Smt Shammi Parvin Sultana Begum

1IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.476/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, B.Sc., B.A., LLM., II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Monday, the 13th day of August, 2018

C.C.No.476/2016

This case was came before me on 08.08.2018 for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for the Complainant and Sri. P. Chandra Mouli, advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

a. The S.No. of the case :C.C.No.476/2016 b. The date of commission of offence : On 02.09.2016 in Cr.No.344/2016 c. The name of the complainant :

The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Muvvalvanipalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.

d. The name of the accused, parentage, residence, etc.,:

Chalamala Suraiah, s/o Ramurthy, 40 yrs, Kapu by caste, R/o D.No. 4-71/1, Keesara Village, Gandepalli

Road, Kanchala Colony, Kanchakacherla Mandal,

Krishna District.

e. The offence complained of: Under Section 304(A) of IPC f. The plea of the accused on his examination : Pleaded not guilty.

g. The final order:

1.Accused was charge sheeted in Crime No. 344/2016 under Section 304(A)

IPC of the State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, MVP Police Station,

Visakhapatnam city.

2.The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

The de-facto complainant LW.1 Ch. Dasu is resident of house bearing D.No.

9-5-34, Near AU Post Office, Visakhapatnam. Accused is resident of house bearing

D.No. 4-71/1, Keesara Village, Gandepalli Road, Kanchala colony, Kanchakacherla

Mandal, Krishna District. He is the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TY 7385.

2IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.476/2016

On 02.09.2016 at about 10 am, the deceased Ch. Nanukonda went for tiffin to

Maddilapalem and while he was returning by walk to his house at 11.15 am the accused drove the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TY 7385 in rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn and dashed against the deceased from his back side at VijayaBhanu paper office. Due to which the deceased sustained severe fracture and bleeding injuries. She was shifted to KGH by 108 ambulance with the help of local people. On receipt of said information LW.1 Ch. Dasu (Brother of the deceased) and others rushed to the spot and found the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TY 7385 parked at the scene. He went to KGH and found the deceased died at about 12.30 pm while undergoing treatment. He filed a report

before the police. Basing on the report LW.15 GRK Tulasi Das, the then SI of Police,

MVP PS, VSP has registered a case in Cr.No.344/2016 for the offence Under section 304(A) IPC.

During the course of investigation LW.15 GRK Tulasi Das inspected the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. LW.15 GRK Tulasi Das held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and sent the corpse for postmortem examination. LW.15 GRK Tulasi Das has issued notice under Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C., and also sent requisition to LW.14 S. Venkata Rao, MVI to inspect the crime vehicle and issue report. LW.13 Dr. P. Venkat Ramana Rao, Asst. Professor,

Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, AMC, VSP has conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased and issued PM certificate, opined that the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief is “Shock and

Haemorrhag due to multiple injuries”. LW.14 S. Venkata Rao, MVI Motor Vehicle

Inspector, who inspected the crime vehicle, opined that the accident might have occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. LW.15 GRK Tulasi Das after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused in the

Hon’ble court.

The investigation reveals, that the accused lorry driver drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn and dashed the deceased, resulting in the deceased sustained fracture injury on her legs and 3IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.476/2016

bleeding injuries, leading to her death, hence he is liable for punishment under the above section of law. Hence the charge.

3. After filing of the charge sheet, the court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence Under section 304(A) IPC and issued summons to him.

On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are supplied to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C., then he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined PWs-1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7.

5.After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, accused is examined

Under section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him. He denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him on record and reported no defense evidence.

6.Heard the arguments on both sides.

7.The points for determination are:

1) Whether the prosecution has examined eye witnesses, who witnessed the rash or negligent driving of the crime vehicle by accused as driver of the crime vehicle at time of accident and his ?

2) Whether the evidence of PW.5 is cogent, reliable and trust worthy to rely ?

3) Whether the prosecution has established the accused drove the crime vehi- cle in rash or negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased on 2.9.2016 ?

4) Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 304(A) IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.Ponts 1 to 4:-The main contention of the prosecution is that, the ac- cused is the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 16 TY 7385 and he drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed, without blowing horn and caused the death of the deceased on 02.09.2016. This court has taken 4IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.476/2016

cognizance for the offence under section 304(A) IPC. To sustain conviction for the offence under section 304(A) IPC burden is heavily lies on the prosecution to prove that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove the same in rash or negligent manner. The prosecution to support its version got examined PW.1 to 9 and marked Ex.P.1 to 7. The de-facto complainant LW.1 Ch. Dasu (brother of the deceased) is examined as PW.1. Admit- tedly PW.1 is not an eye witness to the accident. He has not witnessed the driver of crime vehicle or the manner in which the vehicle was driven. He deposed that on receipt of information he rushed to the place of accident on 02.09.2016 and taken the injured to KGH. Ex.P.1 is the report. In the report it is mentioned that the driver of the crime vehicle has caused the accident. The prosecution can establish the guilt of the accused by examining the eye witnesses. In the charge sheet, the police cited 2 witnesses LW.5 G. Govind and LW.3 Appanna as eye wit- nesses to the accident. Out of the said two witnesses, one witness is examined as

PW.5. He has deposed that on 2.9.2015 at 11 am he has seen one woman proceeding by walk on the left side of the road and one lorry came with high speed without blowing horn and dashed against the said woman. He has also stated the bearing No. of the lorry as AP 16 TY 7385. he has identified the ac- cused as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. The point for de- termination is, whether the evidence of PW.5 regarding identification of accused as driver, is cogent, credible and trust worthy. Here the evidence of PW5 would play vital role in deciding the liability. During cross-examination PW.5 has admit- ted that he rushed to the spot within 5 minutes on hearing the sound. The learned defence counsel has argued that PW.5 was not present at the time of ac- cident and he just reached to the spot after the accident. But here PW.5 has clearly deposed before the court that he has witnessed the accident personally and had seen the accused drove the crime vehicle with a high speed without blowing horn and dashed against the deceased from her behind and the said lorry tyre ran over the body of the said woman. He has also deposed that he rushed to the spot and in the mean time the driver of the lorry was escaped. The learned defence counsel has further argued that there are material contradictions in be- 5IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.476/2016

tween the evidence of PW.5 and his 161 statement. This court after going through the evidence of PW.5 and his 161 statement, found no quotable material contra- dictions or omissions. PW.5 has stated even in his 161 statement, that the driver of the crime vehicle bearing Reg. No. AP 16 TY 7385 drove the same very fastly in negligent manner and dashed against the old woman and the vehicle ran over the said woman. He has also stated in his 161 statement that he had seen the lorry driver escaped from the spot by leaving the crime vehicle. He has specifically stated before the police in 161 statement that he has directly witnessed the accident. PW.5 has never admitted that he is not an eye witness to the accident. He just stated that he reached to the spot within 5 minutes on hearing the sound. He might have reached to the spot within 5 minutes on hearing the sound, but it is not an admission that he is not an eye witness. The eye witness need not be a person present very near to the spot. One can observe the accident even from a place near to the place of accident. Simply on the ground that PW.5 reached to the spot within 5 minutes, the court cannot believe that he was not present at the spot and not witnessed the accident. More over

