AM on 18.12.2018 himself and the deceased boarded the Bus and it was stopped at Vinayaka temple opposite to Narayana School, Sullurpet and when the Bus was moved, the tires of the bus went upon the waist of the deceased. P.W.2 has identified the accused as driver of the Bus in open court and he deposed that the accused was the driver of the Bus on the date of accident and because of 14 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

his negligent driving, the accident was occurred. Even during cross examination, he denied the suggestion put to him that he has not seen the driver and for the first time he saw the driver in the court and identified at the instance of the police. He also denied the suggestion put to him that the place at Vinayaka Temple is a busy and the vehicles shall move slowly.

Though the learned counsel for the accused has cross examined P.W.2, nothing is elicited to disbelieved this evidence.

19. The Trial Court has also believed the evidence of P.W.2 who is an eye-witness and co-passenger of the same Bus. We are aware that every year many people are loosing their lives in road accidents all over India. In some cases, accidents are occurred due to their own fault on negligence and in some other cases due to fault and negligence of the drivers of the motor vehicles. We can not imagine the loss and mental agony caused to the family members on the death of in fatal accidents. An IO P.W.4 has deposed that after issuance of FIR, he visited to scene and prepared scene observation report as well as rough sketch. The scene observation report is marked as Ex.P4 and the rough sketch is marked as Ex.P5. .W.4 further deposed that he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and recorded the statements of witnesses. Ex.P6 is the inquest report. The evidence of an I.O. P.W.4 and the documents Exs.P3 to P6 15 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

supported the case of the prosecution. His evidence is also showing that the inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased. He denied the suggestion put to him that the scene observation report Ex.P4 and the inquest Ex.P6 were prepared in the police station. The admission made by

P.W.4 that the place of accident is busy locality, not helpful to claim benefit of doubt. It is not the case that the vehicle was run with high speed. It is a case where the vehicle was moved without observing the deceased who was getting down from the Bus. The accused is not entitled to claim benefit of doubt, simply on the ground that the scene of offence is a busy locality.

20. The learned counsel for the accused suggested to P.W.2 an eye witness and the IO P.W.4 that in Section 161 CrPC statement, P.W.4 has stated before the police that thinking that the Bus was stopped Kuppani

Kavitha (deceased) got down from the Bus. Both P.Ws.2 and P.W.4 admitted that P.W.2 has stated before the police thinking that the bus was stopped, the deceased got down from the Bus. After reading Section 161

CrPC statement of P.W.2, this Court has observed that there is a continuation to the said sentence that after the deceased got down from the

Bus, it was moved towards front and due to said movement only, the deceased was fallen on the road and the back wheel was ran over her waist. The learned counsel for the accused has referred half of the 16 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

sentence out of Section 161 CrPC statement of P.W.2 leaving the rest of the portion. If it is read completely as a whole, one can observe that the Bus was moved towards front immediately after the deceased got down from the

Bus. No sentence of quotable contradiction is found in Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 and not such contradiction is is marked by the defence counsel. P.W.2 has deposed before the Court that the Bus was moved towards front and due to said acts of the driver, the deceased was fallen down and the back wheel was ran over her waist. This court found no serious material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.2 and his statement u/s.161 CrPC. Therefore, on the said ground the accused is not entitled for benefit of doubt.

21.The medical officer is examined as P.W.3 and he deposed about the PM conducted over the dead body of the deceased. The PM report is marked as Ex.P2. The MV Inspector is examined as P.W.5 and he deposed that on 20.12.2018 he inspected the APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP29Z2060 and issued MV report. He further deposed that he gave opinion that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects and he released the vehicle. Ex.P7 is the said release order. Lastly, an IO

P.W.6 has deposed that after verifying the investigation done by earlier officers, he filed charge sheet. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W.6 also 17 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

supported the case of the prosecution, mainly the evidence of an eyewitness P.W.2 has proved that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP29Z2060 by the accused, the accident was occurred and it resulted the death of Kuppani

Kavitha (deceased). The Trial Court has also rightly believed the said evidence of an eyewitness P.W.2 and other prosecution witnesses and rightly convicted the accused. Accordingly, the Points -1 to 4 are answered against the appellant/accused.

POINT – 5:

22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet in C.C. No.233 of 2019 on 14.09.2022 against the

Appellant/Accused. Consequently, the Appellant/Accused is directed to appear before the learned Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet within two weeks to receive the sentence. Office is directed to send the entire record to the Trial Court, after duly indexed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 3rd day of April, 2025.

VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUDUR.

18 CA. 68/2022,

Dt. 03.04.2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUDUR. Copy to:- The Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet

1 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT GUDUR,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Dated this the 2 nd day of April, 2025

Present:- Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Gudur.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 427 of 201 6

Judgment in Crl. Appeal : C.A. No. 427 of 2016 1. Number. : Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta From what Court, 2. the Appeal is preferred

Number of the case in that : C.C. No.105 of 2015 dated 06.12.2016. 3. Court

4.Number of the Appeal: Crl. Appeal No. 427 of 2016

Kavadi Kumar, S/o. Doraswamy @ Yerrappa, aged about 37 years, R/o. D.No.12-345, N.G.R. Nagar, Gudiyatham Town, Velluru District, Tamilnadu State … (Appellant/Accused) Names and description of

5.Appellant/s and : Vs. Respondent/s

STATE: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pellakuru Police Station … (Respondent/Complainant)

6.The sentence and law under : Accused was found guilty for the offence which it was imposed in the u/s.304-A of IPC and he is convicted lower Court.u/s.255(2) CrPC. Accused was sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo SI for a period of one month 2 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

Whether confirmed or :CONFIRMED

7.modified or reversed, if modified the modification.