PW.5 has stated that he reached to the spot within 5 minutes. 5 minutes is not a long time to presume that, PW.5 was at a long distance from the place of acci- dent. This court has not found any material contradictions or omissions in be- tween the evidence of PW.5 and his 161 statement. In view of the above stated reasons it is believed that the prosecution has examined the one eye witness as

PW.5 and his evidence is cogent, sufficient, reliable and trust worthy to believe that he has personally witnessed the accused driving the crime vehicle lorry bear- ing Reg. No. AP 16 TY 7385 with high speed without blowing horn and dashed against the deceased.

9.Another witness PW.8 has deposed that he know the accused who was the driver of their transport office. He further deposed that on 02.09.2016 the accused has informed to him over a phone that the lorry bearing Reg. No. AP 16

TY 7385 met with an accident and at that time he was the driver. The evidence of

PW.8 is supporting the evidence of eye witness to believe that the accused was 6IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.476/2016

the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. The clear evidence of PW.5 is showing that the accused has drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased. The evidence of PW.8 is showing that the accused was driver of crime vehicle and met with an accident.

9. PW.1 has deposed that, he has reached to the spot and shifted the injured

Ch. Nanu Konda to KGH and she died. Ex.P.1 is the report filed by PW.1. An IO is examined as PW.4 he deposed that on 02.09.2016 he has registered the case in

Cr.No. 344/2016 for the offence under section 304(A) IPC basing on the report

Ex.P.1 filed by PW.1 and issued FIR Ex.P.4. He further deposed that, he visited the scene and prepared scene observation report Ex.P.2 and captured the photographs at the scene in the presence of mediators. One of the mediators for the scene observation report is examined as PW.2. Ex.P.2 is the scene observation report. PW.2 has clearly deposed that the police have observed the scene and taken photographs and he has signed on the scene observation report. The photographer is examined as PW.9 he deposed that on 02.09.2016 he has captured the photographs of the scene. Ex.P.7 is the set of photographs along with CD. The evidences of PW.2, PW.9 and the documents Ex.P.2 scene observa- tion report and photographs Ex.P.7, are supporting the evidence of an IO PW.4. An

IO PW.4 has further deposed that, he went to KGH and conducted over the dead body of the deceased Ch. Nanu Konda. Ex.P.5 is the inquest report. One of the mediators for the inquest is examined as PW.6. He has deposed that the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence in KGH,

Vsp and he has signed on the inquest report. The evidence of PW.6 and the con- tents of inquest report Ex.P.5 are supporting the evidence of an IO PW.4 and es- tablishing that the inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased

CH. Nanu Konda.

10. An IO PW.4 has further deposed that, he forwarded the dead body for PM and obtained PM certificate. The medical officer of KGH, Visakhapatnam is exam- ined as PW.3. He deposed that he conducted PM examination over the dead body of the deceased and found external and internal injuries as noted in PM certifi- 7IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.476/2016

cate. Ex.P.3 is the PM report. The evidence of PW.3 and the PM report Ex.P.3 are also establishing that the death of the deceased Ch. Nanu Konda is because of the crush injuries and multiple injuries. The corroborative evidences of Pws. 1 to6, 8 & 9 coupled with documents established the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 304 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

11.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 304(A) IPC, accordingly he is convicted for the same under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.,.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court, this the 13th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-Smt.Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

12.Heard. When questioned accused about the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him, Accused stated that “he have two children and parents, they all depend upon him. In his absence there is nobody to take care of them. He prays the court to take lenient view. “

13. Taking into consideration of the plea of the accused and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and scrutiny of evidence on record, this Court is of the view that, this is not a fit case to release the accused on Probation of

Offenders Act. Taking all these facts into consideration, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to convict the accused. Hence, the accused is convicted Under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence Under section 304(A) IPC. The remand period already under gone by the accused NIL shall be given setoff under section 428 Cr.P.C.,

14.The accused was informed about his right of appeal and right to receive a free copy of judgment which is to be furnished to him at the time of pronouncing the judgment. The bail bonds of the sureties shall stand canceled after expiry of the appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-Smt.Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

8IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.476/2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW.1/ 23.02.2018 : Ch. DasuNIL PW.2/ 20.03.2018 : S. Narayana Rao PW.3/ 17.05.2018 : P. Venkata Ramana Rao PW.4/ 05.06.2018 : GRK Tulasi Das PW.5/ 13.07.2018 : G. Govindu PW.6/ 13.07.2018 : Chokkakula Bobbili PW.7/ 30.07.2018 : S. Simhachalam PW.8/ 30.07.2018 : B. Suryanarayana PW.9/ 30.07.2018 : M. Shankar

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1/ 23.02.2018 : Report of PW.1NIL Ex.P2/ 20.03.2018 : Scene Observation Report Ex.P3/ 17.05.2018 : PM Report Ex.P4/ 05.06.2018 : FIR Ex.P5/ 05.06.2018 : Inquest report Ex.P6/ 30.07.2018 : 161 statement of PW.7 Ex.P7/ 30.07.2018 : Set of photographs

Sd/-Smt.Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

// True Copy //

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

9IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.476/2016

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT - DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

CC No.476/2016

Date of Offence02.09.2016

Date of report or complaint02.09.2016

Date of Appearance27.03.2017

Date of Commencement of trial 23.08.2017

Date of Close of trial08.08.2018

Date of Sentence/Order13.08.2018

Explanation for delay The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the Complainant.

RemarksNo witness is detained in court beyond three days.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.476/2016 in Cr.No.344/2016 of MVP Police Station on the file of IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

ComplainantState represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Muvvalavanipalem Police station, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the Accused, Chalamala Suraiah, s/o Ramurthy, 40 yrs, parentage, age, Residence Kapu by caste, R/o D.No. 4-71/1, Keesara particularsVillage, Gandepalli Road, Kanchala Colony, Kanchakacherla Mandal, Krishna District. OffenceUnder Section 304(A) IPC

FindingAccused is Found guilty.

Sentence In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 304(A) IPC, accordingly he is convicted for the same under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.,. He is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence Under section 304(A) IPC. The remand period already under gone by the accused -NIL- shall be given setoff under section 428 Cr.P.C., FineAccused filed a petition under section 389(3) of Cr.P.C., to suspend the sentence and the same was allowed on execution of bond for Rs.5,000/- with one surety and time granted up to 10.09.2018.

Sd/-Smt.Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. // True Copy //

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

1 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.48/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, B.Sc., B.A., LLM., II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, the 8th day of August, 2018

C.C.No.48/2016

This case was came before me on 06.08.2018 for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for the Complainant and Sri. MVRK Reddy, advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

a. The S.No. of the case :C.C.No.48/2016 b. The date of commission of offence : On 22.08.2015 in Cr.No.160/2015 c. The name of the complainant :

The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.

d. The name of the accused, parentage, residence, etc.,:

Nara Dayakar Babu, S/o N.S. Prasad, Chowdary by caste, R/o D.No. 49-44-17/5, Senkuvanipalem, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam City.

e. The offence complained of: Under Section 338 of IPC f. The plea of the accused on his examination : Pleaded not guilty.

g. The final order:

1.Accused was charge sheeted in Crime No. 160/2015 under Section 338 IPC of the State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Traffic Police

Station, Visakhapatnam city.

2.The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

On receipt of MLC Intimation from KGH, LW.6 visited the KGH on 23.08.2015 and recorded the statement of LW.1 Sk. Nazeer while he was conscious and coherent. LW.1 Sk. Nazeer is a bike water serving worker. On 22.10.2015, LW.1 Sk.

Nazeer was started by walk from Maddilapalem depot and when he reached to

Maddilapalem signal point, the accused-driver of Tanker lorry bearing Reg. No. AP 2 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.48/2016

31 W 8350 drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner, coming from

Ramatalkies towards Maddilapalem run over the right leg of LW.1 Sk. Nazeer and caused severe injury to right ankle. Soon LW.2 S.M. Abdullah and LW.3 Buri

Kurminaidu have helped of LW.1 Sk. Nazeer to shift to KGH in 108 ambulance for medical treatment. Due to the rash and negligent act of driver of lorry, the accident had taken place and LW.1 Sk. Nazeer sustained severe injuries.

Basing on the said report filed by the de-facto complainant, the IO LW.6 MD

Jyothi, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Traffic PS, VSP has registered a case in Cr.No.160/2015 for the offence Under section 338 IPC. During the course of investigation LW.6 MD Jyothi has inspected the crime scene and prepared rough sketch, examined as many as witnesses including the injured and recorded their statements. LW.6 MD Jyothi has questioned the accused on 24.08.2015 at 10 hrs and verified the records of the crime vehicle. LW.6 MD Jyothi had sent the crime vehicle for inspection. LW.6 MD Jyothi has served notice under section 41(A)

Cr.P.C., to the accused and released him on bail. LW.4 JVSSS Prasad is the Motor cycle Inspector, has inspected the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing Reg. No. AP 31

W 8350, issued report opining that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. LW.5 C. Bhanu Prakash is the CMO, KGH,

Visakhapatnam, has treated the injured LW.1 SK. Nazeer and issued wound certificate, opining the injuries sustained are grievous in nature. LW.6 MD Jyothi had taken over the crime vehicle for inspection. Thus, the accused noted supra has drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the pedestrian i.e., LW.1 SK. Nazeer and caused him grievous injuries. He is liable for punishment under section 338 IPC. Hence the charge.

3. After filing of the charge sheet, the court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence Under section 338 IPC and issued summons to him. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are supplied to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C., then he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.48/2016

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined PWs-1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

5.After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, accused is examined

Under section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him. He denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him on record and reported no defense evidence.

6.Heard the arguments on both sides.

7.The points for determination are:

1. Whether the evidence of the de-facto complainant/injured is supported with the evidence of eye witness about the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the accused ?

2. Whether the evidence of medical officer is supporting the case of the prosecution to prove the de-facto complainant/Injured has sustained grievous injuries in the said accident ?

3. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 338 IPC ?

8. Points 1 to 3 :- The main contention of the prosecution is that, the accused drove the Crime Vehicle AP 31 W 8350 i.e., the tanker lorry in rash and negligent manner and ran over the right leg of the de-facto complainant on 22.10.2015, when he was proceeding towards Maddilapalem signal point. The prosecution to sustain conviction of the accused for the offence under section 338

IPC, has to establish that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle tanker lorry bearing No. AP 31 W 8350 at the time of accident and he drove the same in rash or negligent manner and caused grievous injuries to the de-facto complainant/ injured. The prosecution to support its case got examined PW.1 to 6 and marked Ex.P.1 to 6. The de-facto complainant is examined as PW.6. He deposed that on 22.08.2015 he met with an accident at Maddilapalem junction where one Oil tanker came with high speed without blowing horn and crossed 4 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.48/2016

through his right leg and caused sever fracture injuries. He has stated the bearing registration number of the said oil tanker i.e., the crime vehicle rightly as AP 31 W 8350. He clearly deposed before the court that he can identify the driver of the said oil tanker and he has identified the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle

before the court. PW.6 has specifically deposed that, after accident the said oil

tanker was stopped by the driver himself.

9.In the charge sheet LW.2 SM Abdulla is shown as eye witness. The said eye witness is examined as PW.1. He clearly deposed that on 22.08.2015 he was on second shift duty as Constable for control room, Visakhapatnam and he was at

Maddilapalem from 6 pm to 10 pm. He further deposed that, while he was on duty at 8.30 pm he has observed one person coming by walk, towards Maddilapalem

Signal point and in the mean time the accused being driver of the oil tanker came with a high speed and in negligent manner and hits the said person. He further deposed that the tyres of the said lorry run over from the right hand and he received injuries to his right knee. He further deposed that, the injured was shifted to KGH in 108 ambulance for treatment. During the course of cross-examination,

PW.1 has denied the suggestions put to him for his witnessing of accident. He has deposed during his cross-examination that there is a signal at Marripalem bus depot and the accident took place in the middle of the road. He further deposed that, apart from him, the public have also witnessed the accident. PW.1 is the police constable working for traffic control. There is no proof on record to believe that there is a relation between PW.1 and the injured PW.6. Simply on the ground that PW.1 and PW.6 are belongs to same community the evidence of independent eye witness PW.1 which is credible and cogent cannot be discarded. Though PW.6 has not identified the accused on the spot as an injured in shock, his evidence is clear to believe that the crime vehicle came towards him with high speed without blowing horn. The said evidence of PW.6 is strengthened with the evidence of the eye witness PW.1. He has clearly deposed that, the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle drove the same with high speed and negligent manner. The 5 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.48/2016

corroborative evidence of PW.1 and PW.6 is establishing that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle bearing Reg. No. AP 31 W 8350 and he drove the same with high speed in negligent manner and dashed against the injured PW.6.