8.Date of presentation: 15.12.2016

9.Date of filing: 15.12.2016 Date of notice issued by the : 19.12.2016 10. Court to appear Date of bail bond if :

11.appellant(s) has/have been left out on bail--- Appellant(s) ordered to : 12. appear

13.Date of hearing: 24.03.2025

14.Date of Order/Judgment: 02.04.2025

This appeal coming on 24.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. B. Balendra Singh, Advocate for the Appellant/Accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and having heard both sides and having perused the record and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T.

This is a criminal appeal preferred by the Appellant/Accused against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta in C.C. No.105 of 2015 dated 06.12.2016. .

3 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

2. The Appellant hereinafter will be referred as accused and the respondent hereinafter will be referred as Prosecution, for the sake of convenient reference and easy understanding.

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Pellakur Police Station filed the charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.15/2008 of Pellakur Police

Station for the offence punishable u/s.304-A of IPC.

4.The case of the prosecution as narrated in the Charge sheet in brief is that on 22.2.2008 at about 3.00 PM the accused came on the motor cycle bearing registration No.KL8S1344 along with a pillion rider, in rash and negligent manner without giving signal in wrong direction and dashed against the person called as Devatha Chandramma (deceased) who was crossing the road. Then she hit the lorry proceeding towards

Srikalahasti and sustained injuries. The pillion rider was escaped from the scene. The relatives of the deceased Devatha Chandramma (deceased) shifted her to Government Hospital, Naidupet. While she was shifting to

Tirupathi for better treatment, she succumbed to injuries. The body was shifted to Government Hospital, Naidupet. The accident was witnessed by the defacto complainant Devatha Venkateswarlu who was present at the scene and gave a report before the police, Pellakur PS. Basing on the 4 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

report submitted by the defacto complainant, a case in Crime No.15 of 2008 was registered for the offence u/s.304-A of IPC by P.W.5 the then Head

Constable, Pellakur PS. He also visited the scene and drafted a rough sketch. He prepared a scene observation report also in the presence of two mediators L.W.10, Devatha Ramanaiah and L.W.11 Devatha China

Guravaiah. He also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of L.W.7 Duvvuru Venkataiah, P.W.4 and P.W.7. The medical officer P.W.8 has conducted PM over the dead body of the deceased and opined that death was due to fracture of ribs and injury to the spleen caused shock and hemorrhage. The motor cycle was inspected by the MV Inspector L.W.13 K.S.M.V. Krishna Rao and he gave report stating that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Another IO P.W10 has received hospital intimation and also MVI report. He also examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 3.4.2010 the accused was surrendered before the police and admitted the guilt. Upon which P.W.10 has arrested him. He filed charge sheet after completion of investigation against the accused for the offence u/s.304-A

IPC.

5 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

5.The learned Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta has taken cognizance of the offences u/s.304-A of IPC against the

Appellant/Accused and registered as C.C. No.105 of 2015 and issued summons to him.

6.On appearance of the accused, copies were served under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the commission of offence u/s.304-A of IPC against the accused. The contents of charge sheet were read over and explained to him in Telugu. Having understood the same, the accused denied the commission of the offence.

He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 before the Trial Court.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining all the incriminating evidence appearing against him on record. He denied all the incriminating evidence. He stated that he did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. The accused did not choose to adduce any defence evidence and not marked any documents on his behalf.

6 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

9.The learned Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta found the

Accused guilty for the offence u/s.304-A of IPC and convicted u/s.255(2)

Cr.P.C and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo SI for a period of one month.

10.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/Accused preferred this appeal, assailing the findings of the Trial

Court on various grounds, listed below:-

i) The Judgment of the Trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probability of the case.

ii) The Trial Court has committed mistake in recording conviction against the appellant/accused instead of acquitting him.

iii) The Trial Court has committed mistake in convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable u/s.304-A of IPC though there is no legally acceptable evidence to prove the charge.

iv) The Trial Court fails to appreciate the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, by the counsel for the appellant/accused.

The appellant/accused has requested that the appeal may be allowed and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta in C.C. No.105 of 2015 dated 06.12.2016 7 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

11.No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on either side before this Court.

12. Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

13. Points for determination:

1) Whether the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution and wrongly convicted the accused, as pleaded by him ?

2) Whether there are any valid and tenable grounds to interfere and set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court in C.C. No.105 of 2015 dated 06.12.2016 ?

3) To what relief ?

POINTS - 1 & 2 :

14. The main contention of the prosecution is that on 22.2.2008 at about 3.00 PM the accused drove the motor cycle bearing registration

No.KL8S1344 in rash and negligent manner and in a wrong direction with high speed without any signal and dashed against the Devatha

Chandramma (deceased) w/o late Venkateswarlu and caused fatal injuries and she died while shifting to the Hospital, Tirupati for better treatment. In order to substantiate it’s case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to

P.W.10 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P9. The Trial Court has appreciated the evidence both oral and documentary led by the prosecution and found 8 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

the accused guilty for the offence u/s.304-A of IPC and convicted him.

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused. He has not taken any specific plea as ground in the memorandum of appeal. All the grounds of appeal are general without any specification. The only quotable plea taken by the appellant/accused is that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution and wrongfully convicted the accused. To answer the said plea taken by the appellant/accused, this

Court has reappraised the evidence available on record, in consonance with the findings of Trial Court in it’s Judgment.