10. Coming to the medical evidence, PW.1 and PW.6 have deposed that immediately after the accident PW.6 was shifted to KGH for treatment. An IO PW.4 has deposed that he received MLC intimation from KGH and he recorded the statement of PW.6 in the KGH. PW.4 has further deposed that he has registered the case in Cr.No. 160/2015 for offence under section 338, basing on the said statement Ex.P.3, given by PW.6. Ex.P.4 is the FIR. The evidence of PW.1, 4 and 6 is showing that immediately after the accident the injured PW.6 was shifted to

KGH for treatment. The medical officer is examined as PW.5. He deposed that on 22.8.2015 he has examined PW.6 and found the grievous injuries on the right foot and ankle. Ex.P.6 is the wound certificate showing the injuries on PW.6 are grievous in nature. The evidence of PW.5 the medical officer and wound certificate Ex.P.6 are supporting the corroborative evidence of PW.1, 4 and 6 and establishing that PW.6 has sustained grievous injuries because of the said accident.

11.The MV inspector is examined as PW.3, he deposed that on requisition given by the police he has examined the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 31 W 8350 which is goods carrier tanker and found that the accident is occurred not because of the mechanical defects. Ex.P.2 is the MV report, supporting the evidence of PW.3. an

IO PW.4 has further deposed that, after issuance of FIR he has visited the scene and prepared rough sketch Ex.P.5. He has also deposed that, he has examined and recorded the statements of PW.1 and PW.2. and served section 41(A) Cr.P.C., notice on the accused. He has also deposed that, he has received MVI Ex.P.2 and the wound certificate Ex.P.6 and filed charge sheet. The learned defense counsel has focused on the point of scene of offence as it is busy locality. Undoubtedly all the witnesses have admitted that the Maddilapalem junction, where the accident took place is busy road. The contention of the counsel for the accused is that, 6 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.48/2016

there is no possibility to drive the vehicle with high speed, since it is a busy road.

The drivers have to take more precaution while driving the heavy vehicles through the busy roads which are crowded with general public and the vehicles always.

The contention of the prosecution is that, the accused drove the said vehicle negligently without taking precautions though it is busy locality. The court cannot presume simply that there is no chance to drive the vehicle with high speed as it is a busy road, it is contrary to the very contention of the prosecution. The accidents are being occurred mostly on the busy roads because of rash and negligent acts of the drivers. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.6 is clearly showing that the crime vehicle came with a high speed without blowing horn in a negligent manner. PW.1 is a direct eye witness being a traffic constable on duty at the time of accident has identified the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the accused that there is no chance to drive the vehicle with high speed is not sustainable.

Accordingly the points are answered in favour of the prosecution.

12.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 338 IPC, accordingly he is convicted for the same under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.,.

Typed to my dictation in Chamber system by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-Smt.Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

13.Heard. When questioned accused about the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him, Accused stated that “he have two children and parents. He is eking livelihood by working as a driver and maintaining his family. In his absence, there is nobody to take care of his family. There is no other cases against him and and the court to take lenient view in punishing him.”

14. Taking into consideration of the plea of the accused and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and scrutiny of evidence on record, this Court is of the view that, this is not a fit case to release the accused on Probation of Offenders 7 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.48/2016

Act. Taking all these facts into consideration, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to convict the accused. Hence, the accused is convicted Under section 255(2) of

Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six

Months for the offence Under section 338 IPC.

15.The remand period already undergone by the accused if any shall be given set- off under section 428 Cr.P.C.,.

16.The accused informed about his right of appeal and right to receive a free copy of judgment which is to be furnished to him at the time of pronouncing the judgment. The bail bonds of the sureties shall stand canceled after expiry of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation in Chamber system by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-Smt.Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW.1/ 08.01.2018 : Sm. AbdullahNIL PW.2/ 22.01.2018 : Kurmanaidu PW.3/ 16.02.2018 : JVSSS Prasad PW.4/ 19.02.2018 : M.D. Jyothi PW.5/ 16.03.2018 : Bhanu Prakash PW.6/ 20.07.2018 : Sk. Nazeer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1/ 22.01.2018 : 161 statement of PW.2NIL Ex.P2/ 16.02.2018 : MV Inspector Ex.P3/ 19.02.2018 : Report of complainant Ex.P4/ 19.02.2018 : FIR Ex.P5/ 19.02.2018 : Rough sketch Ex.P6/ 16.03.2018 : Wound certificate

Sd/-Smt.Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. //true copy//

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

8 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.48/2016

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT - DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

CC No. 48/2016

Date of Offence22.08.2015

Date of report or complaint29-12-2015

Date of Appearance02.05.2016

Date of Commencement of trial 31.05.2016

Date of Close of trial06.08.2018

Date of Sentence/Order08.08.2018

Explanation for delay The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the Complainant.

RemarksNo witness is detained in court beyond three days.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.48/2016 in Cr.No.160/2015 of III Town Traffic Police Station on the file of IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

ComplainantThe State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam. Name of the Accused, Nara Dayakar Babu, S/o N.S. Prasad, Chowdary parentage, age, Residence bycaste,R/oD.No.49-44-17/5, particularsSenkuvanipalem,Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam City. OffenceUnder Section 338 IPC

FindingAccused is Found guilty.

Sentence In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 338 IPC, accordingly he is convicted for the same under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.,and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six Months for the offence Under section

338 IPC.

The remand period already undergone by the accused if any shall be given set-off under section 428 Cr.P.C.,. Filed a petition under section 389(3) of Cr.P.C., to suspend the sentence and the same was allowed by executing self bond of Rs.5,000/- with one surety for like sum. Time granted till 05.09.2018

Sd/-Smt.Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. // True Copy //

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: K.V.L.HARINATH,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

(FAC) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Thursday, the 25 th day of February, 2016

P.R.C.No.28/2015

Between State Represented by Asst. Commissioner of Police, SC & ST Cell-1, Visakhapatnam City …Complainant

And

Malledi Vijay Kumar, S/o Suribabu, Aged 21 years, Agnikula Kshatriya by caste, Water supply boy, TSR Complex, R/o Thotagaruvu, Arilova, Visakhapatnam …Accused

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of theA.P.P.,for the State-complainant and of Sri P.S.Naidu, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

COMMITTAL ORDER

1.The State Represented by the Asst. Commissioner of

Police, SC & ST Cell-1, Visakhapatnam City has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.111/2014, under Sections 363, 376 of Indian Penal code, Section 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) SC & ST POA Act 1989.

2. The gist of accusation against the as can be seen from the charge sheet and the material available on record is that, on 04.03.2014 during morning hours the L.W.3 / Pavithra attended to school and at about 14.00 hours, while she was waiting for bus at

Thotagaruvu Junction, to come back to home, the accused went there and coerced her to come along with him and so as that both of them can go to somewhere else otherwise he would die etc., and on that 2 the said Pavithra refused to the proposal of accused, but the accused forcibly got her boarded into an auto, taken her to railway station and there he threatened her that he would commit suicide by falling under train, unless she comes with him etc, and then the LW.3 / Pavithra was constrained to go along with him and then the accused took the

LW.3 / Pavithra to Vijayawada and Dwarapudi. On 6-03-2014, while the accused and LW.3 / Pavithra were moving in Dwarapudi Railway

Station, the L.W.9 / Sammidi Kumar Swamy took them to his house and on coming to know about the matter, he chided the accused and asked him to drop LW.3 / Pavithra at her parents’ house on the next day, but on that night, the accused exploited LW.3 Pavithra sexually against her will and wish and under threat. On the next day i.e., on 07-03-2014 the accused took the LW.3 Pavithra to the house of his senior paternal aunt / LW.12 / Pinapati Lakshmi at Mandapeta, near

Rajahmundry and there also LW.12 / Pinapati Lakshmi chastised the accused for bringing the LW.3 / Pavithra to there in such a way and informed the matter to the parents of the accused /LW.6 / Malledi

Suribabu and LW.7 / Malledi Bhavani. When that being so, the accused exploited the LW.3 / Pavithra sexually on that night also without her consent. On 09-03-2014 the LW.6 / Malledi Suribabu, and LW.7 / Malledi Bhavani visited the house of LW.12 / Pinapati

Lakshmi and brought the accused and LW.3 / Pavithra to

Visakhapatnam and dropped the LW.3 / Pavithra to her house and then the LW.3 / Pavithra informed the entire episode to her parents i.e., the L.Ws.1/ Pinninti Ramanamma and 2 / Pinninti Ramu, and on that the mother of LW.3 Pavithra lodged a report at Arilova Zone, P.M.

Palem Police Station stating that the accused kidnapped the LW.3 / 3

Pavithra on 04.03.2014 and took her away etc., and basing on such report, the L.W.22 Sri Ch. Dhanunjay Naidu initially registered the case in Cr.No.111/2014 under Section 363 of Indian Penal code and handed over the case to L.W.23 G. Appa Rao. Thereafter the L.W.22 /

Sri Ch. Dhanunjay Naidu altered the section of law basing on the statement given by Pinninti Ramanamma / L.W.1, from Section 363 of

Indian Penal code into Sections 363 and 376 of Indian Penal code and

Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and Section 3(1)(xii) of SC & ST (POA) Act, and after completion of investigation, the LW.25 Sri B. Mohana Rao filed the charge sheet against accused.

3. This case was taken on file under Sections 363, 376 of Indian

Penal code, Section 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) SC & ST POA Act against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code.

4.Heard both sides. Perused the record and found prima facie case regarding the commission of offences as alleged by the prosecution. Since the offences under Sections 376 of Indian Penal code, Section 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) SC & ST POA Act are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case is committed to the Sessions Court

Division, Visakhapatnam after compliance of Section 209 (a) of

Criminal Procedure Code and the accused is directed to appear before the court concerned after receipt of summons. Accused submitted that he has got means to engage the counsel.

4

5. The case property, if any, shall be submitted to the Court of Sessions under Section 209(c) Cr.P.C. The public prosecutor is informed about the committal of the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209(d) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 25th day of February, 2016 xx Sd/- Sri KVL Harinath I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (FAC) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam // True Copy //

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (FAC) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam 5 /True Preliminary Register Extract in PRC.28/2015 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. of the case : 28/2015

Name and Address of the accused:

Malledi Vijay Kumar, S/o Suribabu, Aged 21 years, Agnikula Kshatriya by caste, Water supply boy, TSR Complex, R/o Thotagaruvu, Arilova, Visakhapatnam

Substance of the case:

The Assistant Commissioner of police, S.C & S.T Cell-I,

Visakhapatnam City filed the charge sheet against the accused stating that on 04.03.2014 during morning hours the L.W.3 / Pavithra attended to school and at about 14.00 hours, while she was waiting for bus at Thotagaruvu Junction, to come back to home, the accused went there and coerced her to come along with him and so as that both of them can go to somewhere else otherwise he would die etc., and on that the said Pavithra refused to the proposal of accused, but the accused forcibly got her boarded into an auto, taken her to railway station and there he threatened her that he would commit suicide by falling under train, unless she comes with him etc, and then the LW.3 / Pavithra was constrained to go along with him and then the accused took the LW.3 / Pavithra to Vijayawada and Dwarapudi. On 6-03- 2014, while the accused and LW.3 / Pavithra were moving in

Dwarapudi Railway Station, the L.W.9 / Sammidi Kumar Swamy took them to his house and on coming to know about the matter, he chided the accused and asked him to drop LW.3 / Pavithra at her parents’ house on the next day, but on that night, the accused exploited LW.3 6

Pavithra sexually against her will and wish and under threat. On the next day i.e., on 07-03-2014 the accused took the LW.3 Pavithra to the house of his senior paternal aunt / LW.12 / Pinapati Lakshmi at

Mandapeta, near Rajahmundry and there also LW.12 / Pinapati

Lakshmi chastised the accused for bringing the LW.3 / Pavithra to there in such a way and informed the matter to the parents of the accused /LW.6 / Malledi Suribabu and LW.7 / Malledi Bhavani. When that being so, the accused exploited the LW.3 / Pavithra sexually on that night also without her consent. On 09-03-2014 the LW.6 /

Malledi Suribabu, and LW.7 / Malledi Bhavani visited the house of

LW.12 / Pinapati Lakshmi and brought the accused and LW.3 /

Pavithra to Visakhapatnam and dropped the LW.3 / Pavithra to her house and then the LW.3 / Pavithra informed the entire episode to her parents i.e., the L.Ws.1/ Pinninti Ramanamma and 2 / Pinninti Ramu, and on that the mother of LW.3 Pavithra lodged a report at Arilova

Zone, P.M. Palem Police Station stating that the accused kidnapped the LW.3 / Pavithra on 04.03.2014 and took her away etc., and basing on such report, the L.W.22 Sri Ch. Dhanunjay Naidu initially registered the case in Cr.No.111/2014 under Section 363 of Indian

Penal code and handed over the case to L.W.23 G. Appa Rao.