15. As per the prosecution the said accident occurred on 22.2.2008, was witnessed by the defacto complainant. He is examined as P.W.1. He deposed clearly that he was standing nearby his village to go to Naidupet and witnessed two persons came on a motor cycle in a wrong route and dashed against Devatha Chandramma (deceased) and she fell down. P.W.1 further deposed that she sustained severe injury on her head and shifted to hospital, Naidupet in ambulance. He also deposed that while she was shifting to Tirupati, she was succumbed to injuries and he can identify the rider of the motor cycle. He also deposed that he filed a report before the police and the accident was occurred due to mistake on the part of the rider 9 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

of the motor cycle, who came in a wrong route. Driving the vehicle in a wrong route amounts to negligence on the part of the rider. P.W.1 further deposed that the rider of the motor cycle drove the same with high speed.

The report filed by P.W.1 is marked as Ex.P1. The contents of the report

Ex.P1 supported the evidence of P.W.1 to believe that he witnessed the accident where the rider drove the same with high speed in a wrong route.

Even during cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that on his dictation, his son in law prepared the report. He further deposed that at that time, deceased was attending cooly work in the land of Mohan Naidu. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the accident was occurred while crossing the road due to negligence on the part of the deceased and one lorry came and dashed the motor cycle. During cross examination,

P.W.1 has deposed that after dashing of the motor cycle to the deceased, one lorry came and dashed the motor cycle. His evidence is showing that initially the motor cycle itself dashed against the deceased and caused fatal injuries resulting her death. The learned counsel for the accused has suggested to P.W.1 that the Lorry caused the accident and escaped. The said suggestion was denied by P.W.1. The learned counsel for the accused further suggested to P.W.1 that a false report was lodged against the rider of the motor cycle, since the Lorry was escaped from the scene. It is also denied by the P.W.1. The learned counsel for the accused further 10 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

suggested to P.W.1 that due to his close relationship with the deceased, he gave false evidence and he can not identify the accused. The same is also denied by PW.1. In this way, even during cross examination, nothing is elicited through the mouth of P.W.1 to discredit his his evidence. The evidence of P.W.1 is showing that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the motor cycle by the accused, which caused fatal injures resulting the death of Devatha Chandramma (deceased).

16.Prosecution has examined another witness as P.W.7. He deposed that about 8 years prior to his examination before the Court, he along with the deceased were returning at about 3.00 PM to go to their houses he witnesses the deceased was proceeding ahead and they were going back to her. P.W.7 further deposed that he witnessed one bike came from Naidupet to Srikalahasti road in a wrong route and hit the deceased and then she was fallen down. P.W.7 further deposed that he can identify the rider of the bike if shown to him. P.W.7 further deposed that he witnessed the total accident as he was also going back to the deceased.

During cross examination, P.W.7 deposed that he saw the accused standing in the Court hall and identified him as rider of the motor cycle which caused the accident. In this way, the evidence of P.W.7 is also showing that the accident was caused by the accused who drove the motor cycle at the 11 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

time of accident in a wrong route amounts to negligence. The corroborate evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.7 supported the case of prosecution and established that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of motor cycle by the accused, resulting the death of Devatha Chandramma (deceased).

17.The other witnesses P.Ws.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6 deposed that they came to know about the accident and shifting of the deceased to the

Hospital. P.W.4 deposed that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased and attested on the inquest report. Ex.P2 is the inquest report. P.W.5 deposed that on 22.2.2008 he registered a case in crime No.15 of 2008 for the offence u/s.304-A of IPC against the accused and issued FIR. The FIR is marked as Ex.P3. The learned counsel for the accused cross examined P.W.5 suggesting that in the said accident, accused also sustained injuries. The said suggestion is admitted by P.W.5.

He further suggested to P.W.5 that the accused was also taken to the

Hospital for treatment long period. The same is admitted by P.W.5. But the said suggestions amounts to admission by the defence counsel that the accused was the driver of the motor cycle at the time of accident and he also sustained injuries. The said suggestions strengthened the case of prosecution, regarding identification of the accused as rider of the motor cycle.

12 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

18.The medical officer is examined as P.W.8 and he deposed about PM examination conducted by him on the body of the Devatha

Chandramma (deceased) on 8.3.2008. He has stated the list of injuries noticed on the dead body of the deceased. He further deposed that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage for the fracture of ribs and injury to the spleen. The PM report is marked as Ex.P8. The evidence of medical officer P.W.8 has also supported the case of prosecution and proved that

Devatha Chandramma (deceased) died due to fatal accident. The MV

Inspector is examined as P.W.9. He deposed that on 8.3.2008 he inspected the motor cycle bearing registration No.KL8S1344 and found no damages and issued MV report opining that the accident was not due to mechanical defects. MVI report is marked as Ex.P9. The evidence of P.W.9 has also supported the case of prosecution.

19. Finally an IO is examined as P.W.10. He deposed about the investigation done by him. He deposed that on 3.4.2010 at 8.30 AM when he was in PS, L.W.6 Menapadu Selva brought the accused and after verification and formality, he arrested the accused and sent him to Court for remand. During cross examination, P.W.10 has deposed that he has not prepared arrest mahazar nama since the accused was surrendered before him. P.W.10 further deposed that he filed charge sheet, after investigation.

13 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

The corroborative evidence of P.Ws.5, 7 to 10 has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution and convicted the accused.

This Court found no quotable material contradictions in between the evidence of prosecution witnesses or doubts in the case of prosecution and found no merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the Points - 1 and 2 are answered against appellant/accused and in favour of the prosecution.

POINT – 3:

20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judl. Magistrate of First

Class, Naidupet in C.C. No.105 of 2015 on 06.12.2016 against the

Appellant/Accused. Consequently, the Appellant/Accused is directed to appear before the learned Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupet within two weeks to receive the sentence. Office is directed to send the entire record to the Trial Court, after duly indexed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 2nd day of April, 2025.

VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUDUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUDUR. Copy to:- The Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta

1 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT GUDUR,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Dated this the 2 nd day of April, 2025

Present:- Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Gudur.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 427 of 201 6

Judgment in Crl. Appeal : C.A. No. 427 of 2016 1. Number. : Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta From what Court, 2. the Appeal is preferred

Number of the case in that : C.C. No.105 of 2015 dated 06.12.2016. 3. Court

4.Number of the Appeal: Crl. Appeal No. 427 of 2016

Kavadi Kumar, S/o. Doraswamy @ Yerrappa, aged about 37 years, R/o. D.No.12-345, N.G.R. Nagar, Gudiyatham Town, Velluru District, Tamilnadu State … (Appellant/Accused) Names and description of

5.Appellant/s and : Vs. Respondent/s

STATE: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pellakuru Police Station … (Respondent/Complainant)

6.The sentence and law under : Accused was found guilty for the offence which it was imposed in the u/s.304-A of IPC and he is convicted lower Court.u/s.255(2) CrPC. Accused was sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo SI for a period of one month 2 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

Whether confirmed or :CONFIRMED

7.modified or reversed, if modified the modification.

8.Date of presentation: 15.12.2016

9.Date of filing: 15.12.2016 Date of notice issued by the : 19.12.2016 10. Court to appear Date of bail bond if :

11.appellant(s) has/have been left out on bail--- Appellant(s) ordered to : 12. appear

13.Date of hearing: 24.03.2025

14.Date of Order/Judgment: 02.04.2025

This appeal coming on 24.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. B. Balendra Singh, Advocate for the Appellant/Accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and having heard both sides and having perused the record and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T.

This is a criminal appeal preferred by the Appellant/Accused against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta in C.C. No.105 of 2015 dated 06.12.2016. .

3 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

2. The Appellant hereinafter will be referred as accused and the respondent hereinafter will be referred as Prosecution, for the sake of convenient reference and easy understanding.

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Pellakur Police Station filed the charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.15/2008 of Pellakur Police

Station for the offence punishable u/s.304-A of IPC.

4.The case of the prosecution as narrated in the Charge sheet in brief is that on 22.2.2008 at about 3.00 PM the accused came on the motor cycle bearing registration No.KL8S1344 along with a pillion rider, in rash and negligent manner without giving signal in wrong direction and dashed against the person called as Devatha Chandramma (deceased) who was crossing the road. Then she hit the lorry proceeding towards

Srikalahasti and sustained injuries. The pillion rider was escaped from the scene. The relatives of the deceased Devatha Chandramma (deceased) shifted her to Government Hospital, Naidupet. While she was shifting to

Tirupathi for better treatment, she succumbed to injuries. The body was shifted to Government Hospital, Naidupet. The accident was witnessed by the defacto complainant Devatha Venkateswarlu who was present at the scene and gave a report before the police, Pellakur PS. Basing on the 4 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

report submitted by the defacto complainant, a case in Crime No.15 of 2008 was registered for the offence u/s.304-A of IPC by P.W.5 the then Head

Constable, Pellakur PS. He also visited the scene and drafted a rough sketch. He prepared a scene observation report also in the presence of two mediators L.W.10, Devatha Ramanaiah and L.W.11 Devatha China

Guravaiah. He also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of L.W.7 Duvvuru Venkataiah, P.W.4 and P.W.7. The medical officer P.W.8 has conducted PM over the dead body of the deceased and opined that death was due to fracture of ribs and injury to the spleen caused shock and hemorrhage. The motor cycle was inspected by the MV Inspector L.W.13 K.S.M.V. Krishna Rao and he gave report stating that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Another IO P.W10 has received hospital intimation and also MVI report. He also examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 3.4.2010 the accused was surrendered before the police and admitted the guilt. Upon which P.W.10 has arrested him. He filed charge sheet after completion of investigation against the accused for the offence u/s.304-A

IPC.

5 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

5.The learned Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta has taken cognizance of the offences u/s.304-A of IPC against the

Appellant/Accused and registered as C.C. No.105 of 2015 and issued summons to him.

6.On appearance of the accused, copies were served under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the commission of offence u/s.304-A of IPC against the accused. The contents of charge sheet were read over and explained to him in Telugu. Having understood the same, the accused denied the commission of the offence.

He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 before the Trial Court.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining all the incriminating evidence appearing against him on record. He denied all the incriminating evidence. He stated that he did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. The accused did not choose to adduce any defence evidence and not marked any documents on his behalf.

6 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

9.The learned Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta found the

Accused guilty for the offence u/s.304-A of IPC and convicted u/s.255(2)

Cr.P.C and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo SI for a period of one month.

10.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/Accused preferred this appeal, assailing the findings of the Trial

Court on various grounds, listed below:-

i) The Judgment of the Trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probability of the case.

ii) The Trial Court has committed mistake in recording conviction against the appellant/accused instead of acquitting him.

iii) The Trial Court has committed mistake in convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable u/s.304-A of IPC though there is no legally acceptable evidence to prove the charge.

iv) The Trial Court fails to appreciate the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, by the counsel for the appellant/accused.

The appellant/accused has requested that the appeal may be allowed and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta in C.C. No.105 of 2015 dated 06.12.2016 7 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

11.No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on either side before this Court.

12. Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

13. Points for determination:

1) Whether the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution and wrongly convicted the accused, as pleaded by him ?

2) Whether there are any valid and tenable grounds to interfere and set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court in C.C. No.105 of 2015 dated 06.12.2016 ?

3) To what relief ?

POINTS - 1 & 2 :

14. The main contention of the prosecution is that on 22.2.2008 at about 3.00 PM the accused drove the motor cycle bearing registration

No.KL8S1344 in rash and negligent manner and in a wrong direction with high speed without any signal and dashed against the Devatha

Chandramma (deceased) w/o late Venkateswarlu and caused fatal injuries and she died while shifting to the Hospital, Tirupati for better treatment. In order to substantiate it’s case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to

P.W.10 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P9. The Trial Court has appreciated the evidence both oral and documentary led by the prosecution and found 8 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

the accused guilty for the offence u/s.304-A of IPC and convicted him.

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused. He has not taken any specific plea as ground in the memorandum of appeal. All the grounds of appeal are general without any specification. The only quotable plea taken by the appellant/accused is that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution and wrongfully convicted the accused. To answer the said plea taken by the appellant/accused, this

Court has reappraised the evidence available on record, in consonance with the findings of Trial Court in it’s Judgment.

15. As per the prosecution the said accident occurred on 22.2.2008, was witnessed by the defacto complainant. He is examined as P.W.1. He deposed clearly that he was standing nearby his village to go to Naidupet and witnessed two persons came on a motor cycle in a wrong route and dashed against Devatha Chandramma (deceased) and she fell down. P.W.1 further deposed that she sustained severe injury on her head and shifted to hospital, Naidupet in ambulance. He also deposed that while she was shifting to Tirupati, she was succumbed to injuries and he can identify the rider of the motor cycle. He also deposed that he filed a report before the police and the accident was occurred due to mistake on the part of the rider 9 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

of the motor cycle, who came in a wrong route. Driving the vehicle in a wrong route amounts to negligence on the part of the rider. P.W.1 further deposed that the rider of the motor cycle drove the same with high speed.

The report filed by P.W.1 is marked as Ex.P1. The contents of the report

Ex.P1 supported the evidence of P.W.1 to believe that he witnessed the accident where the rider drove the same with high speed in a wrong route.

Even during cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that on his dictation, his son in law prepared the report. He further deposed that at that time, deceased was attending cooly work in the land of Mohan Naidu. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the accident was occurred while crossing the road due to negligence on the part of the deceased and one lorry came and dashed the motor cycle. During cross examination,

P.W.1 has deposed that after dashing of the motor cycle to the deceased, one lorry came and dashed the motor cycle. His evidence is showing that initially the motor cycle itself dashed against the deceased and caused fatal injuries resulting her death. The learned counsel for the accused has suggested to P.W.1 that the Lorry caused the accident and escaped. The said suggestion was denied by P.W.1. The learned counsel for the accused further suggested to P.W.1 that a false report was lodged against the rider of the motor cycle, since the Lorry was escaped from the scene. It is also denied by the P.W.1. The learned counsel for the accused further 10 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

suggested to P.W.1 that due to his close relationship with the deceased, he gave false evidence and he can not identify the accused. The same is also denied by PW.1. In this way, even during cross examination, nothing is elicited through the mouth of P.W.1 to discredit his his evidence. The evidence of P.W.1 is showing that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the motor cycle by the accused, which caused fatal injures resulting the death of Devatha Chandramma (deceased).

16.Prosecution has examined another witness as P.W.7. He deposed that about 8 years prior to his examination before the Court, he along with the deceased were returning at about 3.00 PM to go to their houses he witnesses the deceased was proceeding ahead and they were going back to her. P.W.7 further deposed that he witnessed one bike came from Naidupet to Srikalahasti road in a wrong route and hit the deceased and then she was fallen down. P.W.7 further deposed that he can identify the rider of the bike if shown to him. P.W.7 further deposed that he witnessed the total accident as he was also going back to the deceased.

During cross examination, P.W.7 deposed that he saw the accused standing in the Court hall and identified him as rider of the motor cycle which caused the accident. In this way, the evidence of P.W.7 is also showing that the accident was caused by the accused who drove the motor cycle at the 11 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

time of accident in a wrong route amounts to negligence. The corroborate evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.7 supported the case of prosecution and established that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of motor cycle by the accused, resulting the death of Devatha Chandramma (deceased).

17.The other witnesses P.Ws.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6 deposed that they came to know about the accident and shifting of the deceased to the

Hospital. P.W.4 deposed that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased and attested on the inquest report. Ex.P2 is the inquest report. P.W.5 deposed that on 22.2.2008 he registered a case in crime No.15 of 2008 for the offence u/s.304-A of IPC against the accused and issued FIR. The FIR is marked as Ex.P3. The learned counsel for the accused cross examined P.W.5 suggesting that in the said accident, accused also sustained injuries. The said suggestion is admitted by P.W.5.

He further suggested to P.W.5 that the accused was also taken to the

Hospital for treatment long period. The same is admitted by P.W.5. But the said suggestions amounts to admission by the defence counsel that the accused was the driver of the motor cycle at the time of accident and he also sustained injuries. The said suggestions strengthened the case of prosecution, regarding identification of the accused as rider of the motor cycle.

12 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

18.The medical officer is examined as P.W.8 and he deposed about PM examination conducted by him on the body of the Devatha

Chandramma (deceased) on 8.3.2008. He has stated the list of injuries noticed on the dead body of the deceased. He further deposed that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage for the fracture of ribs and injury to the spleen. The PM report is marked as Ex.P8. The evidence of medical officer P.W.8 has also supported the case of prosecution and proved that

Devatha Chandramma (deceased) died due to fatal accident. The MV

Inspector is examined as P.W.9. He deposed that on 8.3.2008 he inspected the motor cycle bearing registration No.KL8S1344 and found no damages and issued MV report opining that the accident was not due to mechanical defects. MVI report is marked as Ex.P9. The evidence of P.W.9 has also supported the case of prosecution.

19. Finally an IO is examined as P.W.10. He deposed about the investigation done by him. He deposed that on 3.4.2010 at 8.30 AM when he was in PS, L.W.6 Menapadu Selva brought the accused and after verification and formality, he arrested the accused and sent him to Court for remand. During cross examination, P.W.10 has deposed that he has not prepared arrest mahazar nama since the accused was surrendered before him. P.W.10 further deposed that he filed charge sheet, after investigation.