Thereafter the L.W.22 / Sri Ch. Dhanunjay Naidu altered the section of law basing on the statement given by Pinninti Ramanamma /

L.W.1, from Section 363 of Indian Penal code into Sections 363 and 376 of Indian Penal code and Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and Section 3(1)(xii) of SC &

ST (POA) Act, and after completion of investigation, the LW.25 Sri B.

Mohana Rao filed the charge sheet against accused.

7

Name of the Complainant: State Represented by Asst. Commissioner of Police, SC & ST Cell-1, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the Prosecution Witnesses: List enclosed to the charge sheet.

Result of enquiry: This case is committed to Court of Sessions under Section 209(a) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Date of offence : 04.03.2014 Date of filing : 18-12-2015 Date of appearance : 27-01-2016 Date of closing enquiry : 25-02-2016 Explanation for delay : No delay.

xx Sd/-Sri KVL Harinath I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (FAC)Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

// True Copy //

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (FAC) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam 8

Docket extract in PRC.28/2015 on the file of Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27-01-2016: Accused present. Copies furnished. For hearing, call on 4.2.2016.

04-02-2016: Accused present. For hearing finally, call on 18.2.2016.

18-02-2016: Accused present. For hearing finally, call on 25.2.2016.

25-02-2016: Accused called present. Orders pronounced (VSO).

Heard both sides. Perused the record and found prima facie case regarding the commission of offences. Since the offences under

Sections 376 of Indian Penal code, Section 3 and 4 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC &

ST (POA) Act are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case is committed to the Sessions Court Division, Visakhapatnam after compliance of Section 209(a) of Criminal Procedure Code. Accused is directed to appear before the court concerned after receipt of summons. Accused submitted that he has got means to engage his counsel.

The case property, if any, shall be submitted to the Court of

Sessions under Section 209(c) of Criminal Procedure Code. The public

prosecutor is informed about the committal of the case to the Court of

Sessions under Section 209(d) of Criminal Procedure Code.

xx Sd/-Sri KVL Harinath I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (FAC) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

// True Copy //

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (FAC) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

1 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.565/2011

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, B.Sc., B.A., LLM., II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Tuesday, the 21st day of August, 2018

C.C.No.565/2011

This case was came before me on 21.08.2018 for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for the Complainant and Sri. K. Jagannadham, advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

a. The S.No. of the case :C.C.No.565/2011 b. The date of commission of offence : On 12.09.2011 in Cr.No.172/2011 c. The name of the complainant :

The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.

d. The name of the accused, parentage, residence, etc.,:

Shaik Momin, S/o Shaik Munsaf, age 34 years, Muslim, R/o Dham Nagar Village, Bhadrak District, Orissa State.

e. The offence complained of : Under Section 304(A) IPC f. The plea of the accused on his examination : Pleaded not guilty.

g. The final order:

1.Accused was charge sheeted in Crime No. 172/2011 under Section 304(A)

IPC of the State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Traffic Police

Station, Visakhapatnam city.

2.The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

On 12.09.2011 at 14.30 hrs, the accused noted supra, being the driver of lorry bearing reg. No. OR 04 H 2586, coming from Hanumanthawaka side towards

Maddilapalem on NH-5 road, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and when he reached the MVP Double road signal point, stopped his lorry. Even on green signal he drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner at high speed and 2 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.565/2011

dashed one motorcycle bearing Reg. No. AP 31 BF 9690 to which the rider was

Gurajapu Govindu, S/o Late Suribabu. He stopped his motorcycle in front of the lorry and moving froward on green signal. As a result, the rider of two wheeler (Deceased) fell on the road and the tyres of lorry run over on his person. As a result, he has sustained severe crush injury on his waist and died instantaneously.

LW.2 to 4 viz., Ch. Arjun, S. Apparao and M. Nookaraju have witnessed the accident.

Basing on the report of LW.1 M. Sathibabu, LW.15 BMD Prasada Rao, the then SI of Police, III Town PS, VSP has registered a case in Cr.No. 172/2011 for the offence under section 304(A) IPC of III Town Traffic PS on 12.09.2011 at 15.30 hrs and investigated into. During the course of investigation LW.15 BMD Prasada Rao visited the scene of offence, examined, drafted rough sketch, photographed with his cell camera, shifted the crime vehicle to the PS for the inspection of MVI.

LW.15 BMD Prasada Rao examined 8 witnesses and recorded their statements, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at KGH mortuary on 12.09.2011 in the presence of LW.10 L. Thoudachri & LW.11 V. Suryarao, photographed the dead body with the help of LW.12 T. Venkata Ram Kumar and forwarded the dead body to LW.14 Dr.Md. Ismail for post mortem examination.

LW.15 BMD Prasada Rao arrested the above accused on 13.09.2011, when he was produced by LW.9 Shaik Aslam Ali along with the records of the crime vehicle. LW.15 BMD Prasada Rao verified the records of crime vehicle, examined

LW.9 Shaik Aslam Ali and recorded his statements and produced the accused

before the court for remand. LW.15 BMD Prasada Rao forwarded a requisition to

LW.13 P. Chinnodu, MVI for inspection of crime vehicle. LW.13 P. Chinnodu, MVI inspected the crime vehicle issued accident report and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. LW.14 Dr. Md. Ismail issued post mortem certificate and opined that the cause of the death of the deceased is “Due to Multiple Injuries”. After completion of investigation LW.15

BMD Prasada Rao filed charge sheet against the accused.

Investigation reveals that, the accused noted supra, drove the lorry bearing 3 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.565/2011

reg. No. OR 04 H 2586 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motorcycle bearing Reg. No. AP 31 BF 9690 of the deceased and caused the instantaneous death of the deceased. Hence he is liable to be punished under section 304(A) IPC.

3. After filing of the charge sheet, the court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence Under section 304(A) IPC and issued summons to him. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are supplied to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C., then he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined PWs-1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9.

5.After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, accused is examined

Under section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him. He denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him on record and reported no defense evidence.

6.Heard the arguments on both sides.

7.The points for determination are:

1. Whether the prosecution has established that the accused drove the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No. OR 04 H 2586 in rash or negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased ?

2. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence Under Section 304-A of IPC?

8. Points 1 and 2:- The main contention of the prosecution is that the accused drove the the crime vehicle lorry bearing No. OR 04 H 2586 in rash or negligent manner and caused the death of the Gurajala Govindu (deceased) on 12-09-2011 at 2.30 p.m. in order to sustain conviciton for the accused under section 304 A IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused was the driver of 4 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.565/2011

the crime vehicle bearing Reg. No. OR 04 H 2586 at the time of accident and he dorve the same in rash or neglignet manner caused the death of the deceased (G.Govind). The prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P9.

The defacto complainant is examined as PW1. He deposed that the deceased

G.Govind is his maternal uncle and on 12-9-2011 he received phone call from one

Mahesh and came to know about the death of the deceased in a road accident at

Isukathota. Ex.P1 is the report filed by PW1. As per the evidence of PW1 he has not witnessed the accident or the driver of the crime vehicle personally. PW1 has not deposed any incrimianting evidence against the accused. In the charge sheet three persons are shown as eye witnesses. Out of them two are examined as

Pws. 2 and 3. But they both turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. In this way, the evidnece of Pws 1 to 3 is not at all establishing that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove the same in rash or negligent manner.

9.Coming to the evidence of other witnesses Pws 4 and 5, who have deposed about the inquest over the dead body of the deceased Govind. Ex.P4 is the inquest report. Here there is no dispute regarding the death of the deceased subsequent formalities. PW6 has deposed that he inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report Ex.P5. Lastly an I.O. is examined as PW7 and he deposed about the registration of the case, issuance of FIR Ex.P6 in Cr.No.172/2011, visit to scene, preparation of rough sketch Ex.P7, capturing of photographs Ex.P8, examination of witnesses, obtaining of PM report Ex.P9, arrest of the accused and filing of charge sheet. The evidence of Pws 4 to 7 is not about the accident or about the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. The evidence of Pws 4 to 6 is not showing any incriminating material against the accused. In such circumstances the court cannot rely on the sole testimony of an I.O. PW7.

Accordingly the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

5 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.565/2011

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304(A) IPC, accordingly he is acquitted for the same under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.,. the bail bonds of the accused shall be stand canceled after six months.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of August, 2018.

Sd/-Smt.Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW.1/ 14.06.2018 : M. Sathi BabuNIL PW.2/ 14.06.2018 : S. Appa Rao PW.3/ 14.06.2018 : Ch. Arjun PW.4/ 25.06.2018 : G. Kumari PW.5/ 13.07.2018 : L. thouda Achari PW.6/ 16.08.2018 : P. Chinnodu PW.7/ 20.08.2018 : BMD Prasada Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1/ 14.06.2018 : Report of PW.1NIL Ex.P2/ 14.06.2018 : 161 statement of PW.2 Ex.P3/ 14.06.2018 : 161 statement of PW.3 Ex.P4/ 25.06.2018 : Inquest report Ex.P5/ 16.08.2018 : MV report Ex.P6/ 20.08.2018 : FIR Ex.P7/ 20.08.2018 : Rough Sketch Ex.P8/ 20.08.2018 : Bunch three photos Ex.P9/ 20.08.2018 : PM Report

Sd/-Smt.Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. //true copy//

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam 6 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.565/2011

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT - DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

CC No. 565/2011

Date of Offence12.09.2011

Date of report or complaint12.09.2011

Date of apprehension of accused13.09.2011

Date of release of accused from jail 13.09.2011

Date of Appearance22.03.2018

Date of Commencement of trial22.03.2018

Date of Close of trial21.08.2018

Date of Sentence/Order21.08.2018

Explanation for delay The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the Complainant.

RemarksNo witness is detained in court beyond three days.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.565/2011 in Cr.No.172/2011 of III Town Traffic Police Station on the file of IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

ComplainantThe State, represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, III Town Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.

Name of the Accused, parentage, Shaik Momin, S/o Shaik Munsaf, age 34 age, Residence particularsyears, Muslim, R/o Dham Nagar Village, Bhadrak District, Orissa State.

OffenceUnder Section 304(A) IPC

FindingAccused is Found not guilty.

Sentence In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304(A) IPC, accordingly he is acquitted for the same under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.,. the bail bonds of the accused shall be stand canceled after six months.

Sd/-Smt.Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. // True Copy //

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

1 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.192/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum, B.Sc., B.A., LLM., II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Tuesday, the 21st day of August, 2018

C.C.No.192/2018

This case was came before me on 21.08.2018 for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for the Complainant and Sri. PVR, advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

a. The S.No. of the case :C.C.No.192/2018 b. The date of commission of offence : On 20.02.2018 in Cr.No.60/2018 c. The name of the complainant :

The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.

d. The name of the accused, parentage, residence, etc.,:

A.1:Gollu Panindra Kumar, S/o Gurubabu, 21 yrs, K-Velama by caste, N/o Boddipalli(V), Narshipatnam, Visakhapatnam. R/o D.No.33-5-1, Neelam Rajasekhar, Reddy Bhavan, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam.

A.2:Guruvelli Nagesh Kumar, S/o Trinadharao, 22yrs, Kalinga by caste, R/o D.No. 24-355/6, Sri Lakshminagar, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

A.3:Gulla Ranganna, S/o Paramesh, 30 yrs, Yadava by caste, C/o D.No. 33-5-1, Neelam Rajasekhar,ReddyBhavan,Allipuram, Visakhapatnam. N/o Kurnool Dist.

e. The offence complained of : Under Section 341, 188 IPC and 3(12) of TN Act f. The plea of the accused on his examination : Pleaded not guilty.

g. The final order:

1.A.1 to A.3 were charge sheeted in Crime No. 60/2018 under Section 341 and 188 IPC and 3(12) of TN Act of the State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of

Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.

2 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.192/2018

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

On 20.02.2018 at 11.30 hrs, the accused noted supra who were the AISF students held dharna without any prior permission in front of the AU Main Gate, raised loud slogans for the demands to reduce Degree semester fees and to postpone the Degree Examinations and in this regard they burnt the effigy of the

AU Vice Chancellor, wrongfully restrained the public, obstructed the vehicular traffic and caused inconvenience to public peace and tranquility. On information LW.4 S.

Prasad, the then SI of Police, III Town PS, VSP visited the scene of offence along with his staff, gave instructions to stop the dharna and other activities but they disobey the order promulgated by LW.4 S. Prasad and continued their dharna. Then LW.4 S.