13 CA. 427/2016,

Dt. 02.04.2025

The corroborative evidence of P.Ws.5, 7 to 10 has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution and convicted the accused.

This Court found no quotable material contradictions in between the evidence of prosecution witnesses or doubts in the case of prosecution and found no merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the Points - 1 and 2 are answered against appellant/accused and in favour of the prosecution.

POINT – 3:

20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judl. Magistrate of First

Class, Naidupet in C.C. No.105 of 2015 on 06.12.2016 against the

Appellant/Accused. Consequently, the Appellant/Accused is directed to appear before the learned Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupet within two weeks to receive the sentence. Office is directed to send the entire record to the Trial Court, after duly indexed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 2nd day of April, 2025.

VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUDUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUDUR. Copy to:- The Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta

1

EP. 125 of 2022

Dt. 03.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUDUR

Dated this the 3 rd day of April, 2025

Present: Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, VII Addl. District Judge, Gudur

E.P. No. 125 /2022

ARC No.126/2019

M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd, Gudur Branch, represented by its GPA holder P.Ravindra

... Petitioner/DHr.

Vs.

1. Penubolu Penchala Hariprasad Reddy

2. M.Sowjanya @ P.Sowjanya

3. SK.Mohammad Rafi. ... Respondents/Judgment Debtors.

This petition coming on 18.02.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Jana Suresh, advocate for the petitioner and of Sri A.Vijaya Bhaskar, advocate for the J.Dr 1 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

// O R D E R //

This is an E.P. filed by the DHr Company against JDr.1 only for attachment and sale of E.P. Schedule property under O.21, Rule 54, 66 & 64 of

CPC, for realization of the amount covered under the award in

ARC.No.126/2019 dated 29.12.2020.

2. The averments of the Execution Petition filed by the DHr

Company in brief are that the DHr Company filed Arbitration case

No.126/2019 and obtained award against JDrs.1 to 3 and obtained award on 29-12-2020. Even after passing of the Award the J.Drs 1 to 3 failed to pay the 2

EP. 125 of 2022

Dt. 03.04.2025

amount awarded in favour of the D.Hr. As per the said award dated 29-12- 2020, all the JDrs.No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of

Rs.22,03,056/- and with costs and subsequent interest. The present E.P. is filed for Rs.25,95,277/-. The petition schedule property is belongs to JD No.1.

Inspite of having immovable property JD No.1 failed to pay the amount awarded in AC.No.126/2019 intentionally. Hence the EP.

3. The averments of the counter affidavit filed by the JDr.1 in brief are that he denied all the allegations except those which are specifically admitted by him . The DHr is put strict proof of the same. The Award in ARC.

No.126/2019 allegedly passed by the Arbitrator at Hyderabad. The EP is not maintainable for non compliance of the mandatory provisions of Order XXI of

Civil Procedure Code by seeking transmission of the subject award from the alleged Arbitrator at Hyderabad, Telangana State to the file of the Principal

District Judge, Nellore as the petitioner has no locusstandi either to present the

present execution petition directly before the Principal District Judge Court,

Nellore or seek any relief or redress in the E.P. revoking the provisions of Order

XXI of the Civil Procedure Code against the respondents. The alleged G.P.A.

Agent of the DHr is incompetent to file the EP, since the mandatory provisions of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and the circular orders are not complied. The

DHr has wrongly calculated the value of the E.P schedule property as

Rs.50,00,000/-only. The E.P. schedule property is not properly described. In fact, by the date of presentation of the present E.P the market value of the E.P schedule property would be a sum of Rs.1 Crore in view of the abnormal escalation of the values of the immovable properties in Gudur Town. It is situated in the heart of Gudur town having high commercial values and demands.The DHr willfully suppressed the real market value of the E.P.

schedule property with malafide intention to have illegal enrichment by abuse of process of law. The DHr is not entitled to seek attachment and sale of E.P 3

EP. 125 of 2022

Dt. 03.04.2025

schedule property for the recovery of E.P amount of Rs.25,95,277/- which is being very disproportionate with the present market value of the E.P. schedule property.

4.The EP is vexatious and filed purposefully to harass this JDr No.1.

He pray that the E.P. may be dismissed with costs.

5.No evidence is adduced by either party.

6.Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

7. Points for determination:

1. Whether the DHr has produced any document to prove that the value of the EP schedule property is only Rs.50,00,000/- as on the date of filing of the EP ?

2. Whether the DHr company has proved that one Sri P.Ravindra was the

GPA holder of the DHr company as on the date of filing the EP and he continued in the said post ?

3. Whether the EP schedule property is liable to be attached for sale as prayed for ?

4. To what relief?

8. POINTS - 1 to 3:

On hearing both the counsel for the DHr & JDr No.1 and on perusal of the entire material available on record, it is observed that the DHr

Company filed Arbitration case No.126/2019 against JDrs 1 to 3 for recovery of money basing on the loan agreement dt.28-04-2017 executed by JD No.1 to which JDrs 2 and 3 stood as co-borrowers. It is also observed that the Dhr has obtained award dt.29-12-2020 in

AC.No.126/2019 for Rs.22,03,056/- against all Jdrs 1 to 3 fixing joint 4

EP. 125 of 2022

Dt. 03.04.2025

and several liability.

9.This is an EP filed basing on the said award dated 29-12-2020 in

AC.No.126/2019 passed by sole arbitrator , at Hyderabad against only

JD No.1, for attachment and sale of EP schedule property The DHr contended that EP schedule property is belongs to JD No.1 and he is having immovable property and failed to clear the debt intentionally and throwing burden on Jdrs. 2 and 3. The JD No.1 has filed a detailed counter admitting availing of loan by him for which the award dated 29- 12-2020 passed by the sole arbitrator,Hyderabad in ARC.No.126/2019.

The JD No.1 pleaded that the EP is not maintainable before this Court contending that the award was passed by the Sole Arbitrator at

Hyderabad. It is settled principle of law that the Decree or Award passed by the competent authority is executable either in the same Court or

Tribunal or before any other Court or Tribunal to which the Decree is transmitted. The JD No.1 in his counter itself mentioned that the Award was transmitted to the Court of Principal District Judge, Nellore. The record is showing that the Award passed by the sole arbitrator at

Hyderabad was transmitted to the Court of Hon’ble Principal District

Judge, Nellore and it was numbered as EP.No.804./2021. Later it is made

over to this Court and re-numbered as EP.125/2022. There is no bar on execution of decree or Award by the other Court to which it was transmitted. The JD No.1 has not referred any specific provision of Law and not filed any document showing the bar or execution of the Award by this court.

5

EP. 125 of 2022

Dt. 03.04.2025

10.The DHr contended that EP schedule property is belongs to JD No.1 and it is liable to be attached and sold for realization of the Awarded

Amount. The DHr has shown the value of the EP schedule as Rs.

50,000/-. The JD No.1 has not denied his ownership over EP schedule property. He pleaded that the value of the EP schedule is wrongly calculated and its market value is 1 Crore. The DHr company has not filed any market value certificate related to the EP schedule property. The

EP is filed only for Rs.25,95,277/-. As per the schedule shown in the EP it is an RCC building with vacant site bearing No.171 in an extent of 15 ankanas and th said RCC building has occupied 231 Sq. feet of site with all equipments. But its value is shown as only Rs.50,00,000/- . The DHR has not produced any documentary proof to support its contention regarding value of the EP schedule. In said circumstances the attachment of the EP schedule for recovery of only Rs.25,95,277/- in the absence of certificate showing market value would cause prejudice to the JD No.1 and leads to misuse of process of Law.

11. The JD No.1 further pleaded that GPA holder is not competent to file the EP on behalf of the DHr company. Along with the EP the Copy of

GPA executed by the Principal Vice President of Dhr company in favour of

A.Ramana Reddy dt.16.11.2017 is filed. This is an EP filed in the year 2021 along with the copy of GPA dt.16-11-2017 in favour of one

A.Ramana Reddy. The present EP is filed by one Sri P.Ravindra as representative GPA of DHR company. In the EP there is mention that

P.Ravindra who filed the present EP as GPA holder of the branch of the

DHr company at Gudur . The DHr company has not filed any copy of GPA stood in the name of P.Ravindra who filed the present EP. The DHr 6

EP. 125 of 2022

Dt. 03.04.2025

company has not given explanation regarding the GPA in the name of another person called A.Ramana Reddy. The DHr company has not taken steps to produce the GPA stood in the name of P.Ravindra who filed the present EP. The DHR company never chosen to inform to the Court that after filing of the EP the GPA is changed. Moreover the GPA enclosed to the EP is of the year 2017. This is an EP filed in the year 2021. There is no clarity with regard to the actual GPA who is representing the DHr company. It is fatal to the case of the DHr company. Accordingly points are answered against the Dhr company.

12. In the result, the E.P. is dismissed no costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 03 rd day of April, 2025.

VII Addl. District Judge, Gudur.

Appendix of Evidence

NIL

VII Addl. District Judge, Gudur.

1

E.P. 30 of 2023

Dt .08.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUDUR

Dated this the 08 th day of March, 2024

Present: Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, VII Addl. District Judge, Gudur

E.P. No. 30 of 2023

ARC. No.95 of 2012

M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd., Gudur Rep. By its G.P.A. Holder Shaik Nayab Rasool, S/o Shaik Salam, Muslim, having office at D.No.14/33, Konetimitta, Anjaneya Swamy Temple Street, Upstairs Andhra Bank, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.

….Petitioner/Award Holder.

Vs.

1. Shaik Usman,

2. Shaik Haseem …………...JDRs/Respondents.

This petition coming on 25-03-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. B.Lakshmamma, Advocate for the Decree Holder and of Sri N.Subramanyam, Advocate for the JDR.No.1 having heard both sides and having perused the record, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is an EP filed by the DHr against the JDr.No.1 only for attachment and sale of movables shown in the schedule under Order 21 Rule 43, 64 and 66 of CPC.

2. The averments of the petition in brief are that the DHr filed a case

AC.No.95/2012 against the JDrs for recovery of Money basing on loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 30-11-2010. The said AC.95/2012 was decided by the Sole Arbitrator, Nellore and passed an Award dated 30-10-2013 for 2

E.P. 30 of 2023

Dt .08.04.2025

Rs.1,37,371/- with interest and costs. Though the Award is passed against the

JDRs 1 and 2 did not pay the amount. JDr.No.1 has availed the loan to which

Jdr.No.2 stood as guarantor by executing all necessary documents. The JDr No.1 is the owner of the movable articles shown in the schedule. He is doing business and earning Rs.10000/- per month. JDr-1 has sufficient means and capacity to pay the awarded amount in lump sum. As on the date of EP they are liable to pay Rs.3,47,704/-. The JDr No.1 is having sufficient means and capacity to earn money and having movable articles, did not pay the amount awarded in favour of DHr. The DHr can realize the awarded amount, by attachment and sale of EP schedule movable articles of the Jdr.No.1. Hence the EP.

3. The averments of the counter filed by the JDr.No.1 in brief are that he denied all the contents of the petition except those which are specifically admitted by him as true and correct. The DHR is put to strict proof of the same.