Prasad arrested the accused with the assistance of his staff i.e., LW.1 to LW.3 viz., S.

Sankar Rao, Ch. Srinivasa Rao and D. Lakshminaidu respectively at 11.30 hrs, under the cover of an occurrence report as no person come forward to stand as mediator and brought them to the police station at 12.30 hrs.,

On 20.02.2018 at 12.30 hrs, LW.4 S. Prasad brought the accused and occurrence report to the police station, registered the occurrence report as a case in Cr.No. 60/2018 under section 341 and 188 of IPC and 3(12) of TN Act, submitted original FIR along with original occurrence report to the Hon’ble court,

Visakhapatnam and copies submitted to all the concerned officers and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation LW.4 S. Prasad examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch, served notice to accused and released them on bail. After completion of investigation LW.4 S. Prasad filed charge sheet against the accused under the above sections of law.

3. After filing of the charge sheet, the court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence Under section 341, 188 IPC and section 3(12) of AP TN Act and issued summons to them. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are supplied to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. A.1 to A.3 were examined under section 251 Cr.P.C., then they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.192/2018

4.In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined PWs-1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

5.After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, accused are examined

Under section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against them on record and reported no defense evidence.

6.Heard the arguments on both sides.

7.The points for determination are:

1. Whether the prosecution has established that the acucsed have worngfully restrained and obstructed the public servants to deter them from discharging the legitimate duties ?

2. Whether the acucsed A1 to A3 have conducted dharna and involved in the activities violating seciton 3(12) of T.N.Act?

3. Whether the accused is liable to be punished for the offence under sections 341, 188 IPC and seciton 3(12) of T.N. Act ?

8.The main contention of the prosecution is that on 20-2-2018 A1 to A3 being

AISF students conducted dharna wihtout prior permission in front of the AU main gate and raised slogans demanding reduction of the fee for the degree semisters and to postpone the degree examination and also burnt the effigy of Vice chancellor, AU. The other contention of the prosecution is that A1 to A3 wrongfully restrained the police who were discharging their duties and obstructed the vehicles and the public by disturbing their work. The prosecution has examined three witnesses as PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3. In the charge sheet itself the police have cited only four witnesses. All the four witnesses are official witnesses.

9.PW3 has deposed that on 20-2-2018 he recieved information about the dharna at AU gate and proceeded to the AU main gate along with Pws 1 and 2 and found AISF students conducting dharna. He further deposed that the said 4 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.192/2018

students set a fire to the Effigy of AU vice chancellor and restrained them. He further deposed that he found two students conducted dharna. Ex.P1 is the occurrence report said to have been drafted at the palce of offence. The evidence of PW3 is showing simply that the students of AISF conducted dharna and he found three students. He never deposed that the said students are A1 to A3 herein. PW3 further deposed that he registered the case in Cr.No.60/2018 and issued FIR Ex.P2. Admittedly the FIR is issued baisng on the mediators report prepared by PW3 himself. No affected person has filed a report before PW3.

During cross examinaiton PW3 has admitted that no person came to their police station stating that they were obstructed by the accused. The learned defense counsel has aruged that all the witnesses examined by prosecution are official and interested witnesses. He further aruged that the prosecution has failed to examine the persons, who were present at the scene and to whom the alleged inconvenience was caused. PW3 has admitted before the court that Pws 1 and 2 are his staff. Both Pws 1 and 2 have deposed that they were present along with

PW3 and found A1 to A3 conducting dharna at AU gate by raising slogans for reduction of semister fee and to post pone the examinations. But both Pws 1 and 2 are suboridnates to PW3. The evidence of Pws 1 to 3 is not supported with the evidnece of any single independent witness. Pws 1 to 3 never deposed that they were wrongfully restrained or obstructed by the accused for dishcarging their legitimate duties. They deposed that A1 to A3 wrongfully restrained the public, vehicles and caused inconvenince to the public. But no single person out of the said public is examined by the prosecution.

10.In the absence of evidence of the victim/affected person the court cannot rely on the evidence of official witnesses/interested witnesses. The prosecution has failed to examine at least the staff or the managment of the AU to support the evidnece of Pws 1 to 3. Therefore, the court cannot rely on the evidence of Pws 1 to 3. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the acucsed beyond all reasonable doubt.

5 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.192/2018

11.In the result, the A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 341, 188 of IPC and section 3(12) of AP TN Act, accordingly they are acquitted for the same under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.,. the bail bonds of the accused if any shall be stand canceled after six months.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of August, 2018.

Sd/-Smt.Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW.1/ 18.06.2018 : S. Sankar RaoNIL PW.2/ 18.06.2018 : Ch. Srinivasa Rao PW.3/ 13.08.2018 : S. Prasad

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1/ 18.06.2018 : Occurrence reportNIL Ex.P2/ 13.08.2018 : FIR Ex.P3/ 13.08.2018 : Rough Sketch

Sd/-Smt.Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. //true copy//

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

6 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.192/2018

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT - DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

CC No. 192/2018

Date of Offence20.02.2018

Date of report or complaint20.02.2018

Date of Appearance30.05.2018

Date of Commencement of trial04.06.2018

Date of Close of trial21.08.2018

Date of Sentence/Order21.08.2018

Explanation for delay The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the Complainant.

RemarksNo witness is detained in court beyond three days.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.192/2018 in Cr.No.60/2018 of III Town Police Station on the file of IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

ComplainantThe State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam.

Name of the Accused, parentage, age, Residence particulars

A.1:Gollu Panindra Kumar, S/o Gurubabu, 21 yrs, K-Velama by caste, N/o Boddipalli(V), Narshipatnam, Visakhapatnam. R/o D.No.33-5-1, Neelam Rajasekhar, Reddy Bhavan, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam.

A.2:Guruvelli Nagesh Kumar, S/o Trinadharao, 22yrs, Kalinga by caste, R/o D.No. 24-355/6, Sri Lakshminagar, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

A.3:Gulla Ranganna, S/o Paramesh, 30 yrs, Yadava by caste, C/o D.No. 33-5-1, Neelam Rajasekhar, Reddy Bhavan, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam. N/o Kurnool Dist.

OffenceUnder Sections 341, 188 of IPC and 3(12) of AP TN Act

FindingA.1 to A.3 are Found not guilty.

Sentence In the result, the A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 341, 188 of IPC and section 3(12) of AP TN Act, accordingly they are acquitted for the same under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.,. the bail bonds of the accused if any shall be stand canceled after six months.

Sd/-Smt.Shammi Parvin Sulthana Begum

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

7 IV ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.192/2018

// True Copy //

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.