He submitted that he availed a loan from Dhr for the purchase of vehicle bearing

No.AP-26-R-2376 but he unable to pay the installments with in a due date as he suffered from ill health. Then the DHr has seized the vehicle and sold away the vehicle in Auction and recovered the entire due amount. The representative of the DHr has informed to JD No.1 that there was no due, to clear towards the loan amount. Later they filed this EP only to harass and collect the huge amount from Jdr No.1. The Dhr has already recovered the amount from the Jdr.

The EP schedule movable items are not exclusively belongs to him and he has no salable interest. The DHr is not entitled to attach the EP schedule property and to bring the same for sale. He requested to dismiss the E.P.

4. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by either side.

3

E.P. 30 of 2023

Dt .08.04.2025

5. Heard both sides and perusal the material available on record.

6. Points for determination:

1. Whether the JDr.No.1 has established that after the sale of seized vehicle the entire loan amount was adjusted and there was no due as on the date of E.P ?

2. Whether JDr.No.1 has admitted his liability for the awarded amount in AC.95/2012 ?

3. Whether the E.P. Schedule mentioned movable items are liable to be attached as prayed for ?

4. To what relief ?

POINTS - 1 to 3 :

7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of material available on record, it is observed that the DHr company called M/s.Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

Gudur had filed a case A.C.No.95/2012 against the JDrs 1 and 2 for recovery of money. The case before the Sole Arbitrator in a case AC.No.95/2012 is that the

JDr.No.1 availed a loan under loan cum hypothecation agreement dt.30-11-2010 and purchased a bearing AP-26-R-2376agreeing to pay the same within 36 monthly installments and for the said loan JDr.No.2 stood as guarantor and they both executed the necessary documents. The said contention of the DHr

Company was proved before the Sole Arbitrator and an award was passed on 30- 10-2013 for Rs.1,37,371/-. But the JDrs failed to pay the awarded amount. The

DHr Company contended that as per the award in AC.95/2012 dt.30-10-2013 both the JDRs are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount to the 4

E.P. 30 of 2023

Dt .08.04.2025

DHr company. This EP is filed against only JD.No.1. JDrs are liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,47,704/- as on the date of filing the EP. JDr.No.1 filed the counter admitting the loan availed by him for purchase of the vehicle and also admitted the transactions with the DHr Company. It is an undisputed fact that

JDr.No.1 has availed a loan under loan cum hypothecation agreement dt.30-11- 2010 agreeing to repay the same in 36 monthly installments and JDRs.No.1 and 2 executed the relevant documents at the time of availing loan. Admittedly JDr1 is principle borrower and Jdr.No.2 is the guarantor. As per the Award in

AC.95/2012 dt.30-10-2013 both the JDRs jointly and severally to pay the awarded amount to the DHr Company.

8. The Jdr.No.1 filed counter with a plea that the movable items shown in the EP schedule are not belongs to him and he has no exclusive rights over the said movable items. But to show the same he has not filed any documentary proof. The JD No.1 further pleaded that after the sale of seized vehicle, the entire amount towards loan was adjusted and there was no due on the date of E.P. He further pleaded that the representative of the DHr Company informed him that the loan was cleared and later the present E.P is filed to extract money from him.

The JDr has not referred the name of the alleged representative of the DHr and not filed any document to show that the entire loan amount was cleared after adjustment of sale consideration on the sale of seized vehicle. Coming to the movable items listed in the schedule, this Court has found that the DHr has referred some movable items pertaining to the dwelling, bedding and kitchen wear which cannot be attached . As per Section 60 CPC 1908 the properties listed are liable to be attached like lands, houses or other buildings, goods, 5

E.P. 30 of 2023

Dt .08.04.2025 money, bank notes, Cheques etc., The list of items which shall not be liable for attachment or sale is given. The proviso to Section 60 CPC covers the properties excluded from attachment and sale. They are clothing, bedding, kitchen ware, animal husbandry instruments, dwellings for farmers, wages, pensions and gratuities as well as deposits that are required and right to future maintenance.

The two lists shown in the EP schedule comprise of double cot , bed, mixy, water heater, grinder etc,. They are for the purpose of doweling in residential houses.

In case of attachment of movables the Courts, apply exception of some movables listed under Section 60 CPC on attachment of some movable items listed. The attachment under O.21,Rule 43 will always be made Subject to Section 60 CPC.

The JDr simply pleaded that some of the movable items listed in the schedule were gifted to their wives by their father’s in law. But not proof is placed before the Court. The JDrs 1 and 2 are admittedly liable to discharge the debt towards loan availed by JD No.1. They failed to establish that the entire loan amount was cleared after adjustment of sale of vehicle under auction by DHr company.

09.Initially the notice under O.21, Rule-22 was served on JD No.1 and he filed counter. This Court has passed the order on 29-02-2024 for issuance of attachment warrant under O.21,R.43 CPC for attachment of E.P. schedule movable items. The said warrant was so far not executed. On receipt of notice under Rule-43 again the JD No.1 has filed counter on 7-3-2025. Since the earlier warrant for attachment of EP schedule movable under O.21, Rule-43 CPC was not executed, it is to be ordered again to proceed further. In view of the above said reasons the movable items listed in the schedule at the given addresses of 6

E.P. 30 of 2023

Dt .08.04.2025

JDrs are liable to be attached Subject to Section 60 CPC. Accordingly, the points are answered against the DHr Company.

POINT - 4 :

9. IN THE RESULT, the E.P. is allowed at this juncture and ordered to issue warrant under O.21, Rule 43 CPC against Jdr No. 1 for attachment of movables listed in the EP schedule subject to Sec. 60 CPC on payment of batta Call on 22.07.2025.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 08 th day of April, 2025.

VII Additional District Judge, Gudur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

VII Additional District Judge, Gudur